HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-01-2014 PH1 Pre Application with San Luis Ranch
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared By: John Rickenbach, Consulting Planner & Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PRE-APPLICATION CONCEPTUAL MATERIALS FOR THE
PROPOSED SAN LUIS RANCH PROJECT, WHICH ENVISIONS A MIX OF
RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND OFFICE USES WHILE PRESERVING
OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURAL LAND ON THE 131.3-ACRE
PROPERTY (1035 MADONNA ROAD, FORMERLY KNOWN AS DALIDIO)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution addressing the following actions related to processing an application for the San
Luis Ranch project:
1. Approve Resolution initiating the application process for required General Plan
Amendments and associated entitlements; and
2. Approve Processing Memorandum of Understanding; and
3. Authorize staff to initiate discussions with applicant for a Development Agreement; and
4. Authorize staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to prepare an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the project.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission concurs with staff’s recommendation, with their comments described in
Section 7.0 of this staff report included for Council’s consideration.
SITE DATA
Applicant
Representative
Zoning
General Plan
Site Area
Environmental
Status
Coastal Community Builders
Marshall Ochylski
Would require pre-zoning for
Specific Plan
Specific Design Area (various
land use designations)
131.3 acres
Environmental Review to
begin upon project submittal
Meeting Date
Item Number April 1, 2014
PH1 - 1
Council Agenda Report – Pre-Application #203-13 San Luis Ranch – Application Initiation Request
Page 2
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The applicant is requesting authorization from the City Council to initiate processing an application
for the San Luis Ranch project, which includes several entitlements that would ultimately lead to
the development of the 131.3-acre property. The project would include a mixture of residential and
non-residential uses, although substantial portions of the site would be preserved in agricultural uses
or open space. Under a Specific Plan, up to 500 dwelling units could be built at various densities,
with up to 200,000 square feet of commercial, 150,000 square feet of office, as well as a 200-room
hotel and conference center. The project site is currently outside the City, but within its Sphere of
Influence, and would require annexation.
The project as conceptually proposed is envisioned to implement the draft policies as articulated in
the LUCE update. The following entitlements and reviews would be required to implement the
project:
1. General Plan Amendment/Pre-Zoning (being programmatically evaluated in the LUCE EIR)
2. Specific Plan
3. Development Agreement
4. Development Plan/Tentative Tract Map(s)
5. Architectural Review
6. Project Level Environmental Review (under the California Environmental Quality Act)
Future development on the site must address several
key environmental and planning issues, the most
notable of which include the following:
• Airport Land Use Plan Compatibility
• Agriculture and Open Space Preservation
• Flood Protection
• Traffic and Circulation
The City’s General Plan is currently in the process of
being amended to include and designate the project
site for the land uses envisioned under the proposed
project.
In addition to the Initiation proceedings, there are
several other actions before the Council related to
processing the project application. First, is approval of the Processing Memorandum of
Understanding; an agreement that provides the framework for the planning process and the
evaluation and implementation of fees and mitigation measures. Second, is the authorization to
begin discussions with the applicant for a Development Agreement to establish certain development
rights and developer commitment to construct and pay for certain amenities for the City’s benefit.
Lastly, the Council is being asked to authorize staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for
consultants to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to analyze environmental impacts of
the project.
PH1 - 2
Council Agenda Report – Pre-Application #203-13 San Luis Ranch – Application Initiation Request
Page 3
1.0 BACKGROUND
Site Overview
The 131.3-acre project site is located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, surrounded by
areas within the City of San Luis Obispo, and within the City’s Sphere of Influence, generally
bounded by Madonna Road, Dalidio Drive and U.S. Highway 101. Over time, land surrounding the
property has transitioned from agricultural to a variety of urban uses, including residential areas,
shopping centers and auto dealerships. With these changes, the project site is surrounded by
development. However, the site is also important for its historic agricultural use, and is highly
visible from Highway 101. Its visually sensitive location at a southern gateway to the City has led
to a policy to preserve a portion of the agriculture and open space on site, both to preserve views
and to maintain active and productive agriculture.
History of Development Proposals on the Site
The property has a long history, and has undergone extensive environmental review over the years,
with various approvals and denials, voter initiatives, and has been the focus of legal challenges. In
short, it has been a controversial location for potential development, not only because of its visual
prominence as a gateway to the City, but because of the conversion of active agriculture, and the
possible effects of development on character of the community as a whole as well as the potential
impact to downtown businesses. The site has been the subject of several Environmental Impact
Reports (EIRs) that examined previous plans on the site, and identified many potential impacts with
respect to a variety of issues. The recent site history includes the following major milestones,
which are useful to provide context to the current effort:
• 1994. The City Council determined that commercial growth should be allowed as infill on
half of the property, with the other half to be preserved as open space. This decision marked
the commencement of the Dalidio Marketplace project concept.
• February 2001. The City Council denied the Dalidio Marketplace proposal. The property
owner decided to propose a broader initiative to San Luis Obispo County to seek approval
under County jurisdiction. No County action was taken as the property owner decided to
continue working with the City on a potential annexation and project.
• June 2002. A new application was submitted to the City.
• July 2004. The Council certifies the EIR and approves the Annexation, Rezone, and Use
Permit.
• 2005. San Luis Obispo city voters in a referendum proceeding overturned the Annexation
and other legislative approvals: Measures A (General Plan Land Use Map) and B
(Annexation) were rejected by 51 percent of voters and Measure C (Development
Agreement) was rejected by 52 percent of voters.
• March 2006. The property owner proposed a revised "Dalidio Ranch Project" with the
intention of letting the residents of San Luis Obispo County vote to decide the project's fate.
This revision was submitted to the County as Measure J.
• November 2006. 65% of San Luis Obispo County voters approved Measure J.
• February 2007. Lawsuits were filed against the approved Measure J for Dalidio Ranch
Project.
PH1 - 3
Council Agenda Report – Pre-Application #203-13 San Luis Ranch – Application Initiation Request
Page 4
• February 2008. The San Luis Obispo County Superior Court overturned Measure J.
• August 4, 2009. The 2nd Court of Appeals in Ventura, California, reversed the Superior
Court’s ruling, upholding the validity of Measure J, which allows for the property owner to
seek entitlements under County jurisdiction.
• February 2014. The property owner wishes to submit a revised version of the project under
the jurisdiction of the City, an action that is not covered by Measure J.
Existing General Plan and Entitlements
The current General Plan envisions General Retail along Dalidio Drive, a small amount of Medium
Density Residential near Madonna Road, and that at least 50% of the property to remain in
Agriculture or Open Space.
Both the existing and proposed update to the City’s Circulation Element require substantial public
infrastructure improvements to be constructed as part of the development of the property, including
an extension of Prado Road as a Parkway Arterial from U.S. 101 to Madonna Road, a new
interchange at U.S. Highway 101 and Prado Road, the widening of Prado Road from Higuera Street
to U.S. 101, and various collector streets if necessary.
There are existing entitlements on the property for development in the County from a voter-
approved initiative, known as “Measure J”, but the proposed project envisions a slightly different
development pattern than envisioned under Measure J. The revised project would include more
housing, but less commercial square footage, with a slightly larger hotel. In other respects, the
development concepts are similar, including the preservation of substantial agricultural land on the
site. The project details are described in Section 2.0 of this staff report.
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
The proposed project concept is commonly referred to as San Luis Ranch. The applicant is
requesting input from the City Council on the proposal, which envisions a mix of residential,
commercial, and office uses while preserving substantial areas of open space and agriculture on the
131.3-acre Dalidio property. The project site is currently outside the City, but within its Sphere of
Influence, and would require annexation.
Project Applicant and Site Data
Table 1 summarizes basic information about the property, including current status relative to the City’s
General Plan and zoning, the applicant team, and key representatives involved in the project.
Table 1. Project Site Information and Representation
Site Area 131.3 acres
Assessor Parcel Number 067-121-022
Jurisdiction San Luis Obispo County (would require annexation to the City)
Relationship to City Within City Sphere of Influence; included in City’s General Plan
General Plan Designation Specific Plan (various land uses; would be revised in LUCE Update)
PH1 - 4
Council Agenda Report – Pre-Application #203-13 San Luis Ranch – Application Initiation Request
Page 5
Table 1. Project Site Information and Representation
Zoning Would require pre-zoning for Specific Plan
Project Applicant Coastal Community Builders
Applicant Representative Marshall Ochylski
Project Summary
Table 2 summarizes the major land use and development features of the proposed project:
Table 2. San Luis Ranch Development Concept
Land Use
Acreage
% of Project Area
Dwelling Units/Square Feet
Residential 46.3 35.2% Up to 500 units (includes
single- and multi-family)
Commercial 10.0 7.6% Up to 200,000 SF
Hotel and Convention Center 5.0 3.8% Up to 200 rooms
Office 5.0 3.8% Up to 150,000 SF
San Luis Ranch Organic Farm 33.5 25.5%
Organic Farm Learning Center 8.0 6.1%
Habitat/Open Space 15.0 11.4%
Roads 8.5 6.5%
TOTAL
131.3
100%
Land Use Concept
The preliminary concept reflected in this Pre-Application proposes a substantial alteration to the
uses entitled under Measure “J”. The new proposal includes more housing while reducing
commercial uses on the property. The residential portion of the property has increased from 60
Multi-Family homes to a mix of up to 500 low, medium and high-density residences.
Additionally, the previous Organic Agriculture feature will be replaced with an 8-acre Organic
Farm Learning Center. This learning center is a contiguous part of the remaining acres of
agricultural/open space provided on site. The site has been designed in such a way as to effectuate
the complete integration of this agricultural use with the adjoining SLO City Farm. The learning
center is proposed to function as not only a learning center for local residents, but also as an
opportunity to capitalize on the tourism economy and provide an “agri-tourism” destination. The
proposal includes additional open space/habitat in the vicinity of Prefumo Creek on the northwest
side of the site.
PH1 - 5
Council Agenda Report – Pre-Application #203-13 San Luis Ranch – Application Initiation Request
Page 6
Table 3 compares the proposed concept to what is already entitled in San Luis Obispo County under
Measure J, as well as proposed policies under the Land Use and Circulation Element Update (LUCE).
Note that the proposed policy framework envisioned under the LUCE is generally consistent with what
is currently being proposed (see Attachment 2 for excerpt from proposed LUCE addressing the project
site).
Table 3. San Luis Ranch Development Concept: Comparison to Measure J and Proposed LUCE Policies
Development
Parameters
San Luis Ranch (2014)
Measure J (approved in 2006
in County)
Proposed GP Policy
(Section 8.3.2.4; SP-2) *
Area 131.3 ac 131.3 ac 132 ac
Jurisdiction City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo County City of San Luis Obispo
Residential Up to 500 DU
Relies on use of California
Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook **
60 DU (multi-family) 350-500 DU
Commercial Up to 200,000 SF 530,000 SF 50-200,000 SF
Include Neighborhood
Commercial for residents
Outdoor Sales None 30,000 SF Not addressed
Office/High Tech Up to 150,000 SF 198,000 SF 50-150,000 SF
Hotel Up to 200 rooms 150 rooms (4 stories) 200 rooms
Parks None specified in concept
plan, but would include bike
trails and open space
2 Soccer fields
Trails
Farmers Market
Relocation of Structures
5.8-acre minimum
Open Space (including
agriculture and
habitat)
56.5 ac (onsite); 9 ac (offsite)
• 33.5-ac Organic Farm
• 8-ac Organic Farm
Learning Center
• allows for 66.5 ac of
contiguous ag (with 25-
acre SLO City Farm)
• 15 ac of open space for
habitat
Includes less open space than
currently proposed concept
65 ac (min 50% of site)
(Council may consider
allowing up to 10 acres of
required open space to be
met through off-site
dedication.)
* Existing (1994) GP includes no development parameters, but only states that half the 180-acre area (under three ownerships at that
time) must preserve at least half of the area in agriculture as it existed in 1994. Existing Land Use Map shows General Retail, Medium
Density Residential and Agriculture
** Under adopted ALUP, most of site is in Safety Area 1b, which allows only 0.2 DU/ac
Overall, the key features of the project concept include:
1. Affordable and entry level housing opportunities within the City;
2. Traditional neighborhood design integrated with adjacent open space amenities and
walkable safe streets and pocket park;
PH1 - 6
Council Agenda Report – Pre-Application #203-13 San Luis Ranch – Application Initiation Request
Page 7
3. Commercial areas intended to avoid
conflicting with those in downtown San
Luis Obispo;
4. Commercial space to accommodate
higher end shops, restaurants and
neighborhood retail stores;
5. High quality hotel and conference center
to accommodate tourism and business
functions, boosting the local economy;
6. High end visible office space to
accommodate medical, high-tech and green
technology users;
7. Organic Farm and Learning Center,
intended as an agri-tourism destination with
seasonal attractions and local goods serving
to promote the region’s agricultural richness
and support the local economy;
8. Preservation of agricultural land adjacent to the SLO City Farm property;
9. An important link to the Bob Jones Regional Trail;
10. An extension of Prado Road and Froom Ranch Road consistent with the City’s General
Plan; and
11. A fair-share financial contribution to the Prado Road/U.S. 101 interchange.
Project Concept Details
The major project components are described in greater detail below:
Multi-Family Residential
The multi-family residential component is located in the northwestern portion of the project site
adjacent to Madonna Road. This neighborhood will be connected to the project trail system and
contain recreational areas within. A local street through the multifamily area will serve the
neighborhood to the southeast as well.
Single-Family Residential
There will be a mix of alley-loaded lots and conventional front loaded lots ranging in size. The low
and medium density residential neighborhood is located in the center of the project area and
bordered by the extension of Froom Ranch Road on the south and the Open Space habitat to the
north. Many of the homes within the project are intended to be “work force” housing.
The architectural styles for the single-family residential will reflect the character of San Luis
Obispo in Craftsman, Bungalow, Ranch and Spanish style homes.
Commercial
The proposed Commercial area is located along Dalidio Drive/Prado Road extension adjacent to the
Madonna Plaza commercial center. The proposal includes a mix of shops with supporting ancillary
PH1 - 7
Council Agenda Report – Pre-Application #203-13 San Luis Ranch – Application Initiation Request
Page 8
retail and restaurant uses. The location of these uses is intended to serve the community needs, as
well as be convenient for tourists and travelers.
Office
The Office area is located north of the Prado Road extension adjacent Highway 101. It is intended
to provide for office uses such as medical and technology related companies. Access is proposed to
be taken from the Prado Road extension and through internal connections with the adjoining
commercial center.
Hotel/Conference Center
The Hotel/Conference Center is proposed to be an upscale facility with restaurant, conference
facilities and high end accommodations. The location of the hotel site affords highway visibility and
will access both Prado Road and the Froom Ranch Road frontages. The hotel site is located across
from the Organic Farm Learning Center and offers the potential to emphasize the agri-tourism
opportunities in and around the city. Additionally, being located in relative proximity to the
Embassy Suites facilities it offers convenient and expanded conferencing capacity to attract
business and tourist events to the city.
Open Space/Agriculture
The project would wrap agricultural and open space uses around the residential and commercial
neighborhoods on the site. Over 56 acres of open space will be provided on site including an
organic farm/learning center. Note that under the
proposed LUCE update, 65.6 acres would be required
to be preserved as agricultural land (see Table 3).
The applicant’s intent is to provide the remaining
required acreage offsite. (For further discussion of
this key policy issue, see Section 3.0 of this staff
report).
San Luis Ranch Organic Farm
The Organic Farm located adjacent to the SLO City
Farm is intended to provide the community with
agricultural resources along with a destination for
visitors and local residences that will emphasize the
region’s agricultural economy. The proposed hotel is
located adjacent to this facility.
Organic Farm Learning Center
The Organic Farm Learning Center is an agri-tourism destination with seasonal attractions and local
goods serving to promote the region’s agricultural richness and support the local economy.
Habitat/Open Space
The Habitat and Open Space located on the northwestern portion of the property serves as habitat
protection and as an amenity for city residents. Amenities will include an important link in the Bob
Jones Regional Trail as well as Monarch Butterfly viewing and other passive recreational
opportunities.
PH1 - 8
Council Agenda Report – Pre-Application #203-13 San Luis Ranch – Application Initiation Request
Page 9
Circulation
Street Network
The proposed circulation system would include a new road network of both collector and residential
streets and enhancement of the City’s existing street network and area mobility. This includes the
extension of Prado Road and the fair share
contribution to the Prado Road overcrossing
over Highway 101. It also includes the
extension of Froom Ranch Road to connect to
Prado Road serving regional traffic needs and
an offer of dedication for a 20’ Emergency
Access Easement between Froom Ranch Road
and Calle Joaquin.
Access to the residential area is provided on
the south from Froom Ranch Road and on the
north from Madonna Road. Access has been
designed to intentionally discourage “cut-
through” traffic in the neighborhood.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation
The proposed project addresses bicycle and
pedestrian mobility through the contribution of key links in the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan.
These include the Bob Jones Bike Trial, and the provision of a Class I Bike Trail adjacent to the
Prado Road extension.
The project would construct a segment of the Bob Jones Bike Trail by providing a key connection
from Laguna Lake area neighborhoods and businesses along Madonna Road to the southern portion
of the City Limits at Froom Ranch Way. San Luis Ranch would also include interior bicycle trails
and lanes, notably a Class I Bike Trail adjacent to the Prado Road extension, and Class II Bike
Lanes on the Froom Ranch Road extension. These facilities are consistent with the goals
established by San Luis Obispo’s 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan.
3.0 KEY ISSUES TO ADDRESS
As previously stated, future development on the site must address several key environmental and
planning issues, the most notable of which include the following:
• Airport Land Use Compatibility
• Agriculture and Open Space Preservation
• Flood Protection
• Traffic and Circulation
These are described in more detail below:
PH1 - 9
Council Agenda Report – Pre-Application #203-13 San Luis Ranch – Application Initiation Request
Page 10
Airport Land Use Plan Compatibility
The County’s Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP)
shows the Safety Area S-1b affecting a majority of
the project site. Safety Area S-1b severely restricts
residential density and precludes the opportunity
to provide reasonable housing opportunities on
site.
The City of San Luis Obispo has requested an
update to the existing Airport Land Use Plan to
accurately define and update safety boundaries.
The City has requested the Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) use the California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook, which is typically
the standard starting point for providing guidance and direction for Airport Land Use Plans across
the state. Under the Handbook guidelines, the zone affecting the site is Zone 4 and it allows for
housing where it was previously restricted. The following proposal relies upon the revised safety
zone designation for the provision of housing, a significant change to the ALUP, or a decision by
the City Council to override the existing Airport Land Use Plan. The scope of work for LUCE
Update EIR includes an evaluation of airport compatibility with the proposed land use plan for the
City. Any safety impacts that are identified through this process will be considered by the City
Council as part of its review of the EIR, including potential mitigation measures to reduce impacts
if they are identified.
Agriculture and Open Space Preservation
In both the adopted General Plan (1994) and the current Land Use Element update, it is the stated
intent of the City to preserve up to 50% of the Open Space/Agriculture on the Dalidio property. To
meet the General Plan requirements on site, 65.6 acres of the 131.3 acres being annexed into the
city would have to be dedicated as open space. The project proposes to meet this requirement
through preservation of open space both onsite and offsite. The current proposal includes 56.5 acres
of open space provided on site (almost 43%) with the remaining open space (approximately 9 acres)
to be provided at a mutually agreed upon high-priority off-site location that will add to the City’s
perimeter green belt or accomplish other critical open space needs.
The Council direction on the LUCE included consideration of an alternative in the EIR to allow up
to ten acres of the required open space to be met through off-site dedication, provided:
a. A substantial multiplier for the amount of open space is provided for the off-site
property exchanged to meet the on-site requirement; and
b. Off-site land is of similar agricultural and visual value to the community; and
c. Off-site land is protected through an easement, dedication, or fee title in perpetuity for
agriculture/open space.
PH1 - 10
Council Agenda Report – Pre-Application #203-13 San Luis Ranch – Application Initiation Request
Page 11
Flood Protection
The project site is located in a designated 100-year flood plain as determined by the Army Corps of
Engineers. Primary flood flows result from the overtopping of San Luis Obispo Creek and Prefumo
Creek. The water from San Luis Obispo Creek flows southward over Highway 101 and across the
site intersecting with water from Prefumo Creek at depths ranging from inches to over one foot. The
depth of flooding is not severe, but site grading and drainage must take into account the flood plain
conditions and accommodate the flood waters accordingly. The location of the open space
agriculture area provides opportunity for mitigation to the flooding concern.
Traffic and Circulation
The project site provides an important opportunity to complete several key citywide circulation
features. The most crucial of these is the extension of Prado Road, which the Circulation Element
calls for as a link to connect from east to west across the southern portion of the City. The project
would also be required to contribute its “fair share” to the construction of a new Prado Road/US 101
interchange. The Prado Road overpass is not in the City’s adopted fee program, and to that extent,
an update of the fee program will be required and the developer may have to fund a greater cost of
the facility under a development or reimbursement agreement until other funds are available. One
of the requirements under state law for a Specific Plan is to prepare a public facilities financing
plan.
The extension of Froom Ranch Road through the site is also important, and would provide an
additional access to the site from Los Osos Valley Road. The site also provides an excellent
opportunity to help complete major bicycle infrastructure, including the Bob Jones Trail.
Although these are likely the most crucial concerns facing the site, the EIR that will be required for
the project will examine a wide array of additional issues. Based on previous EIRs prepared for the
site, these additional issues may include, but not be limited to, the following:
• Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Geologic Hazards
• Water Quality
• Noise
• Biological Resources
• Aesthetics/Views
• Public Utilities
• Cultural Resources
4.0 SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
The existing General Plan requires a Specific Plan for the property, but provides relatively little
guidance on the development parameters for the site. It states that at least half of the 180-acre
Specific Plan area (which includes the current project site and two adjacent properties) must
preserve at least half of the area in agriculture as it existed in 1994. The existing Land Use Map
shows General Retail, Medium Density Residential and Agriculture within the area.
Under the LUCE update currently in progress, the City Council affirmed in a January 21, 2014
PH1 - 11
Council Agenda Report – Pre-Application #203-13 San Luis Ranch – Application Initiation Request
Page 12
meeting that the site would still require a Specific Plan, but that it would be limited to the 131.3-
acre Dalidio property rather than the larger 180-acre area shown in the existing General Plan. It
also endorsed policy direction and performance standards for further review generally consistent
with the project currently being proposed. The specific development parameters identified in the
draft LUCE are shown in Table 2 above. The relevant pages from the draft LUCE are attached to
this report (Attachment 2).
5.0 NECESSARY ENTITLEMENTS
The following entitlements and reviews would be required to implement the project:
1. General Plan Amendment/Pre-Zoning
2. Specific Plan
3. Processing Memorandum of Understanding (outlining a framework for process, fees, and a
methodology for determining a fair share for Prado Road improvements)
4. Development Agreement
5. Development Plan/Tentative Tract Map(s)
6. Architectural Review
7. Project Level Environmental Review (under the California Environmental Quality Act)
While the planning and CEQA process for this project would overlap with the LUCE Update, it is
assumed the LUCE will be adopted by the time this project would be considered by the Planning
Commission and City Council. Thus, the project will be evaluated with respect to its consistency
with the existing and proposed policies included in the LUCE. In the unlikely event that the LUCE
Update is not adopted before this project is considered for approval, the standard of review for the
project would be the existing General Plan.
6.0 PROCESSING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
The applicant team and staff have prepared a permit processing agreement due to the complex
nature of the project that entails multiple entitlements and actions prior to development, including
annexation, where the process may take a substantial amount of time. This agreement provides a
framework for the planning process and related activities with respect to the project application,
even conceptually describing a framework for evaluating and implementing fees and mitigation
measures. Attachment 3 includes the proposed Processing Memorandum of Understanding for this
project.
It should be noted that approval of this agreement in no way implies or obligates the Council to
approve the project. Instead, it provides the “ground rules” under which the project application will
be processed, and the conditions under which an annexation request would be taken to the San Luis
Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) should the project be approved. The
Processing Memorandum of Understanding also authorizes a Development Agreement application,
which if approved would bind the applicant to a series of specific conditions under which
development would be allowed, subject to approval of a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan,
and certification of related studies, and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
PH1 - 12
Council Agenda Report – Pre-Application #203-13 San Luis Ranch – Application Initiation Request
Page 13
In summary, the Processing Memorandum of Understanding is intended to achieve the following
objectives:
1. Develop a mutual understanding in terms of the planning process to ensure the orderly
development of the project;
2. Ensure a desirable and functional community environment;
3. Provide effective and efficient development of public facilities, infrastructure, and services
appropriate for the development of the project;
4. Assure the most effective use of resources within the City, and provide other significant
public benefits to City and its residents.
The Processing Memorandum of Understanding also describes a series of benefits the City would
receive if the project were approved. While these are stated in conceptual terms in this agreement,
they would be more fully articulated through the Specific Plan and Development Agreement, which
the City Council retains full discretion to approve or deny. Under the Processing Memorandum of
Understanding, the applicant would be committed to:
1. Implementing the City’s stated land use goals;
2. Dedicating and securing an Agricultural/Open Space easement on or off site;
3. Providing improved access to the project site and adjacent areas by participating in the
financing of Prado Road improvements;
4. Providing the City with anticipated increased sales and transient occupancy tax revenues;
5. Providing for entry level and affordable housing in furtherance of City’s inclusionary
housing goals;
6. Providing that a portion of the property be developed as a business park or such related use,
in support of the City’s further economic development; and
7. Providing for added hotel development with conference facilities.
If the project is approved, under the Processing Memorandum of Understanding, the City would
initiate annexation proceedings with LAFCo, as provided by Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local
Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code §§ 56000 et seq.; “Cortese-Knox-
Hertzberg”). As required by Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg, however, City must first pre-zone the
property for the intended uses, and provide a plan to provide needed public services, which would
be accomplished through the zoning contained in the Specific Plan and effectuated in the
Development Agreement.
The Processing Memorandum of Understanding acknowledges the City has recently requested, and
is actively pursuing, an update to the existing Airport Land Use Plan to accurately define and update
safety boundaries. The City has requested the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) use the
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, which is the standard for providing guidance and
direction for Airport Land Use Plans across the state. Under the Handbook guidelines, there would
be considerably more latitude to provide housing on the site than would be the case under the
County’s adopted Airport Land Use Plan, which formed the basis for previous planning efforts at
the site.
PH1 - 13
Council Agenda Report – Pre-Application #203-13 San Luis Ranch – Application Initiation Request
Page 14
7.0 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
It is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to initiate the process that will lead to a
Development Agreement between the City and project applicant, consistent with the State of
California’s adopted “Development Agreement Statute,” Sections 65864, et seq., of the Government
Code. A Development Agreement establishes certain development rights, but also commits the
developer to construct or pay for certain amenities for the City’s public benefit that are greater than
the infrastructure and mitigations that are required to facilitate the development. These are also
known as “public benefits” and can include but not be limited to public infrastructure and services
such as bike facilities, endowments to support public services such as open space, and/or other
items of value.
In that context, a Development Agreement is an important tool that can be used when a site is
considered for annexation. The Development Agreement is intended to reduce uncertainty in
planning and to provide for the orderly development of the Project, consistent with LAFCo
guidelines.
The provisions of a Development Agreement are subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), and must be considered in the CEQA document for the project. The City’s Municipal
Code outlines process and requirements for approval of a Development Agreement 1.
8.0 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
The City Council is being asked to authorize staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for
consultants to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR will need to address the impacts of future
development of the site in the context of the required entitlements, including but not limited to the
Specific Plan and Development Agreement. The scope of the EIR has not been determined, but will
be based on an Initial Study to be prepared by staff, and will likely include but not be limited to the
key environmental issues described in this staff report. The award of the EIR contract will be
brought back to the Council for action. The EIR that will be prepared is a project level 2
environmental document and is different that the program EIR 3 being prepared for the LUCE.
Nonetheless, the project level EIR will be able take advantage and simplify this task4.
1 Municipal Code Chapter 17.94: Development Agreements
2 Project EIR (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15161) -- The most common type of EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development
project. This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall
examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation.
3 Program EIR (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168) -- an EIR that may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large
project and are related either geographically, or are "logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, or are in connection with issuance of rules,
regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or as individual activities carried out under the same
authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways."
4Program EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (d)) Use with Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations. A program EIR can be used to
simplify the task of preparing environmental documents on later parts of the program. The program EIR can:
(1) Provide the basis in an Initial Study for determining whether the later activity may have any significant effects.
PH1 - 14
Council Agenda Report – Pre-Application #203-13 San Luis Ranch – Application Initiation Request
Page 15
9.0 PLANNING COMMISSION INPUT – FEBRUARY 12, 2014
On February 12, 2014, the Planning Commission considered the pre-application package for this
project, the components of which are described in the previous sections of this Council Agenda Report
(see Attachments 4 and 5 for Planning Commission Resolution and minutes).
Eight members of the public expressed various concerns about the project concept, which were
considered by the Planning Commission in their deliberations. The Planning Commission offered the
following input for consideration by the City Council:
1. Airport Land Use Planning. Resolve the issue of the appropriate planning framework for
airport safety as quickly as possible.
2. Relationship to LUCE. Ensure that the project application can be processed while the LUCE is
being updated, and that the two processes will be consistent with one another.
3. Housing Mix. Ensure that a mix of housing types and densities are provided, relating directly
to affordability goals included in the Housing Element.
4. Agricultural Preservation. Ensure that the project preserve sufficient usable agricultural land
onsite to be consistent with City policy. Major concerns included:
a. The project does not preserve at least 50% of the site for productive agriculture, which
is potentially inconsistent with the intent of City policy;
b. The project concept relies in part on offsite land and onsite habitat areas to meet policy
obligations;
c. If offsite land is to be used to help meet policy obligations related to agricultural
preservation, it must be useable, and must be provided at a ratio greater than the
proposed 1:1 offset;
d. The project would use part of the designated agricultural area as part of the land needed
for a future freeway interchange;
e. The conceptual plan may include too much low density development; instead, by
promoting higher densities, more agricultural land could be preserved onsite; and
f. Ag buffers may be needed adjacent to housing areas, which may cut into some of the
development potential proposed.
5. Retail Impact Analysis. The project would need to include an analysis of the project’s potential
impacts to retail establishments in the downtown area, and demonstrate that commercial
development would not impact existing downtown businesses, but instead enhance the City’s
overall retail portfolio.
(2) Be incorporated by reference to deal with regional influences, secondary effects, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors that
apply to the program as a whole.
(3) Focus an EIR on a subsequent project to permit discussion solely of new effects which had not been considered before.
PH1 - 15
Council Agenda Report – Pre-Application #203-13 San Luis Ranch – Application Initiation Request
Page 16
6. Office Space. Planning Commission was uncertain that there would be a market for the
amount of high-tech office space proposed;
7. Hotel and Conference Center. General support for the hotel, but some felt a conference center
would be better if located downtown;
8. Prado Road. Some were concerned that a four-lane Prado Road may impact the viability of
planned adjacent housing;
9. Froom Ranch Road. General support for the proposed connection to LOVR via Froom Ranch
Road, rather than Calle Joaquin;
10. Trails. Ensure that the project include a trail system consistent with City’s Bike Master Plan
and Circulation Element; and
11. Parks. The project should include larger useable parks, and not rely on a series of pocket parks
that are not very well used.
With these comments noted, the Planning Commission passed a resolution to move the item forward to
City Council, 6-0 (Commissioner Riggs absent).
10.0 NEXT STEPS
If the City Council authorizes the initiation of the project application based on staff recommendation,
the next steps in the process are as follows:
• Submit Formal Application. A formal application will be submitted to the City that provides
additional project details, and requesting the needed entitlements as described above.
• Initiate CEQA Process. City staff will prepare an Initial Study for the project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This document, along with a detailed project
description provided by the applicant, will be part of an RFP sent to consultants to prepare an
EIR. The City will also conduct the required public scoping meeting.
• Prepare EIR. The EIR process is likely to take several months, depending on the complexity of
the issues, and the extent to which the project has adequately addressed the issues as part of its
application. The timeframe might also be affected if there is by a high level of public interest
and involvement in the process.
• Consideration of Project Approval. Once the Final EIR is prepared, which incorporates public
input on the Draft EIR, the project (including a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan,
Development Agreement and Development Plan) would be considered by both the Planning
Commission and City Council for possible approval. The Final EIR would require
certification.
PH1 - 16
Council Agenda Report – Pre-Application #203-13 San Luis Ranch – Application Initiation Request
Page 17
• Annexation. If the project is approved, the City would initiate the annexation process with the
San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). This application would be
based in part on a Development Agreement, which the applicant and City would need to
negotiate through the planning process, and would ultimately require City Council approval.
Annexation will also depend on the City’s ability to address key issues to LAFCo, including
agricultural preservation, the ability to provide public services to the site (including water), and
the nature of a tax-sharing arrangement with San Luis Obispo County.
• Tract Maps. The project will require the approval of tract maps to implement the provisions of
the Specific Plan.
CONCLUSION
The San Luis Ranch property has long been envisioned under the City’s General Plan for future
annexation and development, but such development has been historically controversial in part
because of its visual prominence at the southern gateway of the City, but also for other issues such
as the impacts related to the conversion prime agriculture, as well as the possible effects of
commercial development on the downtown core of the City. Development of the site is further
complicated by land use constraints posed through the existing Airport Land Use Plan.
There is an existing entitlement for development on the site under the regulations of San Luis
Obispo County, through a voter-approved initiative in 2006 known as Measure J. The proposed San
Luis Ranch project is intended to present a development concept more consistent with what is
envisioned under the LUCE.
If the City Council initiates the application, it would proceed in a manner consistent with the
Processing Memorandum of Understanding as described in the staff report.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with initiating the project application. The developer will
reimburse the City for all staff and consultant fees associated with processing the application. As
part of the application, the applicant will be required to prepare a fiscal impact study that would
analyze the project’s effects on the City in general, as well as on existing commercial development
in the downtown core. Due to the size of this project, the applicant will be paying for actual costs
for staff time rather than a flat fee to process all of the required permits and to coordinate the
preparation of an EIR and to negotiate a Development Agreement.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may follow the recommendation of staff and the Planning Commission to:
• Initiate application process for required General Plan Amendments and associated
entitlements
• Approve Processing Memorandum of Understanding
PH1 - 17
Council Agenda Report – Pre-Application #203-13 San Luis Ranch – Application Initiation Request
Page 18
• Authorize staff to initiate discussions with applicant for a Development Agreement
• Authorize staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the project
2. The Council may choose not to initiate the project application and related actions at this time.
3. The Council may continue review of the request, if more information is needed. Direction
should be given to staff and the applicant.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution to Initiate Application Process and Related Actions
2. Draft LUCE Proposed Guidelines for the Dalidio Property (considered by City Council on
January 21, 2014)
3. Draft Processing Memorandum of Understanding
4. Planning Commission Resolution February 12, 2014
5. Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2014
Available on-line, in the Council Reading File, and in the City Clerks Office:
Pre-Application Project Summary Booklet
t:\council agenda reports\2014\2014-04-01\pre-applicaion san luis ranch (johnson-davidson)\e-car-pre-application_san_luis_ranch_-
_revised_3-10-14.docx
PH1 - 18
Attachment 1
Draft Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. (2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
AUTHORIZING INITIATION OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE
PROPOSED SAN LUIS RANCH PROJECT, INCLUDING RELATED
ACTIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on February 12, 2014, to consider the pre-application package for the San Luis Ranch
project, the components of which are described in the Council Agenda Report for April 1, 2014;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 1,
2014, for the purpose of reviewing the applicant’s proposal and the Planning Commission’s
recommendation; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings:
1. The request to initiate the project application, as well as related actions, including the
approval of a Processing Memorandum of Understanding; authorization for staff to initiate
discussions with applicant for a Development Agreement; and authorization for staff to
issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
the project; is consistent with City Regulations.
2. Proposed General Plan Amendments and a Specific Plan associated with the project
application are generally consistent with the draft policy direction included in the Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update currently underway, most recently affirmed by the
City Council in a January 21, 2014 public workshop for the LUCE.
3. On February 12, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the pre-application package and
passed a resolution recommending to the City Council that the application should be initiated,
based on input from Commissioners and the general public.
4. The requested initiation does not grant land use entitlements, but formally authorizes staff to
accept an application for the proposed project, including related requests for entitlements,
which will require evaluation before project approval could be considered.
PH1 - 19
Attachment 1
Draft Resolution
Section 2. Environmental Review. The proposed request for initiation involves initial
feedback and direction on the proposed project and related entitlement requests, and does not
include any final action or approval. Council action on the proposed initiation is exempt from
environmental review per CEQA Guidelines under the General Rule (Section 15061(b)(3)).
CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment. It can be said with certainty that there is no possibility that the subject pre-
application may have a significant effect on the environment because it is only an initiation of
future applications and no project approval is occurring at this time. If initiation of an
application is authorized by the City Council, a formal project submittal for consideration of the
proposed project and associated discretionary entitlements will be subject to environmental
review.
Section 3. Action. The City Council hereby authorizes initiation of the project
application allowing formal submittal of requested entitlements for evaluation and further
consideration by Council including annexation of the project site to the City.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Resolution was adopted this _______________________, 2014.
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________
Anthony J. Mejia, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_/s/ J.Christine Dietrick_____________________
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
PH1 - 20
PH1 - 21
PH1 - 22
PH1 - 23
PH1 - 24
PH1 - 25
PH1 - 26
PH1 - 27
Attachment 5
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 12, 2014
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners John Fowler, Ronald Malak, Michael Multari, William
Riggs, Charles Stevenson, Vice-Chairperson John Larson, and
Chairperson Michael Draze
Absent: William Riggs
Staff: Deputy Community Development Directors Doug Davidson and Kim
Murry, Housing Programs Manager Tyler Corey, Assistant City
Attorney Andrea Visveshwara, and Recording Secretary Januar
Saptono
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:
Minutes of January 22, 2014, were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. City-Wide. GPI 15-14: Housing Element Update: Receive a staff presentation
regarding the Housing Element status and provide input on any items or issues
that should be considered in the update process; City of San Luis Obispo,
applicant. (Tyler Corey)
Tyler Corey, Housing Programs Manager, presented information regarding the data
collection that supports the update to the Housing Element and the dwelling unit
assignment through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation process. He requested
input from the public and the Commissioners on any items or issues that should be
considered in the update process.
Commr. Stevenson questioned how staff identified properties that had remaining
development capacity.
Housing Programs Manager Corey responded that it was based on a percent of site that
remained vacant which is the same methodology followed in the previous update.
PH1 - 28
Attachment 5
Commr. Fowler asked if there is a sanction for not completing the Housing Element
update by June 30th.
Housing Programs Manager Corey, stated that the State statute does not have
sanctions for not meeting the deadline, but the City would not be eligible to apply for
certain grants until the Housing Element is certified by the State.
Commr. Fowler asked if housing goals related to those residents with behavioral or
mental problems would fall under Goal 8: Special Housing Needs.
Housing Programs Manager Corey, responded that organization of the policies and
programs will be reviewed to ensure the location of each makes sense. Staff is still
researching approaches needed to address new legislation SB 812.
Commr. Fowler asked if there was any discussion regarding the “Housing First” model
as part of the existing or updated Housing Element.
Housing Programs Manager Corey stated that the City participates with other agencies
in implementing the “Ten-Year Plan” which includes a Housing First approach.
Commr. Malak asked for clarification of how “work force” housing is defined and asked
for income limits related to affordable housing.
Housing Programs Manager Corey stated that the City does not have a workforce
affordability level but that the County defines this as 120-160% of median area income.
He further explained that median income for a family of 4 is $75,400 and affordability
would be calculated based on the category of affordability for which the household
qualified.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Steve Barasch, San Luis Obispo, stated that the median price of single-family housing
in San Luis Obispo at the end of July thru January is $600,000 which, given the median
income, is a significant housing affordability gap. Tenure of housing is important and
San Luis Obispo has very low owner occupancy. He asked the City to think of ways to
reduce the affordability gap such as creating small lot subdivision ordinance,
encouraging higher density and incentives for secondary dwellings, creating new forms
of housing, and subsidies for housing. Look at possibility of surplus of City property for
affordable housing projects.
Scott Smith, San Luis Obispo, Housing Authority, stated the City needs to be
aggressive and look for ways to support affordable housing. He indicated that the loss
of impact fee waivers hurts the feasibility of affordable projects and that the City needs
to review the inclusionary housing ordinance because the three ways to meet the
requirements are not equal – land donations do not have the same value as funding
assistance for affordable projects. He encouraged the City to continue to support SB
351 – a real estate transaction fee for affordable housing.
Jerry Rioux, San Luis Obispo, stated that the San Luis Obispo market is the least
affordable in the country and the housing cost burden is worse here than in places such
as San Francisco, New York, or Los Angeles which exacerbates homeless issues. He
PH1 - 29
Attachment 5
also stated we have many unsheltered homeless in the City. He suggested adjusting
impact fees according to the unit size, allowing higher density in multi-family areas for
rentals, allowing rental housing by right, and eliminating most of the review process
where possible. Other ideas include allowing smaller unit sizes such as 150 sq. ft.,
allowing second units in all residential zones, allowing mobile homes, including park
models, as secondary dwellings, and allowing boarding houses in multi-family zones.
Steve Delmartini, San Luis Obispo, stated that given the City’s aging demographic,
there is a need for more senior housing. This could include a full range of styles but
should focus on single-level senior housing.
James Lopes, San Luis Obispo, stated that the City should consider the idea of
“Affordable by Design” such as smaller units or higher density, increase the percentage
of housing allocated to multi family, and exempt certain kinds of housing from growth
limits.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Stevenson agreed that the City needs more affordable housing. He noted the
existing land use capacity doesn’t specify affordability levels and any decisions about
density need to be made in concert with the Land Use Element update, including
opportunities for additional density and height.
Commr. Multari stated that comments from the public were very helpful. He questioned whether there is a way to normalize household income data because the large number of students skews the income to housing cost gap. He doesn’t believe the City should
focus on workforce/above-moderate income housing but rather should focus on the lower income housing needs of the community. Commr. Multari encouraged affordable housing advocates to participate in the City’s Financial Planning process
because this is how the Council sets priorities and allocates resources to implement housing programs.
Commr. Multari asked staff to respond to Mr. Smith’s comments on fee waivers.
Deputy Community Development Director Kim Murry clarified that the City can waive
planning and building fees but, in the case of impact fees due to AB 1600 limitations,
the City would need to allocate resources to replace any impact fees waived and this
would be a Council decision to do so.
Commr. Fowler asked how staff will incorporate the comments received, such as
support for SB 391, will be addressed in the update.
Housing Programs Manager Corey stated that staff is reviewing existing policies and
programs to determine their effectiveness and will provide recommendations for
community consideration. He noted that staff took copious notes during the testimony
and will incorporate this input along with other public input received to date and still to
come to modify existing programs or to propose new programs.
PH1 - 30
Attachment 5
Deputy Director Murry clarified that the land use capacity presented does not include
any additional housing areas being considered in the Land Use Element update. The
update will include some policies for these growth areas regarding affordability.
Commr. Stevenson stated that small lot division is a great idea and, in fact, the Orcutt
Area Specific Plan encouraged smaller lots. He also offered that the Planning
Commission would be receiving a presentation on February 26th regarding a pilot
program in the City of Santa Barbara to encourage development of affordable housing.
Chairperson Draze commented that the household size is dropping which becomes a
problem when more housing is needed to house the same number of people. He also
commented that the term “workforce housing” is used very loosely but it doesn’t mean
anything. He challenged developers to define in their respective projects what is meant
by work force housing and this needs to include number of bedrooms, the size and
quality of the house, and cost of the house.
No action was required of the Commission but the Chair requested that staff consider
the input of the Commission and the testimony received to inform the Housing Element
update.
2. 1035 Madonna Road. PRE 203-13: Pre-application review of the San Luis Ranch
project and Initiation of General Plan Amendments; Coastal Community Builders,
applicant. (Doug Davidson)
Doug Davidson, Deputy Community Development Director, and John Rickenbach,
Consultant, presented the staff report regarding San Luis Ranch project and asked to
receive input and comment from the Commissioners and the public regarding the
project.
Commr. Stevenson asked who will make the decision about using the California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook.
Deputy Director Murry stated that the Council has directed staff to evaluate the airport
safety zones through the environmental review process. The City has a technical
consultant who is doing the evaluation of airport land use compatibility. His information
and technical background indicate the State Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
zones would protect community safety and that the current County Airport Land Use
Plan may reflect zones that are larger than they need to be. The project will be referred
to the Airport Land Use Commission which will make the determination whether it is
consistent or inconsistent with the current Airport Land Use Plan.
Commr. Multari asked if the road and interchange are included in open space acreage.
Consultant John Rickenbach stated that in Table 2 there are 8.5 acres of road and it is
not part of the open space. As for the interchange, there is a possibility of reduction
from the open space.
Commr. Fowler asked if the LUCE update is finished before this project, would we still
need to amend the General Plan. He also inquired about the difference between
organic agriculture feature and organic farm learning center.
PH1 - 31
Attachment 5
Deputy Director Murry stated that the draft of the LUCE EIR should be completed in
May.
Consultant John Rickenbach stated that there will be 33.5 acres of organic farm and
additional 8 acres of organic farm learning center which will be used as a learning
facility on organic farming.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Erick Justesen and Marshall Ochylski, applicants, presented a brief presentation on the
San Luis Ranch project.
Chairperson Draze asked if the possible interchange is included with the open space at
this point.
Erick Justesen stated yes at this point the interchange is included in the open space.
Commr. Multari asked about the breakdown between single-family and multi-family.
Erick Justesen stated that he doesn’t know the exact number but the multi-family will be
in the range of 60-80 units and is unsure about the single-family count.
Commr. Fowler asked to how workforce housing is defined and is there any idea on
connecting Laguna Lake bike path or pedestrian path with some sort of crossing to the
project.
Erick Justesen and Marshall Ochylski stated that they view the workforce housing as an
entry-level product type of housing and there will also be a mixture of housing in the
project. Erick Justesen stated he doesn’t know what the City’s Bicycle Plan shows, but
there is a probability of a controlled intersection.
Tessa Salzman, Central Coast Grown, asked if the project meets the spirit of protecting
prime AG land by providing some of the required ag/open space off-site. She
questioned what off-site land is being considered, is the AG land of the same quality,
how the land will be acquired, and will it be isolated. Regarding farm learning center,
she hopes to consult on purpose and mission, requests fewer buildings in the 8-acre
area, and wants to continue collaboration with the applicant.
Chairperson Draze stated, if there is some off-site agriculture land, it will be subject to a
multiplier effect.
John Philips, San Luis Obispo, stated that the City should not accept the proposed 9
acres to be off-site. He also would like to understand more about the learning center,
where it will be located, and is it possible the farm and learning center could be fully
integrated. He then continued by stating that the proposed Froom Ranch extension is
undesirable because it would bisect the Prefumo Creek and the Bob Jones trail while
bringing another major city street in close proximity to the agriculture operation.
Chairperson Draze, stated we did get two letters from Sandra Davis Lakement and from
Jamie Lopes.
PH1 - 32
Attachment 5
Jamie Lopes, San Luis Obispo, expressed that the San Luis Ranch should support the
local food movement, allow residential as part of mixed-use, preserve the farmland area
by reducing the footprint of the residential area, and believed that the off-site AG
preserve area is not consistent with City regulations.
Russ Brown, San Luis Obispo, expressed a concern about the off-site AG land, the
impact along Froom Ranch Road on the safety and the travel pattern of the existing
neighborhood, and the impact on downtown because of the proposed retail and
commercial.
Mila Vujovich-La Barre, San Luis Obispo, stated the need for providing housing in
conjunction with community needs, and to put housing near Madonna Road. She was
also concerned about the location of single-family residential on Class 1 AG land, the
emergency water supply, airport fly zone, and the Prado Road design.
Ann Wyatt, San Luis Obispo, expressed an excitement especially regarding the
housing. She also stated the City needs to address the community needs with
affordability and diversity of housing selection such as boarding houses, mixed use, and
small units; single-family residential won’t fill the great need. She also said that, for any
loss of AG land, the community will demand something in return.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, stated that we need to pursue a more connected,
creative, and broad range type of housing for the project.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Multari recommended that any General Plan Amendment request must be accompanied by a Specific Plan and that the requirement for 50% AG land and open space is inviolate but did not oppose the option for offsite mitigation. He said that, in
his experience, such mitigation does not necessarily need to be itself prime AG land but greater overall protection can sometimes be achieved through the creation of green belts or other strategic acquisitions. He also stated that the opportunities for
housing are great, and he hopes the City will be able to work with the Airport Land Use Commission. He also wondered if pocket parks would be adequate and it would be better to combine them into a moderate-size park. Lastly, he questioned whether
we need more high tech offices in this location when so much land is zoned for this use in the Airport Specific Plan Area.
Commr. Fowler is excited about what the project could offer and would like to see a
more innovative housing type.
Commr. Stevenson stated that he is hopeful but pessimistic about working with the
Airport Land Use Commission. He also mentioned that the AG Commissioner will
require buffers on the development side, supports the hotel idea, but prefers conference
centers to be closer to downtown, and supports the comment from SLO City Farm.
Commr. Malak stated that he would like to see more creative design in the residential
area and agreed with Commr. Multari that we do not need more office space. He would
PH1 - 33
Attachment 5
like to see creativity in the commercial area and how four-lane traffic on Prado would
have an impact on the existing neighborhood.
Chairperson Draze stated that we must protect the commercial uses in the downtown.
The issues in section 8.3.2.4 (San Luis Ranch) of the draft LUCE shall be considered in
the project proposal and add to resolution.
Commr. Larson was intrigued with the extension of Froom Ranch Road and stated that
extending Froom Ranch Road to Prado Road is a better solution and echoes other
Commissioners’ comments.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Fowler, to recommend initiation of
the General Plan Amendment, if necessary, because the project entitlement proceeds
ahead of the LUCE update or if the General Plan Amendment is different from those of
the LUCE. The General Plan Amendment must be accompanied by a Specific Plan and
the issues in section 8.3.2.4 (San Luis Ranch) of the draft LUCE, or as revised through
the adoption of the LUCE, shall be considered in the project proposal.
AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Malak, Multari, Stevenson, Larson, and Draze
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Riggs
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
Next meeting is February 26, 2014. Agenda will include presentation by Detty
Peickert. The draft EIR hearing on the Johnson Avenue school district has been
postponed indefinitely while the School District considers project alternatives.
The March agendas will include the Margarita Specific Plan tract maps and the
Chevron project.
4. Commission
a. Commr. Draze announced he will recuse himself for the March, meeting on the
Chevron Tank Farm project and possibly the tract map in the Margarita area.
b. Commr. Multari asked if there is a need for pre-application for a minor
adjustment to the General Plan. Deputy Director Davidson stated that staff will
explore amending this section to allow minor amendments without the formal
initiation process.
c. Commr. Fowler stated that he will be out of town on March 12.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
PH1 - 34
Attachment 5
Respectfully submitted by,
Januar Saptono
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Planning Commission on February 26, 2014.
Cory Ryan
Supervising Administrative Assistant
PH1 - 35
Page intentionally left
blank.
PH1 - 36
APR Q 12014
mEmowNnou
DATE: March 31, 2014
TO City Council AGENDA
C'DRR,ESPONDE
VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager atc i f— j 0 1�(;E
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Doug Davidson, Community Development Deputy Director
SUBJECT: Review of Pre - Application Materials for the San Luis Ranch Project
Council Meeting April 1, 2014 (PH -1)
Staff has received a request for the following information and is distributing it to all Council
members regarding the San Luis Ranch project.
Questions /Comments
Question: Can the project be designed with more density so that the open space dedication
comports with the present (and proposed) General Plan, at least 50% open space. My
understanding was that the "preferred project" was going to preserve half the land in agriculture
and open space. The chart on page PH 1 -5 (Table 2 — San Luis Ranch Development Concept)
shows 56.5 acres (as opposed to the 50% amount of 65 acres).
Please include the minutes from the meeting during which Council agreed that off -site mitigation
could be considered as an alternative.
Staff Response
The project could be designed with more density. The conceptual project as proposed, or at a
higher density, would rely on a revised Airport safety zone, a change to the Airport Land Use
Plan (ALUP), or a decision by the Council to override the existing ALUP. The site plan
components in Table 2 are conceptual and could be revised by Council direction.
The actual performance standards in the draft Land Use Element show the full 50% required for
open space. The direction given by Council at the special meeting on January 15, 2014 is copied
below showing the 50% open space standard, the off -site alternative language, and other issues
to be addresses in the specific plan.
As an alternative, Council wants the following to be evaluated through EIR:
Footnote to 50% Open Space in chart:
The City Council may consider allowing up to 10 acres of required open space to be met through
off -site dedication provided:
a. A substantial multiplier for the amount of open space is provided for the off -site property
exchanged to meet the on -site requirement; and
b. Off -site land is ofsimilar agricultural and visual value to the community; and
C. Off -site land is protected through an easement, dedication or fee title in perpetuity for
agriculture %pen space.
SP -2, San Luis Ranch ( Dalidio) Specific Plan Area
Location: This specific plan area is located in the southwest quarter of the city at the
corner of Madonna Road and Dalidio Drive. The site is approximately
132 acres and is currently used for agricultural purposes. The site is
primarily flat topographically. The entire site is within the City's Planning
Area, but is outside the current city limits.
Purpose: This project site should be developed as a mixed use project that
maintains the agricultural heritage of the site, provides a commercial /
office transition to the existing commercial center to the north, and
provides a diverse housing experience. Protection of the adjacent creek
and a well - planned integration into the existing circulation system will be
required.
The specific plan for this area should consider and address the following
land use and design issues:
a. Provide land and appropriate financial support for development of a Prado Road
connection. Appropriate land to support road infrastructure identified in the EIR
(overpass or interchange) at this location shall be dedicated as part of any proposal.
b. Circulation connections to integrate property with surrounding circulation network for all
modes of travel.
c. Connection to Froom Ranch and Calle Joaquin, if proposed, shall not bifurcate on- site or
neighboring agricultural lands. Any connection to Calle Joaquin shall be principally a
secondary / emergency access by design.
d. Development shall include a transit hub. Developer shall work with transit officials to
provide express connections to Downtown area.
e. Maintain agricultural views along Highway 101 by maintaining active agricultural uses
on the site, and maintain viewshed of Bishop Peak and Cerro San Luis.
f. Maintain significant agricultural and open space resources on site. Land dedicated to
Agriculture shall be of size, location and configuration appropriate to maintain a viable,
working agricultural operation.
g. Where buffering or transitions to agricultural uses are needed to support viability of the
agricultural use, these shall be provided on lands not counted towards the minimum size
for the agriculture / open space component. Provide appropriate transition to agricultural
uses on -site.
h. Integrate agricultural open space with adjacent SLO City Farm and development on
property.
i. Site should include walkable retail and pedestrian and bicycle connections to surrounding
commercial and residential areas.
j. Commercial and office uses shall have parking placed behind and to side of buildings so
as to not be a prominent feature.
k. Neighborhood Commercial uses for proposed residential development shall be provided.
1. Potential flooding issues along Prefumo' Creek need to be studied and addressed without
impacting off -site uses.
m. All land uses proposed shall be in keeping with safety parameters described in this
General Plan or other applicable regulations relative to the San Luis Obispo Regional
Airport.
n. Historic evaluation of the existing farm house and associated structures shall be included.
Performance Standards: This specific plan shall meet the following performance
standards.
The minutes are attached from the Council special meeting of January 14, 2014.
Traffic Generation Question
There was a question about traffic generation of the various proposed land uses on the site. As
part of the Land Use and Circulation Element Update variations of the Prado road interchange /
overpass & extension, Froom Ranch road extension, and Calle Joaquin road extension are being
studied. Traffic analysis will be a major part of the project- specific review to ensure that taffic
impacts are mitigated.
Please call Derek Johnson at extension #7187 (781 -7187) or Doug Davidson at extension #7177
(781 -7177) if you have any questions.
Designations
Type
Allowed
% of Site
Minimum
Maximum
Residential
LDR
350 units
500 units
MDR
MHDR
HDR
Commercial
NC
50,000 SF
200,000 SF
CC
Office /High
O
50,000 SF
150,000 SF
tech)
HotelNisitor-
200 rooms
serving
Parks
PARK
5.8 ac
Open Space /
OS
Minimum
65.5 ac
No
Agriculture
AG
50%
maximum
Public
n/a
Infrastructure
n/a
The minutes are attached from the Council special meeting of January 14, 2014.
Traffic Generation Question
There was a question about traffic generation of the various proposed land uses on the site. As
part of the Land Use and Circulation Element Update variations of the Prado road interchange /
overpass & extension, Froom Ranch road extension, and Calle Joaquin road extension are being
studied. Traffic analysis will be a major part of the project- specific review to ensure that taffic
impacts are mitigated.
Please call Derek Johnson at extension #7187 (781 -7187) or Doug Davidson at extension #7177
(781 -7177) if you have any questions.
minutes
city of san Luis o$ispo
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Special Meeting - 5:00 P.M.
Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California
CALL TO ORDER
A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday,
January 14, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located at 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Marx.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Dan Carpenter, Kathy Smith, Vice
Mayor Carlyn Christianson, and Mayor Jan Marx
Council Member
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager, Christine Dietrick, City Attorney, Michael
Codron, Assistant City . Manager, and Diane Clement, Recording
Secretary, were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented
reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Mayor Christianson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
PHI. DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT REVIEW (GPI /ER 15 -121
Councilmember Carpenter announced that he owns property within 500' of the
General Hospital Area and recused himself; Councilmember Ashbaugh
announced that he owns property within 500' of the North Side of Foothill Area
(Bishop Knoll) and recused himself; Councilmembers Ashbaugh and Carpenter
left the Chamber at 5:05 p.m.
City Council Meeting Minutes — January 14, 2014
Page 2
City Attorney Dietrick explained the rules for recusal segmentation and the
rationale for Council Member Ashbaugh's recusal on the General Hospital Area
despite the fact he did not have a conflict of interest pertaining to the subject
area; announced staff is recommending continuation of the Airport Area Chapter
to the meeting of January 28, 2014, as staff has received a potential litigation
threat and will agendize the matter for Closed Session,
General Hospital Area
Community Development Director Johnson and Community Development Deputy
Director Murry narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Land Use Element
Legislative Draft" and responded to Council inquires.
Following discussion, MOTION BY VICE MAYOR CHRISTIANSON, SECOND
BY COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH, CARRIED 3 -0 (COUNCILMEMBERS
ASHBAUGH AND CARPENTER ABSTAINING), to adopt Resolution No. 10486
(2014 Series) entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, endorsing the draft Land Use Element to be considered
through the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process (GPI 15 -12) (related to
the General Hospital Area)."
Council Member Carpenter returned to the Chamber at 5:10 p.m.
North Side of Foothill Area (Bishop Knoll)
Community Development Deputy Director Murry continued the PowerPoint
presentation focusing on the North Side of Foothill Area (Bishop Knoll) and
responded to Council inquiries.
Marshall Och Iski representing the property owner, advised that the adjacent
Property owner is unwilling to cooperate in providing circulation connectivity to
Los Cerros; requested that Council delete the requirement to provide connectivity
to Los Cerros Drive.
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 4 -0 (COUNCILMEMBER ASHBAUGH
ABSTAINING), to adopt Resolution No. 10487 (2014 Series) entitled "A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California,
endorsing the draft Land Use Element to be considered through the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process (GPI 15 -12) (related to the North
Side of Foothill Area (Bishop Knoll)" as amended to reflect that circulation
connectivity shall be provided to Los Cerros Drive, as feasible.
Council Member Ashbaugh returned to the Chamber at 5:19 p.m.
City Council Meeting Minutes — January 14, 2014 Page 3
Land Use Element
Community Development Director Johnson provided introductory comments on
the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) update process; Community
Development Deputy Director Murry continued the PowerPoint presentation and
responded to Council inquiries.
Emily Ewer. of Oasis Associates, advised that her firm represents several property
owners affected by the LUCE update; commended the LUCE Task Force and staff
for soliciting public input and encouraging community participation.
Stacy White, representing the Chamber of Commerce, asserted that the LUCE
inadequately addresses development of workforce housing; recommended that
Council consider financial incentives, increasing height limits, and allowing
mixed -use projects in the downtown.
Robert Lucas, San Luis Obispo, thanked the LUCE Task Force, Planning
Commission and staff for addressing neighborhood concerns related to Upper
Monterey; spoke on the importance of neighborhood wellness.
Clint Pierce, representing the Chamber of Commerce, stressed the importance of
attracting clean businesses and increasing the housing inventory; voiced support
for increasing residential density.
Charlene Rosales, representing the Chamber of Commerce, spoke on the need
for affordable housing, head of household jobs, and preservation of
neighborhood character; distributed a letter, dated January 14, 2014, with
recommendations related to tourism and economic development.
Jamie Lopes, San Luis Obispo, summarized his letter, dated January 13, 2014,
which encourages the inclusions of a jobs /housing balance plan to ensure a
sustainable city plan.
Steve Delmartini. representing the San Luis Obispo Association of Realtors,
commended the LUCE Task Force for allowing open dialogue and input on the
LUCE update; spoke on neighborhood compatibility and the difficulty of balancing
high and low density.
Carolyn Smith, San Luis Obispo, voiced support for the LUCE Task Force
Minority Report, dated January 14, 2014, which focuses on neighborhood
preservation; opined that the City should have taken more efforts to seek
community input on the LUCE.
Debbie Farwell, San Luis Obispo, encouraged the community to stay engaged in
the LUCE through the upcoming EIR process..
City Council Meeting Minutes — January 14, 2014
Page 4
Rachel Kovesdi, representing Dalidio (San Luis Ranch), requested that Council
consider inserting into the performance standards the following: "A small portion
of onsite open space and agriculture up to 10 acres or 15% of the required open
space and agriculture may be relocated offsite by the City Council through
specific plan approval "; noted that allowing for this flexibility would maximize the
developers ability to provide workforce housing.
In response to Council inquiry, Community Development Director Johnson
advised there is a working definition of workforce housing which is approximately
120% of area median income.
Sandra Rowley, representing the authors of minority report, stressed the
importance of preserving residents' ability to quietly enjoy their property and
neighborhood; voiced objections to increased density or mixed use in residential
areas.
Erik Justensen. representing the Chamber of Commerce, addressed the need for
improving the City's jobs /housing balance and developing design guidelines for
the City's entry points; opined the height limits in the downtown area should be
increased, or at a minimum remain the same; voiced support for allowing open
space flexibility for the Dalidio site.
Marshall Ochylski, representing Dalidio, noted that a pre - application has been
submitted and a specific plan is proposed for the Dalidio site; urged that the
proposal to relocate up to 15% of the open space and agriculture requirement be
studied as part of the LUCE EIR process; noted that price points for workforce
housing will be addressed during the Dalidio specific plan process.
RECESS
Council recessed at 6:50 p.m. and reconvened at 7:30 p.m., with all Council Members
present.
Special Focus Areas — Introduction and Policies
By unanimous consent, Council accepted the introduction and policy statements
for the Special Focus Areas, with modification to Policy 8.3.2.1, Percent of Site,
to read as follows "This defines the percent of each site dedicated to open space
(using the gross project site) that ran be used for eaGh type of and use."
Special Focus Areas — Mar4arita Specific Plan Update
In response to Council inquiry, Community Development Director Johnson
explained for purpose of preparing the EIR the baseline amount of housing will
be assumed and then evaluated to programmatically determine the range of
appropriate capacity that the specific plan can accommodate.
City Council Meeting Minutes — January 14, 2014
Page 5
Council Member Ashbaugh noted for the record his concern that individuals are
purchasing homes based on the existing specific plan and are unaware of the
LUCE Task Force and Council's deliberations related to the potential for
additional housing in the area.
By unanimous consent, the Council accepted the Margarita Area Specific Plan
Update as presented.
Sioecial Focus Areas — Dalidio Specific Plan Area
During the course of discussion, Council Members discussed: 1) whether the
performance standards related to Open Space /Agriculture should be modified to
allow for off -site property exchange and whether said property exchange would
be capped at a maximum of 5- or 10- acres; 2) verbiage modifications proposed
by Council Member Ashbaugh related to Standards A, B, and C. A hard copy of
Mr. Ashbaugh's email is on file with the City Clerk.
It was agreed by a Council majority, with Council Member Ashbaugh dissenting,
that a footnote be added to the Performance Standards as follows:
The City Councii may consider allowing up to 10 acres of required open space to
be met through off -site dedication provided.
a. A substantial multiplier for the amount of open space is provided for the off -
site property exchanged to meet the on -site requirement, and
b. Off -site land is similar to agricultural and visual value to the community, and
c. Off -site land is protected through an easement, dedication or fee title in
perpetuity for agriculture open space.
Council Member Ashbaugh noted for the record that he is comfortable with up to
5 -acres of the open space requirement being exchanged off -site, with a multiplier
of four.
It was agreed by a Council majority, with Council Member Ashbaugh dissenting,
that Standard B be modified to read as: "Connection to Froom Ranch and Calle
Joaquin, if proposed, shall not bifurcate on -site or neighboring agriculture lands.
Any connection to Calle Joaquin shall be principally a secondary/emergency
access by design."
By unanimous consent, it was agreed that: 1) "Dalidio" would be referred to as
"San Luis Ranch "; and 2) Standard C would be amended to read as
"Development shall include a transit hub seater. Developer shall work with
transit officials to provide express connections to Downtown area.
City Council Meeting Minutes — January 14, 2014
Page 6
Special Focus Areas — Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) Specific
Plan Area
Council discussion ensued relative to developing more workforce housing,
balancing commercial and residential development, and proposed types of
commercial development at the subject site.
In response to Council inquiry, Community Development Director Johnson
explained that the proposed residential zoning for the Madonna area is designed
to attract more workforce housing developments.
Council provided direction that the EIR should evaluate a potential increase in
residential and decrease in commercial, noting there was concern regarding the
amount of commercial envisioned for the site.
Special Focus Areas — Avila Ranch Specific Plan Area
Council discussed the propriety of exchanging a reduction of the open space
requirement in proportion to the amount of affordable housing provided on -site.
Following discussion, it was agreed by a Council majority, with Council Member
Ashbaugh and Mayor Marx dissenting, to accept the Avila Ranch Specific Plan
Area, as presented.
Mayor Marx noted for the record that it is bad planning policy to trade -off open
space for affordable housing, pointing out that both issues must be provided for
to ensure a healthy community.
Special Planning Areas — Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Area & Upper
Monterey
By unanimous consent, Council accepted the Foothill Boulevard /Santa Rosa and
Upper Monterey Areas, with modification to Upper Monterey Standard F to read
as follows: "the City will work with local hotels and Cal Poly to develop enhanced
meeting rooms and conference facilities. These types of facilities would not be
located iawow6eaed on the east side of Monterey north of California Street. No
stand -alone conference center is appropriate foreRYisieeed -in this area."
Special Planning Areas — Mid- Mauera Area & Caltrans Site
By unanimous consent, Council accepted the Mid - Higuera Area and Caltrans
Site, as presented.
City Council Meeting Minutes — January 14, 2014 Page 7
,Special Planning Areas — Sunset Drive -in ]"heater/Prado ,Road Area
By unanimous consent, Council modified: 1) the title area to read as "Sunset
Drive -In Theater /Prado Road Area" to make clearer the area addressed by the
subsequent standards; and 2) the standard to read as "Property within the area
The site may need to be designated to accommodate the Homeless Services
Center."
Special Mannino Areas — Pacific Beach Site
Council discussed whether to eliminate the statement that a portion of the site be
maintained as a Park designation. By unanimous consent, Council agreed to
accept the Pacific Beach site, as presented.
RECESS
Council recessed at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m., with all Council Members
present.
Introduction and Goals
Following discussion and by unanimous consent, Council directed that:
Goal No. 34 be amended to read as follows: "Where appropriate, create
compact, mixed use neighborhoods that locate housing, jobs, recreation, and
other daily need in close proximity to one another, while protecting the quality
of life in established neighborhoods."
2. Table 1: HDR (High Density Residential) Purpose and Application, be
amended to read as follows: "This designation provides for primarily attached
dwellings in two and three story buildings, with common outdoor areas and
very compact private outdoor spaces. This type of development is
appropriate in some locations near Cal Poly, in the Downtown core, near
employment concentrations, and near transit corridors and nodes.
3. Table 1: O (Office) Purpose and Application, be amended to distinguish
residential and mixed -use projects as separate possible uses.
Growth Manacrement
Council discussed whether Policy 1.11.1 (Water and Sewer Service) should be
amended to eliminate the term "potable" water to ensure that neither potable nor
recycled water can be delivered to the areas outlined in the policy; whether
allowing for the transport of recycled water to areas outside of the City limits
could lead to urban sprawl.
City Council Meeting Minutes — January 14, 2014
Page 8
It was agreed by a Council majority, with Mayor Marx dissenting, that Policy
1.11.1 (Water and Sewer Service) be accepted, as presented.
Following discussion and by unanimous consent, Council directed that:
1. The EIR evaluate impacts of allowing use of recycled water outside of the City
limits and urban reserve line.
2. Policy 1.4 (Jobs /Housing Relationship) be retained in the LUCE document.
Conservation and Development of Residential Neighborhoods
Following discussion and by unanimous consent, Council directed:
Policy 2.1.3 (Neighborhood Traffic) be amended to read as follows:
"Neighborhoods should be protected from intrusive traffic. All neighborhood
street and circulation improvements should favor pedestrians, bicyclists, and
local traffic. Vehicle traffic on residential streets should be slow. To foster
suitable traffic speed, street design should include 2 measures such as narrow
lanes, landscaped parkways, traffic circles, textured crosswalks, and, if
necessary, stop signs, speed humps, bollards, and on- street parking and
sidewalks."
2. Policy 2.2.9(H) (Housing Diversity) be amended to read as follows: "A mix of
housing types, and a range of density within a neighborhood is generally
desirable."
3. Policy 2.5.4 (Location) be amended to read as follows: "The City shall
encourage the development of housing likely to attract faculty, staff, and
students to locate close to Cal Poly. The City shall work with Cal Poly to
facilitate faculty and staff owning or renting housing in adiacent
neighborhoods."
Discussion ensued as to whether Policy 2.4.2 (Density Change) would negatively
impact established neighborhoods by allowing higher density uses; it was
suggested that the policy should amended to ensure that density changes have
no impact or improve levels of service on the neighborhood.
By a Council majority, with Mayor Marx dissenting, Policy 2.4.2 (Density
Changes) shall be modified to read as follows: "The City shall approve re- zonings
that increase density in existing residential areas only if it finds that the following
are not adversely impacts: neighborhood character and identity; compatibility of
land use; impact on level of service and facilities (including schools). In addition,
the, the City shall find that proposed density changes meet policies related to
neighborhood amenities (Policy 2.1.7); compatible development (Policy 2.2.9)
and residential project objectives (Policy 2.2.11).
City Council Meeting Minutes — January 14, 2014
Commercial and Industrial Development
Page 9
Council discussed whether Program 3.5.7.3 (Dependent Care) should be
eliminated, as it was pointed out that providing such incentives are a method of
employee recruitment and retention by private companies.
By unanimous consent, Council directed that Policy 3.5.7.5 (Auto Sale
Relocation) be amended to read as follows: "The City shall provide incentives to
encourage relocation of vehicle sales to ethef compatible areas."
For clarification purposes, it was agreed that 3.5.7.8 (Tourism) be amended to
read as follows: "The City shall review zoning regulations to consider allowing
visitor - service uses in office zones adjacent to community commercial zones in
the Downtown and adjacent to Monterey Street seuthwes# of between Johnson
areas and Santa Rosa."
In response to Council inquiry, Assistant City Manager Codron advised that the
recommendations rose by the Chamber of Commerce's letter, dated January 14,
2014, are addressed by the reference in 3.5.7.8 to the implementation of the
Economic Development Strategic Plan.
Downtown
By unanimous consent, Council modified Policy 4.0.6 (Open Places and Views)
to include: "The City shall increase Downtown green space and public parks,
including pocket parks, as the number of people living Downtown increases."
Public and Cultural Facilities
By unanimous consent, Council determined to include a new program as follows:
"The City shall consider incentives to establish social service facilities throughout
the City."
Resource Protection
By unanimous consent, Council amended Program 6.3.3 (Community Design
Guidelines) to read as follows: "Consistent with the Community Design
guidelines, pFesumes + all hillside areas are considered
GR sensitive sites, and whefe architectural review is required for new
development +s fegUifed. The Community Development Director will screen all
proposals to identify any which do not need architectural review. The City will
mitigate the visual impacts of hillside structures, including revising the way
maximum building height is determined."
City Council Meeting Minutes — January 14, 2014 Page 10
Sustainability
Following discussion and by unanimous consent, Council directed:
1. Policy 9.3.3 (Sustainability Coordination) be amended to read as follows: "The
City shall review SLOCOG's Regional Transportation Plan, including the
Sustainable Communities Strategy, as it prepares and reviews updates to the
General Plan, General Plan Amendments, specific plans, changes in zoning
regulations, capital improvement plans and other infrastructure plans to
determine consistency and allow for GEAQ GtFeamlining and eligibility for
State transportation funding."
2. Policy 9.3.7, Section D, (Sustainable Design, Plumbing) be amended to read
as follows: "Utilize plumbing fixtures that conserve or reuse water such as low
flow faucets or grey water resysliag systems."
3. Policy 9.3.7, Section E (Sustainable Design, Efficient Landscaping) be
amended to read as follows: "Include landscaping that reduces water use
through use of drought- tolerant/native plant species, high - efficiency irrigation
(drip irrigation), and reduction or elimination of the use of turf. Collection and
use of site runoff and rainwater harvesting in landscape irrigation is
encouraged.
4. Policy 9.3.7 (Sustainable Design) be amended to include a new subsection as
follows: "Renew the urban forest: Develop a long term tree planting program to
beautify the City, migrate increase residential density, address die -off, and
combat air pollution and global warming."
5. The inclusion of a new program as follows: "Urban Forest. Update master tree
plan and develop recommendations to renew and maintain the urban forest
and plant more trees."
Healthy Community
Following discussion and by unanimous consent, Council amended Policy 10,3.5
(Healthy Environment) to read as follows: "The City shall protect and maintain
clear air, the urban forest, and natural open spaces.
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER SMITH, CARRIED 5 -0, to adopt Resolution No. 10490 (2014 Series)
entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, endorsing the draft Land Use Element to be considered through the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process (GPI 15 -12)."
City Council Meeting Minutes — January 14, 2014 Page 11
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council adjourned at 11:05 p.m., to a Study Session to be held on Tuesday,
January 21, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. to discuss Infrastructure Financing Alternatives. The
Regular meeting will commence at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
,ff
Anthony . M jia p/.
City Clerk �- � -
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 02/18/14
100 2 6 2014
SLO CITY CLERK
Do uG- aA vt d am•
17 +9 Pptm Sr 8401
�340S
,?2- eL"-( Z014
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Date ` Item# rfN 11
-RI i @ t2- t aQ6r �
PtLc -- A t9o9Lt c n o AN
SZA:s fur S ?e. irzc
T t VG At y r+�n�. -€emu A A D Co X3CEYW S 0ti1 t i.6 S
T-K-,=-te �� Qn.cAan_.ten Vo v(- ScVeTzA,(-
R2-6Vio --.)S �Pn�Pe ACS .4�D nx Svc /�PQuee �
7 0 V fLCs PL&A'J 1
2 Aevu li,
&,t_to +ES gd y j �_3 `r
0ElP6n54 rklG-
uDro'9 (94loe cam'
Lt -ty Ce oiic -j L o.3
g0c70,,,S
so
y-,
L -- PY ESSAY (f3 d&--vv'
E ) .'Err- t ? ?4
- M �) &kao� -1-D � C t W CeL),*J C4 Cm
t ^S 1116 - &A o-o, %3& mper,r, o kis
A L) S c ae Ax)S W eteD rg V AAJ� 6-i
OZ�CP ,4a.G-o .4.0te P "PEA(- FO-&, 4s
s� t7i
AT t n
CO
Cam„ 20 April 99
Gentle People,
I am Steve Eabry. I have degrees in forestry and wildlife
management and am a nationally certified wildlife biologist.
I worked for government in various forms over 35 years, including
12 for the state of New York, where I was responsible for
environment impact analysis of large developments on terrestrial
systems. I have been a business owner in the city since 1985,
and I am an adjacent landowner to the ground in question.
I cannot advise you on the economics of shopping centers,
freeway cloverleafs or housing developments. I can advise you
on some of the environmental effects of doing these things on
this ground.
We all know of the wind in the Laguana Lake area. The
California Energy Commission's study found that this is the
only place in the county where wind energy generation may be
economical. Knowing this, it is strange that you are being
asked to put 180 senior citizen housing units right there.
And, we will be cutting all the trees along Madonna providing
an uninterrupted 1000+ mile fetch for these frail folks. Being
an old fart myself, and in the business of helping older folks
deal with their aches and pains, I can tell you that this
proposal is dumb.
And about those trees. Right now Madonna Road is 7 lanes
from the Post Office to 101, probably the only 7 lane road in
the county. You are now voting to cut all the trees across
from the park and widen Madonna so the section from Oceanaire
to the post office can also be 7 lanes.
The Army Corps of Engineers did a hydrologic analysis of
the Prefumo Creek culvert under Madonna road, after it was
enlarged and downstream improvements were made following the
dM
floods of 1969 and 1973. They found that the standard flood
in this watershed, i.e., a storm equal to 1973, would put 3'
of water over the road. Three foot of rushing water has
tremendous power, and this is just upstream from these proposed
senior citizen housing units. Not a good plan to put old folks
in a floodplain with this potential for risk.
r
Figure 33 — Future flood height on top of the Madonna Road
culvert at Laguna Lake. The culvert will carry the intermediate
regional flood. (See pl. 9.)
from: U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1974 "Flood Plain Information,
San Luis Obispo Creek & Tributaries ".
The city plan for Laguna Lake Park identifies the eucalyptus
grove across from the park as the next area to be added to the
park. Building 180 residential units in this area would prevent
accomplishing this goal. The grove is a rookery for great blue
heron, several hawks and owls nest there as well as many songbird
species and small mammals. These would all be eliminated when
you put 180 residential units within these trees. This would
seriously impact park aesthetics as well as the city's wildlife
values.
_3-
All of this ground is within the Prefumo and San Luis creek
floodplains. The entire area has flooded in the past, that's
what floodplains are for. That is why it is so wonderfully
fertile. If this area were filled and buildings placed on the
fill, the water from the next flood will go elsewhere. I will
be flooded as will my neighbors. In the high water of March
1995, a man in a car was swept away as Prefumo creek rushed
over the 101 exit road. His car went under 101 and his body
was found several miles downstream. This occurred just at the
edge of the site you are considering. This happened only 4
years ago and illustrates the power of flood water. In 1995,
the flooding was not severe. Filling floodplains accelerates
and intensifies damage to adjacent areas and insures that future
floods will be deeper, faster and more destructive.
This piece of ground has been the site of 2 fatal plane
crashes, each with multiple deaths, within the past 10 years.
You should not approve things that draw large numbers of people
to this area.
This proposal will require you and me to pay for all or
most of a new freeway cloverleaf. Seems odd to subsidize
development that may not impact downtown, but certainly would
compete with long established tool, home energy, hardware, lumber,
and home improvement stores elsewhere in the city. This was
not addressed in the recent economic study. My primary concern
for this cloverleaf is with the added traffic on Madonna road
and the proposed 5 -lane road which would bisect another piece
of farmland west of this ground and make a major intersection
with Los Osos Valley Road between Calle Joaquin and Madonna,
an already greatly stressed section of road.
If we need these kinds of stores and residences, there
are other areas in the city where the environmental impact would
be less. Taxpayer costs and flood threats would also not be
as great.
-4a
This area is mostly prime agricultural land, rare among
all agricultural lands and the highest quality farmland in the
country. All governments have policies of not permitting
building on prime agricultural lands, yet we do it regularly
and then decry the loss of these exceptional areas.
You are being asked whether to pursue development of a
shopping center, housing development and freeway cloverleaf
on this floodplain. We like to label floods that cause death
and damage as 'natural disasters'. However, this name is applied
to relieve our guilt. These are only.'natural occurrences'.
The disaster part comes when we intentionally put people at
risk in areas of known high potential for damage, injury and
death.
This area is not within the city and the present governing
zoning is as agriculture. I strongly urge that you vote to
maintain the present situation.
An-A U� kkc-Ki r E
TUESDAY, JANUARY I7, 20o6
THE TRIBUNE
VIEWPOINTS ON THE DALIDIO RANCH MARKETPLACE
Development on fertile
lain
flood p
BY STEVE EABRY
Your headline on a Nov 30 View -
point asks, "Why is Dalidio's
property so special ?"
These 100 -plus acres have values
that no longer exist on any land in
the vicinity of San Luis Obispo and
likely anywhere in the county.
The Dalidio 'land is a flood plain.
It is the last area of undeveloped
Prefumo and San Luis Creek flood
plains. All planning documents,
whether federal, state, county or
city, say don't build in a flood plain.
This precaution is not only to pro-
tect the buildings being proposed;
of equal concern are developments
on adjacent properties impacted
when floodwaters cannot flow where
they historically flood.
This rule is often broken. We
build in many inappropriate places
and suffer the consequences when
storms occur. Examples are many,
from past Hurricanes Hugo and An-
drew to Katrina, Rita and Wilma this
year. As we have seen recently, peo-
ple are killed and buildings are de-
stroyed, often at great cost, and ma-
jor upheavals of families and
occur.
Madonna Plaza, the Promenade,
the post office, the auto park,
Oceanaire homes and the sewage
treatment plant were built on the
San Luis and Prefumo Creek Flood
Plain. These and the Dalidio lands
have been under water several times
in the past and as recently as 1973.
Because we mistakenly approved de-
velopment on areas where it should
not have been allowed, the Dalidio
land has become critical. Now, filling
irresponsible
'it is misguided
decision-making that
puts people and
structures in Mood
areas and results
in disaster'
and building becomes too risky and
costly for the community to permit.
These past developments required
the importing of great volumes of fill
to raise the buildings above flood lev-
els. 'This fill occupies a large area no
longer available for the next flood.
The water has to go somewhere, and
that will be adjacent properties. The
storm in 1973 flooded adjacent
stores, streets and houses in addition
to the Dalidio land and across High-
way 101. That was before the filling
for the Central Coast Plaza.
The vast amount of fill needed for
the Marketplace would put a large
population, as well as many adjacent
homes, existing buildings and city
infrastructure at great risk during
the next flood.
This problem would not exist if
the Marketplace were built on the
remaining open land on the Froom
Ranch or along Tank Farm Road or
other agricultural lands in or near
San Luis Obispo.
Because it is a flood plain, nutri-
ents are deposited on the Dalidio
land during periodic flooding. It is
extremely fertile, like no nearby
land, and equal to any land in the
county and probably the state. For
this reason also, it should not be
filled.
Although by themselves not de-
ciding factors, other attributes are
important, too: It has a great blue
heron rookery, a great horned owl
and red - tailed hawk nesting area; it
is adjacent to Laguna lake Park,
whose long -range plan identifies the
eucalyptus grove for future expan-
sion; it is under the airport flight
path (eight fatalities from two plane
crashes in the area proposed for de-
velopment in the past 15 years); it
has great aesthetic value; and it bor-
ders important riparian habitat,
which includes a steelhead creek.
Floods are natural occurrences,
not disasters. It is misguided
decision - making that puts people
and structures in flood areas and re-
sults in disaster. Seems that it is
time to take responsibility' for pro-
tecting these assets.
I have observed this land and ad-
jacent development for more than
20 years. My opinions-are formed
from many years' experience as a
nationally certified wildlife biologist,
with a bachelor's degree in forestry
management and a master's in
wildlife management. Among other
positions, I worked for the New
York state government for 11 years
with responsibility for evaluation of
the impacts of large developments
on terrestrial systems.
Steve Eabry lives in San Luis Obis-
po. fe worked forgovernment for
more than 30 years, including five
years as a part -time planner with
San Luis Obispo County.
THEY WANT TO DO WHAT? Pbg Lks ,�- j 14 ySe-3
Steve Eabry - Sept 94 - VK.t -�
What do you know about the new Madonna Road homes on Laguna
Lake? How about the new freeway interchange, the increased
damage and risk of injury from floods, widening Madonna Road,
moving a transmission line and the new intersection with Madonna?
There has been a lot of discussion about expanding the
Central Coast Plaza or building another adjacent one. The
arguments include whether we need another mall, what would be
the impact of a big box store on downtown, will the taxes be
new money or just dollars taken from downtown businesses?
We don't hear or don't pay attention to what comes along
with this new mall package. These include some significant
additional developments, including upwards of 130 new residences
right on Madonna across from Laguna Lake, the rerouting of an
electrical transmission line, widening of Madonna with the loss
of many large trees, a new freeway interchange with entrance
and exit ramps on Madonna just west of the post office and some
unknown development on another 10 acres sometime in the future.
Not only don't we include these other developments in our
discussions of a new mall, but we tend to assume that the Dalidio
farm is the only place for this. Whether there is need in the
city for a new shopping center, and if so, what it should contain
is a very important question for discussion. Only half the
stores in the present mall are occupied and the Laguna Plaza
has had 10 or more shops empty the past 2 years. The Pacific
Coast Center, another recent shopping center also has many empty
shops. The Copeland family has taken a large risk and invested
a great deal in our downtown. I wonder if a new mall wouldn't
just be a kick in the head to them and downtown in general.
I wonder if the cost will be paid by locals while benefits are
reaped by out of town developers and shoppers. I wonder if
this total package will add to the quality of life in SLO.
My expertise does not include the economics of shopping
center development, so I'll leave the question of whether and
what kinds are needed to others. I do know a lot about
-2-
environmental impact and that is what I'd like to discuss.
The area is referred to as the Dalidio expansion or
annexation area. It is about 186 acres and of that the Dalidio
family owns about 130. This is all riparian area, that is,
it is adjacent to a creek and is part of it's ecosystem. The
creek is Prefumo Creek, a steelhead creek and itself tributary
to San Luis Creek. The land is not now in the city. It is
in the unincorporated area of the county and zoned for 10 acre
residential development.
All of the land in question is within the Prefumo Creek
and San Luis Creek flood plain. It was flooded in 1969 and
again in 1973. After these floods, the culvert under 101 was
enlarged as was the culvert under Madonna at the lake outlet.
After these flood control efforts, the Army Corps of Engineers
determined that a flood the same as that in 1973 will result
in water over, that is over, Madonna Road to a depth of 3 feet.
This area will again be severely flooded as will the neighboring
residential area and the auto park commercial area. A flood
plain is the area higher than the stream channel which carries
the water during high runoff. When flood plains are filled,
the flood water runs deeper faster and is more destructive.
Since the Army Corps' analysis in 1974, a lot of this flood
plain has been filled in raising Madonna Road, the post office,
the sewerage treatment plant, the shops north of Central Coast
Plaza, the Plaza itself, the hotel and much development in the
Auto Park area. The next flood will be higher and deeper and
cause more damage than the one in 1973.
Whether you look in federal publications, or those of state
or local government, ones written by engineers, architects or
environmentalists, none will suggest building in a flood plain.
They all conclude, to use a technical term, that it is foolish.
But we do it, and often, and pay dearly. We pay in lives lost
and in the great expense to repair damages to public and private
property. These damages come after the development and these
are costs to individuals and to government (not the developer).
-3-
Taxpayers have been underwriting development in places where
nature can be depended on to bring ruin. We often call these
"natural disasters ", but they are not, they are predictable
natural events where man has gotten in the way and done foolish
things.
We can protect new development in a flood plain. However,
it is at the expense of neighboring properties. We can see
that today with the increased erosion due to the present Central
Coast Plaza and the continuing city expenses to reduce the
effects of that erosion and we haven't had a storm approaching
the one in 1973 ... yet. When (if) the mall expansion, 130 homes,
parking lots, freeway interchange, etc., goes in, these filled
areas will further magnify and direct the next floodwater into
residential areas and public structures with increased
destruction.
This is mostly prime ag land, the highest quality farmland
in the country. It is a non - renewable resource. Again, all
governments have policies of not permitting development on prime
ag lands, yet we do it and then decry the loss of these
exceptional areas. To have the use of this, within the city,
50 years from now would be priceless, it could help support
a SLO as a sustainable city.
The eucalyptus grove is a significant habitat for many wildlife
species not normally found in or near cities. There is a major great
blue heron' rookery here, several raptors use it as do many song birds.
Upwards of 200 turkey buzzards roost here in winter. It is often
a small wintering area for monarch butterflies and deer, raccoon
and other small mammals reside here or use it as a travel corridor.
The city recently completed a planning effort to look at the
future of Laguna Lake Park. One of the important recommendations
of this plan was to recognize the values of this grove and to identify
it as the next major area for addition to the park. The northern
-4-
end of the grove would make a wonderful interpretive center. What
a treasure this would be in the future to have something like this
within the city.
Madonna Road between the post office and 101 is now 7 lanes!
I suspect it is the only 7 lane road in the county and it is often
congested. To put another freeway on and off ramp at the post
office and widen the road to Prefumo Creek will greatly impact
the park, the aesthetics of this internal city corridor and further
increase traffic congestion. A good portion of the $10 -12+ million
cost of the interchange will come from taxes. If not city taxes,
then federal and state monies, but all from our pockets.
If this is to be an expansion of the existing mall, PG &E's
electric transmission line will have to be rerouted. Transmission
line siting is difficult in rural areas. It can be next to
impossible to safely site a transmission line through developed
areas and it is very expensive.
This area is under a main flight path to and from the airport
and there have been 2 fatal crashes here in the past 4 years with
8 deaths. Should we be attracting people here?
I mentioned earlier that the Dalidio farm is not the only
place to put a mall. If there is a
appropriate for the city, there are
consider. These include Tank Farm
South and High Streets and Los Osos
Madonna. Impacts of development at
for future articles, but the impact
decision that a new mall is
several better places to
Road, lower Higuera between
Valley Road between 101 and
these locations are subjects
at any of these areas would
►�( � c
Dalidio /Marketplace Project
This project is located within the city's primary floodplain.
All of this land has been underwater twice in the past 30 years.
1. How much fill will you be bringing in?
2. What are the final grades for each of the buildings?
3. By how much are you reducing the floodplain?
Three years ago a person in a car was swept away and drowned
adjacent to this land from Prefumo Creek flooding. At the same
time there was significant public and private property damage caused
by this flooding. There was also extensive damage when this area
was flooded in 1969 and 1973 and somewhat lesser damage in 1982/83.
Filling and building in floodplains are not recommended by any
public or private planning agency because it always accelerates
and intensifies damage to adjacent property during future flooding.
4. What mitigation do you plan for your project?
5. How will you compensate adjacent property owners for
damage caused by this project during the next flood?
6. How much will you be putting into an account to reimburse
the city for future costs incurred due to your building
in a floodplain?
In the past 10 years there have been at least 2 fatal plane crashes
on or adjacent to this property with 10 deaths. No one on the
ground was hurt as this area is generally not densely occupied.
The intent of your project is to attract people to this area.
7. What is the increased risk to shoppers in coming to
this area with known, recent fatal plane crashes?
8. What mitigation are you proposing in regard to this
impact?
Presently, Madonna Road is 6 car lanes and 2 bike lanes at Oceanaire
and then 7 from the post office to 101. I suspect that it is the
only 7 lane road in the county, yet it is often very congested.
9. What do you propose for Madonna between Oceanaire and
the post office?
10. How will this increase
Madonna Rd?
11. How will you mitigate
or decrease the congestion on
the traffic impacts?
Steve Eabry
1786 Oceanaire
544 -1096
MAR 31 2014
Kremke, Kate
From: Mejia, Anthony
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 8:25 AM
To: Kremke, Kate
Subject: FW: Council Meeting Tue Evening, April 1: Proposals for San Luis Ranch project
Agenda Correspondence for 04/01/14 Item PH 1
Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk
L;it.�' s�j. ;.4C1 ltzl onispo
990 Pall Street,
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
tel 1805 78" 7102
AGENDA
11 RESPONDENCE
From: Eugene H. Jud [mailto:ejud @calpoly.edu]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 9:21 PM
To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan;
Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony; Rachel Kovesdi; marshall @slolegal.com
Cc: James Lopes; Eric Meyer; Rosemary Wilvert; Tribune Viewpoint Edit.
Subject: Council Meeting Tue Evening, April 1: Proposals for San Luis Ranch project
Dear Friends,
I fully support the below thinking of James Lopes.
Please allow me also some general LUCE comments:
While I highly appreciate the efforts of the LUCE Task Force and staff, I am afraid that the currently proposed
LUCE does not fulfill the expectations the giver of our one million $ grant had. They saw the signs of the
times and wanted to get r e a 1 action based on e.g. the Climate Action- and Climate Adaptation plan and the
new lifestyles ( "Live Light ") of the millenial generation. Unfortunately, we had a (politically "well balanced ")
LUCE Task Force with mostly gray hair, 20 or 30 years older than the generation we plan for! Progressive
proposals were mostly voted down in the LUCE Task force, with the laudable exception of a new definition for
the percentage split in the transportation modes.
When it comes to the road plan, for example, Prado Road is still called Hwy 227, although Caltrans is not at all
interested in this. In the plan we have now Buckley Road with a direct access to the LOVR/101 interchange to
relieve the traffic jams at the Marigold and at the intersection of South Higuera and LOVR Roads. Hint: some
differences in road plans could perhaps be mitigated by a smart phasing concept where the disputed road links
come last (or never).
In any case I support the general request of James, that Council directs staff to change LUCE proposals, when
they clearly do not fulfill the expectations of the grant givers. The EIR may help in this, although the
evaluated alternatives could be biased in themselves.
Thank you for providing bold leadership in the coming weeks and months for the benefit of our young people.
Sincerely
Kate Kremke
Administrative Assistant
Ci
City Administration
City Clerk's Office
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249
kkremke@slocity.org
T 805.781.7104
slocity.org
Kremke, Kate
From: Mejia, Anthony
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 12:23 PM
To: Kremke, Kate
Subject: FW: Proposals for San Luis Ranch project
Attachments: San Luis Ranch CC 4 -1 -14 Lopes PPT.pdf
Agenda Correspondence for 04/01/14 for Item PH -1
Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk
ca %,' of sail Ims oT.zI po
990 Palm Street
San I iris Obispo, CA 93401
tel1805� '/£ia.7102
MAR 27 2014
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
DAte V,4 -y - i `i ItemA
From: James Lopes [mailto:iameslopes @ charter.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 12:01 PM
To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan;
Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony; Rachel Kovesdi; Marshall Ochylski
Subject: Proposals for San Luis Ranch project
Dear Mayor and Council members:
I am attaching a revised version of the slide show we discussed on Monday (except for Council member
Christianson).
The revisions do the following:
1. Add an estimate of a potential 200 living units on the 20 acres of commercial, hotel and office acreage;
2. Correct this acreage and that of the entire property;
3. And they propose the following list of "guidance" items to include with the MOU and the Council
resolution in the staff report.
I am requesting that the City reset the outdated 1994 General Plan requirement for 50% open space on the
property to a higher number, now 75 %.
The slide show demonstrates that up to 400 total residential units could be built on only 30 acres of the
property; 200 of these easily on the 20 acres of commercial areas. Farmland could then be preserved on about
100 acres, or 77% of the property. There are currently about 116 acres in cultivation, so the City could offer
that some of the preserved farmland could be uncultivated open space to serve as the required "ag buffer" which
is typically about 250 feet deep.
Planning staff representatives saw this slide show today and indicated that they would not venture a
recommendation to increase the open space requirement, which was re- affirmed in the LUCE process. I have
confidence that your Council can and will direct staff to set a goal of increasing this requirement for
environmental review as a project alternative, and possible inclusion in the upcoming Hearing Draft
LUCE. On Tuesday, you will have the opportunity to demonstrate that your intent is to adopt a LUCE with
this higher standard. You will be able to give guidance to the developer, with a proviso that this is a goal to
meet if feasible in their application.
The possibility is good that the interested developers will create a balanced housing approach that is higher
density and well integrated with commercial development. And, it is probable that they will find it profitable to
do this and save much more than 50% of the existing open space. The following list, if you wish it to be in the
MOU and Resolution, will also rectify the lack of guidance for a 21 st Century, pedestrian - friendly shopping
center environment. I am copying the project representatives since they have been supportive of these concepts
and may want to analyze them further before Tuesday's hearing.
New Guidance for Planning
Set a new goal of 75% of the property to remain in farmland.
• Set a goal of at least 200 residential units to be mixed -use residential units in the commercial
area.
• Require commercial/ office plans to be street- fronting, contiguous, pedestrian- friendly
buildings, with urban open spaces.
• Require surface parking to be located at the rear of buildings or in garages.
Require Dalidio/ Prado to be a traffic- calmed boulevard.
I appreciate your attention and desire to understand my viewpoints on this vastly important project. Please
contact me if any questions or concerns.
Regards,
Jamie Lopes
James Lopes
1336 Sweet Bay Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Ph. 805 - 781 -8960
Kremke, Kate
From: Mejia, Anthony
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 9:39 AM
To: Kremke, Kate
Cc: Goodwin, Heather
Subject: FW: Agenda correspondence
Attachments: San Luis Ranch 2004 EIR soil quality.pdf
Agenda Correspondence for 04/01/14 for PH 1
Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk
ol. S""n Ims L7liiy l(7
t)qo Falrn Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
tel 180,5.78-1,7102.
From: Marx, Jan
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 9:04 AM
To: Mejia, Anthony; Goodwin, Heather
Subject: Agenda correspondence
Agenda correspondence.
Jan Marx
Mayor
'. CITY OF
SHIM. LUIS OBISPO
Office of the City Council
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249
E jmarx @slocity.org
T 805.781.7120
locity.org
I
RECEIVED
MAR 31 2014
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Date W 1 -14 Item# P=
Dalidio /San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR
Section 4.6 Agricultural Resources
4.6 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Project implementation would result in the conversion of 60 acres of prime agricultural land to general
retail, office business park, and infrastructure uses. Impacts related to the loss of such agriculturally -
suitable land would be significant and unavoidable (Class I). However, it should be noted that the
applicant would acquire an open space easement over 20 acres of off -site agricultural land of similar soil
type. Potential impacts related to land use conflicts between proposed development and adjacent
agricultural uses would be significant but mitigable (Class II).
4.6.1 Setting
a. Regional Agricultural Resources. California was the leading state in agricultural
production in the United States for 2000 and San Luis Obispo County consistently ranks within
the top 20 counties in overall state agricultural productivity. A steady increase in San Luis
Obispo County crop values has occurred in recent years.
Agriculture makes a substantial contribution to the county economy and accounts for
approximately 80% of the privately -owned land in the county. Total agricultural production
valuations from 1992 to 2001 have increased from approximately $278 million to $490 million.
The top five crops, by value in San Luis Obispo County in 2001 included: wine grapes ($138
million), cattle and calves ($43 million), broccoli ($36 million), head lettuce ($30 million), and
indoor decorative ($27 million) (San Luis Obispo County Department of Agriculture, 2001
Annual Report, 2001). The gross value of agricultural production is multiplied by a factor of
two to three times through the local economy due to the involvement of other sectors of the
economy, including industry, retail trade and commercial services. The County has become an
increasingly important wine - making region, and the trend of the 1990s to convert ranchlands to
vineyards continues.
b. Dalidio Property Agricultural Resources.
Ai4ricultural Uses. Approximately 109 acres of the 131 acre project site are used for the
production of irrigated row crops including celery, broccoli, lettuce, oriental vegetables, and
peas. A vegetable packing facility, storage areas, Prefumo Creek watershed drainages, and
eucalyptus trees occupy about 22 acres that have little or no agricultural production value at
this time. The packing facility is used to process locally grown crops and the storage areas
primarily store agricultural equipment. Crops grown on the site are packed in the field. On
any given year various combinations of row crops may be grown on the site and on the adjacent
property south of the site. Irrigation water availability is considered good according to the
cropland lessee. Currently, the site is farmed in combination with the property directly to the
south.
The current crop production areas are separated by at least 100 to 300 foot wide buffers from
adjacent residential, commercial and post office uses. The residential areas are separated from
the cropland by a riparian and eucalyptus corridor, a barbed wire fence, and a farm access road
along Prefumo Creek. According to the cropland lessee, the only problem with farming the site
stems from concern for children playing in the tree area adjacent to the farm fields. However,
project site owner Ernie Dalidio has expressed concern over the viability of continuing to farm
the site considering its close proximity to urban uses. Specifically, in a September 21, 1999
City of San Luis Obispo
4.6 -1
Dalidio /San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR
Section 4.6 Aqricultural Resources
article in The San Luis Obispo Telegraph- Tribune, Mr. Dalidio expressed his opinion that urban
farming does not work due to the incompatibilities between urban development and
agricultural practices, particularly the aerial spraying of pesticides and the burning of crops.
The shopping center and hotel north of the site are separated from the cropland area by a farm
access road, Dalidio Road, and a parking lot. The postal facility building to the northwest is
separated from the cropland area by a farm access road, a drainage swale, and a postal parking
lot. The San Luis Obispo County agricultural Commissioner's Office has not received
complaints regarding farming practices and pesticide uses on the site. Pesticides used on -site
are applied by ground spraying.
Soils and Crop Production. Three soils types are found on the project site as shown on
Figure 4.6 -1. The Capability Class II (irrigated) Cropley clay comprises about 83 acres, and the
Capability Class 1 (irrigated) Salinas silty clay loam occupies about 26 acres of crop production
land. Total irrigated crop production is about 109 acres. These 109 acres are considered prime
agricultural land due to their Capability Class I and II rating and their high average gross
revenues. According to a 1997 Agricultural Production Report published by the San Luis
Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner's Office, row crops in San Luis Obispo County yield
about $4,000 per acre for county row crop land (note: $200.00 per acre or greater gross revenue
qualifies as prime). These soils are also designated as prime by the California Department of
Conservation Important Farmlands Mapping Program.
The USDA National Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) methodology
for cropland takes into account factors such as land capability, soil productivity, Important
Farmland classification, slope, irrigation water availability, crop productivity, and site acreage.
These factors suggest that the project site has a high agricultural viability for cropland
production. The Cropley clay soil is constrained by seasonal wetness due to the slow surface
runoff, which reduces the ability to farm when the ground is wet. The Salinas silty clay loam
soil has no constraints related to crop production. Characteristics of the soil types found on the
project site are described in Table 4.6 -1.
The remaining three acres of Salinas soil are within the creek and bank area of Prefumo Creek
and have limited agricultural production value. The 19 acres of Cropley clay presently used for
the packing facility, storage areas, eucalyptus groves, and drainage areas have little or no
agricultural production value.
c. Prado Road Interchange Footprint Agricultural Resources. The Prado Road
interchange footprint area is primarily within Caltrans right -of -way, with the exception of the
area near the proposed freeway ramps and the realigned Elks Lane. Adjacent to U.S. Highway
101, but outside of the Caltrans right -of -way, about 550 feet north of the Prado Road/ U.S.
Highway 101 intersection is an approximately 0.25 acre area currently being used for
production of agricultural row - crops. This parcel is currently zoned C /OS, Conservation/ Open
Space with a General Plan designation of Open Space. The proposed auxiliary lane would not
extend onto this property.
City of San Luis Obispo
4,6 -2
Dalidio /San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR
Section 4.6 Agricultural Resources
e
o ■
♦
t •
a
r
o
L%
EL MERCADO
L j I_ I M1 G♦AhAr I
I - 4L1148 I
I
� I- f
------ l..I
r�rr�� ri i
♦
I `
o+ s
i`+ 1
rr aril 1
i
128
1 ,�
• l4
y
%I
j
4
l
127
197
SOURCES: Cannon Associates
USDA Soil Survey for San Luis Obispo County, 1985
LEGEND
127
CROPLEY CLAY
128
CROPLEY CLAY
197
SALINAS SILTY CLAY LOAM
r
197
G
I
` x
i
1 �
i
` o
1
•
a sa t000
SCALE IN FEET
NORTH
Soil Types at the Dalidio Property
Figure 4.6 -1
City of San Luis Obispo
Dalidio /San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR
Section 4.6 Agricultural Resources
Table 4.6 -1 Soil Characteristics at the Dalidio Property
Source: U.S. Department ofAgricUlture Soil Survey San 2_uis Obispo county, Uoastal cart, 7b0d4; 4;er+romia uaparTMnr or "nserverion imporrarn rarrniarruto iviap,
1986.
City of San Luis Obispo
4.6 -4
Site
Important
Map
Soil
Texture
Slope
Capability
Storie
Site
Soil
Surface
Erosion
Regional
Agricultural
Farmland
#
Name
%
Class
Index
Acreage
Constraints
Runoff
Hazard
Cropland Uses
Uses
Map
Designation
127
Cropley
clay
0 to 2
II irrigated
60
63 acres
wetness
slow
slight
row crops,
row crops
Prime
III non-
pasture,
irrigated
dryland farming
126
Cropley
clay
2 to 9
II irrigated
54
19 acres
wetness
slow to
slight-
dryland
packing,
Other
III non-
medium
mod
hay /grain
watershed
irri ated
197
Salinas
silty
0 to 2
1 irrigated
96
26 acres
none
slow
slight
row crops, hay
row crops
Prime
clay
II non -
loam
irrigated
N/A
3 acres
creek area
rapid
high
watershed
watershed
Other
Source: U.S. Department ofAgricUlture Soil Survey San 2_uis Obispo county, Uoastal cart, 7b0d4; 4;er+romia uaparTMnr or "nserverion imporrarn rarrniarruto iviap,
1986.
City of San Luis Obispo
4.6 -4
Dalidio /San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR
Section 4.6 Agricultural Resources
In addition, the realignment of Elks Lane would involve the pavement of a portion of the
property located at 40 Prado Road. This property is zoned O -PD, Office - Planned Development,
with and General Plan designation of Office, and is not currently used for agricultural
production. However, the soil at this property is identified as Capability Class I (irrigated)
Salinas silty clay loam #197 in the USDA Soil Survey for San Luis Obispo County (1984). As
stated above, the Salinas silty clay loam soil has no constraints to crop production.
Characteristics of this soil type are described in Table 4.6 -1.
d. San Luis County Buffer Policy. San Luis Obispo County has adopted agricultural
buffer policies that are discretionary in nature, and determined on a case -by -case basis.
Generally, buffers are intended to limit human - occupied structures. The County has typically
recommended setbacks ranging from 200 to 500 feet between irrigated row cropland and certain
urban uses. Buffers of at least 200 feet may be needed on a case -by -case basis for restricted
pesticide use based on Agricultural Commissioner's Office permit requirement policies.
4.6.2 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Thresholds of Significance. Though broad discretion is granted
to lead agencies in determining thresholds of significance in determining environmental
impacts, it is common to assume the conversion of prime soils to urban uses would constitute a
significant impact to agricultural resources.
Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact if the project
would:
• Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland) to nonagricultural use;
• Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; and/or
• Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,
could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non - agricultural use
Prime agricultural land is defined as having any of the following:
• A soil Capability Class of I or II,
• Soil Storie Index of 80 -100;
• Gross annual revenue of at least $200 per acre per year, or
• A carrying capacity of one animal unit per acre of land.
Sage Associates conducted a site - specific evaluation of the Dalidio property in 1998. The
criteria above were used to determine whether the project would result in the conversion of
prime agricultural land to non - agricultural use. The conversion of prime agricultural land to
non - agricultural use is considered to be a potentially significant impact.
City of San Luis Obispo
4.6 -5
Dalidio /San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR
Section 4.6 Agricultural Resources
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
Impact AG -1 The proposed project would result in the direct conversion of
approximately 60 acres of actively farmed prime soils to non-
agricultural uses. This is considered a Class I, significant and
unavoidable impact.
Dalidio Property. The Dalidio property contains 83 acres of Cropley clay and 26 acres of
Salinas silty clay loam, for a total of 109 acres of prime soil on -site. These two types of soils on
the areas of the site used for crop production meet at least one of the four criteria listed above
for determination of prime agricultural land. The Cropley clay has a Capability Class II
(irrigated) rating and high average gross revenue of about $4,000 per acre for county row crop
land. The Salinas silty clay loam has a Capability Class I (irrigated), a Storie Index of 86, and a
high average gross revenue of about $4,000 per acre for county row crop land. Implementation
of the proposed project would convert 60 acres of the 109 acres of prime agricultural land
currently in row crop production to a non - agricultural use. Therefore, the impact of converting
60 acres of the Dalidio property to non - agricultural uses is considered a significant and
unavoidable impact of the proposed project.
Prado Road Interchange. Construction of the Prado Road interchange and auxiliary lane
would not result in the conversion of prime farmland to non - agricultural uses. However, the
realignment of Elks Lane and the use of the abandoned gas station site and its surrounding
open land area for the interchange footprint would result in the conversion of approximately 0.8
acre of prime agricultural land to an urban infrastructure use. The open land surrounding the
abandoned gas station has not been used for agricultural production for many years. The site is
General Plan - designated and zoned for Office uses. Nevertheless, the impact of converting 0.8
acre of State - defined prime agricultural land a to non - agricultural use is considered a significant
unavoidable impact of the proposed project.
It should be noted that the applicant would acquire an open space easement over 20 acres of off -
site agricultural land of similar soil type, which would reduce overall regional impacts on prime
soils areas.
Mitigation Measures. No measures are available to fully mitigate the loss of prime
agricultural land. However, there may be opportunities to reduce impacts of this conversion by
maintaining the viability of the remaining land to be farmed. The following mitigation
measures are recommended to reduce these impacts to the extent possible:
AG -1(a) Access for agricultural equipment shall be provided to the remaining
agricultural land from the proposed collector street and from Dalidio
Road and Elks Lane. Curbing shall be designed or cut to provide wide
"driveway - like" access to the cropland for all farm equipment.
AG -1(b) Irrigation water sources and infrastructure shall be provided to the
remaining 58.8 acres of prime farmland on the Dalidio property. Water
cost shall be at current rates.
City of San Luis Obispo
4.6 -6
Dalidio /San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR
Section 4.6 Aaricultural Resources
The proposed project's development plan states that water for continuing agricultural
operations shall be supplied through existing wells from the underlying aquifer. This is
consistent with how water is currently provided for on -site agricultural operations and would
fulfill the requirements of the above measure.
AG -1(c) Agricultural Easement. The remaining approximately 58.8 acres of
prime agricultural land on the Dalidio Property shall remain as a single
parcel and be placed under a permanent agricultural easement held by
the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County, Coastal San Luis
Resource Conservation District, or other qualified conservation
organization. Fee title to the property may continue to be held by a
private party or may be transferred to the City of San Luis Obispo.
Cropland production shall have preference over all other open space uses
and shall be encouraged through competitive lease rates and protection
through the San Luis Obispo County Right to Farm Ordinance. The
current farmer would consider the 52 acres as an agriculturally viable
unit for row crop production and has expressed interest in continuing to
farm on -site.
AG -1(d) Off -Site Open Space Dedication Agricultural Characteristics. The 20
acres of off -site open space proposed to be funded by the applicant
shall be characterized by similar overall agricultural suitability as the
on -site agricultural lands.
Significance After Mitigation. Implementation of these measures would reduce impacts to
the remaining agricultural land on -site. However, since about 60 acres of prime agricultural land
would still be converted to non - agricultural use, impacts to agricultural resources would remain
significant and unavoidable.
This conclusion reiterates the conclusion of the City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element/
Circulation Element Final EIR, certified by the City in 1993. The conversion of the Dalidio property
and 40 Prado Road to urban uses was analyzed in the 1993 FEIR. The impacts to agricultural lands
due to development accommodated by the Land Use Element was then identified as a Class I
unavoidable significant impact due to the conversion of 700 acres of state - identified prime
agricultural land. Therefore, the proposed project constitutes a part of the previously - identified
impact, and would not result in an additional significant impact to the one already determined in
the 1993 document.
Impact AG -2 The proposed project may result in land use conflicts with the
continued on -site and adjacent agricultural operations. This is
considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
Dalidio Property. As development occurs on the Dalidio property, conflicts could occur
between continuing on -site agricultural operations and existing agricultural operations
immediately south of the proposed project site. Detrimental effects could occur to the shoppers
and employees at the project site, as well as to existing agricultural development. Typical land
use conflicts between development and agriculture are described below.
City of San Luis Obispo
4.6 -7
Dalidio /San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR
Section 4.6 Agricultural Resources
Impacts to Commercial and Office/ Business Park Uses. The agricultural property south of and
adjacent to the area of the Dalidio property that is proposed to be developed with the San Luis
Marketplace and office/ business park uses could create health- related and nuisance conflicts with
on -site shoppers and employees. In particular, the use of pesticides on the adjacent row crops and
the suspension of dust from operation of farm equipment could create health concerns to both users
of the proposed facilities. This is a potentially significant impact. The use of methyl bromide as a
soil fumigant is a particular concern; however, this chemical is typically used on strawberry fields,
and has not been identified as one of the pesticides used on -site. Any restricted pesticides, like
methyl bromide, would require a permit be obtained through the San Luis Obispo County
Agricultural Commissioner's Office. A gr-ie ultra Commissioner- approved stfattegies m
utilized to r-edtiee eenfliets between agr-mietilttir-al oper-atiens and adjaeent uses. These stfattegies
Impacts to Agricultural Uses. Urban development adjacent to farmland can have several negative
impacts on continued farm operations. Construction of the commercial and office/ business park
portions of the project could create excessive dust that could temporarily affect agricultural
productivity. In the long term, potential effects associated with increased access to adjacent
agricultural lands could include vandalism to farm equipment or fencing, and theft of crops. Soil
compaction from trespassers can also damage crop potential and spread disease. These can result
in direct economic impacts. The proposed commercial buildings along the southwestern portion
of the proposed commercial area would act as a buffer if the building entrance faces the parking
lot and any rear entrances are only for shipping and receiving. Nevertheless, impacts to
agricultural activity are considered potentially significant.
Prado Road Interchange. Construction of the proposed auxiliary lane and Prado Road
Interchange could create excessive dust that could temporarily affect agricultural productivity on
the site adjacent to U.S. Highway 101. In addition, the storage and maintenance of construction
equipment on the property could result in contamination of the soil and soil compaction,
potentially causing a decrease in crop potential. Therefore, impacts to agricultural activity are
considered potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce
the potential impacts from agricultural land use conflicts to a less than significant level.
AG -2(a) A 100 -foot buffer between urban and agricultural uses shall be
incorporated into the design the San Luis Marketplace, and other urban
uses on the Dalidio property. Agricultural buffers can include non -
habitable structures, roadways, parking, landscaped areas, and non -
habitable buildings.
AG -2(b) All future uses on the designated open space areas shall be compatible
with continued farming of the remaining cropland. Adequate buffer
zones of at least 100 feet between human occupied structures, or other
areas as required by the Agricultural Commissioners Office, and the
remaining cropland shall be provided and landscaping along the west
side of the potential collector road shall be part of the project approval
requirements. These buffer zones shall be provided within the
City of San Luis Obispo
4.6 -8
Dalidio /San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR
Section 4.6 Agricultural Resources
designated open space areas, and shall not diminish the amount of
farmland available for use.
AG -2(c) For the construction activities on the Dalidio property as well as for the
Prado Road interchange, construction equipment storage and
construction staging shall be confined to the areas planned for conversion
from agricultural to urban uses. All construction equipment maintenance
shall be confined to these areas. No construction equipment staging or
storage shall occur on areas designated as Open Space or in agricultural
production.
In addition, Section 4.3, Air Qualihj, specifies dust control measures during project construction.
These measures would incrementally reduce potential impacts to the productivity of
neighboring agricultural uses.
Significance After Mitigation. Implementation of the above measures would reduce
land use impacts related to agricultural operations to a less than significant level.
c. Cumulative Impacts. Planned buildout of the City of San Luis Obispo area will convert
an estimated 700 acres of agricultural land by about 2020. This is considered a significant and
unavoidable cumulative impact to agriculture in the San Luis Obispo area. The proposed project
would incrementally contribute to this significant cumulative impact by converting approximately
60 acres of cropland to a non - agricultural use and is therefore considered significant and
unavoidable.
City of San Luis Obispo
4.6 -9
Kremke, Kate
From:
Sent:
Mejia, Anthony
Monday, March 31, 2014 10:33 AM
To: Kremke, Kate
Cc: Goodwin, Heather
Subject: FW: Agenda correspondence
Attachments: dalidio Measure A 2005 jpg
Agenda Correspondence for 04/01/14 Item PH 1
Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk
San Luis Obispo, CA 93140J
tel 1805,7191.71-0)
From: Marx, Jan
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 10:22 AM
To: Mejia, Anthony
Cc: Goodwin, Heather
Subject: Agenda correspondence
Jan Marx
Mayor
Y op
Office of the City Council
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249
E jmarx @slocity.org
T 805.781.7120
slocity.or
MAR 3 12014
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Date ' I, I- I� Item# L 1
Measure A -05
Resolution No. 9590
(2004 Series)
Shall Resolution No. 9590 (3004 Series).
amending the General Plan Land Use Map h�,-
designating 48.7 acres as general retail, 5.I acres i Yes
as office. 3.3 acres as medium -high density
residential, 54.7 acres as open space. with the
remainder 16.2 acres allocated to roads and an
interchange in conjunction with the San Luis
Obispo Marketplace development project, be No
adopted?
COUNCIL MEETING: 01 c:aw
ITLM NUJ.: A — b
j aftaicouncit memoizanoum
city of san Luis oBispo, admmistuation aepantment
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
March 28, 2014
City Council
Anthony Mejia, City Clerk
Katie Lichtig, City Manager
MAR 2 8 2014
PROCESSING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR SAN LUIS
RANCH PROJECT
The Processing Memorandum of Understanding (Attachment 3) with Coastal Community
Builders for Item PH -1 (Pre - Application of Conceptual Materials for the San Luis Ranch
Project) was missing from the Council Agenda Report.
04/01/2014
Item PH -1
PROCESSING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ATTACHMENT 3
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AND
COASTAL COMMUNITY BUILDERS, INC.
This PROCESSING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ( "MOU ") is made and entered
on the — day of 20_ for real property located in COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
( "County "), by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a charter city and California
municipal corporation ( "City "), and COASTAL COMMUNITY BUILDERS, INC.
( "Developer ").
RECITALS
A. Developer has an interest in the real property commonly known as 1035 Madonna
Road (APN: 067 - 121 -022) most specifically identified in the attached Exhibit "A," which is
incorporated by reference, which consists of approximately 131 acres ( "Real Property ").
B. Recent discussions between City and Developer have identified potential areas of
mutual benefit and the City and Developer have mutually agreed to process entitlements for the
development of a portion of the Real Property for future annexation to the City. Upon execution
of this MOU by the City and Developer, Developer shall file an application with City which, if
approved by the City Council and the San Luis Obispo County Local Area Formation
Commission ( "LAFCO "), would, among other things, cause the Real Property to be annexed to
the City's corporate territory as designated on the attached Exhibit "B ".
C. As contemplated by Developer at the time of executing this MOU, Developer will
develop the Real Property under a Specific Plan within the framework of the City's General Plan
to be developed as provided more fully below. The development proposed for the Real Property
would consist of residential housing, commercial, office, hotel, parks, agricultural /open space,
and various public infrastructure facilities as detailed on the accompanying Pre - Application
submittal (collectively, "Project ").
D. It is the intent of both City and Developer that Developer shall be responsible for
satisfaction of its proportionate share of all impact fees consistent with AB 1600 and the City's
adopted General Plan, Specific Plan, and other applicable regulations and /or agreements ( "fair
share ").
E. This MOU will reduce the uncertainty in planning for and secure the orderly
development of the Project, ensure a desirable and functional community environment, provide
effective and efficient development of public facilities, infrastructure, and services appropriate
for the development of the Project, assure attainment of the maximum effective utilization of
resources within the City, and provide other significant benefits to City and its residents.
-Page 1 of 16 -
CC6 (San Luis Ranch Processing Memorandum of Understanding)
(03 -14-2014) PH1 -1AC
Agenda Correspondence
F. Some of the benefits to be received by City from this MOU and the
implementation of the Project include, without limitation:
1. Implementing the City's stated land use goals;
2. Dedication of an Agricultural /Open Space easement;
3. Providing improved access to the Project and adjacent areas by
participating in the financing of Prado and Froom Ranch Road
improvements;
4. Providing improved multimodal mobility by participating in the
completion of major bicycle infrastructure including the Bob Jones Trail;
5. Providing City with anticipated increased sales, property tax, and transient
occupancy tax revenues;
6. Providing for affordable housing in furtherance of City's inclusionary
housing goals;
7. Providing a portion of the Real Property to be developed as a business
park or such related use, in support of the City's further economic
development; and
8. Providing for added hotel development with conference facilities; and
9. Such other and additional benefits as may be negotiated between the
parties pursuant to a Development Agreement to be considered by the City
Council.
G. In order to cause the Real Property to be annexed to the City's limits, the City
intends to initiate annexation proceedings with LAFCO, ( "Annexation ") as provided by Cortese -
Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code §§ 56000 et
seq.; "Cortese- Knox - Hertzberg ") upon the written request of an annexation and a waiver of
protest rights under Cortese- Know - Hertzberg. As required by Cortese- Knox - Hertzberg,
however, City must first pre -zone the Real Property for the intended uses. ( "Pre- Zoning ").
Moreover, the General Plan requires that, before annexation, a development plan be developed
for the Real Property, in accordance with the requirements of Government Code §§ 65450 et
seq., that reflect the land use build -out and other development policies to be described in the
City's General Plan.
H. The City's General Plan is currently in the process of being amended ( "General
Plan ") to include and designate the Real Property for the land uses envisioned in the Project.
Accordingly and as more fully set forth below, in preparing and considering the Annexation and
the pre- zoning, and conducting the requisite programmatic environmental review under the
- Page 2of16-
CCB (San Luis Ranch Processing .11emorandum of Understanding)
(03-14-2014) PH 1 -2AC
Agenda Correspondence
California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq., City
will evaluate as the "Proposed Project" the aforementioned uses. Additional CEQA project level
environmental review for the project will be prepared.
I. The City of San Luis Obispo Planning and Development Department has recently
requested, and is actively pursuing, an update to the existing Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) to
accurately define and update safety boundaries. The City has requested the Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) utilize the "California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook" which is the
standard for providing guidance and direction for Airport Land Use Plans across the state. Under
the Handbook guidelines, the zone affecting the Project is Zone 4, which allows for the
development of housing. The Project must be compatible with the Airport Land Use Plan or
receive a City Council overrule of the ALUP.
J. Developer's application with the City for the Project will include applications for
the Annexation and Pre - Zoning for the Real Property (collectively, "Applications ").
K. As City and Developer both desire to facilitate the annexation and entitlement of
the Real Property, they have entered into this MOU to establish a process pursuant to which (i)
the Annexation and Pre - Zoning will be developed, and considered by City, together with certain
other actions described below; (ii) the City and Developer will undertake to negotiate and agree
upon a Development Agreement between City and Developer in accordance with Government
Code §§ 65864 et seq. ( "Development Agreement ") and Chapter 17.94 et seq. of the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code; (iii) the City will undertake and complete and the Developer will
support and separately fund the required environmental review under CEQA; (iv) subject to the
timely achievement of all of the foregoing, annexation of the Real Property will be sought from
LAFCO as required by Cortese- Knox - Hertzberg ( "Annexation "); and (v) the City and Developer
will take such further actions as may be necessary or appropriate towards the entitlement of the
Real Property, such as tentative subdivision maps and other permits and approvals ( "Project
Approvals ") in accordance with the City's otherwise applicable development review processes
and standards.
AGREEMENT
1. Real Property ubject to Agreement. This MOU applies to, and governs, the
annexation and future development of the Real Property.
2. Relationship of City and Developer. This MOU is a contract that has been
negotiated and voluntarily entered into by City and Developer. Developer is not an agent of City.
City and Developer disclaim the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between
them, and agree that nothing contained in this MOU or in any document executed in connection
with this Agreement shall be construed as making City and Developer parties to a joint venture
or partners.
3. Annexation. The City and Developer acknowledge and agree that the intent of the
City and Developer is to pursue annexation into and development of the Real Property within the
- Page 3 of 16 -
CCB (San Luis Ranch Processing Alemorandum of Understanding)
(03-14-2014) PH 1 -3AC
Agenda Correspondence
City consistent with otherwise applicable annexation and development review processes and City
development standards upon application for an annexation by the Developer.
4. Effective Date and Term.
4.1. Effective Date. This MOU becomes effective after City Council approval
of this MOU and this MOU is fully executed by the City and Developer ( "Effective Date ").
4.2. Term. Subject to early termination as provided in Section 14.6 below, the
term of the MOU ( "Term ") begins on the Effective Date. The MOU shall remain in effect until
modified or terminated by mutual consent of the City and Developer. In the event the
Annexation does not occur, or the Developer does not purchase the Real Property, the MOU
shall be null and void and shall be terminated without any further obligations hereunder.
Planning Guidelines and Entitlement Process.
5.1 General. As set forth below, City and Developer agree to enter into and
carry out in good faith a process between Developer and the City, consistent with otherwise
applicable annexation and development review processes and City development standards, for
the review and consideration of the Applications for the Real Property.
5.2 Planning Parameters. The City and Developer estimate that the Real
Property will be developed with the proposed Project together with all appropriate CEQA
requirements within the general development standards established in the General Plan, as the
same may be modified at the discretion of the City Council, by a General Plan Amendment,
and /or pursuant to any update to the existing Airport Land Use Plan by the Airport Land Use
Commission to accurately define and update safety boundaries and /or any land use approvals
pursuant to City Council overrule of the ALUP provisions affecting the Project.
5.3 General Approval Process. As more fully set forth below, the City and
Developer agree that the approvals necessary for the development of the Project will include a
Full or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, a proposed Specific Plan (which will
constitute Pre - Zoning), to be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Government Code
§§ 65450 et seq. as required by the General Plan and proposed amendments; the City's Pre -
Zoning of Real Property for the uses anticipated by the General Plan and proposed amendments
and Annexation as required by Cortese- Knox - Hertzberg; a master tentative tract map; and the
Development Agreement between City and Developer, in accordance with the requirements of
Government Code § 65864 et seq., which will affect the Project Area and, if approved by City
and Developer, become operative upon, and as a precondition to, the annexation of the Real
Property to the City's boundaries.
5.4 CAA and Fiscal Impacts Review. Upon Submittal of all required
information and applications, City agrees to promptly commence its project level environmental
review after an application is deemed complete under CEQA and to undertake to complete such
review, to the extent practicable, in accordance with a schedule to be mutually developed and
-Page 4of16-
CCB (San Luis Ranch Processing 1temorandum of Understanding)
(03 -14 -2014) PH 1 -4AC
Agenda Correspondence
agreed upon between City and Developer. The City and Developer agree to use good faith
efforts to process all matters and to otherwise perform their respective obligations and
commitments hereunder in an expeditious manner. The City and Developer intend that, for the
purposes of CEQA, City will be the lead agency and LAFCO will act as a responsible agency.
To expedite the completion of this process, the City will prepare or have prepared (costs to be
solely reimbursed by the Developer) all studies and evaluations that may be required under
CEQA as a part of the City's CEQA review, including, without limitation, the following: (1)
concept grading plans and studies, (2) Biological and Botanical Studies (inclusive of biological
conditions surveys), (3) Archeological and Cultural Resources Studies, (4) Traffic Studies, (5)
Geotechnical Studies, (6) Hydrological Studies (7) an Infrastructure Financing Plan, (8) Fiscal
Impact Analysis and (9) other studies the City deems reasonably necessary or as required by the
City's General Plan or other applicable standards and policies to comprehensively evaluate the
project. Developer agrees at its sole expense to prepare a Specific Plan application in accordance
with California Government Code §65450 et seq. Developer agrees to respond promptly to any
and all City requests for information deemed relevant to the environmental review process and to
amend and align the Specific Plan with the adopted mitigations and findings of the program and
project level environmental analysis for the project.
5.5. Project Approvals. City and Developer agree to work together in good
faith to, among other things, (i) develop a timeline for processing the Project applications, (ii)
develop a conceptual land use plan for the Real Property that is consistent with the General Plan
and proposed amendments, (iii) develop a mutually- acceptable draft Specific Plan consistent
with the requirements of applicable law for Planning Commission and City Council
consideration, (iv) obtain LAFCO approval of the Annexation, (vi) negotiate the Development
Agreement for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council consistent with the
requirements of Government Code §§ 65864 et seq., and (vii) prepare for Planning Commission
and City Council consideration all other items necessary to ensure consistency between the
Project and the General Plan and proposed amendments, or as otherwise necessary to comply
with the requirements of applicable law.
6. Development of the Property.
6.1 General. The terms and conditions of development applicable to the Real
Property, including but not limited to the city regulations, the permitted uses of the Real
Property, the density and intensity of use, maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and
provisions for reservation and dedication of land for public purposes, and provisions for the
construction and installation of public improvements shall be those set forth in the General Plan
and Specific Plan and all other ordinances, laws, statutes, rules, regulations, and official policies
governing development that may apply to the Property from time to time.
6.2 Other Governmental Permits or Approvals. City shall cooperate with the
Developer in its efforts to obtain such additional permits and approvals, consistent with City
policies and development standards, as may be required by any other governmental agencies
having jurisdiction over any aspect of the Project. Developer agrees to pay the processing costs
- Page 5of16-
CC6 (San Luis Ranch Processing Nlemorandum of Understanding)
(03-14-2014) P H 1 -5AC
Agenda Correspondence
(including City staff and consultant costs, plus any applicable overhead charge customarily
imposed by City) and applicable fees associated with any such permits or approvals.
6.3 Processing of Applications and Permits. If City is unable to timely
process any of Developer's applications for Project development, upon request by Developer,
City shall consider engaging outside consultants to aid in such processing, provided that
Developer shall be required to advance all direct charges and administrative charges to be
incurred by City for such outside consultants. In this regard, Developer, in a timely manner, will
provide City with all documents, applications, plans, and other information necessary for City to
carry out its obligations hereunder and will cause Developer's planners, engineers, and all other
consultants to submit in a timely manner all required materials and documents therefor.
6.4 Revisions to Applicable Codes. City and Developer acknowledge and
agree that, because a Specific Plan will be prepared for the Project Area to address all of the
significant land use planning issues that may be associated with Real Property, certain of the
City's codes, rules, regulations, resolutions, ordinances or other official policies may be
incompatible with Developer's proposed Project. Accordingly, during the planning process for
the Project Approvals, Developer may propose amendments to any of the City's codes, rules,
regulations, resolutions, ordinances or other official policies as a part of the Project Approvals
and present such proposed amendments to the Planning Commission or City Council, as
appropriate, for consideration together with the other approvals. The City reserves the inherent
rights to review and alter any proposed amendments as part of the project approvals.
6.5 State and Federal Laws. By entering into this MOU, Developer does not
waive the benefit or protection of any rights it may have under applicable state or federal laws or
regulations that may apply to the development of the Property, including without limitation any
laws applying the laws in effect at a given time in processing land use applications such as
Government Code Sections 66474.2 and 66498.1 through 66498.9.
Implementation.
7.1 Project Development. As set forth more fully below, City and Developer
acknowledge and agree that, in addition to the various tasks outlined above, a number of
additional tasks must be completed, or understandings reached, and approvals of other agencies
obtained, to ensure the success of the planning effort described in this Agreement.
7.2 Public Facilities. City and Developer agree that certain roadways and
public water and sewer facilities will be needed to serve the Project. All roadway, public water
and sewer improvements should be identified in the Development Agreement and /or other
Project approvals. This evaluation may include, without limitation, the design, construction and
dedication of public facilities necessary to serve the Project and mitigate any impacts of the
Project. Dedication of said facilities shall be made to applicable public agencies. City and
Developer also agree that water and sewer lines shall be constructed consistent with the Specific
Plan and other City standards and identified and included with the submission of tentative tract
maps.
-Page 6 of 16-
CCB (San Luis Ranch Processing Alemorandum of Understanding)
(03 -1,4-2014) PH 1 -6AC
Agenda Correspondence
7.3 Circulation and Transportation. Developer understands and agrees that it
will be required in accordance with the Project's "fair share" traffic impacts as determined by the
CEQA analysis and otherwise applicable City policies, plans and standards, to design, construct,
and provide public access to certain arterial, collector, and residential streets, including but not
limited to, design, site preparation, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, drainage
improvements, and traffic control devices. The location and design of such improvements shall
be consistent with the certified CEQA document and adopted Specific Plan and City standards to
the satisfaction of the City Public Works Director. While certain streets may be retained as
private streets, with irrevocable offers of dedication, City will designate certain streets within the
Project as being required for public access.
7.4 Drainage. Developer will construct the Project to employ a wide -array of
low- impact development methods and techniques in order to minimize run -off from within the
development and address on -site and off -site flood impacts, including the extensive use of bio-
swales, narrow streets, retention and recharge basins, and pervious parking areas (where
appropriate), all as will be more particularly described in the Specific Plan. The Project must
comply with the Post - Construction requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
7.5 Agricultural /Open Space Easement. Concurrent with the recordation of a
Subdivision Map for the Project and issuance of building permits necessary to construct the first
phase of the Project, Developer shall offer to dedicate to City either a fee simple interest or a
conservation easement preserving the land designated as Agricultural /Open Space, (the
"Agricultural /Open Space Easement "). Developer shall be entitled to use this land consistent
with the General Plan, Specific Plan and other applicable regulations and /or agreements.
7.6 Open Space. Developer agrees to fulfill its open space obligations by
dedicating a portion of the property for preservation as open space, including, but not limited to,
the Eucalyptus area on the project site identified as Blue Heron Habitat, other areas identified in
the CEQA analysis as habitat areas, and as otherwise consistent with the City's adopted General
Plan and Specific Plan.
7.7 Park and Recreation. The City and Developer agree that the provision of
adequate park and recreation amenities are necessary to ensure the success of the Project.
Developer agrees to fulfill its Quimby Act and other applicable City park and recreation
obligations by constructing the appropriate park and recreation improvements, dedicating
property on -site or off -site, and /or paying the applicable fees. Developer will, in conjunction
with the City, determine mutually acceptable acreage and design elements within the Project for
dedication to, and acceptance by, the City.
7.8 Housing Mix. Developer is committed to providing for the construction of
an appropriate number of housing units on -site that fulfill the affordable housing requirements
for the Project. Developer agrees to work with the City to develop a mutually acceptable mix of
housing products designed to help satisfy the community's housing needs.
-Page 7 of 16-
CCB (San Luis Ranch Processing Memorandum of Understanding)
(03-14-2014) PH 1 -7AC
Agenda Correspondence
7.9 "Green" Construction. Developer is committed to incorporating
construction elements that reduce potable water consumption, utilize "state of the art" irrigation
systems, and offer access to solar energy options.
7.10 Transportation Infrastructure Design and Development. The Developer
and City shall cooperatively develop and diligently pursue a funding and implementation plan
for transportation improvements deemed necessary by the CEQA analysis. Developer shall pay
its "fair share ", or construct improvements commensurate with its "fair share" of transportation
improvements, including but not limited to the Prado Road Overpass and /or Freeway
Interchange. Developer and City shall also diligently pursue all other potential funding sources.
City shall provide timely review and response to applications made in respect to the Prado Road
Overpass and /or Freeway Interchange.
7.11 Prado Road Overpass and /or Freeway Interchange Real Property.
Developer and the City shall cooperate to make available that real property necessary for
construction of the Prado Road Overpass and /or Freeway Interchange.
7.12 Reimbursement and Im lementatioii of improvement or Prado Road
Overpass and /or Freeway Interchange Costs. As determined by certified environmental analysis,
and consultation between the Developer and Public Works Director, the City and Developer shall
develop a financing plan for the Prado Road Overpass and /or Freeway Interchange subject to
City Council approval and included in the Development Agreement established for the project.
7.13 Approval by State Agencies. The City and Developer acknowledge that
the design and completion of the Prado Road Overpass and /or Freeway Interchange is subject to
California laws, rules and regulations, and the City and Developer shall use their best efforts to
promptly obtain approvals from State agencies, including Caltrans, for the Prado Road Overpass
and /or Freeway Interchange.
8. Fees, Assessments, and Taxes.
8.1. Project Fees. Except as expressly provided herein, fees imposed by City
in connection with the Project and Project Approvals (including but not limited to planning,
engineering, building permit, fire plan check and development impact fees) shall be in
accordance with applicable rules and regulations and subject to the terms and conditions of this
MOU.
8.2. Water Fees; Water Rights. Developer shall be responsible for payment of
its "fair share" water impact fees for the approved Project in accordance with the applicable rules
and regulations. The City and Developer acknowledge that - Developer neither relinquishes nor
conveys to City any rights with respect to groundwater or other water rights with respect to the
Real Property and Developer expressly reserves any and all water rights it has in connection with
the Real Property. Consistent with otherwise applicable laws, ordinances and regulations,
including without limitation, public health and safety regulations, Developer shall be entitled to
irrigate the Agricultural /Open Space land utilizing groundwater, and shall not be required by
-Page 8of16-
CCB (San Lois Ranch Processing 1lemorandurn of Understanding)
(03 -14 -2014) PH 1 -8AC
Agenda Correspondence
City to irrigate that land with reclaimed water in lieu of groundwater unless Developer at its sole
option chooses to connect to the City's water system. For the remainder of the Project Area, the
City and Developer acknowledge that pursuant to the applicable rules and regulations, Developer
may use well water for landscaping and irrigation purposes.
8.3. Transportation Impact Fees. All transportation impact fees shall be in
accordance with the applicable rules and regulations, including AB 1600.
8.4. EIR Impact Mitigation Fees. Developer shall be responsible for payment
of all its "fair share" impact mitigation fees required by the adopted FEIR.
8.5 Reimbursements. Any reimbursement of costs incurred constructing
public facilities in excess of the "fair share" or other mitigation costs associated with the Project
shall be pursuant to the provisions contained in the City's adopted or amended fee programs or
other financing mechanism identified in the EIR and memorialized in the Development
Agreement. It is understood by the Developer and the City that the Development Agreement
may include benefits that the public receives related to the terms of the Development Agreement
and the conditions of approval that also provides benefits to the Developer that are not otherwise
available under state law, city ordinance, general plan, or otherwise applicable standards that
may require the Developer to provide expenditures in excess of the above requirements for
which the Developer may not receive reimbursement.
8.6 New Taxes. Except for taxes solely imposed on new development, any
subsequently enacted City -wide taxes shall apply to the Project provided that (i) such taxes have
general applicability on a City -wide basis and do not discriminate against Developer, (ii) the
application of such taxes to the Real Property is prospective, and (iii) the application of such
taxes would not prevent development in accordance with this MOU. New taxes may be imposed
on the Project for the financing of any required Prado Road Overpass and Freeway Interchange
with the approval of the Developer.
9. Development Agreement Provisions. In addition to Development Agreement
inclusions referred to elsewhere in this Agreement, City and Developer agree that, subject to
CEQA analysis, the following provisions may be appropriate for inclusion in the Development
Agreement:
9.1 Vested Rights. Subject to CEQA analysis, Developer will be granted
vested rights to develop the Project for a period established in the Development Agreement, and
consistent with other applicable laws, City policies, and development standards, tolled by any
force ma.eure events.
9.2 Term of Tentative Maps. The term of tentative maps shall be co- terminus
with the term of the Development Agreement or to the maximum extent permitted under the law.
9.3 Assignability. Subject to proof of financial ability to fulfill obligations,
the Developer shall have the right, without City's consent, but with notice to the City, to assign
-Page 9of16-
CCB (San Luis Ranch Processing Memorandum of Understanding)
(03-14-2014) P H 1 -9AC
Agenda Correspondence
its rights, in whole or in part, under the Development Agreement, to one or more third parties,
which third parties shall not have the right to modify or amend the Development Agreement in
any respect with respect to that portion of the Real Property that was not assigned to that party.
9.4 Financial Mechanisms to Ensure the Project's Financial Viability.
a) Community Facilities District. Prior to recordation of the first
final tract map within the Project Area, City and Developer may
pursue formation of a Community Facilities District ( "CFD") that
includes the Property. The CFD will provide a mechanism for
financing the services and facilities appropriate to meet the
increased demands placed on the City as a result of the Project,
including the Prado Road Overpass and /or Freeway Interchange.
The costs incurred by City in preparing the CFD formation
documentation shall be reimbursed by Developer upon request by
City.
b) Other Financing Mechanisms. Developer and the City shall pursue
all available financing mechanisms to assist in offsetting the cost
of the Prado Road Overpass and /or the Freeway interchange.
C) Fee Credits. The City and Developer shall work together to
determine the amount of credits to be allowed to be used by the
Developer as an offset to City required development fees for any
amounts expended by Developer in excess of its "fair share"
requirements.
d) Effective Date. Due to the anticipated long lead time between the
date of this MOU and the date that the Development Agreement
may become effective, the schedule of filing, permit and other fees
and exactions that may be imposed by the City shall be those in
effect on the date of the Development Agreement.
9.5 Timing of Development. The timing and phasing of development shall be
in the sole discretion of the Developer in accordance with the phasing plan set forth in the
Development Agreement.
9.6 Superior Law. The City shall not be entitled to adopt and impose on the
Project a "superior law" if City has the option of electing not to adopt a superior law, if the
adoption might result in: (i) reducing the density or intensity of the vested rights; (ii) limit the
Project's development schedule; (iii) alter the location of any planned improvements; (iv) impose
new exactions or fees; (v) be applied only to all or any part of the Real Property, or in a
dissimilar manner to the balance of the City; or (vi) otherwise conflict with material provisions
of the Development Agreement. In the event of a dispute as to the applicability of a "superior
law" the Developer shall be required, at its sole cost and to the satisfaction of the City Attorney,
- Page 10 of 16 -
CCB (San Luis Ranch Processing Alemo °andum of (,"nderstanding)
(03-14-2014) PH 1 -10AC
Agenda Correspondence
to demonstrate that the City may opt not to adopt the disputed superior law and Developer shall
hold harmless, defend and indemnify the City against any claims, actions, costs or liabilities
arising from or relating any alleged failure to adopt or comply with said superior law thereafter.
9.7 Operating Memoranda.
a) The City and Developer acknowledge that the provisions of the
Development Agreement will require a close degree of cooperation
and that new information and future events may demonstrate that
changes are appropriate with respect to the detail of performance
of the City and Developer under that Agreement. The City and
Developer desire, therefore, to retain a certain degree of flexibility
with respect to the details of performance for those items covered
in general terms under the Development Agreement. If and when
from time to time, the City and Developer find that refinements or
adjustments are desirable, such refinements or adjustments will be
accomplished through operating memoranda or implementation
agreements approved by the City and Developer which, after
execution, will be attached to the Development Agreement as
addenda and become a part thereof.
b) Operating memoranda or implementation agreements may be
executed on behalf of the City by the City Manager and the City
Attorney. In the event a particular subject requires notice or
hearing, such notice or hearing will be appropriately given. Any
significant modification to the terms or performance under the
Development Agreement will be processed as an amendment of
the Development Agreement and must be approved by the City
Council.
9.8 Termination Rights. Except for reimbursement obligations arising from
performance of this MOU, at no risk or cost to Developer, Developer has the right to terminate
the Development Agreement and its obligations thereunder in the event that a schedule of
performance is not met, including, without limitation, for: (i) achieving Annexation to the City;
(ii) securing required approvals from all appropriate public agencies; and (iii) the passage of all
appeal periods without challenge, or the defeat of challenges, to the approvals and any required
ordinances to allow for the implementation of the intended purposes of the Development
Agreement.
10. Funding by Developer.
10.1 Developer's Obligations. From and after the Effective Date, in connection
only with the initial planning activities under this MOU ( "Planning Activities ") Developer
agrees, on a calendar quarterly basis, to pay in advance to the City the reasonable costs estimated
for the next fiscal year quarter, to the extent not already paid for (i) reasonable staff time and
-Page 11 of 16 -
CCB (San Luis Ranch Processing A-lemorandurn of Understanding)
(03-14-2014) PH 1 -11 AC
Agenda Correspondence
expenses; (ii) consultant fees and costs, including, without limitation, City's legal costs and
attorney's fees, except in the event such legal costs or attorney's fees are incurred as a result of a
dispute between the City and Developer. (In the event of a dispute between the City and
Developer, each party will bear its own legal costs, including, without limitation, attorney's
fees.); and (iii) any other items agreed to by City and Developer (collectively, "Planning Costs ").
10.2 Consultants. The City and Developer agree that certain consultants will
be retained by City with written contracts in accordance with applicable laws. Budgets and
scopes of work shall be reviewed in advance by Developer, but final approval lies within the
City's discretion. Said consultants will report to City. Developer may offer advice regarding the
Planning Activities, but City will exercise independent judgment and direction over the
consultants.
11. Hold Harmless. Developer hereby agrees to, and shall defend, indemnify, save
and hold City and its elected and appointed boards, commissions, officers, agents, and
employees harmless from any and all claims, costs, and liability for any damages, personal injury
or death, which may arise, directly or indirectly, from Developer's or Developer's contractors,
subcontractors agents, or employees' operations under this MOU, whether such operations be by
Developer or by any of Developer's contractors or subcontractors or by anyone or more persons
directly or indirectly employed by or acting as agent for Developer of any of Developer's
contractors or subcontractors. Nothing contained in the foregoing indemnity provision shall be
construed to require indemnification for claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses or
judgments resulting from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City.
If any person or entity not a party to this MOU initiates an action at law or in equity to
challenge the validity of any provision of this MOU or the Project Approvals, Developer shall
defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees and officials and
the City shall cooperate with Developer in defending such action at Developer's own cost and
expense. City shall cooperate with Developer in reaching any financial settlement acceptable to
Developer, provided that Developer pays any and all consideration which is part of said
settlement; if City refuses to cooperate in any financial settlement acceptable to Developer, City
shall thereafter defend such action at its own expense.
13. Assignment and Transfer. Developer has the right to assign or transfer all or any
portion of Developer's interest, rights, obligations under this MOU to third parties and to
subsidiaries, affiliates and successors of Developer acquiring an interest or estate in the Project
or Project Area upon City's prior written approval which will not be unreasonably withheld.
Such parties must have the financial capacity and expertise to move a project forward consistent
with project approvals. If all or any portion of the Project or Real Property is so transferred by
Developer to any person or entity, the transferee succeeds to all of Developer's rights under this
MOU, insofar as they relate to such transferred property, and the transferee will automatically
assume all obligations of Developer, present and future, insofar as they relate to each transferred
property. Developer is released from its obligations accruing on or after the date of any sale,
transfer or assignment under this MOU with respect to that portion of the Real Property sold,
transferred or assigned as permitted under this Section. Failure to deliver a written assumption
- Page 12 of 16 -
PH 1 -12AC
Agenda Correspondence
agreement hereunder does not negate, modify or otherwise affect the liability of any transferee
pursuant to the provisions of this MOU. No breach or default by any person succeeding to any
portion of Developer's interest with respect to the transferred or assigned rights and /or
obligations is attributable to Developer, nor may Developer's rights hereunder be cancelled or
diminished in any way by any default or breach by any such person. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, no mortgagee, upon foreclosure or thereafter, will be deemed to have assumed any of
Developer's obligations hereunder without an express written assumption agreement signed by
the mortgagee, or its nominee or purchaser at a foreclosure sale, and the City.
14. Miscellaneous Provisions. The following miscellaneous provisions shall apply to
this MOU:
14.1 Counterparts. This MOU may be executed in any number of counterparts
which together shall constitute the agreement of the City and Developer.
14.2 Laws. It is specifically stipulated that this MOU will be interpreted and
construed according to the laws of the State of California. Venue for any dispute arising under
this MOU shall be San Luis Obispo County.
14.3 Entire MOU. This instrument contains all of the understandings and
agreements of whatsoever kind and nature existing between the City and Developer with respect
to this MOU, and the rights, interests, understandings, agreements and obligations of the
respective parties and their prior oral agreements, if any.
14.4 Amendments. No modification or amendment of this MOU will be of any
force or effect unless made in writing and executed by the City and Developer.
14.5 Severability. If any term or provision of this MOU, or the application of
any term or provision of this MOU to a particular situation, is held by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining terms and provisions of this
MOU, or the application of this MOU to other situations, will continue in full force and effect
unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the City and Developer. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, if any material provision of this MOU, or the application of such provision to a
particular situation, is held to be invalid, void or unenforceable, Developer may (in their sole and
absolute discretion) terminate this MOU by providing written notice of such termination to the
City.
14.6 Termination. Except as otherwise stated in this MOU, this MOU may be
cancelled in whole or in part only by the mutual consent of the City and Developer or their
successors -in- interest, in accordance with the same process used when this MOU was originally
approved.
14.7 Successors and Assigns. This MOU shall inure to the benefit of and be
binding upon the City and Developer and their respective heirs, legal representatives and
successors.
- Page 13 of 16 -
CCB (San Luis Ranch Processing Memorandum of Understanding)
(03-14-2014) PH 1 -1 3AC
Agenda Correspondence
14.8 Further Documents. The City and Developer agree that they will execute
such other instruments and documents as are or may become necessary or convenient to carry
out the intent and purposes of this MOU.
14.9 Headings. All headings in this MOU are inserted only for convenience and
ease of reference, and are not to be considered in the construction or interpretation of any
provision of this MOU.
14.10 Authority. Each individual executing this MOU on behalf of a party
hereto, by his or her signature, represents that he or she maintains full authority on behalf of the
applicable party to execute this MOU, and thereby bind the applicable party to all covenants,
duties and obligations contained herein.
14.11 Exhibits. All exhibits and recitals to this MOU as referenced in any
portion hereof are hereby incorporated by this reference, as though fully set forth in the body of
this MOU; provided, however, notwithstanding any other provisions of this MOU, if for any
reason any exhibit referenced herein is not attached to this MOU at the time of its execution by
the City and Developer, then when such exhibit becomes available, it shall be initialed by the
City and Developer and attached to this MOU, bearing no impact on the enforceability of this
MOU.
14.12 Time. Time is agreed to be of the essence with respect to this MOU.
14.13 Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given under this MOU
shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly given (i) if delivered personally, when received; (ii)
if transmitted by facsimile, upon the generation by the transmitting facsimile machine of a
confirmation that the entire document has been successfully transmitted; (iii) if sent by
recognized courier service, on the business day following the date of deposit with such courier
service, or (iv) if sent by registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, on the third
business day following the date of deposit in the United States mail. All such notices shall be
addressed to a party at its address as set forth below, or to such other address or facsimile
number as a party shall notify the other of in accordance with this Section.
If to City: City Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Facsimile: (805) 781 -7109
Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Facsimile: (805) 781 -7173
- Page 14 of 16 -
CCB (San Luis Ranch Processing AL/emorandum of Understanding)
(03 -14 -2014) PH 1 -14AC
Agenda Correspondence
with a copy to: City Attorney
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Facsimile: (805) 781 -7409
If to Developer: Coastal Community Builders, Inc.
330 James Way, Suite 270
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Facsimile: (805) 556 -3065
with a copy to: Marshall E. Ochylski
The Law Office of Marshall E. Ochylski
867 Pacific Street, Suite 210
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Facsimile: (805) 544 -4594
with a copy to: Paul B. Parker
Parker & Sander, A Professional Law Corporation
755 Santa Rosa Street, Suite 300
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
14.14 Project is a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed
by and between the City and Developer that: (i) the subject development is a private
development; (ii) City has no interest or responsibilities for or duty to third parties concerning
any improvements until such time and only at such time that City accepts the same pursuant to
the provisions of this MOU or in connection with the various subdivision map approvals; and
(iii) Developer shall have full power over and exclusive control of the Project subject only to the
limitations and obligations of Developer under this MOU; and (iv) the contractual relationship
between City and Developer is such that Developer is an independent contractor and not an agent
of City.
14.15 Enforceability. City acknowledges that Developer has an equitable
interest in a portion of the Real Property given that Developer has entered into a purchase
agreement with the owner of the Real Property whereby Developer has the right to purchase the
Real Property. The owner of the Real Property has consented to Developer's entering into this
MOU, and to this MOU becoming effective with respect to Developer on the Effective Date,
irrespective of whether or not Developer has then acquired fee title to the Real Property. If
Developer does not purchase the Real Property, the parties agree and acknowledged that the
MOU shall not be binding upon or enforceable against the owner of the Real Property.
- Page 15 of 16 -
CC6 (San Luis Ranch Processing Memorandum of Understanding)
(03-14 -2014) P H 1 -15AC
Agenda Correspondence
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this MOU to be executed as of the
date and year first above written.
DEVELOPER:
Coastal Community Builders, Inc.
By:
GARY GROSSMAN
President
CITY:
IM
KATIE LICHTIG
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CHRISTINE DIETRICK
City Attorney
ATTEST:
ANTHONY J. MEJIA
City Clerk
- Page 16 of 16 -
CCB (San Luis Ranch Processing Alemorandum of Understanding)
(03-14-2014) PH 1 -16AC
Agenda Correspondence
EXHIBIT "A"
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF San Luis Obispo, COUNTY OF San Luis
Obispo, STATE OF CA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL 1:
That portion of Lot 64 of the Subdivisions of the Rancho Canada de Los Osos and La Laguna, in the County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California, according to map filed for record in Book A, Pages 83 and 84 of Maps, in the Office of the
County Recorder of said County, described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Lot 64; thence North 55 1/20 West, 10.10 chains to post marked M.R. No. 3;
thence South 410 24' West, 19.96 chains to post marked M.R. No. 4; thence South 55 1/20 East, 15.25 chains to the
Southeast corner of said Lot 64; thence North 26 1/20 East, 20.00 chains to the Point of Beginning.
EXCEPTING therefrom that portion conveyed to the State of California, by deed dated October 15, 1947 and recorded
December 18, 1947 in Book 464, Page 87 of Official Records.
PARCEL 2:
That portion of Lot 65 of the subdivisions of the Rancho Canada de Los Osos and La Laguna, in the County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California, according to map filed for record in Book A, Pages 83 and 84 of Maps, in the Office of the
County Recorder of said County, described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Lot 65; thence North 55 1/20 West, 12.19 chains; thence South 50 1/20
West, 19.42 chains to a point in the line of fence; thence along said fence, South 55 1/20 East,20.15 chains to post on
the Southeast line of said Lot; thence Northerly 18.90 chains to the Point of Beginning.
EXCEPTING therefrom that portion conveyed to the State of California, by deed dated October 15, 1947 and recorded
December 18, 1947 in Book 464, Page 87 of Official Records.
PARCEL 3:
All of Lot "K" of the Resubdivision of Lots 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, and 65 as per J. T. Stratton's Survey and map of the
Subdivisions of the Ranchos Canada de Los Osos and La Laguna, in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California,
according to map filed for record January 30, 1875 in Book A, Page 161 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder
of said County.
EXCEPTING therefrom that portion conveyed to United States Postal Service by deed dated August 5, 1980 and
recorded September 5, 1980 in Book 2266, Page 904 through 906 of Official Records as subsequently corrected by a
Grant Deed dated May 7, 1981 and recorded June 10, 1981 in Book 2332, Page 318 through 320 of Official Records.
PARCEL 4:
That portion of Lots L, M and N of the Resubdivisions of Lots 58, 61,62, 63, 64, and 65 as per J. T. Stratton's Survey
and Map of the subdivisions of the Ranchos Canada de Los Osos and La Laguna, in the County of San Luis Obispo,
State of California, according to map filed for record January 30, 1875 in Book A, Page 161 of Maps, in the Office of
the County Recorder of said County, described as follows:
Beginning at stake marked "N.N." at the most Southerly corner of said Lot "L" thence South 55 1/20 East along the
Northeasterly line of said Lot "M ", 3.06 chains to the most Easterly corner of said Lot "M ", thence South 50 1/20 West
PH 1 -17AC
Agenda Corresn"p[161T A
along the Southeasterly line of said Lots "M" and "N ". 19.44 chains to the Southerly corner of said Lot "N "; thence
North 55 1/20 West along the Southwesterly line of said Lot "N ", 11.12 chains to post marked "A.E." at the Easterly
corner of Lot "O" of said subdivisions; thence North 370 West along the Northeast line of said Lot "0 ", 1.42 chains to
the center of Foreman Creek and the most Southerly corner of the lands of Rosa Machado; thence along the center of
said creek and along the Easterly line of the lands of Rosa Machado on the following courses and distances; North 18
1/40 East, 1.17 chains; North 6 1/40 West, 2.62 chains; North 13 3/40 East, 2.50 chains; North 18 1/20 East, 2.50
chains North 130 East, 2.50 chains, North 3 1/20 East, 2.25 chains, North 18° East, 4 chains to the top of the bank as
the Easterly side of a ditch carrying the water out of the Laguna into Foreman Creek; thence along the Easterly bank
of said ditch and the Easterly line of the lands of said Rosa Machado, North 1 1/40 East, 2.25 chains; North 21 1/20
West, 2.79 chains; North 90 West, 4.21 chains to the Southerly line of the Los Osos Road; thence North 62 1/20 East,
along the Southerly line of the said road 9.83 chains to a stake marked "M.M." at the most Northerly corner of said Lot
"L "; thence South 461 East along the lines between Lots "K" and "L" of said subdivision; 24.72 chains to post marked
"A.L." at the most Easterly comer of said Lot "L "; thence South 413/40 West along the Southeasterly line of said Lot
"L ", 8.90 chains to the Point of Beginning.
EXCEPTING from said Parcel 4 that portion thereof conveyed to Ray C. Skinner, et ux., by deed dated January 12,
1960 and recorded January 29, 1960 in Book 1045, Page 234 of Official Records.
APN : 067 -121 -022
END OF DOCUMENT
PH1 -18AC
Agenda Correspondence
Legend
Major Roads
Service Area
Sphere of Influence
Prepared By SLOViFGO
City of S., Lu" Ob)spo_301 8- ,
bate. 21611014
Agenda CorresprmMENT B
Kremke, Kate
From: Mejia, Anthony l
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 5:43 PM
To: Kremke, Kate APR 0 2 2014
Subject: FW: San Luis Ranch , Y..,
Agenda Correspondence for 04/01/14 PH 1 AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
- - - -- Original Message - - - -- �_ -1-1 � E[,
From: Mila VujovichLaBarre [mailto:MVujovic @slcusd.org] Date Item #_
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 4:59 PM
To: Rachel Kovesdi; Mejia, Anthony; Christianson, Carlyn; Dietrick, Christine; Carpenter, Dan; Johnson, Derek; Ashbaugh,
John; Marx, Jan; Lichtig, Katie; Smith, Kathy; Codron, Michael; Marshall Ochylski
Subject: San Luis Ranch
April 1, 2014
Dear Mayor Marx and City Council Members:
Tonight you will consider the large housing and retail project known as San Luis Ranch planned for the 131 -acre Dalidio
property at the southern gateway of San Luis Obispo.
The current development plan by the new owner Gary Grossman and the developer Coastal Community Builders needs
major refining -so much that it does not merit approval tonight.
It would be a waste of public funds to authorize a specific plan and a general plan amendment due to flaws in the
current proposal.
In a recent previous Planning Commission meeting on this same matter the development team from RRM showed the
development bathed in soft pastels, featuring people walking and biking. There were even butterflies painted in!
Unfortunately, nowhere in the drawings are there semi - trucks or gridlock from automobiles on the planned Prado Road
- a 4 -lane truck route. Prado Road has that designation in the most recent documents from the Land Use and Circulation
Element.
As a "smart growth" advocate I am simply asking for is transparency, from the new owner, from the development team
at RRM and from you.
On paper, the developer acknowledges that 50 percent of the property -about 65 acres -is to be preserved as agricultural
open space if it is annexed into the City.
Talking first about the development aspect, the math of the current proposal means that up to 500 homes will be on
about 65 acres. If the homes will indeed be built in "bungalow and Craftsman style" then it sounds like if there are going
to be about 7 homes per acre. Are these single family homes? It sounds more like a massive apartment or townhouse
complex. Let's call it what it is.
Then, one realizes that it is NOT 65 acres for up to 700 homes because one must take into consideration that the project
also includes plans for commercial space, capped at about 200,000 square feet, with 150,000 square feet of office space
and a 200 -room high -end hotel with room for conference facilities.
Then, one realizes that there are the roads, bike lanes and walking paths in the infrastructure. The developer needs to
count all of these improvements in their percentage as well.
It sounds like the development team needs to redo their homework. The numbers do not make sense. Again, I am
simply asking for facts and transparency.
As far as open space goes, the project is now located in the County and zoned as agricultural land. Why is it zoned
agricultural land still? It is one of 100 parcels of this size and quality in the entire county.
Even in this record - breaking drought this parcel of land has continued to produce crops. The soil is deep brown and sits
on top of our community's emergency water supply. It also has some serious constraints in regard to airport land use.
As everyone knows, the 131 -acres of fertile farm land with majestic mountains behind create a fabulous gateway vista
that both tourists and residents absolutely adore. It is worth saving.
In closing, I offer a few suggestions.
Number One:
I do not think that you should authorize city staff to begin drafting agreements in regard to fees tied to the project. I
think that the developer and his design team need to go back to the real drawing board and design a project that truly
fits the design of the land and the 50% parameter. This needs to include the 4 -lane truck route known as Prado Road and
on the proposed Froom Ranch Road passing the new homes and
merging onto Los Osos Valley Road..
Number Two:
I do think that you should authorize city staff to fully investigate and then expose the developers financial responsibility
to build and pay for public infrastructure costs such as an interchange or overpass at Prado Road and Highway 101. That
one fact alone may be THE deal breaker for the developer. Last time I checked the cost of the overpass and interchange
it was $85 million or so. I also do not know if Caltrans will even approve it given the proximity of Madonna Road and Los
Osos
Valley Road interchange.
Number Three:
I would like to formally tell the developer what I would like to see.
This is a win -win situation that could be implemented immediately. I would like the design team to come up with a
building or buildings that maximize the existing footprint where the historic farm house and support buildings are. That
is where I would like to see any new structure... and nowhere else.
The developer would save millions of dollars not having to build the overpass and the city residents for decades to come
would benefit from the open space and agricultural land. Then, I would like them to keep the land, as it is now, in
agriculture. There are willing tenants to continue to produce quality crops for years to come
In a brief talk with the developer at a fund raiser recently he told me in earnest that he would like to "do the right thing"
for the community. I believe him.
He has nearly 30 other projects under development from here to Santa Barbara so I think that he and his well - qualified
design team at RRM is fully capable of not having a cookie cutter approach to development here.
Most constituents know realize that 4 -lane truck highway known as "Prado Road" is development driven. Some people
were initially for the road because they were under the impression that,the road was going to make for a speedy trip
from Broad Street to Madonna. They now realize that they will be running into cars from approximately 2,000 new
homes between this development, the Margarita development, the development planned by the Damon and Garcia
families, and the Orcutt development in addition to trucks. They shake their heads in disbelief and angst. I do not think
that they want to spend money for the developer's gains.
Please have courage and display leadership. Do not allow developers to create gridlock for their profit and destroy what
is best about our community.
Thank you.
Mila Vujovich -La Barre
Mila Vujovich -La Barre
650 Skyline Drive
San Luis Obispo, California 93405
Cell: 805 - 441 -5818
E -mail: milavu @hotmail.com
'k 4 L014
Kremke, Kate
From: Mejia, Anthony
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 10:35 AM
To: Kremke, Kate
Subject: FW: Dalidio Property
Agenda Correspondence for 04/01/14 Item PH 1 AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk r.41
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
tel 1 805.781.7102
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Lichtig, Katie
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 7:09 AM
To: Mejia, Anthony
Cc: Johnson, Derek
Subject: FW: Dalidio Property
For the public record.
Katie E. Lichtig
Sent with Handheld
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Ashbaugh, John
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 10:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
To: Johnson, Derek
Cc: Lichtig, Katie
Subject:FW: Dalidio Property
For your files, since I'm not sure you received it earlier,
John B. Ashbaugh
San Luis Obispo City Council
From: RICHARD MORTENSEN [mailto:r.morten @sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 5:38 PM
1
To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John
Subject: Dalidio Property
San Luis Obispo City Council Members-
I would like to suggest, given our current, and most likely continuing, drought conditions that developers be required to
include water retention systems as part of their proposals for development within San Luis Obispo. The amount of
rooftop runoff from our increasingly less frequent rain storms can and should be collected for home and business
irrigation use. We, as a community, can no longer ignore the issue of climate change and the longterm impacts that
reduced rainfall will have on our way of life. The proposal for the Dalidio property would be an excellent opportunity for
the city to initiate some long term measures aimed at collecting water runoff by requiring the developer to include, in
both the commercial and residential components, systems for collecting and reducing runoff.
Thank you,
Richard Mortensen
San Luis Obispo
IVED
Kremke, Kate MAR 31 2014
From: Mejia, Anthony
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 8:25 AM
To: Kremke, Kate
Subject: FW: New Dalidio
Agenda Correspondence 04/01/14 Item PH 1
Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk
ca l.t' ol, -;,�,n l uns czmspo
990 Palm Street.
Scan Luis Obispo, CA 93,401.
tel 1805 781710?
From: Marx, Jan
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 7:45 PM
To: Mejia, Anthony
Subject: Fwd: New Dalidio
Agenda correspondence
Scrd from mN V4ririm Wkcless !W I.T@. Smarlphono
AGENDA
ICORR SpONDENCE
)aAU'l _;'�..- r Item#
-- - - - - -- Original message -- - - - - --
From: Christine Mulholland
Date:03 /30/2014 5:01 PM (GMT- 08:00)
To: "Ashbaugh, John" , "Carpenter, Dan" , "Christianson, Carlyn" , "Marx, Jan" , "Smith, Kathy"
Subject: New Dalidio
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am appalled with the direction the city is going, pressing for new developments right and left, while the entire state is in
the clutches of a terrible drought. The project before you on the old Dalidio ranch is not so different from what the residents of
SLO voted down. The land carries entitlements from the countywide vote, but none in the city. Yet staff is pointing you in the
direction of not only a huge residential density, but plenty of commercial as well.
We have been down this road so many times before, and you must think twice before you ignore all the years of planning and
votes that have come before your time on the council. Do any of you even think about the quality of life for the residents who
still live and work here?
This project does not honor the long- standing decision to maintain 50% or more of the land in open space /ag. No, roadways
and abutments for a freeway interchange do not count. Commercial ag center does not count. Land somewhere off site does
not count. Even the Madonna developments on LOVR honored this General Plan policy.
We have plenty of commercial space under - utilized already. The University Center and the Marigold are both nearly ghost
towns. New development elsewhere will do nothing to discourage blight in our neighborhood shopping areas.
Traffic in the Madonna/LOVR/101 area is already out of control, and adding a huge development that will dump cars onto any
of this area will serve only to decrease the quality of life for those of us who live on this side of town.
The Airport Land Use Commission has never approved of housing on the Dalidio Ranch. If 4/5 of you are ready to override
their vote, say so now, before the next election.
This is still in a flood zone, though some may have forgotten what that is like. And previous studies show that flooding will be
exacerbated by construction of the freeway overpass.
If you vote to move this unnecessary and unneeded project forward in its current iteration, I will assume you really have no
interest in the quality of life of our residents and our neighborhoods. You will dishonor the will of the people, who have voted
against just this kind of project in this location.
I urge you to drop this like a hot potato, and let the developer come back with a more realistic project, one that is in full compliance
with the General Plan.
Christine Mulholand
805 -544 -6618
Kremke, Kate
From:
Sent:
To:
Mejia, Anthony
Tuesday, April 01, 2014 3:06 PM
Kremke, Kate
APR 01 2014
Subject: FW: Council Correspondence (April 1, 2014): Item PH1, San Luis Ranch
Agenda Correspondence for 04/01/14 PH 1 AGENDA
Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk
990 F'Arn Stnee l,.
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340
tel 805,781,73 -02
From: Kevin P. Rice [mailto:kriceslo(dgmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 3:06 PM
To: Council ALL
Cc: Mejia, Anthony
Subject: Council Correspondence (April 1, 2014): Item PH1,, San Luis Ranch
OPPOSE: SAN LUIS RANCH
Hon. Mayor and Council:
CORRESPONDENCE
Date_. Item#
Please OPPOSE the staff recommendations regarding "San Luis Ranch ". The proposed project impacts are
extensive and require additional public airing prior to signing agreements.
(1) The "Process MOU" obligates and binds the city and is not appropriate at this time without further public
review and input.
(2) The project fails to protect agriculture and open space. Off -site mitigation of open space fragments resources
and is not acceptable.
(3) The project lies in an airport restricted zone and a flood zone.
(4) The project presents an egregious blight on our city's gateway aesthetics.
(5) The project will cause myriad significant CEQA impacts that cannot be mitigated.
(6) Traffic, noise, air, lighting, wildlife, water, sewer, emergency services, and more will all be negatively
impacted.
(7) The project violates the vote of the people (Measure A).
The "San Luis Ranch" project is unsuitable for our community. Please OPPOSE this project.
Kevin Rice
PO Box 14107, SLO 93406 -4107
(805) 602 -2616
RECEIVED
MAR 2i 2014
T7l�U i"J + l t]- ep Ij
�_ •�r� j,►�� --�~r -��? -rum -_ �'t�?�' �r��,�� T��
�%OT'� -tom l � i'T'[ �l t `lam �J •17 1r0 -tom G= if�-�- t-�-1� ��a t�U k�-� � EF OIL] l.j
iA,t ov-r.- l L- t1.&-.3 e2 IJ T74154 rz-
C>�y``ri dG`
WVT
Go Ft R0li I rx( V--v--v'cc- L-,b (>mr--or Tim -$� G-V,3-�yr � rz ✓✓
p
V7 -Z er—
te�
I -'t,471 0
T
A
If I
APR 0 12014
Kremke, Kate
From: Mejia, Anthony
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 8:26 AM
To: Kremke, Kate
Subject: FW: Latest Dalido Property Proposal
Agenda Correspondence for 04/01/14 PH 1 AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk Date'
c:It,y Of -;,\I) luft, orlspo
goo Palm Street.
Sain Luis Obispo, CA 9340)
tel 1805 78" 71032
From: Kerry Taylor [mailto:piffkerry i)gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 7:48 AM
To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan;
Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony; Kent and Kerry Taylor
Subject: Latest Dalido Property Proposal
Dear City Council,
As you consider the developer's request for authorization to provide you a specific plan for the Dalidio property,
I hope you will pour "cold water" on their request to meet part of their open space preservation responsibilities
"off site ". One of the reasons the community voted down the Market Place proposal in 2005 was the
developer's plan to violate the General Plan by not preserving all the open space required by the General Plan
on site. This may be a new developer and a new development plan, but violating the General Plan's open space
requirements is a bad idea and should be rejected now.
Thank you for considering my views.
Kent M. Taylor
1295 Descanso St.
SLO
1