“Compact Urban Form...Do We Really Mean It?”

May 2000 
 

The San Luis Obispo vision statement in the Preamble to the Adopted 1994 Land Use Element of the General Plan contains the following: "San Luis Obispo will maintain its healthy and attractive natural environment valued by residents, its prosperity, and its sense of safety and community, within a compact urban form."

Compact Urban Form is critical to our vision of the community, but what does that term imply? It implies higher density in the urban core and a gradual growth outward from the city’s historic center. It is intended to minimize sprawl, provide for efficient extension of city services, and create a city less dependent on the automobile, more easily served by buses and bikes, and more pedestrian oriented. If properly carried out, Compact Urban Form will provide this city with a strong "sense of place." I strongly support this vision of our city, and my actions on the City Council always have this as a primary consideration.

This vision carries with it many implications for the growing city. Higher density in the urban core means that we must allow older and smaller buildings in downtown to be replaced with taller and larger new ones. Our inefficient surface parking lots must be replaced with more efficient parking structures. Our streets and traffic controls must be improved to handle increased traffic flow for all forms of transportation in a denser city. As we grow outward from the core we must use the land efficiently, not leaving gaps of property that are not urban in nature, thus avoiding dreaded sprawl.

This brings us to a major issue the city has been dealing with for the past several years. How do you deal with prime agricultural land that is right in the path of a logical expansion of the city when it is following the vision of Compact Urban Form? - In this case the Dalidio Farm — What is the primary value here? Is preservation of highly productive prime agricultural land more important? Or is the city’s future better served by adhering to the Compact Urban Form concept, and avoiding sprawl by encouraging agricultural operations outside of the Urban Reserve Line? The issue is endlessly debated in recent years and is currently before us with the expansion of the Marketplace Shopping center and the Auto Center.

In adopting the Land Use Element and agreements for developing these areas, the city is taking somewhat of a middle ground, preserving for agriculture about half of the 180 Acres in the area and allowing the remainder to be developed. This naturally infuriates purists on either side of the issue. Most people aren’t completely satisfied, but maybe this compromise is the only way we can reasonably meet both concepts.

Were it my choice only, I would side with those who follow the principle of Compact Urban Form and develop all the area for urban uses (including some parks and habitat), relegating Agriculture to areas outside the Urban Reserve Line. My reasoning: Is this irreplaceable prime agricultural land? — No. Thousands of acres have been developed in recent years along I-5 in the San Joaquin Valley with the availability of state water for irrigation. Is there a shortage of Ag. Land for sustainability? No. San Luis Obispo is sustained largely by government jobs, Cal Poly, CMC, Cuesta College, Caltrans, Countywide schools, the County and City government. 100 Acres of more or less Agriculture in our city means little in our economy.

My biggest concern however relates to the utter incompatibility of Agriculture with the City which will eventually surround it. There are Ag-City conflicts with almost every Ag. Operation, from application of fertilizer and pesticides, to dust from plowing, mud on adjacent streets, to nighttime disturbance due to noise and lights. The county already has set such strict controls on the Dalidio farm that the family finally gave up trying to farm it themselves and has leased it out to a large experienced operator. As the city grows more densely around the farm, the conflicts and regulation will only get worse. We think of "Ag" as the vegetable crops now grown. How would we feel if the Ag. were grapes, or a dairy, or a chicken ranch, or a pig farm (remember Madonna’s threat), maybe a stockyard? In my view all those uses belong beyond the Urban Reserve Line where conflicts can be minimized.

I am saddened by those who oppose by every possible means the compromise worked out by the city to allow developing some of the Dalidio farm and the leaving of some in agriculture and natural habitat. A major risk taken by those so strongly opposed is that the applicant who is blocked with a city project will probably go the County for approvals (ala Froom Ranch). The projects might well be approved by the County without all the amenities (overpass, water rights, Ag land in perpetuity) demanded by the City. And we’d all be the loser.

While the development vs. Ag battle is being waged, our community is being deprived of a needed selection of shopping facilities, and our citizens are being deprived of the enhanced city services that could be provided with sales tax revenues lost to nearby cities.

The issue should be resolved within the next few months. Then we’ll see if our vision of Compact Urban Form really means anything.