HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/00/1990, - AGENDA PACKETS FOR MONTH AUG 1990 „ m2zmm _ _
-AGENDA PACKETS FOR ADJOURNED MEETINGS-
FOR
EETINGS-FOR MONTH OF AUGUST 1990
D Q
Ci S 4
P
* �%ty (6jr* citof sAn hug oBispo
4 4 0 O COUNCIL CHAMBERS • CITY HALL • 990 PALM STREET • SAN LUIS OBISPO • CALIFORNIA
v
7 y
,is
t 0 "Lead person-fin to come back to Council
*Denotes action by lead person
No asterisk-infomuuion only
A 0 E N D A
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAYS AUGUST 28p 1990 - 4:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ron Dunin
ROLL CALL: Vice-Mayor Jerry Reiss, Councilmembers Peg Pinard,
Penny Rappa, Bill Roalman and Mayor Ron Dunin
PUBLIC COMMENT
(Not to exceed 15 minutes)
Immediately prior to scheduled items, members of the public may
address the City Council on items that DO NOT appear on the printed <,
agenda. Please observe the time limit of three minutes. A speaker `
slip (available in the Foyer) must be filed with the City Clerk
prior to the beginning of the meeting.
As a general rule, action will not be taken on issues not listed
on the agenda. Staff will generally be asked to follow-up on such
items. The Council is interested in hearing from the public N K3
regarding issues or concerns of the community and welcomes your
input.
L4 ER
DUNN* P.GI -LaYerne Schneider was concerned about a new Post Office directive that all mail boxes
ROMERO* be at curbside. Mayor directed to write letter to local Postal authorities urging against this
requirement. Staff directed to review the 30 mirc parking allowed in front of the Post Office
to limit it to a shorter duration.
4:00 P.M.
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. EARTHQUAKE FAULT PRESENTATION (JONAS/402 - 30 min. ) T
Presentation by Mr. Jerry Treiman of the California Division
of Mines and Geology concerning the Alquist-Priolo Act and the
new fault hazard map of our area which was recently released
showing geologic faults.
RECOMMENDATION: Information Only.
Page 1 of 2
Council Agenda August 28, 1990
FINAL ACTION Presentation made No action taken.
2. DRAFT CIRCULATION ELEMENT (JONAS/462 - 45 min. )
Consideration of the Draft Circulation Element plan.
(Previously distributed to Council) .
RECOMMENDATION: Information Only.
FINAL ACTION. Overview presented Circulation Element referred to the Plmr dng
Commission for review and recommendation to the Council
6:00 - 7:00 P.M. City Council to adjourn for dinner break.
7:00 P.M. Council reconvenes.
3. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE (JONAS/462 - 3 hours)
Continued review of the Land Use Element update forwarded by
the Planning Commission (continued from July 31, 1990-pages
14-31 of the Land Use Element) .
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to review the growth management
section and begin review of the section on housing and
neighborhoods. Indicate whether the draft is acceptable or
identify any changes which the Council supports.
FINAL ACTION: Council continued its review of the Land Use Element reviewing the
rest of the chapter on Growth Management Policies and Programs (pages 14-21),began
its review of Development and Conservation of Housing and Neighborhoods Policies
(pages 22-27) up to Residential Densities City Attorney directed to write letter to the
state requesting clarification as to whether all state-exempted group housing should be
in one area.
COMMUNICATIONS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes)
During the balance of this meeting, any Councilmember or the City
Administrative Officer may informally update the Council of written
or oral communications and ask for comment and/or discussion.
State law provides that Council take action only on such matters
which have been noticed at least three days in advance of the
meeting unless special circumstances are found to exist. Formal
action or approval is not preferred and such items should be
continued to the next Regular meeting.
A. ADJOURN11ENT
* ` y * OtOfTSAn .. IS- OBISPO
W 4?? O COUNCIL CHAMBERS • CITY HALL • 990 PALM STREET • SAN LUIS OBISPO • CALIFORNIA
0 Q
l��IS 0�
0 AGENDA
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 1990 - 4: 00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M.
Pam's Agenda
Distribution List
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ron Dunin
I.Unpaid Subscriptions:
ROLL CALL: Vice-Mayor Jerry Reiss, Counc AIA President
Penny Rappa, Bill Roalman and ARC (reg.mtgs:in box)
ASI President
BIA (in box)
PUBLIC COMMENT Chamber of Commerce(in box)
(Not to exceed 15 minutes Housing Authority (in box)
KCOY
Immediately prior to scheduled items, member KCPR
address the City Council on items that DO NOT J KDDB
agenda. Please observe the time limit of three KEPT
slip (available in the Foyer) must be filed KJDJ (until 10/30/90)
prior to the beginning of the meeting. KKUS
KSBY
As a general rule, action will not be taken KVEC
on the agenda. Staff will generally be asked League of Women Voters
items. The Council is interested in hears. Library(reg.mtgs:front desk)
regardinITA�s&ijeFOMA concerns of the communil Mustang Daily
input.. ) —Pec.Gas—&-Elec.Co-.-(reg.mtgs.)
p COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) SS Planning Comm. (in CDD box)
£i'F OF SAH LUIS OBISPO )
Telegram-Tribune
I dz-clarn under penaity, of perjury that I am employed III. Envelopes Provided /
b the City of San Luis Obispo in the City Clerk's Agendas for ALL Meetings:
4:00 P.MD=partment; and that I posted his Agenda near the
front door of City Hall on �� ejUNOCAL Land & Development Co.
BIISI SS IT
rate Signet - %6
1. EARTHQUAKE FAULT PRESENTATION (JONAS/402 - 30 min. )
Presentation by Mr. Jerry Treiman of the California Division
of Mines and Geology concerning the Alquist-Priolo Act and the
new fault hazard map of our area which was recently released
showing geologic faults.
RECOMMENDATION: Information Only.
2. DRAFT CIRCULATION ELEMENT (JONAS/462 - 45 min. )
Consideration of the Draft Circulation Element plan.
(Previously distributed to Council) .
Page 1 of 2
Council Agenda August 28, 1990
RECOMMENDATION: Information Only.
6: 00 - 7 : 00 P.M. City Council to adjourn for dinner break.
7:00 P.M. Council reconvenes.
3. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE (JONAS/462 - 3 hours)
Continued review of the Land Use Element update forwarded by
the Planning Commission (continued from July 31, 1990-pages
14-31 of the Land Use Element) .
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to review the growth management
section and begin review of the section on housing and
neighborhoods. Indicate whether the draft is acceptable or
identify any changes which the Council supports.
COMMUNICATIONS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes)
During the balance of this meeting, any Councilmember or the City
Administrative Officer may informally update the Council of written
or oral communications and ask for comment and/or discussion.
State law provides that Council take action only on such matters
which have been noticed at least three days in advance of the
meeting unless special circumstances are found to exist. Formal
action or approval is not preferred and such items should be
continued to the next Regular meeting.
A. ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 of 2
li:'� I•L ��� � L111� .t
1.
EARTHQUAKE FAULT PRESENTATION (JONAS/402 - 30 min. )
Presentation by Mr. Jerry Treiman of the California Division
of Mines and Geology concerning the Alquist-Priolo Act and the
new fault hazard map of our area which was recently released
showing geologic faults.
RECOMMENDATION: Information Only.
AGENDA
it
2. DRAFT CIRCULATION ELEMENT (JONAS/462 - 45 min. )
Consideration of the Draft Circulation Element plan.
(Previously distributed to Council) .
RECOMMENDATION: Information Only.
MEETING DATE:
city Of san LUIS OBIS130 0-28- 10
OILda COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director e
PREPARED BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Consideration of Land Use Element update forwarded by
the Planning Commission
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Continue to review the growth management section and begin review
of the section on housing and neighborhoods. Indicate whether
the draft is acceptable or identify any changes which the council
supports. •
BACKGROUND
At tonight's meeting, the council is scheduled to review from
"Annexation and services" on page 14 through page 31 (attached) .
The expected result from this meeting is the council's tentative
endorsement of the draft and identification of desired changes,
for the subject topics.
On August 14, the council held the first of four scheduled study
sessions to review the Land Use Element update endorsed by the
Planning Commission. The council discussed the draft from page 3
through the middle of page 14, and reached consensus or majority
positions on the following items:
1. A typed copy of the mayor's alternative "vision statement"
will be distributed to councilmembers, for consideration at
a future meeting. j
I
2. The "Environment" goals should include a statement
acknowledging the character and limitations of the
community's natural environment.
3. Goal #5 should acknowledge that agricultural uses can be
conducted and protected on land that is within present or
future city limits.
4. Goal #7 should include the idea that the community will
monitor the availability of resources and choose appropriate
levels of service.
5. Goal #13 should include "ages" as a variable for residents.
6. A goal expressing the desire for residents' "peace and
quiet" should be included.
7. The "City form" goals should include a call for new
development to enhance public safety by allowing public
spaces to be visible from neighboring buildings.
��i � IIIV1111111��InNu��`���II city of san tins OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
8. The "City form" goals should include the desire that new
development minimize the use of non-renewable resources.
9. The "Introduction" to the growth management section should
be rewritten so the reader will know that the city's basic
positions on the extent, rate, composition, and financing of
growth follow, rather than being found in the preceding
goals.
lo. In policy 1.8, the statement calling for permanent
protection of prime agricultural land within the urban
reserve should be deleted.
(Unless council directs otherwise, staff's suggestions for
specific wording will be incorporated in a revised draft, once
the council has completed its preliminary review of the whole
draft. )
ATTACHMENT
Pages 14 through 31 of "Planning Commission Draft Land Use
Element"
gmD: lue-cc28.wp
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
CC. Cluster development shall:
(1) Be set back at least 150 feet from public roads;
(2) Be screened from public views by landforms or landscaping;
(3) Be located on.other than prime agricultural land and be situated
to allow continued agricultural use;
(4) Prohibit building sites and roads. within stream corridors and other
wetlands, on ridgelines, rock outcrops, or visually prominent or
steep hillsides, or in the habitat of rare or endangered plants or
animals;
(5) Preserve historic or archaeological resources.
D. Commercial development shall not occur, unless it is clearly incidental to
and supportive of agriculture or other open-space uses.
E. All new buildings and structures should be subordinate to and in
harmony with the surrounding landscape.
F. Continuous wildlife habitat --corridors free of human disruption-- shall be
preserved and, where necessary, created.
G. Significant trees, particularly native species, shall be preserved.
Ci Annexation and services
1.10 The city shall not provide city water or sewer services to new areas:
A. Outside the city limits;
B. Outside the urban reserve line;
C. Above elevations reliably served by gravity-flow in the city water-system;
D. Below elevations reliably served by gravity-flow or pumps in the city
sewer system.
However, the city should continue to serve those parties having valid previous
contracts with the city.
1.11 Annexation should be used as a growth management tool, both to enable
appropriate urban development and to protect open space. Areas within the
urban reserve line which are to be developed with urban uses should be
annexed before urban development occurs. The city may annex an area long
before such development is to occur, and the city may annex areas which are
to remain permanently as open space. A major expansion area may be
annexed in phases, consistent with the city-approved specific plan for the area.
1.12 Before land is annexed for anticipated development, the city should adopt a
C plan for land uses, roads, utilities,, the overall pattern of subdivision, and
financing of public facilities for the area to be annexed. For each expansion
area where a major annexation should occur, a specific plan should be adopted
gmD:.Ui&GPWN.WP 14 ^�
C�
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
for the whole area before any part of it is annexed. For each minor
annexation (see policy 1.14), the plan may be a specific plana development plan
under "PD" zoning, or similar development plan covering the entire area.
1.13 Actual development in an annexed area may be approved only when the city
can provide adequate services for the annexed area as well as for existing and
potential development elsewhere within the city, except as explained in Policy
1.14.
1.14 The city may approve a minor annexation even if the city cannot provide
adequate water and sewer service to all existing and potential development
within the city, if the minor annexation meets criteria A through F below. The
principal purpose for allowing such annexations is to establish. a permanent
greenbelt surrounding the city. Such an annexation must:
A. Be adjacent to already developed land which is inside the city;
B. Be outside major expansion areas;
C. Have fewer than 25 acres for urban development, including building lots,
roads, parking and other paved areas, and setbacks required by zoning;
D. Hive fewer than 40 dwellings; O
E. Conform with hillside planning standards (see page 55);
F. Permanently preserve open space which is each of the following:
(1) equal to at least four times the area to be developed;
(2) within the annexed territory or elsewhere;
(3) consistent with this element;
(4) dedicated in fee or perpetual easement;
Note: The city may require more than the indicated amount of open
space if doing so would meet the intent of this policy. For example, a
more logical edge to the greenbelt may be achieved by protecting a
larger open space area, by extending the open space to a ridgeline or
other feature.
G. Avoid increased demand for city water supplies, either by using an on-
site source proven to supply at least twice the expected water use of the
proposed development, or by making water-use reductions within
developed areas of the city equal to twice the expected water use of the
proposed development.
1.15 The city council may exempt a minor annexation from meeting one or more of
criteria A through F in policy 1.14, if it determines that the annexation would
provide other, compensating public benefits which would outweigh the inability
to meet the criteria. Examples of such compensating benefits are listed below.
VnD: LUE-GRIMN.AT 15 3 i
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
CIf the city has adopted a development moratorium due to water supply limits, a
minor annexation cannot be exempted from requirement G (to not increase
water demand or to offset water demand).
A. Provides open space at least six times the developed area;
B. Provides open space smaller than four times the developed area, but of
exceptionally high value to the community, such as archaeological sites,
high-quality wildlife habitat, natural landmarks, places with outstanding
recreational potential, or other open lands which the community desires
to preserve and which are vulnerable to imminent development;
C. Provides at least one-half the number of proposed dwellings at prices
affordable to low-income people, and managed by a public or nonprofit
agency;
PROGRAMS
Residential growth management.
• 1.1 The city will prepare specific plans for the major expansion areas, using its
staff and consultants as needed. Costs of preparation will be paid by land
owners, or will be recovered through assessments on development within the
specific plan areas, or both.
All specific plans for expansion areas will include provisions for phased
development of housing, consistent with population-growth policies, and taking
into account expected residential development within the 1990 city limits.
Citywide, the number of dwellings will increase by not more than three percent
during any three-year period. After the year 2000, the citywide growth rate will
gradually decline, until the urban reserve. capacity is fully used sometime
around 2020.
Though there may be some overlap in the periods of development of the three
major residential expansion areas, the city prefers to complete one
neighborhood before beginning another. The sequence of development of the
areas will be decided based on the affordability of dwellings, and other public
benefits, primarily open space. The area committing to development of the
largest number of dwellings affordable to low-income or moderate-income
.residents would be developed first, with open space dedication or other public
benefits used to decide the order if two or three areas offer substantially the
same housing affordability. The anticipated intervals for the expansion areas'
development are: first area, 1991 - 2000; second area, 2001 - 2010; third area,
2011 - 2020.
C�
gmD: LU&GRMN.wP
16 �-
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
,J
TABLE 2
CITY POPULATION GROWTH
Year Number of-dwellings Number of People
1990 17,800 -
2000 19,700 45,700
2010 21,700 50.30
2020 23,400 54,300
Nonresidential growth management
1.2 The city will adopt regulations to manage growth of new office, commercial,
and industrial uses, according to Table 3, to help balance employment
expansion and residential expansion. The regulations would not apply to
changes in employment levels within existing facilities, to replacement or minor
expansion of existing facilities, or to public agencies.
TABLE 3
NONRESIDENTIAL GROWTH RATES
Period Maximum employment_growth
(annual.percentage increase)
i991 - 2010 0.75
2011 - 2020 0.50
1.3 The city will consider rezoning vacant, suitably located office, commercial, and
industrial land for residential use. [Several of the "special design" areas are
candidates. See page 39.1
1.4 The city will consider changing its zoning standards for office, commercial, and
industrial land to reduce allowed intensities of development, except for certain
parts of the downtown.
1.5 The city will try to influence the expansion plans of government agencies so
their employment expansion will not exceed the desired nonresidential growth
rates. [Efforts to slow overall county growth would reduce pressures for
expansion of population-serving agencies in S.L.O.; see 1.9 below.]
gmD L
LGGRMN.WP 17 3a�
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
CRegional planning
1.6 The city will encourage regional planning throughout the county. Specific steps
to do so include:
A. Advocating an annual conference of decision-makers, to discuss regional
issues, and hosting an initial session.
B. Helping to prepare a summary of the land-use plans of,all agencies in
the county, showing areas designated for urban, rural, and open-space
uses, and tabulating the capacities for various kinds of uses.
1.7 The city will discuss with other jurisdictions the desirability of forming a
countywide planning group. This group would be composed of representatives
of the county and each city. It could establish a regional plan, to define urban
and rural areas and approximate capacities for different types of uses.
1.8 The city will help establish a procedure for all jurisdictions in the county to
formally review local projects and general-plan amendments that could have
countywide impact.
1.9 The city will advocate a regional growth-management program, which should
Cinclude:
A. Population growth no faster than the statewide average growth rate for
the.preceding year, and no faster than can be.sustained by available
resources and services, whichever is less.
B. No significant deterioration in air quality, due to development activities
for which local government has approval.
C. Voter approval for any change in designation or significant increase in
development potential for land in the unincorporated area designated
sensitive, open space, agriculture, or rural.
D. Plans for large residential developments to include a range of housing
types to provide opportunities for low- and moderate-income residents.
1.10 The city will seek county Board of Supervisors approval amending the county
Land Use Element to make it consistent with this element, within San. Luis
Obispo's planning area. The city will work with the county during the update
of the county's plan for the San Luis Obispo planning area.
1.11 The city will pursue a memorandum of understanding between the city and
county governments, assuring that neither agency will approve a substantial
amendment to its plan for San Luis Obispo's planning area without the
C concurrence of the other. The key feature of the agreement would be the
city's acceptance of the planned amount of growth and the county's agreement
to not allow urban development. within the planning area but outside the city.
gmD: LL'F%%IN.WP 18 3M
1 '
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
Rural areas and open-space planning
1.12 The city will pursue a wide range of means to protect the surrounding open
lands, including: agreements with the county, annexations; zoning; acquisition of
fee title, open space easements, or development rights; agricultural preserve
contracts with tax reductions; transfer of development rights; and cluster
development.
1.13 The city will aggressively pursue sources of revenue for open space purchase
and protection. Such revenue will augment and extend the effectiveness of
traditional tools for open space protection (such as zoning) and deal with some
of the equity issues of land-owner compensation. The city will explore all
potential funding sources, including general obligation bonds, sales tax increase,
property transfer tax, assessment districts, tax incentives, and state and federal
loans and grants. The city will advocate countywide planning and funding for
open space protection.
1.14 The city will prepare, incorporate into the general plan, and seek county
concurrence for a refined land-use map applying to the city's planning area
outside the urban reserve. The map will show:
A. Areas to be kept in permanent open space, including scenic lands,
sensitive wildlife habitat, and undeveloped prime agricultural land.
B.. Existing uses other than open space, relatively far from the city's urban
reserve line, which may be maintained but which should not be
expanded or made more intense, including institutional uses such as
California Men's Colony, Camp San Luis Obispo, and Cuesta College,
and scattered residential and commercial developments.
C. Existing uses other than open space which may be considered for
inclusion within the urban reserve line during the ten-year updates of
this element, such as nearby groups of rural homesites;
D. Any existing uses other than open space which should be changed,
relocated, or removed to allow restoration of the natural landscape or
agricultural uses.
[Decision on program concerning specific-plan and zoning standards for development
at. city edge was deferred (setbacks/screening for transition between development and
open land).]
gm D: LLE-GR.uN.WP 19 3, V
� I
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
CAir quality
1.15 The city will take these steps to protect air quality, in'cooperation with the
county Air Pollution Control District:
A. The city shall consult with the Air Pollution Control District on all
significant development.
B. The city will support development of an updated Air Quality Attainment
and Maintenance Plan and programs. The city will support preparation
of a model to evaluate air-quality impacts of growth under adopted plans
and of proposed amendments to plans. If measures to offset significant
air-quality impacts of growth cannot be found and adopted, the city will
amend this plan to reduce its development capacity and will encourage
other jurisdictions to reduce theirs, so that air quality will not deteriorate
unacceptably because of growth.
C. The city would consider raising planned capacities only if measures
effective in protecting air quality are adopted.
D. To assure that growth experienced before adoption of the air quality
plan will not significantly contribute to air quality deterioration, he city
C will require measures to offset air pollution resulting from growth.
Where possible, these measures will be incorporated into plans for new
developments. The measures include:
(1) Serve bus routes more frequently, or run shuttles between primary
points of origin and destination;`
(2) Reduce bus fares;`
(3) Require large employers to carry out specific means of reducing
employee trips (car and van-pooling, limited parking, staggered
work hours, employee transit passes, compressed work-week,
bicycle locker facilities, showers);`
(4) Accelerate imposition of more stringent stationary-source standards
of the Air Pollution Control District, such as vapor recovery
systems for gas pumps at service stations.
E. The city will impose a fee on new development to fund the study and to
help fund the interim mitigation measures.
` See the Circulation Element update for additional discussion of transit and of
traffic demand-management strategies.
C
gm D: LLE-GR.%tti.WP 20 �'
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
F. The city will investigate the feasibility of commuter-train operations
connecting San Luis Obispo with north-county and south-county
communities, along the existing Southern Pacific line.'
G. The city will advocate that nearby major employers and institutions carry
out trip reduction programs, including restrictions on, and alternatives to,
car access for Cal Poly and Cuesta College.'
Public services and facilities financing
1.16 The city will adopt a development-fee program and other appropriate financing
measures, so that new development pays its share of the costs of new services
and facilities needed to serve it.
' See the Circulation Element up3aie f6f additidhdT discussion o rani a f-
traffic demand-management strategies. -
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
c-
DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION OF
HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS
POLICIES
Neighborhood protection and enhancement
2.1 The city should identify and designate neighborhoods. The city will prepare
neighborhood plans, to facilitate development of a sense of place within
neighborhoods.
2.2 The city should encourage and support the formation and continuation of
neighborhood planning groups, composed of neighborhood residents.
2.3 Neighborhoods should be protected from. intrusive traffic. All street and
circulation improvements should favor the pedestrian and local traffic. Vehicle
traffic on residential sheets should be slow.
C 2.4 All areas should have a street and sidewalk, pattern that promotes
neighborhood and community cohesiveness. There should be wide and
continuous sidewalks to provide unbroken pedestrian paths throughout the city.
2.5 The city should view streets, sidewalks, and front setbacks as a continuous open
space that links all areas of the city and all land uses. These features should
be designed as amenities for light, air, social contact, and. community identity.
Location and design
2.6 Neighborhoods shall include a mix of uses to serve the daily needs of nearby
residents, including schools, parks, convenience retail stores, and churches.
Neighborhood shopping and services should be available within about one mile
of all dwellings.
2.7 Residential areas should be separated or screened from incompatible,
nonresidential activities, including most commercial and manufacturing
businesses, the freeway, and the railroad. New housing should not be allowed
in areas where aircraft noise exposure and the risk of aircraft accidents are not
acceptable.
2.8 In. designing development at the boundary between residential and
nonresidential uses, protection of a residential atmosphere is the first priority.
CI 2.9 All residential development should complement [be integrated with] existing
neighborhoods. Where physical features make this impossible, the new
development should create new neighborhoods.
23 - 1�
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
2.10 Where housing can be compatible with offices or other businesses, mixed-use
projects should be encouraged.
2.11 Residential developments should preserve and incorporate as amenities natural
site features, such as views, creeks, and plants. [The commission discussed but
did not decide whether this would be a "should" or "shall" statement].
2.12 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.
2.13 Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in
character with that neighborhood.
A. New buildings should respect existing buildings which contribute to
neighborhood historical or architectural character; in terms of size,
spacing, and variety.
B. New buildings will respect the privacy of neighboring buildings and
outdoor areas, particularly where multistory buildings or additions may
overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings.
2.14 Residential developments shall respect site constraints such as area and shape,
ground slope, access, creeks and wetlands, and significant trees. The allowed
density of.residential development shall decrease as slope increases. The city
may require a residential project to have fewer units than generally allowed for
its density category (Table 5), upon finding that the maximum density would
harm the environment or the health, safety, or welfare of future residents of
the site, neighbors, or the public generally.
2.15 Residential projects should provider
A. Privacy;
B. Adequate usable open space, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds;
C. Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, and shade to make indoor and
outdoor spaces comfortable with minimum mechanical support;
D. Pleasant views from and toward the project;
E. Security and safety;
F. Separate paths for vehicles and for people, and bike paths along
collector streets;
G. Adequate parking and storage space;
« DVC�V 24 7, ��
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
CH. Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses.
(Walls are not the preferred technique to do this. Where walls are
used, they should help create an attractive pedestrian, residential setting
through features such as setbacks, changes in alignment. detail and
texture, and planting. Walls that surround a project are not desirable.
I. Front yards along streets. .
2.16 Residential areas may accommodate limited nonresidential activities which
generally have.been compatible, such as child day care, elementary schools,
churches, and certain types of home businesses.
Expansion areas
2.17 Specific plans for residential expansion areas shall include:
A. Desired types and intensities of development, compatible with the
surrounding area;
B. Phasing of development and public facilities, subject to availability of
resources;
C
C. Measures to protect resources and open land;
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;
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. (See also policy 2.27 below.)
G. Windrows of trees to help reduce wind exposure, and water-frugal
landscaping;
H. Open spaces, including yards and community gardens for multifamily
areas;
I. Dual water systems allowing use of treated wastewater for non-potable
uses.
CJ. Energy efficient design, utilizing passive and active solar features;
K. Amenities to facilitate public transportation within the area;
gmD: LUE•RES.WP 25 2
Land Use'Element Update Planning Commission Draft
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.
2.18 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.
2:19 The estimated residential capacities of the major expansion areas are shown
below.
TABLE 4
RESIDENTIAL EXPANSION AREAS
Name of area Approximate number of dwellings
Low High
Irish Hills 600 700
Margarita 600 800
Special Design Area #4` 500 800
[` formerly the Orcutt major expansion area]
Density categories
2.20 The following residential density categories are established (Table 5).
Residential density is expressed as the number of dwellings per- acre of net site
area within the designation.. In determining net area, only the following types
of areas are excluded: sensitive features such as creeks, habitats of rare or
endangered plants and animals, and significant trees; land dedicated in fee to
the public for streets and neighborhood parks.
For the categories other than "low density," densities are expressed in terms of
a standard two-bedroom dwelling. This approach is intended to achieve
population densities approximately like those indicated. More or fewer
dwellings having different bedroom counts may be built depending on the
number of people expected to live in a project, as indicated by the number of
bedrooms. The population-density standards also apply to group residential
facilities.
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
C- TABLE 5
( RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES
Category Average Maximum
Population Density dwelling density
(people per acre) (units per acre)
Low 20 7
Medium 25 12
Medium-high 40 18
High 55 24
2.21 The city may approve a density bonus for a project which will, as a result,
provide exceptional affordability for low-income or moderate-income ,residents.
2.22 Low-density residential development should generally consist of detached, one=
or two-story dwellings with substantial private yards. Low-density development
is appropriate within and next to neighborhoods committed to this type of
development.
C2.23 Medium-density residential development should generally consist of detached or
attached dwellings in one- or two-story buildings, with private yards. Medium-
density development is particularly appropriate within Old Town, as a transition
from low-density development to other uses, and for manufactured-housing
developments.
2.24 Medium-high density residential development should generally consist of attached
dwellings in two- or three-story buildings, with private outdoor spaces and
common outdoor areas. It is appropriate near employment centers and major
public facilities.
2.25 High-density residential development should generally consist of attached
dwellings in two- or three-story buildings, with private outdoor spaces and
common outdoor areas. .It is appropriate near the college campus and major.
concentrations of employment.
2.26 All multifamily development and large group-living facilities should be
compatible with any nearby, lower density development.
Affordable housing
2.27 Each major residential expansion area shall do the following to help provide
affordable housing and to meet special living needs:
A. Grant a right-of-first-refusal to the City or its Housing Authority, to
gmD: LU&REB.WP 27 I�
r
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
purchase at market value land adequate to construct at least five percent
of the number of dwellings allowed within the specific- plan area.
B. Reserve sites for the following, adequate to accommodate five percent of
the population expected to reside in the specific-plan area: group
housing of handicapped people; transitional-care homes or residential
treatment homes; elderly board=and-care homes. Each site should be
able to accommodate up to 12 residents and should be well integrated
into the design of the neighborhood. Other, additional. sites within the
specific-plan area could be used for such facilities..
C. Construct owner-occupied housing according to the following schedule:
TABLE 6
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Fraction of dwellings Selling price as a 2 imated maximum
in specific plan area multiple of countywide c ;t for 1990 (d)
median income (a)
10 percent 2 times (b) $ 69,700
20 percent 3 times (c) $ 104,600
20 percent 4 times (c) $ 139,400 J
(a) For dwellings with two or more bedrooms, medi income of four-
person family; for studio or one-bedroom dwellin median income of
two-person family.
(b) Buyers must qualify as low-income; resale price be controlled in
perpetuity.
(c) Buyers must qualify as low- or moderate-income; resale price to be
controlled in perpetuity.
(d) For two-bedroom dwelling, with median income estimated to be
$ 34,860.
With City Council approval, up to one-third the number of affordable, owner-
occupied dwellings called for by this schedule may be substituted with rental
housing, group housing, or lifecare facilities. Such substitute housing must be
affordable to low- or moderate-income residents. The rental, group, or lifecare
housing must remain affordable, unless replaced with owner-occupied housing
meeting the affordability standards of Table 6).
2.28 Outside major residential expansion areas, residential projects should provide at
least ten percent of their units affordable to low-income residents or 20 percent
affordable to moderate-income residents, in perpetuity, or pay a fee equal to
two percent of the project valuation. The city or the Housing Authority would
onD: LU&P.U." 28 : I L
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft .
C�
use the funds to purchase or develop land or to rehabilitate or construct
dwellings affordable to low- or moderate-income residents, or housing for
handicapped or homeless people.
2.29 Commercial and industrial projects should pay a fee equal to three percent of
project valuation, to be used as provided in Policy 228. Commercial or
industrial projects incorporating affordable housing or group-care facilities
would be exempt.
Residential land protection
2.30 Substantial areas designated for residential use should not be changed to
nonresidential designations.
2.31 [The commission discussed this policy but did not reach a consensus on keeping
or deleting it.] The city may adjust land-use boundaries in a way that would
reduce land designated as residential, but only if-
A. A significant, long-term neighborhood or citywide need, which outweighs
the preference to retain residential capacity, will be met, and;
B. The need is bestmet at the proposed location and no comparable
alternative exists.
Student housing
2.32 A. California Polytechnic State University campus .should provide housing
opportunities for students. Existing on-campus housing should be
retained. [The commission said specific numbers of on-campus units to
be built should be included. in a program or table to be developed later.
The consensus appeared to be for on-campus housing to increase at least
as fast as enrollment, so the proportion of students living on campus
would remain the same as it is now.]
B. The city should encourage Cuesta College to provide on-campus housing.
C. Multifamily housing likely to be occupied by students should provide the
amenities which students seek in single-family areas, to provide an
attractive alternative.
2.33 Fraternities and sororities should be located, in order of preference, (1) on
campus, (2) in medium-high and high-density residential areas near the campus.
C
em D: LCE-RESVP 29 �i
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
Group housing �
2.34 Large group housing other than fraternities and sororities, such as retirement
homes or homes for handicapped, should not be located in low-density
residential areas. They may be located, but not. concentrated, in medium-
density residential areas. They may be concentrated in medium-high or high-
density residential areas, or in suitable commercial or light-industrial areas,
where services are convenient. Each large group housing proposal, shall be
evaluated through use-permit review.
2.35 Small residential care facilities should be treated the same as individual houses.
Old Town
2.36 In downtown residential areas (Figure 4), the city should encourage the
rehabilitation and maintenance of existing housing. Additional dwellings may
be permitted, in keeping with density limits, provided that the existing character
of the area is not significantly changed. Demolition of structurally sound
dwellings shall be strongly discouraged.
1
PROGRAMS
2.1 The. city will review, revise if deemed desirable, and enforce noise, parking, and
property-development and property-maintenance standards. Staff to adequately
enforce these standards will be provided.
2.2 The city will adopt and implement property-maintenance regulations; focused on
proper enclosure of trash, appearance, of yards and buildings from the street,
and storage of vehicles. The regulations will be periodically reviewed and
updated.
2.3 The city will evaluate student housing preferences and consider revising
development standards to better meet them in multifamily housing near
campus.
2.4 The city will review, and revise if deemed desirable, its standards for
multifamily housing so that apartments will provide usable open space and
storage similar to the requirements for condominiums.
2.5 The city will consider adopting special development standards to guide addition
of dwellings within downtown residential areas, to implement policy 2.36. The
following should be included when evaluating new standards for this area:
A. A new density category between the current low-density (R-1) and
medium-density (R-2) designations;
umn• IIJr•.urswa 30 �� n
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
C
B. Requirements that new dwellings on lots with existing houses be above
or behind the existing houses, and that the added building area be
modestly sized and of similar architecture in comparison with the
principle residences on the site and in the surrounding area;
C. Requiring new buildings to reflect the mass and spacing of existing,
nearby buildings;
D. Requiring special parking and coverage standards;
E. Requiring minimum amounts of usable open space.
2.6 The city will adopt inclusionary-housing and development-fee ordinances
consistent with the policies above.
2.7 The city will consider new regulations, for low-density areas, to require special
review for (1) incompatibly large houses, (2) replacement or infill homes in
existing neighborhoods, and (3) accessory buildings with plumbing facilities
allowing easy conversion to illegal second dwellings.
2.8 The city,will consider allowing group-care homes by right within certain zones,
C, with requirements for minimum separation between such homes, and possibly
with different size thresholds for each residential density category.
2.9 To foster neighborhood protection and enhancement, the city will:
A. Identify neighborhoods and prepare neighborhood plans;
B. Encourage the formation of voluntary neighborhood groups, so residents
can become involved early in the development-review process;
C. Designate a neighborhood planner,to help carry out items A and B
above, to review proposed projects for neighborhood impacts, and to
advocate neighborhood protection and enhancement.
gmD: LU&RFS.WP 31 / 1
NED ROGOWAY,AiCP DH i � )Ttly�
PLANNING SERVICES
1163 Main Street _
Morro Bay,California 93442 -
(805)772-5400(Fax)772-5650
1I/
August 27, 1990 '/ ona5
/ r-T
Ron Dunin, Mayor,
and the San Luis Obispo City Council
P. O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93008
Re: Update of the Land Use Element (LUE) of the General Plan
Housing and Neighborhoods Section
Dear Mr. Mayor and Council:
As agents for Laguna Hills Estates, we have a vital interest in the
progress and production of a logical, effective Land Use Element
(LUE) Update. Our projects fulfill the majority of the policies
proposed in this section. We have two residential development
applications in process for our properties in adjacent Perfumo
Creek and Los Osos Valley Road.
These projects, The Perfumo Creek Homes and the Irish Hill Golf
Course, advocate residential and open space concepts adjacent to
the City limits. We have closely followed the instructions given
to us by your staff in submitting these projects. We have
attempted to cooperate in bringing these matters to some
determination. Since our applications were filed recommendations
have been made by the Planning Commission on the Land Use Element
Update. Because neither project has been recommended by the
Planning Commission, we have been precluded fair and impartial
evaluation of our projects. We request your Council designate both
the Perfumo Canyon Home project and the Laguna Hill Golf Course
project as INTERIM OPEN SPACE. This will allow the projects to
come before your Council for a fair and impartial determination.
We have reviewed the proposed "Development and Conservation of
Housing and Neighborhoods" section for this phase of the hearings.
We would like to offer our comments on the housing and neighborhood
section. In general , the proposed policies and programs. relating
to the development of housing within the City are well-founded and
present a solid framework an the orderly, qualitative growth in San
Luis Obispo. The policy -statements tend to be well conceived and
comprehensive. However, there are several policy statements in
this section which concern us, and we feel they are inconsistent
with the objectives of the LUE.
/5�UC I _ J
c,,w C01::cagy
Page Two
San Luis Obispo City Council
August 27, 1990
In several cases the policies would invalidate the very positive
aspects of the plan and prevent the developments which the City
seems to seek. For your convenience, we have prepared the attached
addendum which outlines these concerns.
We look forward to your Council, working with concerned citizens
and local land use professionals, creating an effective, logical
Land Use Element that will ensure a quality City. We hope that you
will consider our review and comments on the Housing and
Neighborhoods section of the LUE Update at your August 28, 1990,
Council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Ned Rogo AI P
Planning Se 'c s
NR/njc/LHDhn.823
encl.
cc: Laguna Hills Estates
Sinshiemer, Shebelhut and Bagget, Attorney's at Law
EDA, Inc.
RECOMMENDATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION FOR AMENDMENTS OF THE
CITY GENERAL PLAN UNDER
DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION OF
HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS
by Ned Rogoway, Planning Consultant
August 27, 1990
The San Luis Obispo City Council will soon be considering
amendments to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan.
This review session will concentrate on policies and programs
recommended by the City Planning Commission for the development and
conservation of housing and neighborhoods. We offer the following
analysis for the City's consideration.
POLICIES
Policies 2.1 through 2.16
These policies represent good residential neighborhood development
and we strongly advocate the principles which are enumerated in
these _ policies. If properly administered and applied to new
residential development, the quality of development within the City
will be consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the
Plan.
Expansion Areas
The provision for expansion areas should be consistent with the
achievement of the county wide housing inventory objectives set
forth by the San Luis Obispo Area Planning Council.
1
There must be an appropriate jobs/housing balance to support the
various socio/economic groups in the city. Residential development
cannot be all affordable housing, nor should they be all luxury
housing units. There should be a comprehensive mix of all economic
categories.
The provision of new housing areas, specifically along the
periphery of the City, should achieve a transition between
agricultural lands outside of the City urban area and urban
development inside the urban reserve. The transition should be
developed in a green-belt concept. New residential developments
should accommodate green-belt techniques in the design of the
subdivision. open spaces described in Policy 2.17, paragraph H.
should include parks, garden areas, crop lands, golf courses and
maintained open spaces. The City would be able to incorporate
green-belt and open space concepts into the subdivision design of
properties in these areas if planned unit development concepts were
required.
Policies 2.2 through 2.26
These policies describe the range of various residential density
categories. There is no mention of clustering concepts or the
preferential use of planned unit development in the design of
residential projects. In addition, where affordable housing has
been required as part of the project, additional incentives from
density bonuses should be accommodated in residential development.
2
Nowhere in the residential chapter does the policy speak to the
concept of density bonuses. Since State law permits the use of
density bonuses in the application of affordable housing, we feel
it is an appropriate concept to implement in this Plan.
Affordable Housing
Affordable housing is one of the most critical issues facing the
City. The City must develop effective methods to create and allow
for affordable housing. This requires that thelanguage of these
policies clearly state how, when, and where these methods are
applied and who is responsible. We have carefully reviewed the
proposed affordable housing policies and our concerns are as
follows:
Policy 2.27 A•
The general implementation of the policy is unclear. Who will
assess "market value" and when? What constitutes "land adequate to
construct" needs clarification. Does that mean bare ground without
public improvements or does it mean improved streets, sidewalks,
park areas, off-site improvements? Is it intended that these
properties be scattered throughout the project? Is this land to be
blocked out of the subdivision and reserved for future development?
Can these properties be located off-site? Is a specific-plan area
and a subdivision project the same thing?
3
Policy 2.27 B•
Who will reserve sites and how will it be accomplished? Who will
be responsible for the operation of these facilities? Are these
sites to be located within the project or offsite? This policy
reserves land to accommodate five percent of the population in
group or health care housing. If it is to be integrated into the
neighborhood, will it be incorporated into single family zoned
areas if there is no multi-family residential area proposed in the
project?
Policy_ 2.27 C•
This policy seems to require 50% of the project to low-income and
low to moderate income housing. Such a requirement would cause
residential projects to be infeasible. If such a. policy were
suggested in the LUE, then it is imperative that the LUE and the
implementing ordinances provide for density bonuses. Unless
density bonuses are incorporated into the policy, no one would be
able to afford to construct any residential projects within the
City under the proposed affordable housing formula.
The resale price of any of these affordable houses is to be in
perpetuity. Who is to administer such an onerous requirement?
This would. result in affordability being required past the normal
life term of the structure.
4
Policy 2.28•
This policy is clear and provides a vehicle for developers to
provide affordable housing or pay a fee equivalent to providing
affordable housing. We strongly believe that this method of
implementation is far superior to the very difficult, complex
formula proposed in Policy 2.27. We recommend that this policy be
applied to all residential expansion areas, and that proposed
Policy 2.27 be eliminated.
If determination were made that a Public Housing Authority is to
purchase any of these sites or projects, who would determine as to
fair market value and when would this be done? Does market value
of these properties within a project include off-site improvements
and recreational improvements and any other amenity which is
proposed in a standard housing project.
The City should adopt a density bonus program to insure that
developers will be able to provide affordable housing and meet
other housing need of the City. State law (Cal. Govt. Code Section
65915) requires that if: at least (1) 25 percent of the total units
of a housing development are for persons and families of low or
moderate income, or (2) 10 percent of the total units of a housing
development are for lower income households, or (3) 50 percent of
the total dwelling units of a housing development for qualified
residents a city shall either (1) grant a density bonus or (2)
provide other incentives of equivalent financial value.
5
i
Student Housing
Policy 2.32 recommends that Cal Poly and Cuesta College provide on
campus housing. However the implications of this have not been
analyzed. Cal Poly and particularly Cuesta College do not have
sufficient water to support the development for housing.
Old Town
Policy 2.76 suggests that structurally sound existing housing in.
the downtown area be retained as long as possible. Most of these
structures are single family homes in areas that are zoned for
multi-family development. If efficient land use within the City is
to be achieved, the replacement of single family homes in multi-
family zones should be contemplated.
PROGRAMS
Program 2.1
This program is commendable and advocates appropriate standards for
the development of the community. The provision of insuring
adequate staff to enforce these standards is inappropriate in a
General Plan document. Implementation of programs that are
enumerated in a General Plan need to have a capital improvement
program which would advocate staffing and equipment to implement
the programs which are adopted.
6
. u
Program 2.2
This program establishes continuous property maintenance
regulations within the City. The program has good intentions but.
it borders on "Big Brotherism". It should be the responsibility of
elected and appointed officials to safeguard personal rights, the
inherent rights of property ownership in our democratic system and
to keep Big Brotherism to a minimum.
7
* G%t y � * CItJ Of SAn lui,, , OBISPO
W 4 4 t O COUNCIL CHAMBERS • CITY HALL • 990 PALM STREET • SAN LUIS OBISPO •
v CALIFORNIA
� u
Ills 0
"Lead person-Item to come back to Council
*Denotes action by Lead person ,,kk
No Asterisk-information only
AGENDA �-
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY# AUGUST 27& 1990 - 7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ron Dunin P
ROLL CALL: Vice-Mayor Jerry Reiss, Councilmembers Peg Pinard,
Penny Rappa, Bill Roalman and Mayor Ron Dunin
COUNCIL MEETING CAN BE HEARD ON XCPR FM CHANNEL 9.13
PUBLIC COMMENT �' r
(Not to exceed 15 minutes)
Immediately prior to scheduled items, members of the public may
address the City Council on items that DO NOT appear on the printed
agenda. Please observe the time limit of three minutes. A speaker
slip (available in the Foyer) must be filed with the City Clerk ,
prior to the beginning of the meeting.
As a general rule, action will not be taken on issues not listed
on the agenda. Staff will generally be asked to follow-up on such
items. The Council is interested in hearing from the public
regarding issues or concerns of the community and welcomes your
input.
In In
HAMPIAN* P.GI -Marcelle Martin expressed concern about the driving habits of one of the trolley driverm
Staff to follow-up.
ROMERO P.C2 - Christine Peralta urged support for using stickers rather than colored bags to identift
garbage. T
P.G3- Charles Long presented the Council with Keplinger' Forecast for population growth in
SLO County from 1990 to 2005.
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. STATE WATER PROJECT (HETLAND/1124 - 90 min.)
Consideration of the draft Environmental Impact Report on
State Water Project Coastal Branch (continued from July 31,
1990-Environmental Impact Report previously distributed) .
Page i of 2
RECOMMENDATION: Review the draft Environmental Impact Report
on State Water Project Coastal Branch and proposed letter to
the State Department of Water Resources, receive public
testimony, and direct staff to make any appropriate changes,
if necessary.
(Staff report not received by agenda close-will be distributed
under separate cover) .
FINAL ACTION- Reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report on State Water
Project Coastal Branch and proposed letter to the State Department of Water Resource;
and directed staff to make amendments as discussed
2. WHALE ROCK COMMISSION AGENDA (HETLAND/921 - 20 min. )
Consideration of the Whale Rock Commission agenda for
September 5, 1990 concerning a request from the City of Morro
Bay for emergency supplemental water .
RECOMMENDATION: Review Whale Rock Commission agenda and
provide appropriate direction to City Whale Rock Commission
representatives, if necessary.
(Staff report not received by agenda close-will be sent under
separate cover) .
HETLAND** FINAL ACTION.• Continued to date certain Tuesday, September 4, 1990.
VOGB**
COMMUNICATIONS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes)
During the balance of this meeting, any Councilmember or the City
Administrative Officer may informally update the Council of written
or oral communications and ask for comment and/or discussion.
State law provides that Council take action only on such matters
which have been noticed at least three days in advance of the
meeting unless special circumstances are found to exist. Formal
action or approval is not preferred and such items should be
continued to the next Regular meeting.
ROMERO* COMM.1 - Mayor Pro-Tem Reiss requested staff provide better maintenance insuring the
downtown sidewalks are cleaned regularly.
A. ADJOURN TO TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 1990 AT 4:00 P.M.
Page 2 of 2
` y ��� * Clty .OfSAn LUIS OBISPO
•N
oft
O COUNCIL CHAMBERS • CITY HALL • 990 PALM STREET • SAN LUIS OBISPO • CALIFORNIA
V a Q J� f
��i I S 0�\ A G E NDA /�/a /J,
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 1990 - 7: 00 P.M.
Pam's, gen
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ron Dunin Distribution List
ROLL CALL: Vice-Mayor Jerry Reiss, Counc? I.Unpaid Subscriptions:
Penny Rappa, Bill Roalman and AIA President
I ARC (reg.mtgs:in box)
COUNCIL MEETING CAN BE HEARD ON RCPR P ASI President
BIA (in box)
PUBLIC COMMENT Chamber of Commerce(in box)
(Not to exceed 15 minutes—Housing Authority (in box)
KCOY
Immediately prior to scheduled items, membe, KCPR
address.the City Council on items that DO NOT KDDB
agenda. Please observe the time limit of thrE KEYT
slip (available in the Foyer) must be filed KJD7 (until 10/30/90)
prior to the beginning of the meeting. KKUS
KSBY
As a general rule, action will not be taken KVEC
on the agenda. Staff will generally be asked League of Women Voters
items. The Council is interested in heal Library(reg.mtgs:front desk)
regarding issues or concerns of the commun Mustang Daily
STATE OF CALIFQ t. ) —Pac.Gas & Elec.Co. (reg.mtgs.)
01NT? OF 51A LUIS OBISPO ) SS Planning Comm. (in CDD box)
";- 3*R L!�IS III ) Telegram-Tribune
III. Envelopes Provided /
i GPc:7c rd r r,ay of perjury that I am employed Agendas for ALL Meetings:
b; fits: Li:; San ;.n:s Obispo in the City Clerk's
Cspartment; and that I Hosted his Agend, near the
9ront door of City Hall on UNOCAL Land & Development Co.
v _BUSINESS ITEMS
Gate, gignature
1. STATE NATER PROJECT (HETLAND/1124 - 90 min. )
ca Consideration of the draft Environmental Impact Report on
State Water Project Coastal Branch (continued from July 31,
Li-.1990-Environmental Impact Report previously distributed) .
Ids&3. RECOMMENDATION: Review the draft Environm al Imp Report
on State Water Project Coastal Branch an propos etter to
�V, the State Department of Water Resourc s, r ive public
ravbs YaStestimony, and direct staff to make any app opriate changes,
3 fi dos C�5 if necessary.
1�(3� orl (Staff report not received by agenda close-will be d' t� ' ted
�a -\r To�i5 QGu der separate cover) . lQ 1L ��
i a Nr_;gc *1S Sa A�1 ' r,ti�
93�I UIS m. arc o��age 1 of 2 -
P.SM� g3t��G �Y\I� ��0i� 0601 ' /
1�, •cam L�Po.s-
Council Agenda August 27, 1990
2 . WHALE ROCK COMMISSION AGENDA (HETLAND/921 - 20 min. )
NaO Consideration of the Whale Rock Commission agenda for
a September 5, 1990 concerning a request from the City of Morro
0
Y-(01�Bay for emergency supplemental water.
�k YjOY RECOMMENDATION: Review Whale Rock Commission agenda and
provide appropriate direction to City Whale Rock Commission
5oGJTo���' representatives, if necessary.
('n 44'a- (Staff report not received by agenda close-will be sent under
q' separate cover) .
COMMUNICATIONS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes)
During the balance of this meeting, any Councilmember or the City
Administrative Officer may informally update the Council of written
or oral communications and ask for comment and/or discussion.
State law provides that Council take action only on such matters
which have been noticed at least three days in advance of the
meeting unless special circumstances are found to exist. Formal
action or approval is not preferred and such items should be
continued to the next Regular meeting.
A. ADJOURN TO TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 1990 AT 4:00 P.M.
Page 2 of 2
MEETING DATE:
�WIiII�IIIpiq�Dl city or san Luis oBispo - Aug. 27 1990
Mara COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT n111 N
FROM: William T. Hetland, Utilities Director o
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on State
Water Project Coastal Branch
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Review the Draft EIR on State Water Project Coastal
Branch and proposed letter to the Department of Water
Resources, receive public testimony and direct staff to
make any appropriate changes.
REPORT IN BRIEF
The State Department of Water Resources has issued a Draft EIR on the State Water
Project Coastal Branch Phase 11. The document addresses beneficial and adverse
impacts of the proposed project. Public comment on the Draft EIR will be accepted
until September 17, 1990. City staff has reviewed the Draft EIR and has concerns
regarding the adequacy of its coverage of growth inducing impacts, project reliability,
water quality, and cumulative impacts. More detailed comments on specific items are
included as an attachment. The purpose of this report is to gain general consensus on
Draft EIR comments and to submit a letter to the Department of Water Resources.
DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
In 1986, the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
(SLOCFCWCD) and the Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (SBCFCWCD) requested the California Department of Water Resources
(DWR) to prepare an environmental impact report for the construction of the State
Water Project Coastal Branch. The Coastal Branch is an 87-mile pipeline which would
provide 70,486 acre feet of State Water Project water to San Luis Obispo and Santa
Barbara Counties.
The Draft EIR describes studies undertaken to determine the best alignment for the
pipeline. In addition, it describes alternatives for augmenting the existing water supplies
of the two counties and provides a basis for future decisions by local agencies.
The Department of Water Resources held two public hearings on the Draft EIR and
received extensive public input Additional comments on the Draft EIR may be
submitted to DWR until September 17, 1990. The City is holding this public hearing for
the purpose of receiving public testimony from the citizens of San Luis Obispo and
generating a formal City response to the Draft EHL The intent is to develop consensus
on the concerns and additional work required for the Draft EIR.
An initial draft letter to the Department of Water Resources is included as Attachment
A. This letter summarizes the concerns raised in this staff report Additional comments
I- 1
�II�IIP�'" ►I city of San LUIS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Draft EIR on State Water Project
Page 2
may be included after receipt of public testimony.
USE AND PURPOSE OF EIR
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an environmental
impact report be prepared for any project that may have potentially significant impacts
on the environment.
DWR wiZI use the document to assess the environmental impacts of the construction and
operations of the Coastal Branch of the State Water Project. They will also analyze the
impacts of state water deliveries to local agencies.
The local agencies will use this document as information on which to make decisions on
water supply alternatives. The document is intended to inform the local public in order
to assist them in their decision making process. The document is not intended as a
substitute for local water plans or general plans.
Finally, the EIR is to be used to meet the appropriate CEQA requirements for the State
Water Project Coastal Branch.
CITY INVOLVEMENT IN INITIAL SCOPING OF EIR
The City was involved in the initial scoping of the State's EIR. The State requested
input into developing the scope of the Draft EIR and held public "scoping" meetings.
The City submitted a letter dated October 30, 1986, outlining its key concerns. That
letter is included as Attachment C. Those concerns included:
• growth inducing impacts, including both long-term and short-term
• water supply reliability
• water quality concerns
• alternative projects analysis
• general construction and operation impacts
The Draft EIR did not adequately address the growth inducing impacts with no
discussion on urbanization of San Luis Obispo due to the increase in water supply; its
effect on agricultural land; wildlife habitat and the scale and character of existing
communities. Impacts on land use changes and air quality were not addressed and only
minor comments were provided on additional public facilities to meet the needs of
additional growth. Little discussion on the reliability and water quality of the State
Water Project was provided.
Alternative projects including "no project" were discussed except the "Whale Rock
r-C
01111111fWljj city of san Luis oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Draft EIR on State Water Project
Page 3
Exchange" was not covered (this will be covered in the local projects EIR). Cost issues
addressed in the EIR only dealt with the cost of SWP water for each agency. It did not
deal with how each agency would fund the project or the impacts that may have on each
agencies financial condition. Construction impacts were well covered for those areas
surveyed.
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The Draft EIR states the proposed Coastal Branch has 'the potential for significant
impacts." The Draft EIR discusses both the beneficial and adverse impacts plus
mitigation measures.
The local beneficial impacts cited include:
• improvements in municipal and groundwater quality
• alleviation of groundwater overdraft
• increased long-term reliability of urban water supplies
• increased independence from local droughts
Most of the adverse significant impacts cited are associated with construction and can be
mitigated to levels that are less than significant. These impacts include:
• disturbances to cultural resources along the pipeline route
• disturbances of biological resources, including removal of oak trees and impacts
on sensitive plant, fish, and wildlife species
• construction impacts regarding water quality, air quality, noise, traffic, and
aesthetics
Growth being induced by the addition of State Water to the Central Coast is a key issue
locally. In this regard, the Draft EIR states that 'the importation of water to San Luis
Obispo and Santa Barbara counties would alleviate demands on existing local water
supplies, but not induce urban growth."
After taking into account the various impacts and mitigation measures of the Coastal
Branch of the State Water Project, DWR's Draft EIR finally concludes:
"Competitive costs, minimal environmental impacts and
independence from local droughts make the proposed
completion of the Coastal Branch the preferred action."
I
� -3
��n��h �11116pPn ►��I� city of San WIS OBISpo
ONGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Draft EIR on State Water Project
Page 4
STAFF COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
The Utilities Department and Community Development Department have reviewed the
Draft EIR and jointly submit the following comments. The City Attorney has reviewed
these comments and concurs.
The major comments on the Draft EIR are discussed below and outlined in a draft
letter to the State, to be signed by the Mayor on behalf of the City Council (Attachment
A). Additional detailed comments are included in Attachment B relating to the growth-
inducing impacts of the projects, alternatives for further analysis, and corrections of
some technical points. It is recommended that Attachment B also be included as an
attachment to the proposed letter to the Department of Water Resources.
Primary concerns that staff has with the Draft EIR include:
• Inadequate analysis of growth-inducing impacts
• Discussion of project reliability
• Water quality issues relating to pesticides, organics and asbestos
• Cumulative impacts
GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
The Draft EIR discusses the growth inducing impacts of the Coastal Branch of the State
Water Project. It cites a 1973 study titled Water Policies for the Future. Final Report to
the President and to the Congress of the United States by the National Water Commission
that concludes water, by itself, is not a growth inducement. The Draft EIR also states if
the proposed SWP supplies are used to offset the groundwater overdraft of the region
then the project again is not growth inducing. The report does not cite any groundwater
management programs or water use guarantees which would support this position.
The Draft EIR does recognize there is disagreement on this issue of growth inducement.
It therefore looks at the maximum population which could be supported by the
importation of state water to the Central Coast. Based on this population increase
(156,700 for San Luis Obispo County), it developed corresponding impacts on select
items. (See Table 29, page 117). The items selected were easily quantified using a
simple unit impact per population. More subjective and difficult to determine items,
like quality of life or community character, were not addressed. The primary mitigation
measure suggested was to increase development densities.
The EIR needs to discuss the impact the SWP will have on the Central Coast by
providing a large source of water. The issues should include the impacts that
urbanization will have on agricultural lands, wildlife habitat, and the scale and character
1
�a ►� ►111111�p��'����III city of san Luis oBispo
lOHM@ COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Draft EIR on State Water Project
Page 5
of existing communities. Air quality, transportation, and other public facilities need to
be addressed. The EIR needs to discuss the significance of these growth inducing
impacts and not simply provide a quantified listing.
STATE WATER PROJECT RELIABILITY
The State Water Project can experience both temporary and permanent shortages.
Temporary shortages include droughts and major failures of the SWP delivery system.
These temporary shortages are addressed by reducing agricultural deliveries up to 50%
in any one year but not more that 100% in any seven consecutive years. If additional
reductions are necessary then they are distributed proportionally among all water
contractors including agricultural, municipal and industrial.
The State Water Project has contractual commitments that total 4.2 million acre feet
over the next 20 years. The current deliverable capability of the SWP is only 2.4 million
acre feet. In order for the SWP to meet its full contractual obligation, it is necessary for
additional water projects to be developed. Those cited include Los Banos Grande
Reservoir, Kern Water Bank, and Delta Water Management Programs. Most of these
projects have additional problems and will take many years to complete. Permanent
water shortages would occur if the SWP can not construct sufficient water facilities to
meet its contractual commitment. If the DWR were to declare a permanent shortage,
then the reduction in contracts will be distributed proportionally among all SWP
contractors. The Draft EIR developed a frequency of occurrence of water delivery
deficiencies based on different scenarios. (See Table 10, page 35).
The EIR needs to discuss how local agencies can deal with reductions, both temporary
and permanent, that may occur in future state water deliveries. It also needs to discuss
the reductions in terms other than simple percentages to clearly indicate to local
agencies the real impact of those reductions.
WATER QUALITY OF THE STATEWATER PROJECT
The water quality of the State Water Project was provided only a cursory treatment.
(See pages 30-32). The key constituents addressed included pesticides, asbestos, and
organics, which when chlorinated produce carcinogenic THM's. The Draft EIR does not
address the long term impact of these levels or what the future levels may be with
restrictions in delta flows. Proposed reductions in standards and their impacts on SWP
are not presented.
The EIR needs to provide additional analysis and discussion on the technical capability
and economic impacts of providing treatment for existing constituents levels and
potential future levels. This data is necessary to perform comparisons with alternative
I --!;
1110$1i1111 B11111'11 city of San IDIS OBISp0
ON.i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Draft EIR on State Water Project
Page 6
water resources.
['i 1Mi n.ATN]E IMPACTS
The Draft EIR discusses cumulative impacts as they relate to the development of
additional local water supplies. It only provides a minor discussion of continued
development of other portions of the SWP (See pages 108-110) while acknowledging
that 'increasing cumulative demands are expected to impact the SHT"
The Coastal Branch Phase lI of the SWP is a relatively small part of the whole State
Water Project It accounts for only 3% of the total SWP flows. The State will meet
these demands by reallocation of existing.SWP supplies. It therefore, identifies the
cumulative impact of the Coastal Branch as insignificant.
The SWP was designed and the initial portions constructed prior to state and federal
environmental flaws. It therefore, did not have the detailed environmental review that
would be required today. The Coastal Branch represents a small increase in the SWP
and may have little significant environmental impact but it is the continued development
of the SWP that may have significant environmental impacts. The results of these
impacts could directly affect the Coastal Branch water users.
The EIR needs to address how the long term environmental impacts due to the
cumulative development of the SWP will directly affect the local water agencies.
NEXT STEP
The major comments discussed above are outlined in the attached draft letter to the
DWR. Further detailed comments are provided as an attachment to the proposed
letter. Council is asked to review the letter, revise it if desired, and authorize the mayor
to execute and transmit the City's comments to the State.
Attachment A - Draft Letter to Department of Water Resources
Attachment B - Comments on the Draft EIR State Water Project, Coastal Branch
Attachment C - City Scoping Letter of October 30, 1986
!A
ATTACHMENT A DRAFT
�IIl�IIIII811�III����������� VIII IIID
j ity of sAn luis oBispo
955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
August 17, 1990
Mr. Stephen L Kashewada ,
Central Coast Studies Program Manager
Department of Water Resources
P. O. Box 942836, Room 252-19
Sacramento, California 94236-0001
Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Water Project Coastal Branch,
Phase II and Mission Hills Extension
Dear Mr. Kashewada:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject document. The City
of San Luis Obispo has long been interested in the State Water Project (SWP) and was glad
to receive the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
I
The City has spent many hours reviewing the Draft EIR and has received extensive
testimony at our public hearing held on August 27, 1990. The purpose behind the detailed
review and public input was to make sure the issues surrounding the SWP were clearly
addressed in the Draft EIR without making a judgement on the viability of the SWP for the
City of San Luis Obispo. That decision will be made later using the EIR as a key
informational document.
CITY INVOLVEMENT IN INITIAL SCOPING OF EIR
The City was involved in the initial scoping of the State's Draft EIR for the Coastal Branch.
The City submitted a letter dated October 30, 1986,outlining key concerns. Those concerns
included:
• growth inducing impacts, including both long-term and short-term
• water supply reliability
• water quality concerns
• alternative projects analysis
• general construction and operation impacts
Unfortunately, the Draft EIR did not address many of these initial issues the City originally
raised. It did not deal adequately with the growth inducing impacts. There was no
discussion on urbanization of San Luis Obispo due to the increase in water supply, its
�_- effects on agricultural land, wildlife habitat and the scale and character of existing
1 �7
1.
Comments on Draft EIR SWP Coastal Branch
Page 2
communities. Impacts on land use changes and air quality were not addressed and only
minor comments were provided on additional public facilities to meet the needs of
additional growth.
Little discussion on the reliability and water quality of the State Water Project was
provided. It did not deal with how each agency would fund the project or the impacts on
each agency's financial condition. Construction impacts were well covered except for
those areas not surveyed due to last minute alignment changes.
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
The City's comments on the Draft EIR are presented both in,a general overview addressing
primary concerns and in detail. The specific detailed comments are included in Attachment
A which lists 18 items that the City feels should be addressed. These items include specific
comments relating to the growth-inducing impacts of the projects, alternatives for further
analysis, and corrections of technical points.
Primary concerns City has with the Draft EIR include:
• Inadequate analysis of growth-inducing impacts
• Discussion of project reliability
• Water quality issues relating to pesticides, organics and asbestos
• Cumulative impacts
Growth-Inducing Impacts
The Draft EIR discusses the growth inducing impacts of the Coastal Branch of the State
Water Project. I_t cites a 1973 study titled Water Policies for the Future: Final Report to the
President and to the Congress of the United States by the National Water Commission that
concludes water, by itself, is not a growth inducement. The Draft EIR also states that if
the proposed SWP supplies are used to offset the groundwater overdraft of the region then
the project again is not growth inducing. The report does not cite any groundwater
management programs or water use guarantees which would support this position.
The Draft EIR does recognize there is disagreement on the issue of growth inducement.
It therefore looks at the maximum population which could be supported by the importation
of state water to the Central Coast. Based on this population increase (156,700 for San
Luis Obispo County), it developed corresponding impacts on select items. (See Table 29,
page 117). The items selected were easily quantified using a simple unit impact per
population. More subjective and difficult to determine items, like quality of life or
community character,were not addressed. The suggested primary mitigation measure was
to increase development densities.
. J
The EIR needs to discuss the impact the SWP will have on the Central Coast.by providing
' � O
CComments on Draft EIR SWP Coastal Branch
Page 3
a large source of additional water. The issues should include the impacts that urbanization
will have on agricultural lands, wildlife habitat, and the scale and character of existing
communities. Air quality, transportation, and other public facilities need to be addressed.
The EIR needs to discuss the significance of these growth-inducing impacts and not simply
provide a quantified listing.
State Water Prgject Reliability
The State Water Project can experience both temporary and permanent shortages.
Temporary shortages include droughts and major failures of the SWP delivery system.
These temporary shortages are addressed by reducing agricultural deliveries up to 50% in
any one .year but not more that 100% in any seven consecutive years. If additional
reductions are necessary, then they are distributed proportionally among all water
contractors including agricultural, municipal and industrial.
The State Water Project has contractual commitments that total 42 million acre feet over
the next 20 years. The current deliverable capability of the SWP is only 2.4 million acre
feet. In order.for the SWP to meet its full contractual obligation, it is necessary for
additional water projects to be developed. Those cited include Los Banos Grande
Reservoir, Kern Water Bank, and Delta Water Management Programs. Most of these
projects have additional problems and will take many years to complete. Permanent water
shortages would occur if the SWP can not construct sufficient water facilities to meet its
contractual commitment. If the DWR were to declare a permanent shortage, then the
reduction in contracts will be distributed proportionally among all SWP contractors. The
Draft EIR developed a frequency of occurrence of water delivery deficiencies based on
different scenarios. (See Table 10, page 35).
The EIR needs to discuss how local agencies can deal with reductions, both temporary
and permanent that may occur in future state water deliveries. It also needs to discuss
the reductions in terms other than simple percentages to clearly indicate to local agencies
the real impact of those reductions.
Water Qualityof State Water
The water quality of the State Water Project was provided only a cursory treatment.
(See pages 30-32). The key constituents addressed included pesticides, asbestos, and
organics, which when chlorinated produce carcinogenic THM's. The Draft EIR does not
address the long-term impact of these levels or what the future levels may be with
restrictions in delta flows. Proposed reductions in standards and their impacts on SWP are
also not presented..
The EIR needs to provide additional analysis and discussion on the technical capability
C-) and economic impacts of providing treatment for existing constituents levels and potential
future levels. This data is necessary to perform comparisons with alternative water
I � /
' I
Comments on Draft EIR SWP Coastal Branch
Page 4
resources on an equal basis.
Cumulative Impacts
The Draft EIR discusses cumulative impacts as they relate to the development of additional
local water supplies. It only provides a minor discussion of continued development of other
portions of the SWP (See pages 108-110) while acknowledging that V=asing cumulative
demands are expected to impact the SHP".
The Coastal Branch Phase II of the SWP is a relatively small part of the whole State Water
Project. It accounts for only 3% of the total SWP flows. The State will meet these
demands by reallocation of existing SWP supplies. It therefore, identifies the cumulative
impact of the Coastal Branch as insignificant.
The SWP was designed and initial portions constructed prior to state and federal
environmental laws. It therefore, did not have the detailed environmental review that
would be required today. The Coastal Branch represents a small increase in the SWP and
may have insignificant environmental impact, but it is the continued development of the
SWP that may have significant environmental impacts. The results of these impacts could
directly affect the Coastal Branch water users.
The EIR needs to address how the long-term environmental impacts of the continued
development of the SWP will directly affect the local water agencies.
The City feels very strongly the above issues need to be addressed prior to the certification
of the EIR. Please contact City staff if you have any questions on these comments.
Sincerely,.
Ron Dunin
Mayor
Attachment A: Comments on the Draft EIR State Water Project, Coastal Branch
)A ��
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
� ATrACHM ENT B
Additional detailed comments on the Draft EIR State Water Project, Coastal Branch
Phase IL
Number Page Comment
1. 4 The report describes shifting water deliveries from San Joaquin
Valley crop land to Salinas Valley and coastal urban users.
According to DWR Bulletin 118-80, most of the San Joaquin Valley
groundwater is seriously overdrafted. The EIR repeatedly asserts
that delivering the water to the Salinas Valley and coastal urban
areas will reduce groundwater overdrafting in those locations. The
shift of water deliveries therefore implies a shift of overdrafting
from the Salinas Valley and coastal areas to the San Joaquin
Valley, or at least reduction of irrigated cropland in the San
Joaquin Valley. If the project would largely shift the location of
overdrafting or the location of substituting urban use for agricultural
use of groundwater, it may be more cost-effective for the shift to
occur closer to the place where the water would be delivered: in the
Salinas or Santa Maria Valleys.
C This shift need not mean the replacement of agriculture with urban
development beyond that which is consistent with current local
general plans. The land could be preserved as open space, with
continuing but less intensive agriculture, using little or no irrigation.
On page 105, the report dismisses this local-shift approach because
of several "possibilities." The report does not clarify why, other
than because of administrative ease, it is better to transfer water
from the SWP's current customers to its potential customers (the
proposed project) than to meet urban water demand in the coastal
counties by transfers between water users within those counties.
2. 5 It seems that importing water would "alleviate demands on existing
local supplies" only if there was a mechanism to assure that there
would be no net increase in water use by cities, agriculture, and
-rural residences following the importation. In fact, tables later in
the report (page 218) show increased overdrafting before the year
2035, even with importation. To prevent continued and accelerated
overdrafting, the groundwater basins would have to be adjudicated,
and a water master would have to control withdrawals and manage
groundwater recharge. Without such management, it would be in
the interest of each groundwater user to continue or accelerate
pumping in order to establish the maximum share of any future
adjudicated basin yield.
Lacking such groundwater management, it seems that water
importation would be growth-inducing, at least within the planning
period through the year 2035. Water availability has been a
constraint to growth in San Simeon, Cayucos, Morro Bay, San Luis
Obispo, the Edna and Los Osos valleys, Avila Beach, Goleta, and
Santa Barbara. If the constraining threshold is raised, by the
Coastal Branch or other major sources, more growth will occur than
if the current thresholds remain. This growth-inducing result could
be mitigated by establishing groundwater management aimed at
sustainable yield. It seems odd that DWR does not acknowledge
this potential mitigation in the report, given the frequent discussion
of using imported water to reduce overdrafting,
3. 14 Table 4 indicates that there is no wastewater reclamation within the
San Luis Obispo area (#67), yet later discussion in the report
acknowledges reuse through means such as release of the city's
treated effluent to San Luis Obispo Creek, which indirectly supports
downstream agricultural, residential, and commercial users of
groundwater and stream water.
4. 37 The report asserts that importing water will relieve pressure to
develop additional local supplies, thereby avoiding the biological
impacts of the local projects. Another point of view is that by
reinforcing the approach of developing additional water sources to
supply projected growth, the project would postpone but not avoid
pressure to develop local supplies.
5. 51 The mitigation for some potential cultural.resources impacts seem
vague, and the "additional studies" approach may not be adequate
considering recently mandated mitigation and monitoring
requirements.
6. 57 The air quality section should discuss the impacts of the additional
150,000 people (and vehicles) enabled by project deliveries in San
Luis Obispo County and nearly 300,000 increase in Santa Barbara
County (both non-attainment areas for ozone).
7.. 66 Concerning groundwater recharge from landscape irrigation:
Efficient irrigation would not do so, since it would just balance
evapo-transpiration losses. Using more water than needed to
balance such losses would contradict state and local water-
conservation policies. Using more water to leach salts (and
nitrates) below root zones would impact water quality. Such over-
watering and leaching would not be beneficial impacts.
Also, the same "beneficial impact" conclusion could have been
drawn if an EIR had been done on the Salinas and Whale Rock
water importation projects, yet they did not prevent substantial
reductions in landscape irrigation during the current drought.
�-.. Given continued growth bumping into stair-step water-supply
thresholds, landscaping recurrently will be stressed during droughts.
Established, native (or other drought-adapted) plants will survive.
8. 69 Rail haul of construction materials (mainly the pipe) would reduce
the length and possibly the number of road trips, energy
consumption, and air-pollution emissions.
9. 91 Installation of expensive agricultural conservation equipment could
be subsidized by urban users in exchange for the water that would
be saved.
10. 107 The Coastal Streams Diversion Project is still under study with
major unanswered questions regarding the fisheries and institutional
arrangements. It therefore, should not taken into account as
additional water in the growth study in Chapter LX.
11. 110 The long term impacts of additional water withdrawals from the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta should be addressed.
12. 113 The Rivkin and Carson conclusions, drawn from unknown locations
and time intervals, contradict "the California experience," where
water resources development and growth have correlated very
closely. The "more growth, more water, more growth..." cycle
probably can broken within the project area by either limiting
growth through land-use decisions or by foregoing additional water
sources.
13. 111 The listing of projects in Table 27 is not related to water resources
or growth-inducement evaluations, and therefore conveys little
information. A more useful listing would be patterned after the
following partial list for San Luis Obispo. (All major projects are
assumed to require supplemental water, since the potential for
conservation offsets through retrofitting will be largely used through
current activities, and Table 9 of the EIR indicates 4,400 AFY
overdraft of San Luis Obispo area groundwater in 1985.
I�
Projects Contingent on Supplemental Water
Proposed Project i n Consistent with adUted
land-use designations
Stoneridge II 65 dwellings In part
Brickyard Square 112 dwellings No
Orcutt Road 340 dwellings No
Tract 1750 351 dwellings Yes
Higuera Commerce 30 acres indust. Yes
La Lomita Ranch 43 dwellings No
Obispo del Sur 275 dwellings No
1.5 million sq. ft. No
commercial/indust.
Margarita/Garcia 750 dwellings In part
Dalidio 1,000 dwellings Yes
350,000 sq. ft. No
commercial
Prefumo Canyon 8.5 dwellings In part
Irish Hills golf-course
and subdivision 254 dwellings No
14. 114 The growth impacts of water development do vary by region.
Growth in San Luis Obispo is driven by relocation of retired people
and self-employed people, and government and visitor services.
These components do depend on availability of water, judging by
reactions to the recently imposed mandatory-conservation and
water-allocation rules.
15. 114 Concerning 'DWR's view." State and federal agencies dealing with
wastewater treatment grants and loans, over the last several years,
have required local agencies' environmental review to carefully
evaluate the growth-inducing impacts of projects to expand
wastewater treatment capacity. Judging by the approach of those
agencies, a project with the population service capacity of the
Coastal Branch Phase II would have a significant growth impact.
The wastewater analogy to DWR's view on supplemental water
would be installation of a sewer system in an area with septic tanks,
-1
where the sewer project would shift the means of treatment and
C' disposal, but not enable additional wastewater generation, because
the treatment capacity would be limited to the wastewater
generation of existing development.
Responding to the assumptions claimed to be necessary for the
"population supported" assessment: This wastewater analogy would
hold regardless of the existence of other sewer-service alternatives
and other social and economic forces influencing growth in the area,
because the project would remove a principal constraint to growth.
16. 118 The table on growth inducing impacts would be more helpful to
local agencies if the data was presented by agency and not DAU's.
This would also apply to other tables within the document.
17. 119 The APCD does not require a permit to "operate construction
equipment-," which implies approval for bulldozer driving..
18. 119 Local planning departments do not require permits for "any"
proposal to alter land use. Several governmental, utility, and
private land uses are allowed by right.
C
gmD: swp-eir.wp
•�• ATTACHMENTIC
cNty o�
CA o at"y euSluisOBISPOe ee
i
�\ OFFICE OF THE MAYOR•990 PALM STREET
!'i/ $ O Post Office Box 8100•San Luis Obispo.CA 93403.8100• SM549-7111
October 30, 1986
Kathlin Johnson
California Department of Water Resources
P.O. Box 942836
Sacramento, CA 94236-0001
SUBJECT: Scope of EIR for proposed Coastal. Branch of the California
Aqueduct
Dear Ms. Johnson:
As you know, the San Luis Obispo City Council has joined other agencies on
the Central Coast in requesting preparation of an EIR for this project.
We continue to urge the Department of Water Resources to involve,San Luis
Obispo and Santa Barbara counties as "co-lead agencies" in preparing and
reviewing the EIR. Your department has asked for suggestions on t)1e scope
of the EIR. We believe the EIR should include answers to the questions
listed below.
Also, we believe the. EIR would be most useful if it was prepared in stages
(tiered) or presented in sections, the first dealing with growth issues
(emphasizing long-term effects) and alternative water sources. and the
second dealing with the alignment and operation of a specific project.
Growth inducement: What will be the growth-inducing effects of making
available a large amount of additional water, regardless of the source?
1. What areas of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties are
likely to be urbanized as a result of supplemental water? `
2. What businesses or institutions are expected to expand, and what
additional industries and how many more people are likely locate
in the region, as a result of supplemental water?
Growth impacts: . Again, proper emphasis should be given to long-term
Impacts rather than focusing on the local. short-term impacts of a
particular pipeline alternative.
3. How will the expected urbanization effect agricultural lands,
e wildlife habitat, and the scale and character of existing
communities?
4. will the expected land-use changes and related impacts on natural
and man-made resources be Consistent with adopted plans and
policies of the affected communities? / '
Johnson
EIR Scope
Page 2
5. Are there contemplated changes to land-use plans which are
contingent on supplemental water, particularly in agricultural,
open space, and low-density residential designations?
6. Will the region maintain its relatively good air quality.
considering the added pollution from growth enabled by
supplemental water?
7. What additional public facilities (roads, public transit.
schools. wastewater treatment. police and fire) will have to be
expanded to meet growth needs resulting from expanded water
supplies. or how -much will levels of service be reduced if
facilities do not keep pace with growth?
Reliability and water quality
8. Will the State Water Project be able to deliver the amount of
water which all parties. contract for. and what other state
projects are proposed .to supply water for contract obligations?
9. If actual water deliveries cannot meet demand, are shortages
likely to be experienced throughout the state-project service
area; Will all contractors in the state face equal reducti6ns?
10. Considering agricultural chemicals used along the aqueduct route,
and wind- and water-borne soil components (such as asbestos).
-will water 'quality meet health standards and how will it compare
with alternative water sources?
Alternatives
li. Referring to your preliminary scope statement concerning the
"no-project" alternative, can the EIR evaluate this alternative
as "managing growth to minimize water-resource and other
deficiencies" rather than "taking no action to resolve the water
problems. . .?"
12. Even with the assumption that all sources may be desired
eventually, what are the alternatives to obtaining state water
now? (With a complete evaluation of local sources --of which
some might be advantageously financed at "state-project" rates--
the EIR could serve as required environmental documentation for
the other projects. )
13. What would be the impacts of the "Whale Rock exchange" approach
as an alternative to north coastal communities building a
connection to the Coastal Branch?
C
Johnson
EIR Scope
Page 3
Cost
14. Is the cost magnitude of the state project likely to require both
additional connection fees for new development and higher water
rates for present customers?
15. Will agencies have to divert funds from other services to help
pay for supplemental water. at a time of increasing demands for
other services as a result of growth?
16. How can user rate equity be maintained with the added costs of
the State Nater Project? (This issues and more detailed cost
questions may best be answered in the planning study which is to
accompany the EIR. This question involves the lbsue of mixing
more expensive "new" water with existing supplies. and charging
existing customers more as a result. A complete explanation of
when agencies pay the various components of state-water costs
would be helpful.)
Prolect design, construction and operations
17.. What will be the net energy consumption of the project?
18. What impacts will the pipeline and power plant near Cuesta Grade
have on appearance of the area. slope stability, wildland fire
hazard. and wildlife habitat?
19. Would the part of the coastal branch pipe In central San Luis
Obispo County have to be larger than proposed to serve as a
combined Conduit for water from Lake Nacimiento or other local
sources?
20. What will be the impacts of the lines connecting each agency's
water system to the coastal branch?
We will appreciate your attention to our concerns. You may contact 'myself
or Paul Lanspery. Administrative Officer. for elaboration on these
points. Our staff can provide information concerning San Luis Obispo to
help answer some of these questions.
Resp fully.
Ron Dunin
Mayor
1
cc: David Kennedy
Clint Milne
RD:ra
lxu
Err L,
4 t Y 011r-
city of sAn Us ompo
Office of the City Clerk 549-7103
e4olls 01b\
MD
COPIE-10:
0*Denotcj.&cdon —rYI
"C Cil Ii-IC05-DCHR.
CIiJ D I i:i,i.n.
Cpl.
PAM VOGES,CITY CLERK•990 PALM STREET
Post Office Box 8100•San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100•8051549-7100
San Luis Obispo, 93405
25 July 1990
Public Hearing Committee
c/o Mr. Stephen L. Kashiwada
Department of Water Resources
P.O. Box 942836, Room 252-19
Sacramento,CA 94236-0001
TESTIMONY
Dear Mr. Kashiwada and Members of the Public Hearing Committee:
INTRODUCTION
My name is Dr. Richard J. Krejsa. I am a 22-year resident of the City of San Luis Obispo
and a Professor of Biological Sciences at Cal Poly State University where, among other things, I
teach a course in freshwater Fishery Resources of the Pacific Coast.One of my specialties is in the
history of water development on freshwater fishery resources. In addition.I am a retired member
of the SLO County Board of Supervisors, having served this county from 1973 to 1980. Thus, my
background gives me a unique historical perspective in matters regarding the State Water Project.
I herein submit my critique of the Draft EIR for the Coastal Branch,Phase I I of the SO.
GENERAL COMMENTS
As I understand it,the intent of NEPA and CEQA was basically to require federal, state, and
local governments to use all praciticable means to protect and enhance the quality of the
environment. In keeping with that intent, an EIR is supposed to give decision makers (and the
public at large) the best available and most objective information necessary to make decisions
about proposed projects which may significantly affect environmental quality. Since the State
Water Project was approved and construction begun before the enactment of NEPA and CEQA, no
EIR was ever required for the SWP as a whole. The practical result of this circumstance is that it
Is unlikely that any proposed or future water projects can be found to have a significant
cumulative impact because the base project, which has already generated a quarter century of
significant environmental deterioration,can never be considered as projects are appended to it.
Now as we consider what might, in actuality, be interpreted a "minor" part of the entire
State Water Project, the citizens of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties are presented with
a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) which emphasizes the minimum aspects of this
minor project. Rather than clarify actual or potential issues of confict/impact, this DEIR tends to
either minimize them or mitigate them away. From 8 years of personal experience as an elected
official, I know that the best EIR is an objective,educational document. It is not suppose to be
an advocacy or adversary document. After reading this DEIR, I conclude, unfortunately, that its
authors appear to take the political side of the lead agency, i.e., the DWR, by
promoting the decisions of DWR or its views. The specific reasons will be covered in more
detail below but, for the moment, I quote from page 5 of the Executive Summary:
"Comoetitive costs, minimal environmental impacts,and independence from local drouahts
make the proposed completion of the Coastal Branch the preferred action."
And, from p. 114:
"DWR's View: No Growth-Inducing Impact. DWR's planning activities are designed
to alleviate demands on existing water supplies. The provision of water, by itself, is not
considered by DWR to stimulate growth
•••"
Such advocacy has no place in an independently written EIR. Indeed, this EIR is a perfect
example of the analysis of political aspects of California water policy and decision-making given
by E.C. Lee and H.C. Dunning in 1982:
"A third category of political actors involves the bureaucrats and staff of the various
executive agencies...Typically with more experience, and often with more expertise, than
their principals, government water specialists do much to shape the agenda and the
alternatives presented to policy makers and to the people. The extent to which an agency is
dominated by and "engineering mentality" with a bent toward capital construction, for
example,... will do much to influence the character of the policy outcome."
- In:Competition fQ_rCalifornia Weter , p. 187.
University of California Press,Berkeley-
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Reaerding"minimal environmental impacts...".
My initial impression of this DEIR document is that it's meant to convey the idea of "much
ado about nothing". Almost everything about it plays down any possible environmental/economic
impacts while suggesting that Coastal Phase II is just a minor part of the entire SWP. For
example,under "Cumulative Impacts"(p. 4,Executive Summary;pp. 108-109,Chapter VIII), it
states the following
"The proposed action is independent of any additional modifications to SWP
facilities or operations.The existing SWP system can support water demands of
the proposed Coastal Branch Phase ll. Water will be provided by a reallocation of
existing SWP supply; no additional diversions from the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta are proposed to accommodate...entitlements...[which represent] only about three
percent of the present SWP deliveries, only minor changes would result from
reallocation."(bold face mine] .
This statement is followed two paragraphs later with the statement that:
"Asa result of the 2.4 percent annual State population growth, demand for SWP
water is increasing. In order to accommodate increasing water supply demands,
DWR has proposed the Los Banos Grandes Reservoir, Kern County Water Bank, and the
three Delta water management programs."
On the one hand we are told that the existing SWP system can supply water for the Coastal
Branch by reallocation but on the other hand that growth elsewhere will require the building of
additional facilities. Isn't this playing fast and loose with the facts? Are we not part of that 2.4
percent state growth? Isn't it simply a matter of timing ? Everyone knows that the existing SWP
can deliver only 2.3 m.a.f of the 4:2 m.a.f. contracted water. If we were to delay the decision
another five years,and meanwhile other contractors requested delivery of their full entitlement,
would the authors of the EIR be able to make the same statement, i.e.; to claim that existing SWP
supply can accommodate the needs of the Coastal Branch? I think not! And for that reason I believe
that this DEIR isnot taking into consideration the full impact of the Coastal Branch, Phase 11.
i
Furthermore, the statement on p. 5 regarding "minimal environmental impacts" is not
correct if we consider the impacts already generated by the existing SWP facilities. That this is so
can be gleaned not from this, in my eyes, inadequate DEIR, but from another publication of the
DWR, Bulletin 160-87 entitled "California Water: Looking to the future", November, 1987,
p.67:
When the State Water Project's Delta pumps came on line in the late 1960s, it was
recognized that facilities would eventually be required in the Delta to improve water
transfer efficiency and to control salinity caused by tidal inflow entering the western
Delta..."
"However, specific proposals to accomplish these objectives have generated much
controversy, and agreement has not been reached upon the best approach to mitigating
deteriorating conditions in the Delta. As a consequence, throughout this time--since
export pumping began--conditions in the Delta have stagnated or worsened. Fisheries
declines are well documented, although the causes are not yet fully understood. Water
quality continues to be a major operational problem.And Delta levees continue to fail at an
accelerating rate."
If ever there was a reason to consider the justification for an EIR, the DWR statement
provides its own in Bull. 160-87. How much of the acknowledged decline in fisheries,
deteriorating water quality, and failing levees can be attributed to the existing
"Coastal Stub" (which was built partly in anticipation of the eventual Coastal Branch, Phase 11)
and to the proposed "Coastal Branch, Phase II" per sig? Is it ethically correct for San Luis
Obispo County[Santa Barbara can argue their own case],under the guise of a legally correct DEIR
which claims to have little or "minimal environmental impacts",to participate in a project which
has known and acknowledged environmental and economic impacts in another part of the State?
Regarding"independence from local droughts ".
It is my general experience that, on a global basis, most water-based megaprojects have
not resulted in "independence from local droughts". It is arguable,at best, that even in California,
the home of two prototypical water megaprojects, the combined Central Valley Project and the
existing State Water Project has not given on-line contractors "independence" from the current
4-year drought. "Relief? - maybe;but"independence"? - No!
Regarding "Competitive costs ."and "Economic impacts".
The Telegram-Tribune (28 March 1990, p. A-5) states that San Luis Obispo County
alreody"has paid in $7.6 million" since our first payment of $9,097 in 1964. And another $1
million+ is to be paid in 1990. While "financial costs" are given on a net annual cost per acre-
foot and "economic costs"are given in terms of net annual economic impact of the years 2010 and
2035,why are there no tables or charts listing the amount each county will have to pay for each
year 1990 through 2010 and/or 2035 and a total amount for the entire project for each county?
The average citizen should be able to pick out these costs immediately from the DEIR and that is not
possible now.
According to p. 207, the avoided costs and economic impacts for DAU 65 and DAU 67 are
based on a comparison with the Nacimiento Pipeline as the "most likely replaced alternative". Yet,
on p. 94, with regard to the Nacimiento Pipeline, it is stated that "San Luis Obispo County
proposes reserving this project to meet future water needs beyond that furnished by the proposed
Coastal Branch, Phase II."
7
If that, in fact, is the County's official policy position, then the avoided costs and/or
negative economic impacts calculated on the basis of the Nacimiento Pipeline being the most likely
alternative should not be valid. I conclude that the true "economic costs" of the proposed Coastal
Branch, Phase 11 are not really given in this DEER.
In regard to financial costs,on p. 122 of the DEIR it states that:
"These costs are based on a tentative allocation of water to the local entities. The final
allocation will be made by SLOCFCWCD and SBCFCWCD."[bold face mine]
Mr. Clint Milne, Deputy County Engineer for San Luls.Oblspo County,was quoted in the Telegram-
Tribune's special edition (April 3, 1990) on the State Water Project as cautioning that "When it
really gets tough is if we get substantially less interest than in our entitlement."That could mean a
4Z increase in cost for every 1000 acre-feet not ordered By my estimate that could mean an
extra approximately$20 per acre-foot or about $14 million additional for each 1000 acre-foot
not subscribed. Since the DEIR states that these costs are "tentative allocations",shouldn't there be
a table listing the cost scenarios for undersubscription of say 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, and
5000 acre-feet?
Everyone knows that the tentative allocations are "soft". This has been historically true
and it is likely that the subscription figures will change when the true costs are known. Why isn't
this admitted in the DEIR? For example, during August 1969, the Santa Barbara County Water
Agency sent out "Letters of Intent" to perspective water purveyors and all identifieable potential
purchasers of State Water Project water. These estimates were to be based on a cost of$100 per
acre-foot of water.Of the total 63,740 acre-feet of supplemental water are in 1969 and
"required" in the year 2000 by nine water agencies within Santa Barbara County, 39,560 acre-
feet(=62.1%)of the total was"required" by 19961 Of the remaining 24,180 acre-feet, 11 ,300
was"required"by 1995 and the remaining 12,880 acre-feet was needed by the year 2000. None
of the 39,566 acre-feet of supplemental water requested and required by 1990 has been delivered
to the nine water agenciesl And it is doubtful that 50,860 acre-feet will be available to them in
1995.
At least five conclusions might be drawn from this example:
1) That in 1969,all nine of these Santa Barbara water agencies grossly miscalculated and
over estimated their water needs for water in 1990;
2)All these agencies had incompetent water planners or decision makers;
3) The appeal of $100 / acre-foot imported water seemed so great that it affected their
ability to accurately estimate their needs;
4) Other factors entered into the discussion during the intevening time and other
alternatives have been worked out;or
5) The need was not there.
The example, I believe illustrates that long term projections and tentative allocations chane when
an agency is asked to put its money on the line. The present projection for SLO County is for a cost
of approximately$480 /acre-foot. Will the entire SLO County entitlement be subscribed? [NOTE:
I chose to use Santa Barbara County in this example not out of malice but only because the figures
were close at hand("Report on Program for Importation of State Project Water to Santa Barbara
4
County", Santa Barbara County Water Agency, May 1970). 1 know that similar data 1s available
for San Luis Obispo County but I had no ready access to it.]
RQWrdjno "Growth-Inducement"of the Coastal Branch.Phase 11.
On p. 5(Executive Summary) it states that:
"...importation of water to San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties would alleviate
demands on existing local water supplies, but not induce urban growth." [bold face
mine]
On p. 114(Chapter IX) it states that:
"DWR's View: No Growth-Inducing Impact: DWR's planning activities are designed
to alleviate demands on existing local water suppliles. The provision of water,by itself, is
not considered by DWR to stimulate growth..."
The creation of a nuclear bomb,of itself, is not considered by the Pentagon to stimulate the
arms race! The creation of rules to restrict membership to a PGA-sanctioned golf course, by
itself,causes no ethical restraints on professional golfers whose only job it is is to play the game!
So much for DWR's view!
The treatment of Chapter IX, "Growth-Inducing Impacts" begins with a discussion of
"Theoretical considerations"but only the first paragraph under that title is theoretical. The rest
Is based on the opinions of a 1973 National Water Commission report which, by itself, is
controversial and subject to different interpretation. It then quotes from a 1971 report by Rivkin
and Carson which purportedly shows'that investments in water facilities do not directly influence
population growth". Again the Commission Report is used to bolster DWR's advocacy of the
construction of the Coastal Branch,Phase 11.The treatment is anything but theoretical.
The section on "Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Coastal Branch, Phase II" is full of "if-
then"statements which make it very theoretical where factual information is wanting. Certainly,
the authors and the preparers of this DEIR are aware of other (dissenting) opinions regarding the
growth inducing effects of water. I offer three examples,two of which are from a DWR document:
1) Regarding Water Demand and Supply, p. 9 of DWR, Southern District, "Water Action
Plan for the San Luis Obispo-Santa Barbara Counties Area"dated May, 1981 ,states:
-if...80.000 to 85.000 acre-feet of supplemental water were provided to the
area by 2000 to help relieve the overdraft of ground water, it would, in part, do
this, but it would also be expected to increase total applied water
demand by an additional ...29,900 acre-feet in thatyear."[bold face mine]
2) Regarding Population Growth, p. 9 of the same document states:
"Future growth in the area, particularly in Santa Barbara County,will be affected
by the availability of water...In Santa Barbara County, if suplemental water
supply is made available, population growth is expected to be faster
than would otherwise occur,especially on the South Coast." [bold face mine]
3) Regarding the "land boom" brought by water policies,an article in the Sacramento Bee,
14 July 1981 , by authors Bob Gottlieb and Peter Wiley, reported on a recent study
conducted by the UCLA Urban Planning Department and concluded that the Metropolitan
5
I
Water District's policies have underwritten the land booms in Southern
California for the past 40 years, and [created) "a cav'fah/&xa48for developing and
agricultural interests..." [bold face mine]
The final page ( 1 18)of Chapter IX is on "Local Governments". It absolves the DWR from
all responsibility regarding growth-related impacts and places it on the backs of local governing
bodies with the statement that DWR doesn't "control or influence decisions on local development
projects." Considering the history of water politics in the State of California I consider this
statement to be insulting to the average citizen. DWR 1s as much a major player in the California
water game as any other major political player. While it can't force a local water entity to
purchase water, its statewide policies certainly have more influence than any single local
government agency,as shown (above) by E.C. Lee and H.C. Dunning in 1982.
The remaining three paragraphs of p. 118 form a theoretical lecturing of local
governments on growth management procedures by the DEIR authors. I believe these paragraphs
have no place in this DEIR.
Incidentally, the figures in Table 31 under "impact" for DAU 70 , Santa Maria, with the
same volume of Project Delivery of 3500 AF/YR, are different than those under Table 28 impact
for the same DAU.Are they in error or am I missing a point somewhere?
Reaardina the"Overdrafting of Ground Water".
There is much discussion in this document about the effects of overdrafting and the
problems caused by continued mining of the groundwater resource,especially for the coastal
basins (pp. 12-15 and Tables 4,5). In fact,of the 61,270 AF overdaraft in SLO Co., only 4400
AF is in the San Luis Obispo coastal area (DAU 67) and 8700 AF is in that portion of the Santa
Maria basin presumably within our county. The majority, 40,300 AF, is inland in the Salinas
Basin (DAU 65) ,and the remaining 7,870 AF is in the Cuyama area(DAU 72) which will not be
served by the SWP water.
Slit A 4ANJ r But enough of figures for now. The point I wish to make is that ground water mining or
"overdrafting" Is,or was part of the strategy considered in early days to create a demand
for the SWP water. Let me quote from the official report of the Santa Barbara County Water
Agency for February, 1968, entitled: "Water Requirements of Santa Barbara-County 1967 to
1990.", pp 31-32:
"As shown previously in this report, there appears to be little demand for State
Project water in the County other than in the South Coastal area until the 1980's or later.
Thus it would seem prudent to seek another solution to the near future
problems of the Goleta County Water District and other South Coastal entities which have
projected deficiencies occurring between 1975 and 1980.`'...
"Construction of sufficient wells to pump not only the safe yield of the basin but
amounts of up to 9,000 acre feet per year in excess of safe yield would not
only avert physical shortage... but could delay the time of need of State Project
water until 1980, or even later."...
"The temporary mining of ground water storage reserves would also have the
beneficial effect of building up a substantial demand for State Project
water in the early years of its delivery to the County, thereby minimizing the
relianceon taxes to meet repayment obligations."
6
And,on pp. 34-35,this conclusion is repeated and recommended for distribution and
advice to affected water districts in Santa Barbara County.
Now, in 1990,we have achieved the recommended overdrafts, and we find that this DEIR
now utilizes their existence as the excuse to justify the State Water Project option, i.e., in order
to improve ground water quality which,we are informed on p.16: "is deteriorating , partial ly as
a result of overdraft."
And,as further stated on p.16:
"To prevent future environmental and economic problems that may result from ground
water overdraft, both San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties will need supplemental
water."
Thus, in thirty years we have come full circle:Since there is insufficient demand for SWP
water, mine the ground water and create an overdraft situation which will be justification for
demanding the SWP!
Regardless of how this situation came about,and whether or not any Santa Barbara County
agencies actually took such measures, its existence is sufficient grounds for citizens to be
skeptical and to thoroughly question and check every statement made by any water agency
bureaucrat,any water policy decision maker,or,for that matter,any EIR presented by suchl
ding the Actual Availability of SWP Water to Coastal Branch,Phase 11.
The DEIR states (in several locations, e.g., p.108) that Phase II "can operate within
exisiting SWP facilities..." and [although] "increasing cumulative demands are
expected to impact the SWP... "the proposed action is... independent of any additional
modifications to SWP facilities or operations."
On p. 109,the following statement is made:
"Of the contractual 4.23 million AF/YR,SWP presently delivers over 2 million AF/YR to
service areas in central and southern California.As a result of the 2.4 percent annual
State population growth, demand for SWP water is increasing. In order to
accommodate increasing water supply demand, DWR has proposed the Los Banos
Grandes Reservoir, Kern County Water Bank, and the three Delta water management
programs."
I believe that these statement are misleading, perhaps even deliberately so. Of that "over 2
m111Ion AF/YR" being delivered in 1990, how much is actually "contracted" water and how much
is presently being sold as"surplus"water to other contractors?
In DWR Bull. 160-87, November 1987,a more accurate assessment is made(p.43):
"For the SWP, the present dependable supply is about 2.3 million acre-feet. Projected
requirements in 2010 are about 3.6 million acre-feet... [assuming 450,000 million
acre-feet from the Colorado River and waste water reuse in the South Coast region
becomes available). Under those assumptions, the existing [sic) SWP facilities would
have a deficit in present dependable supplies in 2010 of some 1.3 million acre-feet."
But what if even these assumptions might not be valid? In which case we are in deficit of
another nearly 0.5 million acre-feet.And these 1987 projections were published in the first year
7
of what was to become a 4-year drought cycle which could eliminate perhaps another 0.5+ million
acre-feet from available storage,. The point is that the DEIR doesn't inform the public as to
the actual current usage of the SWP. If, in fact, these assumption aren't entirely valid, then
we have less existing dependable supply than is inferred in the EIR and some of the additional
facilities might have to go on line before the first drop of water flows down (or up) the Coastal
Bran0h, Phase 11. But none of these additional increments in dependable water supply can be made
without the functioning of ail eleven pumping units at the H.O. Banks Delta Pumping Plant, and
"full operation of the Delta Pumping Plant depends on increasing the channel capacity in the
southern Delta" (Bull.160-87, p. 44). I'm not aware that this has been done yet. If it is being
done now, then the Coastal Branch must share in any cumulative impacts resulting from these
additional facilities.
Thus, without any evidence to the contrary in this DEIR, it seems to me that existing
facilities might not be able to supply the water need of the Coastal Branch, Phase II. Perhaps by
"reallocation" DWR means that it will cut back on the "surplus" water being sold in the San
Joaquin Valley. This is not clear in the DEIR. If there is a cut back of 3%, will that not have an
impact on those valley farmers? Or are those users utilizing "surplus" water? In any case, we
citizens have a right to know exactly how much contract water is actually being used for
entitlements and how much, if any as"surplus".
Regarding "Cumulative Impacts".
While I might tolerate the temporary disruption of sensitive Type IV habitat in SLO Creek
and other local creeks along the alignment during const(QMion of the pipeline (see below), I am
absolutely appalled by the fact that none of the Delta fish species are listed in the fish
surveys (p. 244 and Table 5), especially the threatened or endangered ones whose habitat has
become and remains deteriorated for 27 years since the pumping began.
Since NEPA ( 1969) and CEQA ( 1970) were not in effect until the SWP pumps were
already pumping for six years,there was no EIR required for the entire State Water Project. Now,
if I understand this EIR document correctly, each project or addition to the SWP will require a
separate EIR, but only for its particular portion and not for the whole. Thus, it is unlikely that
any one project will be shown to cause a cumulative impact, even though we know that the entire
project is already causing a tremendous cumulative economic and environmental impact.
I would argue that to the extent that San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara
Counties will utilize from 52,723 to 82,700 AF/year of water that passes through the
Delta, we are contributing to the demise of the Delta fisheries be they commercial,
sport, or simply associated species that are frequently, and erroneously, called "trash fish". We
are contributing to the cumulative decline which has been documented in many ways over the past
quarter century(see quote from p. 67, DWR Bulletin 160-87, dated November, 1987,above).
Declining fisheries, failing levees, and deteriorating water quality are all cumulative
negative impacts of the State Water Project and yet they will never be addressed by this or
subsequent EIRs.
RRardina Water Quality.
Pages 30-32 address the water quality issues and states blandly that:
"The water of the California Aqueduct carries small amounts of pesticides and other
organic chemicals. These constituents are regularly tested for and are found to be well
within the standards set by the State." [bold face mine]
R
Lest I be accusers erroneously of favoring "fish over people", let me express my concern over the
way in which this DEIR addresses for falls to address] the subject of water quality and contrast
this treatment with that given in pp. 83-84, of DWR Bulletin 160-87,wherein it is stated that:
"The Delta is a water source for agencies that provide drinking water to approximately 15
million Californians...the State's most valuable surface water supply. Water quality
concerns in the Delta related to drinking water can be traced to a number of potential
sources including:
-Possible salinity intrusion in to the western Delta from San Francisco Bay;
-Waste water discharges sometimes containing disease organisms and chemical
pollutants;
-Agricultural drainage water may contain pesticide residues and other toxic agents;
-Storm drainage water can contain traces of gasoline,oil,rubber,asbestos, lead,and
pesticides."
This DEIR offers only one list of values, Table 9 (p.31), which are "an average of the means
taken from 1970-1988." 1 don't believe that the averages tell us enough information about the
quality of the water we might eventually anticipate receiving from the SWP. Why aren't the
ranges alsolncluded?
One of the main concerns about Delta water quality involves the suspected carcinogens of
the THM group (Trlhalomethanes). if the current EPA standard for THMs is made more stringent
In 1991, as implied in the DEIR (p.32), how much extra cost will that add to the estimated
$110/acre-foot cost already projected for treatment at.Polonio Pass? TCF solvents and DBCP
pesticides are also involved as well as naturally occurring chemical runoff including the following
(p. 86, BuIL160-87): Boron, arsenic, molybdenum, mercury, cadmium, chromium, nickel,
zinc, copper, manganese, and selenium. Of these, mercury , cadmium , chromium , and
molybdenum are not listed in Table 9. Why?
The San Joaquin River flow is largely made up of agricultural drainage which includes the
following known pesticides at the Banks Pumping plant: 2, 4-D salt, Bentazon , and Copper .
Other representative pesiticides found in the San Joaquin River include Methyl parathion
(p.85, Bull.160-87). Is this the kind of water we are getting when we buy into the
State Water Project? Now much of this chemical pollution will actually be removed by the
Polonio Pass treatment plant? Now will the treated water SWP quality compare with
what we might get from alternative sources lin San Luis Obispo County (and Santa
Barbara County)? Shouldn't the DEIR include a discussion of the cumulative impact(s) that
drinking this water will have on the health of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara county citizens? I
believe the authors of the DEIR are remiss in not notifying us of these factors.
Regarding Ener Qv Requirements.
On p. 70 of the DEIR, it is stated that "The net electricity demand of transporting
water from the Delta to San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties is estimated to be 0.0023
percent of the statewide demand." This, I believe, is a very misleading figure which again,
perhaps deliberately, tends to minimize the actual energy cost of the SWP and the Coastal Branch
Phase 11. Thus it can be claimed that energy consumption has an insignificant impact (pp. 69-70).
However, if the analysis would be presented in terms of the total impact of the SWP, which will
9
be 5.6% of all California electricity projected to be produced ( 13.3/237.1 billion
kWh) in the year 2000.As an approximation, I calculated a net energy equivalent of 4 bbls of
oil pumping costs for each acre-foot of water sent from Lake Oroville, across the Delta, and
pumped south, the annual energy cost of delivering 53,700 to 82,700 acre-feet of water to SLO
and SB counties could range from 214,800 to 330,800 bbis. of oil per year! Perhaps the DEIR
authors could refine that estimate?
Re4arding the Fish Survey portion of the DEIR (D.244, etsw).
It is stated (p.242) that the survey team "were unable to survey several streams [not
identified] due to a lack of landowner approval", and (p.245) that "several streams were nearly
dry.......during the wet season sampling of 1989." Furthermore, they used a "one-pass removal
technique with backpack electrofisher equipment." Thus either because of landowner disapproval
or drought, "several streams" were not sampled, and the others were fished one time with
electroshock gear or "visually".
While they specify the techniques used in their stream survey (pp. 245-246), none of
the primary data is given in the DEIR,so it can't be reviewed Thus to call this report a "stream
survey" is not really accurate. It is my professional opinion that you can't conduct a stream
survey in only two seasons of only one year ( 1989)with one or zero samples.
Regarding the effect of pipeline construction,the DEIR states that-
"construction
hat"construction within[Type I or Type l l streams is] "not predicted to result in
significant impacts to sensitive species or aquatic resources"...
This statement might,perhaps,be valid for Type I habitats but it is not necessarily true for Type
11 habitats. The reason will be given below. This report emphasizes Type IV habitats and the
"sensitive"species therein. But the authors should surely know that in a stream like SLO Creek,
the Type I I and Type 111 streams often act as reservoirs of the gene pool of those fishes killed by
accidental poisonings or pollution events in Type IV habitats. To ignore these reaches because they
had no fish during the limited or no sampling effort done here is poor ecology,to say the least.
They call a stream Type IV primarily on the basis of whether or not it supported or had
the potential to support steelhead migration and spawning. No other fish than the "sensitive"
species appears to matter. This attitude,unfortunately, is typical logic for many fishery workers
trained at "applied-oriented" universities. Often, such resource workers, in their zeal to protect
the [taxable & revenue generating] sport fish species, ignore or forget that the associated fish
specooften determine whether or not a "sensitive species"can occupy a particular habitat.
Table 5. (p.251) summarizes fish species presumably seen or captured along the
alignment. At least three species, the Pacific Lamprey, the Threespine Stickleback, and the
Prickly Sculpin, occupy reaches of SLO Cr. (&Stenner Cr.?) but are not listed in Table 5.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I believe that a lot of effort has gone into minimizing the impacts of this
project whereas much desireable and critical information has been excluded from this DEIR. I
request that the Final EIR version incorporate answers to the questions posed in my critique.
i0
SUMMARY
There is, in my view, no satisfactory or adequate evidence presented in this DEIR which
justifies the authors' claim that "Competitive costs, minimal environmental impacts, and
independence from local droughts make the proposed completion of the Coastal Branch the
preferred action."One might iustifieably ask the question "preferred" by whom?
The issue of cumulative impact is not treated satisfactorily since the existing SWP
facilities were not required to have an EIR and yet they have caused a documented deterioration or
decline in fisheries and water quality while also inducing an increasing rate of Delta levee failure.
The authors Wally can place these significant long-term impacts outside of the present DEIR for
the Coastal Branch, Phase 11, but I pose the question: Is it ethically correct for us to participate in
an existing project which has known significant environmental and economic impacts elsewhere in
the State but from which we are legally excused because of a quirk in historical timing?
Past history has indicated that "tentative allocations"are soft and,but for the argument of
ground water overdrafting (which likely was consciously implemented as a strategy to create
demand for SWP water), may fall short of the full entitlements. How much will the financial costs
increase if the project is undersubscribed?
The DEIR champions DWR's view that the provision of water will not stimulate growth,
yet fails to include any reference(s)to published DWR or other documents to the contrary. Like it
or not, population goes where water is, not where it isn't! Notice that the word "growth" was not
used in the previous statement because if your society is in balance, i.e., the population is matched
with its resources,then that society is sustainable and there will be growth but it will be steady
state growth. In such a society there will be entrepeneurs and consumers but the resource base
will be respected by all and used in such a way that the resources of future generations are not
jeopardized. This view is presented here as an alternative not considered in the DEIR. The authors
of the DEIR,and the DWR itself,may deem it a non-feasible alternative. But if such an alternative
is not considered a possible option in San Luis County,then it likely can't be possible anywhere in
the State of California where DWR exerts its influence. If that is so, then we have already doomed
future generations of Californians to severe resource limitations and the EIR process is a sham!
The DEIR gives no analysis of the existing utilization of SWP water on which they can
justify the claim that the Coastal Branch, Phase II, "can operate within existing facilities." The
critique claims that this is a matter of timing. If our claim to our combined entitlement would
come S years or so later down the line, other projects would already be required to meet our
demands..
The DEIR does not present all the relevant data regarding chemical pollution and water
quality of the Delta water to be transported via Coastal Branch, Phase l l, to downstream users. Nor
does it offer a comparison of how the water treated by the Polonio Pass treatment plant will
compare with the quality of existing or proposed local alternatives.
Along with other aspects, the Energy requirements of the Coastal Branch, Phase II are
minimized. However, this critique claims that the Energy requirements of the entire SWP are a
substantial portion of all California electricity production, the effects and cost of which have
never been considered in an EIR.
11
APPENDIX I: Corrections to original statement of Dr. R.J. Krejsa, dated 25 July 1990.
Mr. Stephen L. Kashiwada
Department of Water Resources
P.O. Box 942836, Room 252- 19
Sacramento, CA 94236-0001 4August 1990
Dear Mr. Kashiwada:
In re-reading my draft manuscript I discovered the inadvertent omission in the submitted
copy of one entire section from p, 6, and typographical errors on p. 8 and p. 10. Please kept
these notes as Appendix I to my submitted statement dated 25 July 1990.
i. On p. 6, following the first paragraph under the subheading "Overdrafting of Ground
Water", please add the following paragraphs:
In Table 4(p.14), the 1985 overdraft of 40,300 acre-feet in DAU 65, constituting
approximately two-thirds of the overdraft for San Luis Obispo County*,appears to have dropped
by 200 acre-feet since reported in 1975-77 as 40,500 acre-feet (source: "Water Action
Plan for the San Luis Obispo-Santa Barbara Counties Area", DWR, Southern District, May,
1981),and will drop to 35,400 in year 2000(DEIR, p. 219). The urgency implied in pp. 12-
16 of the DEIR seems to be in direst contrast with the DWR statement on p. 45 of the 1981 report:
"For the Upper Salinas Valley,the existing information indicates an annual average ground
- E1Vic.L' water overdraft of about...40,500 acre feet... The situation is not considered
critical at this time, because the magnitude of the annual overdraft is not
AUG 9 19�U significant when compared with the areal extent of the basin and the usable storage
capacity of the basin.Continuation of the annual overdraft until the year 2000
CITY COUNCIL is an acceptable solution , provided steps are taken to improve the data base and safe
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
yield estimate...lf an overdraft situation is then verified,steps should be taken to
provide a long-term management plan for the basin."[bold face mine]
In 1981 , DWR deems DUA 65's "overdraft" of 40,500 acre-feet for 1975-77 as "acceptable"
until year 2000. But DEIR Table 10 shows a dM to 35,400 in 2000,and riM just to 40,000 a.f.
by 20101 DUA 67 also shows a dM to 2,300 a.f. by year 2010! Thus, in the twenty-five year.
period ( 1985-2010), concern for overdrafting should be limited to DUA 70: 8,700 increasing
4,100 a.f. by the year 2010). The former is only 14.2* of the 1985 county-wide total of
61 .270 a.f.which DEIR authors used to inflate the urgency of their "Need For Action" (p.15) due
to overdrafting. I don't discount the ability of local governments and their citizens to mine ground
water in the future, but It would seem that the urgent concerns of the DEIR authors, especially for
the 25-year period 2010-2035, might best be described in their own words (from p. 87): "The
projections of such scenarios would be purely speculative and,thus, not appropriate for this EIR."
* The amount of overdraft for 51.0.County in 1985 is listed on p. 12 and p. 14 (Table 4)as
61 ,270 acre-feet, but on p. 85, the figure is listed as 61 ,300 acre-feet: Which is correct?
2) On p. 8, line 6, the word "Brancch" should read "Branch"; on line 24, the word
"consturction" should read "construction". On p. 10, line 39, the word "speci2' should
read "species".
Thank you for this opportunity to amend my original statement Q
Ri .hardJ. KreYsa
1
r �
Jay & Linda Farbstei'n
R
375 Los Cerros Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
(805) 541-4940
-.�
August 2, 1990 i _:�..:�i... RECEIVE ®_
�. .o ..l .. i:....--.• ..
rr �,'
San Luis Obispo City Council --: =v Y �_ +,.J--= Cr[YCLERK_
AN LUIS
City Hall i , r•.,, S OBI SF
D.cin
Palm Street _ .._
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 C
I_ ✓ -__= ✓__ t
Re: State Water Project
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
While we do not often come to public meetings to testify or protest,we do vote.in every election. We
would like you to know of our feelings about state water and water in general.
We recognize that special measures are needed during the drought,we support water conservation,
and we accept necessary growth limitations. But we also want our water supplies increased that we
can enjoy a reasonable and satisfying fife style again. We are tired of not being able to flush our toilets
regularly,keep our(drought tolerant) landscaping thriving or even afire,or plant our vegetable garden.
We are also concerned about the softening real estate market in the City of San Luis Obispo and have
been lead to understand that lack of water here(compared,say,to Paso Robles)is making it harder to
sell houses in our city and perhaps lowering property values.
We are not experts on environmental impacts or growth inducement,but State Water would appear to
be the only source that could augment local supplies relatively soon and at reasonable cost. We don't
try to (and couldn't) supply all our own food,clothing,energy,building supplies,or consumer items
locally,so we see nothing especially wrong or immoral about importing water.
Agriculture is by far the biggest consumer of water in this county,so let's encourage or require farmers
and ranchersto conserve along with residents and other businesses. The way to do this is by making
sure that the true values and costs of water are reflected to all users.
With regard to growth inducement, let's not let water be the resource that controls growth. We want
you,our local politicians,to bite the bullet and use policies and ordinances to control growth, not.water.
That way,those of us who live here can have a reasonable,assured source of water for our needs. If
you are not sure whether this community wants State Water then put the issue on the ballot and let us
tell you directly.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jay Farbstein, PhD,AIA Linda Farbstein
ij
MEETING AGENDA
mf P ITEM #
C
Fby::
d Person
Irvin J. Kogan
937 Bluebell Way San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 August 27, 1990 Mayor and San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street Al f }�Qhd
San Luis Obispo, CA
Dear Sirs:
I am unable to attend the August 27th public hearing regarding to State Water
Project and request this short statement be read on my behalf.
I am opposed to the project because it will be growth inducing. I have read a
letter to the Arroyo Grande City Council by Donald Smith. It clearly and
quantitively shows that city's long time annual costs will far into future
years exceed that of desalinization unless major growth is allowed or induced .
to take place. I believe our city is faced with a similar option.
CWe.have options of desalinization, Naciemento, reclamation etc. I support the
Council to pursue these options instead of the State Water Project.
Irvin J K
City of San Luis Obispo
C V V.D
AUG 00,
sMwIsoaM06 e` 1 C4
J\
H , �C) PM
C
( 1TE' Vf�,at:��011 ..
!
�i�I�l�f�11181NIllll�l� �IIIIIIIIIIII� �� - ° i
. Cl
ofS�►1'1 1 � 1�
C
955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dero Cy lead e' 1
i nd V1
R
, cynci1
1 AttY
August. 28, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
John Dunn, City Administrative Office
FROM: William T. Hetland, y��tilities Director
SUBJECT: Media Contact
Today, I talked to 1) 'Jaime Rodel, KSBY; 2) Maryanne Fabray, KSBY
and 3) Connie Gordon; KVEC US98. They were all very interested
in the meeting and public hearing this evening on the State Water
Project Draft EIR. I briefly outlined staff's concerns,
C' specifically growth, water quality and project reliability. I.
also tried to emphasize that the meeting is to take public
testimony on the adequacy on the EIR and not to discuss the pros
and cons of state water for the City.
WTH:bja
RECEIVtD
AUG 271990
OTYCW ..
SANLulSCPc00 CA
14 ) s� _ -
MEET;;,f F,; a
O
AT[ ,t 't
1. STATE WATER PROJECT (HETLAND/1124 - 90 min. )
Consideration of the draft Environmental Impact Report on
State Water Project Coastal Branch (continued from July 31,
1990-Environmental Impact Report previously distributed) .
RECOKKENDATION: Review the draft Environmental Impact Report
on State Water Project Coastal Branch and propose letter to
the State Department of Water Resources, receive public
testimony, and direct staff to make any appropriate changes,
if necessary.
(Staff report not received by agenda close-will be distributed
under separate cover) .
i
J..
�i►iIIIIIIIIIIIIII����������� VIIINI II
III III I city ® san �,s oBispo®
I 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
August 23, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Co cil
FROM: am ges
SUBJ: A s 27 . 1990 - Item #2 - WHALE ROCK AGENDA
The City of Mono Bay has asked for a continuance of Item No. 2 on the August 27 agenda,
to Tuesday, September 4, 1990 due to a scheduling conflict. The item concerns their
request for emergency supplemental water from the Whale Rock Commission.
Staff has no objection to this request for a continuance.
c: J. Dunn
K Hampian
B. Hetland
J. Jorgensen
Telegram-Tribune
PV:klc
2. WHALE ROCK COMMISSION AGENDA (HETLAND/921 - 20 min. )
Consideration of the Whale Rock Commission agenda for
September 5, 1990 concerning a request from the City of Morro
Bay for emergency supplemental water .
RECOMMENDATION: Review Whale Rock Commission agenda and
provide appropriate direction to City Whale Rock Commission
representatives, if necessary.
(Staff report not received by agenda close-will be sent under
separate cover) .
* G,ty / * cit'_, o SAnIuis- OBISPO
�' C?0 ' O COUNCIL HEARING ROOM 0 CITY HALL • 990 PALM STREET • SAN LUIS OBISPO
y
7 a **Lead Peu on-Item to come back. to Council
���� S 0 � *'Dmnote6 action by Lead peon
No ah.texbsk.-inbonmati.on on,by
A G E N D A
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1990 - 7:00 P.M.
t. -
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ron Dunin
ROLL CALL: Vice-Mayor Jerry Reiss, Councilmembers Peg Pinard,
Penny Rappa, Bill Roalman and Mayor Ron Dunin
PUBLIC COMMENT
(Not to exceed 15 minutes)
Immediately prior to scheduled items, members of the public may - y
address the City Council on items that DO NOT appear on the printed
agenda. Please observe the time limit of three minutes. A speaker ?
slip (available in the Foyer) must be filed with the City Clerk
prior to the beginning of the meeting.
As a general rule, action will not be taken on issues not listed
on the agenda. Staff will generally be asked to follow-up on such
items. The Council is interested in hearing from the public
regarding issues or concerns of the community and welcomes your k
input.
f„
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE (JONAS/462 - 2 hrs. )
Continued consideration of a Planning Commission's
recommendation for General Plan Land Use Element Update.
(continued from July 31, 1990) .
RECOMMENDATION: Review the proposed vision statement,
community goals, growth management section, and overall
direction and capacities of the draft. Indicate whether the
draft is acceptable or identify any changes which the council
supports.
**Jon" FINAL ACTION: Reviewed the paopobed Land Uee Etement o6 the Genu Paan. Next
*Voge6 meeting tentattiveEy deheduWgjan1 Ag 28, 1990 at 7:00 p.m.
Council Agenda August 14, 1990
COMMUNICATIONB
(Not to exceed 15 minutes)
During the balance of this meeting, any Councilmember or the City
Administrative Officer may informally update the Council of written
or oral communications and ask for comment and/or discussion.
State law provides that Council take action only on such matters
which have been noticed at least three days in advance of the
meeting unless special circumstances are found to exist. Formal
action or approval is not preferred and such items should be
continued to the next Regular meeting.
A. ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 of 2
G, L y �. * cit, , of sAn tuic OBISPO �
p
N off t O COUNCIL HEARING ROOM a CITY HALL a 990 PALM STREET a SAN LUIS OBISPO
i p
7 u
lOI S uN
AGENDA 15 IL
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1990 - 7:00 P.M.
Pam's Agenda
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ron Dunin Distribution List
(7/25/90)
I,Unpaid Subscriptions
ROLL CALL: Cou :
Vice-Mayor Jerry Reiss, _
Penny Rappa, Bill Roalman a� AIA President
A"';-dreg-mt�s-i�r'bex}
PUBLIC COMMENT /ASI President
(Not to exceed 15 minut . MBIA (in box)
Chamber of Commerce(in box)
Immediately prior to scheduled items, meml Housing Authority (inibox)
address the Cit Council on items that DO NC �KCOY
City ,"KCPR .
agenda. Please observe the time limit of t� /KDDB
slip (available in the Foyer) must be fill
prior to the beginning of the meeting. -"KTDJ (until 10/30/90)
As a general rule, action will not be take-i KSBYIKKUS
on the agenda. Staff will generally be ask /KVEC
items. The Council is interested in he
/League of Women Voters
regarding issues or concerns of the commu-
-hibraTy(-reg.'Mtgs- Er-ont desk)-
input. iMustang Daily j
Planning Comm. (in CDD box)
..Telegram-Tribune
III, Envelopes Provided /
Agendas for ALL Meetings:
BUSINESS ITEMS ' UNOCAL Land & Development Co.
1. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE (JONAS/462 - 2 hrs. )
Continued consideration of a Planning Commission's
recommendation for General Plan Land Use Element Update.
(continued from July 31, 1990) .
RECOMMENDATION: Review the proposed vision statement,
community goals, growth management section, and overall
direction and capacities of the draft. Indicate whether the
draft is acceptable or identify any changes which the council
STATE OF:dLLIFOIN USUPp02)ts.
COUMTY OF 56 LUIS OBISPO ) S3
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO )
I declare under penalty of perjury that I an employed Page 1 of 2
by the City of San Luis Obispo in the City Clerk's
Department; and that I-poste this Agenda near the
front door of City Hall on
Date 4i9dature
Council Agenda August 14, 1990
COMMUNICATIONS
(Not to exceed 15 minutes)
During the balance of this meeting, any Councilmember or the City
Administrative Officer may informally update the Council of written
or oral communications and ask for comment and/or discussion.
State law provides that Council take action only on such matters
which have been noticed at least three days in advance of the
meeting unless special circumstances are found to exist. Formal
action or approval is not preferred and such items should be
continued to the next Regular meeting.
A. ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 of 2
AGENDA
�O ITEM #
���'�I�I�IIIIIIIPilllllllll���1111'�I«�����III ���
city of sAn luoaspo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 •San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
August 14, 1990
MEMORANDUM
To: Councilmembers .
From: Ron Dunin, Mayor ,/�
Subject: Suggested Format for Tonight's Study Session
To help us move through tonight's material, attached is a meeting
outline which I would like to use. Please contact me if you have
any comments or suggestions.
Attachment
C. City Administrative Officer
City Clerk
City Attorney
Community Development Director
1
LUE UPDATE:
1
.J
SUGGESTED STUDY SESSION FORMAT
1. Summary of Prior Meeting Actions: Jonas/Matteson (5 minutes)
2. Overview of Study Session Topics:* Matteson (15 minutes)
A. Vision Statement
B. Community Goals '
C. Growth Management
*Focus on differences between current and draft LUE
3. GENERAL Councilmember Comments: (15-20 minutes total; 3-4
minutes per member)
Opportunity for individual Councilmembers to share creneral
concerns and opinions (e.g. "things to think about" as Council
moves through the specific material)'
4. SPECIFIC Review: (1 1/2 - 2 hours)
A. - Review by Entire Topic - Vision Statement
Review by Subheading - Community Goals; Growth
Management
B. Three Alternative Consensus Actions:
1. Consensus to Preliminarily Accept
2. Consensus to Revise - with specific suggestions
3. Consensus to Defer , pending further
information/analysis/consideration*
*Staff can maintain a list of deferred issues to be brought
back to Council after initial review of entire LUE draft
(after October 9) .
b3/lueup
1
���i91�41�IINIIIII�III III "J o MEETING BATE:
c� d
san �u�� ogispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NU ER
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner,
SUBJECT: Consideration of Land Use Element update forwarded by
the Planning Commission
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Review the proposed vision statement, community goals, and growth
management section, and overall direction and capacities of the
draft. Indicate whether the draft is acceptable or identify any
changes which the council supports.
DISCUSSION
Situation
On July 31, staff introduced the draft Land Use Element update
recommended by the Planning Commission, highlighting the major
changes ,from our current element and responses to the topics
which the council had asked be addressed. The council set four
datesto consider the update, including this meeting which is to
focus- on`�the-vision statement, goals, growth management, and the t ` r
plan's capacities .for .various types of development. These topics
nh . are covered on pages 3 through 21 of the draft text (attachment
. 1) . The previous agenda report contained additional information.
other council follow-up/consensus points from the July 31 meeting
are provided on attachment 2.
The expected result from this meeting would be the council 's.
tentative endorsement of the draft and identification of desired
changes, for the subject topics: The Planning Commission found
it useful to break the whole update effort into a series of
topics, address them in sequence, and then have a wrap-up session
to reconcile conflicts which arose from preliminary actions on
specific topics, and to reconsider "the big picture. " The
council may want to try a similar approach.
Again, this whole series of meetings is intended to produce a
draft which can serve as "the project" for purposes of '-preparing
an environmental impact report (EIR) . Once the EIR is done, it
and the draft element will return for another round of hearings
by the Planning Commission and the City Council, leading to
adoption.
I /
��iulllllli I�����Il►►iiill�ll�� city of s...r, �Uls OBispo
C.A.O. SPECIAL REPORT
Land Use Element Update Page 2
The schedule for the next three meetings is as follows:
August 28 - Housing and neighborhoods draft and
circulation element briefing;
September 25 - Commercial and industrial, special design
areas (including airport area) ;
October 9 - Downtown, public and cultural facilities,
resource protection, and map designations for
areas not previously addressed during topic
discussions.
Attachments
1. Draft LUE: pages 3-21
2. Follow-up/consensus from July 31 meeting
2
V—
Land Use Element U j. .ai%. :l"ng Commission Draft
SAN LUIS OBISPO'S VISION
The general plan aims to preserve and display the natural scenic beauty of our city
and the surrounding countryside. It aims to sustain and strengthen the sense of safety
and community created by a town that has a comprehensible scale, where people
know each other and where their voices can be heard. The general plan aims to
nurture the active cultural life of the community and honor our historical heritage.
The purpose of the planning process is to increase .the quality of life for all the
residents of San Luis Obispo.
AA
ATTACHMENT 1
gm D: LUE-VIS.WP 3
Land Use Element Update Hanning Commission Draft
[reserved for illustration]
' _ y
gmD: LUB-VIS.WP 4
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
COMMUNITY GOALS
Goals describe desirable conditions. In this context, they are meant to express the
community's preferences for basic future directions. In the goal statements, "San Luis
Obispo" means the community as a whole, not just the city as a municipal
corporation.
Approach to planning San Luis Obispo should:
1. Choose its future, rather than let it happen. San Luis Obispo should be
proactive in implementing its vision of the future, and should work with other
agencies and institutions to create our mutual future.
Environment San Luis Obispo should:
2. Protect and enhance the quality of air, water, and open space. r.
3. Sustain and, where it has been degraded, enhance wildlife habitat on land
surrounding the city, at Laguna Lake, along creeks,..and on open hills.and
ridges within the city, so that diverse, native plants, fish, and animals can
continue to live within the area.
4. Protect public views of the surrounding hills and mountains. im.
5. Recognize the importance of farming to the economy of theltva and prote5k
agricultural land from development and from incompatible uses. r n•,pAl
6. Protect natural landforms and features in and near the city, such asthe
volcanic morros, hillsides, marshes, and creeks.
l�t,:'.P.�.'14VF- F'r'y ;. i � V l �Q„r,•••y�..@'ri;+l+',s..::'`°
Society & economy San Luis Obispo should: V
7.A Provide high quality public services, ensuring that demands do not exceed - 2,
resources./f / .!
8. Do all it can to assure that increases in employment) and college enrollfnent do
not outpace housing availability. -- —'' -
9. Accommodate residents within all income groups in proportions similar to the
whole county.
10. Preserve existing housing which is affordable to low-income and moderate-
income residents.
gm D: LUE-GOLS.WP 5 '/
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
11. Actively seek ways to provide housing which is affordable to low-income and -
moderate-income residents, within existing neighborhoods and within expansion
areas.
12. Encourage opportunities for elder care and child care within the city.
13. Enrich community cultural and social life by accommodating people with
various backgrounds, talents, occupations, and interests.
X14 Provide a resilient economic base, able to tolerate changes in its parts without
= ' overall harm to the community.
15. Have developments bear the costs of resources and services needed to serve
them, except where the community deliberately chooses to help pay in order to
achieve other community goals.
16. Provide for high quality education and access to related services such as
museums, art galleries, public art, and libraries.
17. Be the focus of the county's government, entertainment, cultural, and
specialized retail and medical services.
18. Provide a wide range of parks and sports and recreational facilities for all
residents' enjoyment. I C
19. Retain accessible and responsive local government.
City form San Luis Obispo should:
20. Maintain th town's character as a small, safe, comfortable place to live, and
maintain its rii ae setting, with extensive open land separating it from other
urban development.
21. Maintain existing neighborhoods and assure that new development occurs as
part of a neighborhood pattern.
22. Keep a clear boundary between the to,and the countryside.
23. Grow gradually outward from its historic center until its ultimate boundaries
are reached.
24. Foster an awareness of past residents and ways of life, and preserve our
heritage of historic buildings and places.
25. Develop buildings and places which will contribute to our architectural heritage.
26. Develop buildings and places which complement the natural landscape and the
fabric of neighborhoods.
gm D: LUE-GOLS.WP 6 /�
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
27. Focus its government and cultural facilities downtown, and provide a variety of
business services and housing there.
28. Be a safe and pleasant place to walk and ride a bicycle, for recreation as well
as for commuting and doing daily errands.
gm D: LUE-GOLS.WP
Land Use Element Update elanning Commission Draft
[reserved for illustration]
gmD: LUF.GOLS.WP 8
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Introduction
�� wtir o lowing policies and programs offer more
specific guidance on these topics. ter sections, dealing with parts of the city and
with land-use categories, give more detailed direction on preserving neighborhoods
and designing new development.
POLICIES
Growth rates and balance
1.1 The city should manage its growth and influence regional growth so that:
A. Adequate facilities and services can•be provided in pace with
development
B. The natural environment will be protected
C. Residents' opportunities for direct participation in city government and
their sense of community can continue.
Yv� ,
J D. The gap between housing demand (due to more jobs and college
enrollment) and supply is not increased
12 The city's housing supply shall grow no faster than one percent per year. The
number of jobs in the city should increase slower than the housing supply, so
jobs and housing approach a closer balance. This element establishes a final
city edge and an ultimate population capacity.
Costs of growth
13 New development shall pay for itself. The costs of facilities needed to serve
new development should be borne by the new development, unless the
community chooses to help pay the costs for a certain facility to obtain
community-wide benefits.
gmD: LUE-GRIMNMP 9 l
PLANNING AREA
FIGURE 1
********SAN LUIS OBISPO URBAN RESERVE LINE
ir
a\: }
V
\ r i
2 � Tir l �s
l' Y
MORROW h i�arx, 5
SAY
�
fa �x
Y .. p x .xx .S - O •i
av4.i a �v�"^ta�a°� >a"a YE�i�tk �I KZ�"av � lx l- '•� lea ~
BAy��
S 1�00D `F we xna�y:. 717.yr'arpr �' ✓ ♦ a 3r ;A"'�•
LAS OSO
� va r > y � t\ �✓, x ,ca`"u\l ,r ���. � a`tw i9s�.' � .�' pt s,$`1
♦ I J vy r i E. i > a tied:�2 a �i'a� � _ Sid Yx aw,'uT.sN 3 nv, +
IPA
l -ai y, '..x ,F ,(t ati\ ♦ �y�( l 'Sfo `.`L• i Z rr w /9
y/�RR^• i<aa.y � ii\•�SEx ����fs�till .a x4'Y��A�..t�r 2bL�����'b�y,�,,.�'ka,Ft�gt R M �
9/D�i > �`e r�`��� twNNR�..�, �.s` .�,�e•o�haj�,.v, ��tRx' S. ..«t r .v�vQ_C_
• V :Y •baa \
C
DAVENPORT HILLS '
RIDGE
AV I LA ry��
m
i'
PISMO 014,7
BEACH
PACIFIC Ah, °
OCEAN N Q�
NO SCALE 10
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
Setting and.planning area
1.4 Broad open spaces should separate the city from nearby urban areas. The
boundary between San Luis Obispo's urban development and surrounding open
land should be clear. Development just inside the boundary shall provide
measures to avoid a stark-appearing edge between buildings and open land.
Such measures include: using new or existing groves or windrows of trees, or
hills or other landforms, to set the edge of development; increasing the
required side-yard and rear-yard setbacks.
1.5 The city's planning area should extend to:
The ridge of the Santa Lucias (Cuesta Ridge) on the north and east;
The southerly end of the Edna Valley (northern Arroyo Grande Creek.
watershed boundary) on the southeast;
The ridge of the Davenport Hills on the southwest, and the ridge of the Irish
Hills on the west;
The village boundary of Baywood - Los Osos, the urban reserve line of Morro
Bay, and the northern boundary of the San Bernardo Creek watershed
on the northwest.
(Figure 1 shows the planning area boundaries.)
OCity size and expansion
1.6 The city shall have an urban reserve line containing the area around the city
where urban development might occur. Land within this line should be
developed with urban uses according to city-approved plans, consistent with this
element.
1.7 Expansion areas adequate for growth consistent with these policies should be
- designated within the urban reserve line (Figure 2). �)
1.8 Expansion areas should be kept in agriculture or other open-space uses until
urban development occurs, unless a city-approved specific plan provides for ,pd
other interim uses. -Undeveloped;prime-agricultural-1 -r` '
_urbaa-reserve-line sit be permanently preserved_forr.-agric__gq!;al-i�se,� ,,-TV'
Greenbelt
1.9 Within the city's planning area and outside the urban reserve' line, undeveloped
land should be kept open and prime agricultural land, and potentially
productive agricultural land, should be protected for farming. Scenic lands,
sensitive wildlife habitat, and undeveloped prime agricultural land should be
permanently protected as open space.
gm D: LUE-GRNIN.WP 11
owl
L.. ML
�
■W-2
fir■r: Etr■i � ' ,.�r
rC.LLILIL iii bwll .
,. IA
-------
• : � • . - -
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
A. Appropriate open space uses include: watershed; wildlife habitat; grazing;
cultivated crops; parks and outdoor recreation, not involving so much
building, lighting, paving, or use of vehicles on-site that rural character is
lost; and homesites surrounded by land of sufficient size and
appropriately located with respect to topography and vegetation to
maintain the open character.
B. Allowed parcel sizes should be no smaller, and the number of dwellings
allowed on a parcel should be no more, than designated by the 1989
San Luis Obispo County Land Use Element, with this exception: When
(1) all new dwellings will be clustered in accordance with Table 1; (2)
the area outside the cluster is permanently protected as open space`,
and (3) agricultural easements are placed on prime agricultural lands
outside the cluster.
• Open space is to be preserved either by dedication of permanent easements
or transfer of.fee ownership to the city, the county, or a responsible, nonprofit , B VL)
conservation organization. Areas in preserves should include public access,
controlled to protect the natural resources, to assure reasonable security and
privacy of dwellings, and, to. allow continuing agricultural operations.
TABLE 1
RESIDENTIAL CLUSTERING FOR OPEN SPACE PROTECTION
Minimum non- Minimum site area to Minimum overall Minimum
cluster parcel be open space, outside site area per lot area
size (acres) cluster (percent) dwelling (acres) (acres)
20 80 10 OS
30 80 15 1
40 -85 20 1
80 90 25 1
160 95 40 2.5
320 or more 95 60 2.5
There is a 180-acre parcel in an area where county rules allow parcels of at least 40
acres. Under existing county rules, with no clusterin& there could be four parcels, each
with two houses (the houses on a parcel could not be separately owned). The parcels
would range from 40 to 60 acres each. There would be no permanent open space
protection (the owners could ask the county to change its ncles, to allow further
subdivision). With clustering, there could be nine separately owned dwellings, each on a
parcel as small as one acre. The cluster of building sites could occupy up to 27 acres,
and the area permanently preserved as open space (no further subdivision) would be 153
acres.
gm
D: LUE-GIMN.W 13 ' '�
Land Use Element-CJpuate . canning Commission Draft
C. Cluster development shall:
(1) Be set back at least 150 feet from public roads; ti
(2) Be screened from public views by landforms or landscaping;
(3) Be located on other than prime agricultural land and be situated
to allow continued agricultural use;
(4) Prohibit building sites and roads within stream corridors and other
wetlands, on ridgelines, rock outcrops, or visually prominent or
steep hillsides, or in the habitat of rare or endangered plants or
animals;
(5) Preserve historic or archaeological resources.
D. Commercial development shall not occur, unless it is clearly incidental to
and supportive of agriculture or other open-space uses.
E. All new buildings and structures should be subordinate to and in
harmony with the surrounding landscape.
F. Continuous wildlife habitat --corridors free of human disruption-- shall be
preserved and, where necessary, created.
G. Significant trees, particularly native species, shall be preserved.
Annexation and services
1.10 The city shall not provide city water or sewer services to new areas:
A. Outside the city limits;
B. Outside the urban reserve line;
C. Above elevations reliably served by gravity-flow in the city water-system;
D. Below elevations reliably served by gravity-flow or pumps in the city .
sewer system
However, the city should continue to serve those parties having valid previous
contracts with the city.
1.11 Annexation should be used as a growth management tool, both to enable
appropriate urban development and to protect open space. Areas within the
urban reserve line which are to be developed with urban uses should be
annexed before urban development occurs. The city may annex an area long
before such development is to occur, and the city may annex areas which are
to remain permanently as open space. A major, expansion area may be
annexed in phases, consistent with the city-approved specific plan for the area.
1.12 Before land is annexed for anticipated development, the city should adopt a
plan for land uses, roads, utilities, the overall pattern of subdivision, and
financing of public facilities for the area to be annexed. For each expansion
area where a major annexation should occur, a specific plan should be adopted
gmD: LUE-GRNINMP 14 1 � f �'
Land Use Element Lr..a�_ . A, Commission Draft
for the whole area before any part of it is annexed. For each minor
a anneration (see policy 1.14), the plan may be a specific plan] development plan
under "PD" zoning, or similar development plan covering the entire area.
1.13 Actual development in an annexed area may be approved only when the city
can provide adequate services for the annexed area as well as for existing and
potential development elsewhere within the city, except as explained in Policy
1.14-
1.14 The city may approve a minor annexation even if the city cannot provide
adequate water and sewer service to all existing and potential development
within the city, if the minor annexation meets criteria A through F below. The
principal purpose for allowing such annexations is to establish a permanent
greenbelt surrounding the city. Such an annexation must:
A. Be adjacent to already-developed land which is inside the city;
B. Be outside major expansion areas;
C. Have fewer than 25 acres for urban development, including building lots,
roads, parking and other paved areas, and setbacks required by zoning;
D. Have fewer than 40 dwellings;
QE. Conform with hillside planning standards (see page ,55);
F. Permanently preserve open space which is each of the following:
(1) equal to at least four times the area to be developed;
(2) within the annexed territory or elsewhere;
(3) consistent with this element;
(4) dedicated in fee or perpetual easement;
Note: The city may require more than the indicated amount of open
space if doing so would meet the intent of this policy. For example, a
more logical edge to the greenbelt may be achieved by protecting a
larger open space area, by extending the open space to a ridgeline or
other feature.
G. Avoid increased demand for city water supplies, either by using an on-
site source proven to supply at least twice the expected water use of the
proposed development, or by making water-use reductions within
developed areas of the city equal to twice the expected water use of the
proposed development.
1.15 The city council may exempt a minor annexation from meeting one or more of
criteria A through F in policy 1.14, if it determines that the annexation would
provide other, compensating public benefits which would outweigh the inability
to meet the criteria. Examples of such compensating benefits are listed below.
gmD: LUE_GRMN.WP 15 .�
� f
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
If the city has adopted a development moratorium due to water supply limits, a -
minor annexation cannot be exempted from requirement G (to not increase
water demand or to offset water demand).
A. Provides open space at least six times the developed area;
B. Provides open space smaller than four times the developed area, but of
exceptionally high value to the community, such as archaeological sites,
high-quality wildlife habitat, natural landmarks, places with outstanding
recreational potential, or other open lands which the community desires
to preserve and which are vulnerable to imminent development;
C. Provides at least one-half the number of proposed dwellings at prices
affordable to low-income people, and managed by a public or nonprofit
agency,
PROGRAMS
Residential growth management
1.1 The city will prepare specific plans for the major expansion areas, using its
staff and consultants as needed. Costs of preparation will be paid by land
owners, or will be recovered through assessments on development within the
specific plan areas, or both.
All specific plans for expansion areas will include provisions for phased
development of housing, consistent with population-growth policies, and taking
into account expected residential development within the 1990 city limits.
Citywide, the .number of dwellings will increase by not more than three percent
during any three-year period. After the year 2000, the citywide growth rate will
gradually decline, until the urban reserve. capacity is fully used sometime
around 2020.
Though there may be some overlap in the periods of development of the three
major residential expansion areas, the city prefers to complete one
neighborhood before beginning another. The sequence of development of the
areas will be decided based on the affordability of dwellings, and other public
benefits, primarily open space. The area committing to development of the
largest number of dwellings affordable to low-income or moderate-income
residents would be developed first, with open space dedication or other public
benefits used to decide the order if two or three areas offer substantially the
same housing affordability. The anticipated intervals for the expansion areas'
development are: first area, 1991 - 2000; second area, 2001 - 2010; third area,
2011 - 2020.
gmD: LUE-GRMN.WP 16
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
- + TABLE 2
CITY POPULATION GROWTH
Year Number of dwellings Number of People
1990 17,800 41,300
2000 19,700 45,700
2010 21,700 50,300
2020 23,400 54,300
Nonresidential growth management
12 The city will adopt regulations to manage growth of new office, commercial,
and industrial uses, according to Table 3, to help balance employment
expansion and residential expansion. The regulations would not apply to
changes in employment levels within existing facilities, to replacement or minor
expansion of existing facilities, or to public agencies.
t -
TABLE 3
NONRESIDENTIAL GROWTH RATES
Period Maximum employment growth
(annual percentage increase)
1991 - 2010 0.75
2011 - 2020 0.50
13 The city will consider rezoning vacant, suitably located office, commercial, and
industrial land for residential use. [Several of the "special design" areas are
candidates. See page 39.]
1.4 The city will consider changing its zoning standards for office, commercial, and
industrial land to reduce allowed intensities of development, except for certain
parts of the downtown.
1.5 The city will try to influence the expansion plans of government agencies so
their employment expansion will not exceed the desired nonresidential growth
rates. [Efforts to slow overall county growth would reduce pressures for
expansion of population-serving agencies in S.L.O.; see 1.9 below.]
gmD: LUEGRMN.wP 17 ` /t
Land Use Element-Update Planning Commission Draft
Regional planning
1.6 The city will encourage regional planning throughout the county. Specific steps
to do so include:
A. Advocating an annual conference of decision-makers, to discuss regional
issues, and hosting an initial session.
B. Helping to prepare a summary of the land-use plans of all agencies in
the county, showing areas designated for urban, rural, and open-space
uses, and tabulating the capacities for various kinds of uses.
1.7 The city will discuss with other jurisdictions the desirability of forming a
countywide planning group. This group would be composed of representatives
of the county and each city. It could establish a regional plan, to define urban
and rural areas and approximate capacities for different types of uses.
1.8 The city will help establish a procedure for all jurisdictions in the county to
formally review local projects and general-plan amendments that could have
countywide impact
1.9 The city will advocate a regional growth-management program, which should
include:
A. Population growth no faster than the statewide average growth rate for
the preceding year, and no faster than can be sustained by available
resources and services, whichever is less.
B. No significant deterioration.in air quality, due to development activities
for which local government has approval.
C. Voter approval for any change in designation or significant increase in
development potential for land in the unincorporated area designated
sensitive, open space, agriculture, or rural.
D. Plans for large residential developments to include a range of housing
types to provide opportunities for low- and moderate-income residents.
1.10 The city will seek county Board of Supervisors approval amending the county
Land Use Element to make it consistent with this element, within San Luis
Obispo's planning area. The city will work with the county during the update
of the county's plan for the San Luis Obispo planning area.
1.11 The city will pursue a memorandum of understanding between the city and
county governments, assuring that neither agency will approve a substantial
amendment to its plan for San Luis Obispo's planning area without the
concurrence of the other. The key feature of the agreement would be the
city's acceptance of the planned amount of growth and the county's agreement
to not allow urban development within the planning area but outside the city.
gmD: LU&GRMN.WP 18 \
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
Rural areas and open-space planning
1.12 The city will pursue a wide range of means to protect the surrounding open
lands, including: agreements with the county; annexations; zoning; acquisition of
fee title, open space easements, or development rights; agricultural preserve
contracts with tax reductions; transfer of development rights; and cluster
development.
1.13 The city will aggressively pursue sources of revenue for open space purchase
and protection. Such revenue will augment and extend the effectiveness of
traditional tools for open space protection (such as zoning) and deal with some
of the equity issues of land-owner compensation. The city will explore all
potential funding sources, including general obligation bonds, sales tax increase,
property transfer tax, assessment districts, tax incentives, and state and federal
loans and grants. The city will advocate countywide planning and funding for
open space protection.
1.14 The city will prepare, incorporate into the general plan, and seek county
concurrence for a refined land-use map applying to the city's planning area
outside the urban reserve. The map will show:
A:- Areas toube. kept.in permanent open ,space, including scenic lands,
sensitive wildlife habitat, and undeveloped prime agricultural land.
B. Existing uses other thanopen space, relatively far from the city's urban
reserve line, which may be maintained but which should not be
expanded or made more intense, including institutional uses such as
California Men's Colony, Camp San Luis Obispo, and Cuesta College,
and scattered residential and commercial developments.
C. Existing uses other than open space which may be considered for
inclusion within the urban reserve line during the ten-year updates of
this element, such as nearby groups of rural homesites;
D. Any existing uses other than open space which should be changed,
relocated, or removed to allow restoration of the natural landscape or
agricultural uses.
[Decision on program concerning specific-plan and zoning standards for development
at city edge was deferred (setbacks/screening for transition between development and
open land).]
gmD: LUF GRMN.WP 19
Land Use Element Update Planning Commission Draft
Air quality
� V
1.15 The city will take these steps to protect air quality, in cooperation with the
county Air Pollution Control District:
A. The city shall consult with the Air Pollution Control District on all
significant development.
B. The city will support development of an updated Air Quality Attainment
and Maintenance Plan and programs. The city will support preparation
of a model to evaluate air-quality impacts of growth under adopted plans
and of proposed amendments to plans. If measures to offset significant
air-quality impacts of growth cannot be found and adopted, the city will
amend this plan to reduce its development capacity and will encourage
other jurisdictions to reduce theirs, so that air quality will not deteriorate
unacceptably because of growth.
C. The city would consider raising planned capacities only if measures
effective in protecting air quality are adopted.
D. To assure that growth experienced before adoption of the air quality
plan will not significantly contribute to air quality deterioration, the city
will require measures to offset air pollution resulting from growth.
Where possible, these measures will be incorporated into plans for new
developments. The measures include:
(1) Serve bus routes more frequently, or run shuttles between primary
points of origin and destination;'
(2) Reduce bus fares;` .
(3) Require large employers to carry out specific means of reducing
employee trips (car and van-pooling, limited parking, staggered
work hours, employee transit passes, compressed work-week,
bicycle locker facilities, showers);*
(4) Accelerate imposition of more stringent stationary-source standards
of the Air Pollution Control District, such as vapor recovery
systems for gas pumps at service stations.
E. The city will impose a fee on new development to fund the study and to
help fund the interim mitigation measures.
• See the Circulation Element update for additional discussion of transit and of
traffic demand-management strategies.
20
gmD: Lli&GR.MN.WP
Land Use Element Update planning Commission Draft
F. The city will investigate the feasibility of commuter-train operations
connecting San Luis Obispo with north-county and south-county
communities, along the eidsting Southern Pacific line.'
G. The city will advocate that nearby major employers and institutions carry
out trip reduction programs, including restrictions on, and alternatives to,
car access for Cal Poly and Cuesta College.'
Public services and facilities financing
1.16 The city will adopt a development-fee program and other appropriate financing
measures, so that new development pays its share of the costs of new services
and facilities needed to serve it.
O
See the Circulation Element update for additional discussion of transit and of
traffic demand-management strategies.
gmD: LU&GRMN.WP 21 y
Land Use Element Update `Planning Commission Draft
[reserved for illustration]
grnD: LUSRES.WP 22
LUE UPDATE
MEETING OF JULY 31:
CONSENSUS/FOLLOW-UP
1. The schedule outlined in the staff report should be followed.
Any follow-up actions/issues concerning the various "groups"
of topics scheduled on a given date should be dealt with after
we proceed through the four identified meeting dates. The
purpose of this approach is to stick to the four dates
currently scheduled so that the public can rely on various
matters being taken up at a set time. Obviously, ,there may
be some "fine tuning" to our process as we get into the actual
LUE update; however, our goal should be to follow the approach
outlined above.
2. The Council agreed that a briefing on the Circulation Element
would be beneficial. The briefing should focus on information
sharing and not on the merits of the draft Circulation
Element. Councilmembers were concerned that the City Council
not convey "direction" to the Planning Commission at this
early phase. This briefing will be planned for a one-hour
segment on August 28
3. Councilmembers agreed to a process of sharing questions in
writing in advance of a given LUE study session. The purpose
-.J of sharing questions is to facilitate better discussion and
understanding of the perspectives and concerns of
Councilmembers. These questions are to be shared about one
week in advance of the study session. They will be helpful
to staff in terms of understanding individual Council
interests and information needs; however, the Council does not
expect written staff responses to these questions.
4. The Council wishes to pursue the preparation of a joint EIR
with the County, if possible. Please keep Council apprised
of the feasibility of a joint effort as we proceed through the
LUE update.
5. Council requested that staff schedule a joint site tour with
County officials. The tour should focus on the "southern"
part of the City, including the airport area. It would also
be appropriate to visit other areas of common concern.
6. Councilwoman Pinard will share with staff technology that can
graphically present various land use scenarios, including what
the City will look like under various build-out plans. Please
evaluate this information upon receipt with respectto cost
and feasibility.
ATTACHMENT 2
7. The Council voted to have the Planning Commission continue to
process the applications for the three projects pending in
the vicinity of the intersection of Broad Street and Orcutt
Road. Completion of action on these applications will not be
tied to final Council action on the draft Land Use Element.
The Council also voted to proceed with the processing of the
Dalidio specific plan. Current Council policy defers hearings
on applications for annexation until adoption of the revised
and updated General Plan Land Use Element. Consistent with
that policy, staff and the Planning Commission are to work
with the property owner and their representatives to refine
the specific plan proposal without actually processing
alternative land use proposals for the property which will be
available to the Commission and Council during future review
and adoption of the Land Use Element.
KH:mc
b3ftdbloa2
�.J
- Vr-":TING AGENDA
DtiiE =LL
-- ITEM # I
MPA
MORRO PLANNING Ln action by Lead Person
7 August 1990 ASSOCIATES �
Members of the City Council San Luis Obispo990 Palm Street ,San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 /�RE: Commercial Growth Rate and a potential regional Shopping Center
Dear Council Members:
I want to thank you on behalf of the Dalidio Family for your majority vote to consider alternative
urban uses for the Dalidio annexation area.
I want to assure the Council that we are actively exploring an expanded regional shopping center
that will integrate with the existing Central Coast Plaza and provide a more efficient overall center
and potential for including such anchors as the J. C.Penny AAA store. This effort will also
include examination of a new interchange with Highway 101 and related improvements to the area.
In discussing this regional center with interested parties,it became apparent that a minimum of
twenty-five acres is needed and they would like to use up to 40 acres of land for the demand that
exists in the San Luis area Any center of even the smaller magnitude brings into sharp focus the
commercial growth management component of the General Plan Update that is under review,I
believe,at your next study session on August 14.
Each of the major anchor stores requires between 100,000 and 120,000 square feet of gross
leasable area,and the infill shops another 60,000 square feet. Obviously limiting commercial
growth to the proposed 20,000 square feet year in the City(0.75% of existing commercial uses)
will be incompatible with a regional shopping center. For example, if half of the allocation were to
go to the center(10,000 square feet a year),it will take 25 to 30 years to even get the first phase of
the regional center built. This is a certain way to:Hake these stores go elsewhere and insure that
there will be mon:driving to Santa Maria with the attendant need for extra highway lanes and
added air pollution. There is also the additional problem that such a stretched out project timeframe
cannot fund such major improvements as the widening of Madonna Road or the addition of a new
interchange at Highway 1 U 1 and Prado Road. This type of activity requires major front end capital
commitments for improvements which do not lend them selves to phasing.
In conclusion,the commercial phasing concept as proposed is not compatible with development of
large commercial facilities,and must be deleted if the Council wishes to gain such a center and the
related sales tax income. I will be prepared to speak further with alternative suggestions on this
issue at the pleasure of the Council.
Sincerely, E I V i.
DASAMz
Andrew G. Merriam,AIA!A1CP
tri coMvctt,
Principal AAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
979 Osos Street. Suite C San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 543-7057 �D��DQ•�
Andrew G. Merriam. AIA. AICP Donald J. Funk AIP
AGENDA
(NED'ROGOWAY AICP DAT8 ITEM #
PLANNING SERVICES
1 llr
163 Main Street
3
Morro
orro Bay,California 93442
80 rr(
(805)772-5400(Fax)772-5650
0017;�TO:
August 13 , 1990
fl-d" CAR.
Ron Dunin, mayor, and the F] -A 0 n
San Luis Obispo City Council
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, California 93408
Re: Land Use Element of the General Plan
Dear Mr. Mayor and the Council:
We are the agents for Laguna Hill Estates, who are the
applicants for the Irish Hill -Golf Course development on Los Osos
Valley Road. We have reviewed the section of the proposed
amendments to the General Plan dealing with community goals and
growth management now before you. We would like to offer the
following comments:
We are generally pleased with the scope and direction of this
update. However, after carefully analyzing the proposed text, we
do have some specific concerns to which we would like to draw your
attention. For your convenience, we have prepared the attached
addendum which outlines these concerns.
We want you to know we appreciated the format proposed for
these Council meetings. we are convinced this method of handling
the complex subject of General Plan issues will allow open
discussion of the important issues that face the future of the
City.
Respectf submitted,
Ned RogowaeAI
Planning Service;
Agent for Laguna Hill Estates
Enclosure
cc: Laguna Hill Estates
Sinsheimer, Shi4ebelhut, and Baggett, Attorneys at Law
EDA, Inc.
nc/NAR/LHD.813
_J
AUG I -IJ
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS O::!SPO, CA
RECOMMENDATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY GENERAL PLAN
By Ned Rogoway, Planning Consultant
August 13, 1990
The City Council of San Luis Obispo will soon be considering
amendments to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. The
first session of this review.will concentrate upon Community goals
and Growth Management sections of a draft plan submitted and
recommended by the City Planning Commission. In this regard, I
would offer the following for the City's consideration:
Community Goals, #22: A softer, more pleasing visual transition
between urban and rural land uses on the periphery of the City
would provide a more practical and inviting approach to land use
planning. We would suggest the use of greenbelt concepts, as they
are defined in the Plan, be used in land development practices
around the edge of the urban fringe. Past development
requirements have led to sharp, harsh contrasts in land uses, as if
the city were to be walled; instead there should be a pleasant
visual transition when one enters the community. Hopefully, if the
O greenbelt concepts are properly used in planned developments and
more sensitive treatment of property development, the City can
build a complete perimeter of greenbelts around the City and
thereby create this softer transition.
Growth Management
Section 1.4: Although the text of this section supports our
position on softening the transition at the edge of the City, the
section almost contradicts itself. There seems to be conflicting
statements about the City's position within the text of the
section. we would suggest the Council firmly and clearly position
itself on a more moderated stand about open space and agricultural
land uses at the edge of the city. The objective of a softer
transition of land uses through prudent and sensitive treatment of
land development seems to be a better planning approach.
Section 1.9: Greenbelting should not be confused with the
preservation of rural and agricultural land. Although agriculture
is an appropriate land use within greenbelt concepts, greenbelting
is manmade, so to speak. It is the sensitive treatment of
development and the zoning of land where open spaces are intended
to be created. This section doesn't clearly define greenbelting
that way, rather the section almost supports the theory of the
preservation of rural land and agriculture as if that was
greenbelting. We would suggest the section be rewritten so as to
clearly define greenbelts as created open spaces through the use of
clustering, strategically placed park lands and open spaces,
permanent cropland, as well as other creative property development
concepts.
Section 1.13: The way this policy is stated, it would
discourage remedies to solve the water and other planning problems
and it would be punitive to those owners who happen to have
sufficient water to annex. We believe this policy to be unworkable
because it requires the owner to make up for water deficiencies of
other parts of the City. To force these kinds of policies upon
prospective annexing properties, hinders good planning practices
and prevents achievement of other beneficial goals such as needed
housing inventories and affordable housing. We would suggest that
if a policy of this type is necessary, do not use it as a hammer to
prevent development, rather make it realistic to the pending
property development. It would be advisable to eliminate that part
of the policy that requires the annexing owner to provide water for
"existing and potential development elsewhere within the . City".
Section 1.14: The minor annexation policy is a good policy
and gives a good basis for beginning the greenbelt ring around the
city's periphery. The greenbelt transition cannot be fulfilled if
the tools that generate the implementation applies just to minor
properties. We would strongly suggest that the general concepts
created in the minor annexation policy apply to any property on the.
edge of the City. That is, any development proposed to annex be
required to design substantial greenbelt open spaces into their
development, to the satisfaction of the City. The development
needs to advance long range goals for housing, the
housing/employment ratio, infrastructure, and provisions for
resources. We do not think it is practical to set finite numbers
on the standards for .larger parcels, such as minimum numbers of
units, acres of development, and the amount of open space. The
judgement about what constitutes proper fringe area development
should be a planning decision made by the approving body.
Programs
Section 1.1: We believe the City must be responsible to
fulfill its housing inventory share. There are several areas where
the. City has not reached goals set for each jurisdiction by the
Area Council as they apply to provisions for housing, air pollution
and employment/housing ratios. It is very commendable that the
City wants to use modern property development concepts, however the
City should not pick and choose the economic class of development
they .want when there is a countywide need to meet housing
inventories. The County has been anxious for the City to identify
areas where housing units can be accommodated. We believe the City
should work with the County to achieve housing goals and assume
fair share responsibility for accommodation.
Section 1.9-11: Voter approval of legislative acts is
unmanageable and should be eliminated from City policy. This type
of process often results in bad law that cannot be changed without
another vote of the people. Planning issues must be addressed
through the hearing process and adopted as legislative acts in the
manner prescribed by State Law and by Charter. Unenforceable
agreements between jurisdictions are unrealistic and abrogate the
responsibility of local governments, this only causes polarization.
nc/NAR/LHD.813
f�
=STING AGENDA
DATE —SLI—" ITEM #
MPA
MORRO PLANNING -k Denoias action b
y Lead Person
7 August 1990 aecPoad by:
13 ASSOCIATES „+"council
Members of the City Council ;'d',ao
r
San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street f7cle,tc-or;.1.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ile
1,54
RE: Commercial Growth Rate and a potential regional Shopping Center
Dear Council Members:
I want to thank you on behalf of the Dalidio Family for your majority vote to consider alternative
urban uses for the Dalidio annexation area.
I want to assure the Council that we are actively exploring an expanded regional shopping center
that will integrate with the existing Central Coast Plaza and provide a more efficient overall center
and potential for including such anchors as the J. C. Penny AAA store. This effort will also
include examination of a new interchange with Highway 101 and related improvements to the area.
In discussing this regional center with interested parties, it became apparent that a minimum of
twenty-five acres is needed and they would like to use up to 40 acres of land for the demand that
exists in the San Luis area. Any center of even the smaller magnitude brings into sharp focus the
commercial growth management component of the General Plan Update that is under review, I
believe,at your next study session on August 14.
Each of the major anchor stores requires between 100,000 and 120,000 square feet of gross
leasable area,and the infill shops another 60,000 square feet. Obviously limiting commercial
growth to the proposed 20,000 square feet a year in the City(0.75% of existing commercial uses)
will be incompatible with a regional shopping center. For example, if half of the allocation were to
go to the center(10;000 square feet a year),it will take 25 to 30 years to even get the first phase of
the regional center built. This is a certain way to crake these stores go elsewhere and insure that
there will be more driving to Santa Maria with the attendant need for extra highway lanes and
added air pollution. There is also the additional problem that such a stretched out project timeframe
cannot fund such major improvements as the widening of Madonna Road or the addition of a new
interchange at Highway 101 and Prado Road. This type of activity requires major front end capital
commitments for improvements which do not lend them selves to phasing.
In conclusion,the commercial phasing concept as proposed is not compatible with development of
large commercial facilities,and must be deleted if the Council wishes to gain such a center and the
related sales tax income. I will be prepared to speak further with alternative suggestions on this
issue at the pleasure of the Council.
Sincerely, �.ECEIVED
J�(Ci7
Andrew G. Merriam,AIA,AICP in coMvc�
i�
Principal SAN LUIS 0e1sao,cn
979 Osos Street. Suite C San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805J 543-7057
Andrew G. Merriam. AIA, AICP Donald J. Funk AIP
AGENDA
rMorro
NED ROGOWAY,AICP
PLANNING SERVICES WE �-20 ITEM #
1163 Main Street
M Mo C
orro Bay,California 93442
(805)772-5400(Fax)772-5650
copiE TO:
—T 0 FYI
071ES TO: r-7
I E]*I
.)enatc5Action
D'I
R.
August 13 , 1990 CAO
Ron Dunin, Mayor, and thece- !-o-'-Kzca
San Luis Obispo city council
P.O'. Box 8100 E 0 ic='. jG
San Luis Obispo, California 93408
Re: Land Use Element of the General Plan
Dear Mr. Mayor and the Council:
We are the agents for Laguna Hill Estates, who are the
applicants for the Irish Hill Golf Course development on Los Osos
Valley Road. We have reviewed the section of the proposed
amendments to the General Plan dealing with community goals and
growth management now before you. We would like to offer the
following comments:
We are generally pleased with the scope and direction of this
update. However, after carefully analyzing the proposed text, we
do have some specific concerns to which we would like to draw your
attention. For your convenience, we have prepared the attached
addendum which outlines these concerns.
We want you to know we appreciated the format proposed for
these Council meetings. We are convinced this method of handling
the complex subject of General Plan issues will allow open
discussion of the important issues that face the future of the
City.
Respectfully submitted,
Ned Rogoway, AICP
Planning Services
Agent for Laguna Hill Estates
Enclosure
cc: Laguna Hill Estates
Sinsheimer, Shiebelhut, and Baggett, Attorneys at Law
,EDA, Inc.
nc/NAR/LHD.813
CE VJ E Di:
AUG 1
CITY COUNCIL'
SAN LUIS oBisn,'CA
RECOMMENDATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY GENERAL PLAN
By Ned Rogoway, Planning Consultant
August 13, 1990
The City Council of San Luis Obispo will soon be considering
amendments to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. The
first session of this review will concentrate upon Community goals
and Growth Management sections of a draft plan submitted and
recommended by the City Planning Commission. in this regard, I
would offer the following for the City's consideration:
Community Goals, #22: A softer, more pleasing visual transition
between urban and rural land uses on the periphery of the City
would provide a more practical and inviting approach to land use
planning. We would suggest the use of greenbelt concepts, as they
are defined in the Plan, be used in land development practices
around the edge of the urban fringe. Past development
requirements have led to sharp, harsh contrasts in land uses, as if
the city were to be walled; instead there should be a pleasant
visual transition when one enters the community. Hopefully, if the
greenbelt concepts are properly used in planned developments and
more sensitive treatment of property development, the City can
build a complete perimeter of greenbelts around the City and
thereby create this softer transition.
Growth Management
Section 1.4: Although the text of this section supports our
position on softening the transition at the edge of the City, the
section almost contradicts itself. There seems to be conflicting
statements about the City's position within the text of the
section. We would suggest the Council firmly and clearly position
itself on a more moderated stand about open space and agricultural
land uses at the edge of the city. The objective of a softer
transition of land uses through prudent and sensitive treatment of
land development seems to be a better planning approach.
Section 1.9: Greenbelting should not be confused with the
preservation of rural and agricultural land. Although agriculture
is an appropriate land use within greenbelt concepts, greenbelting
is manmade, so to speak. It is the sensitive treatment of
development and the zoning of land where open spaces are intended
to be created. This section doesn't clearly define greenbelting
that way, rather the section almost supports the theory of the
preservation of rural land and agriculture as if that was
greenbelting. We would suggest the section be rewritten so as to
clearly define greenbelts as created open spaces through the use of
clustering, strategically placed park lands and open spaces,
permanent cropland, as well as other creative property development
concepts.
Section 1.13: The way this policy is stated, it would
discourage remedies to solve the water and other planning problems
and it would be punitive to those owners who happen to have
sufficient water to annex. We believe this policy to be unworkable
because it requires the owner to makeup for water deficiencies of
other parts of the City.. To force these kinds of policies upon
prospective annexing properties, hinders good planning practices
and prevents achievement of other beneficial goals such as needed
housing inventories and affordable housing. We would suggest that
if a policy of this type is necessary, do not use. it as a hammer to
prevent development, rather make it realistic to the pending
property development. It would be advisable to eliminate that part
of the policy that requires the annexing owner to provide water for
"existing and potential development elsewhere within the . City".
Section 1.14: The minor annexation policy is a good policy
and gives a good basis for beginning the greenbelt ring around the
city's periphery. The greenbelt transition cannot be fulfilled if
the tools that generate the implementation applies just to minor
properties. We would strongly suggest that the general concepts
created in the minor annexation policy apply to any property on the
edge of the City. That ,is, any development proposed to annex be
required to design substantial greenbelt open spaces into their
development, to the satisfaction of the City. The development
needs to advance long range goals for housing, the
housing/employment ratio, infrastructure, and provisions for
resources. We do not think it is practical to set finite numbers
on the standards for larger parcels, such as minimum numbers of
units, acres of development, and the amount of open space. The
judgement about what constitutes proper fringe area development
should be a planning decision made by the approving body.
Programs
Section 1.1: We believe the City must be responsible to
fulfill its housing inventory share. There are several areas where
the city has not reached goals set for each jurisdiction by the
Area Council as they apply to provisions for housing, air pollution
and employment/housing ratios. It is very commendable that the
City wants to use modern property development concepts, however the
City should not pick and choose the economic class of development
they . .want when there is a countywide need to meet housing
inventories. The County has been anxious for the City to identify
areas where housing units can be accommodated. We believe the. City
should work with the County to achieve housing goals and assume
fair share responsibility for accommodation.
Section 1.9-11: Voter approval of legislative acts is
unmanageable and should be eliminated from City policy. This type
of process often results in bad law that cannot be changed without
another vote of the people. Planning issues must be addressed
through the hearing process and adopted as legislative acts in the
manner prescribed by State Law and by Charter. Unenforceable
agreements between jurisdictions are unrealistic and abrogate the
responsibility of local governments, this only causes polarization.
nc/NAR/LHD.813
!( G AGENDA
DATE - , - 90 ITEM #
�►���II1Il11111111111111ll����QIIII ��►III ���I
city of sAn luis oaspo
,,.,r 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
August 14, 1990
MEMORANDUM
To: Councilmembers
From: Ron Dunin, Mayor -Are�
Subject: Suggested Format for Tonight's Study Session
To help us move through tonight's material, attached is a meeting
outline which I would like to use. Please contact me if you have
any comments or suggestions.
Attachment
C. City Administrative Officer
City Clerk
City Attorney
Community Development Director
rx _
I
LUE UPDATE•
SUGGESTED STUDY SESSION FORMAT
1. Summary of Prior Meeting Actions: Jonas/Matteson (5 minutes)
2. Overview of Study Session Tonics:* Matteson (15 minutes)
A. Vision Statement
,B. Community Goals
C. Growth Management
*Focus on differences between current and draft LUE
3. GENERAL Councilmember Comments: (15-20 minutes total; 3-4
minutes per member)
Opportunity for individual Councilmembers to share general
concerns and opinions (e.g. "things to think about" as Council
moves through the specific material)
4. SPECIFIC Review: (1 1/2 - 2 hours)
A. - Review by Entire Topic - Vision Statement
Review by Subheading - Community Goals; Growth
Management
B. Three Alternative Consensus Actions:
1. Consensus to Preliminarily Accept
2. Consensus to Revise - with specific suggestions
3. Consensus to Defer , pending further
information/analysis/consideration*
*Staff can maintain a list of deferred issues to be brought
back to Council after initial review of entire LUE draft
(after October 9) .
b3/lueup