HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/1994, Agenda & MINUTES & LAND USE ELEMENT REVISIONS •r -
II /�
II
III IIIIII cit � sanu
is oBisp
o
DA<U �::.
>, ,
ADJOURNED
REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL AGENDA
Tuesday, June 6, 1994 - 7:00 p.m.
Council Chamber, City Hall
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
CALL TO ORDER: Vice Mayor Allen K. Settle** Lead Person - Item to come back to Council
* Denotes action by Lead Person
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE No Asterisk- Information Only
ROLL CALL: Council Members Penny Rappa, Bill Roalman, Dave Romero,
and Vice Mayor Allen K. Settle
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (Not to exceed 15 minutes total)
The Council welcomes your input."You may address the Council by comptetmg a speakers
slip'and'giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time.you mayaddress the :
Council on.items that"are not on the agenda or items on the Con sent`Agenda Time limit
is three minutes. State law does not:allow Council to take action:on. issues not on the
agenda. Staff may be asked to follow Lip on such:items
Mayor Pinard asked for a moment of silence in memorany of the 50th anniversary of D-Day.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS (not to exceed 15 minutes).:
Council Members report on conferences or other City activities Time limit 3 minutes
Mayor Pinard reported on the Mayor's Select Committee's meeting regarding the Air Pollution
Control District's recommended representation of three cities (North, Central and South County)
and three Board of Supervisors appointees. Recommendation will be presented to the Board
of Supervisors.
1
Council Agenda June 6, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING$
If you have,filled out a Speaker Slip, the Mayor will call you to the podium Please speak
into the microphone and give your name'and city of residence for the record`' Please limit
your comments to 3 minutes, consultant'and`project presentations limited to 10 minutes
If you challenge the issue in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone "else 'raised at this'"public hearing as 'described `below, or. m written
correspondence delivered to the City before or dunng:the public hearing
► 1. LAND USE ELEMENT REVISIONS (JONAS/462 - 3 hrs.)
Continued public hearing to consider revisions to the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
(Continued from 3/28/94, 4/5/94, 4/26/94, 5/3/94, 5/10/94 and 5/17/94.)
♦ RECOMMENDATION: By motion, direct staff to make appropriate changes to the February
1994 Draft General Plan Land Use Map.
**JONAS FINAL ACTION: Discussion held through 3.1.2, continued to Tuesday, June 14, 1994.
COMMUNICATIONS (not to exceed 15 minutes)
At this time, any Council Member or the City Administrative Officer may ask a.question for
clarification, make an;announcement, or report briefly on his or her actnnties In addition,
subject to Council Policies and Procedures;they mayprovide a reference to staff or'other
resources;,for factual information, request' staff' to report' back to the':: Council at a
subsequent'meeting concerning any matter, or..take action to direct staff to place a matter'
of business on a future agenda (Gov. Code 554954.2):
None.
A. ADJOURNMENT TO TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1994 AT 7:00 P.M.
2
IIIIIIIIII�����I II I IIIIIII�IIIIII� My S
F San ffioo
p
COUNCIL AGENDA
Monday. June 6. 1994 - 7:00 PM
Council Chamber, City Hall ADJOURNED
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Peg Pinard
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Council Members Penny Rappa, Dave Romero, Bill Roalman,
Vice Mayor Allen K. Settle and Mayor Peg Pinard
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (Not to exceed 15:minutes total)
.. The Council welcomes your input...You may address the Council bycompleting`a speakers :::..
:slip and giving it to the'City:Clerk'prior:to'.the meeting.. . .:At this time, you may address the: .:..
Council on items that are not'on the agenda or items<:on the.Consent Agenda: :Tme limit:`:
is three minutes.. State law does not allowCouncil to discuss or take action on issues:not:.:
on the agenda, except that members of the Council`or'"staff may. briefly respond'to: 'r
statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony ngfits
(Gov. Code §54954:2): Staff may`be'asked to follow-up'on such items. Staff.reports'and.:
'other written documentation relating to each item referred to on this agenda are on:file'in'
the City Clerk's Office in Room #1 of City Hall.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS (not to exceed 15 minutes)
Council Members report on conferences or other City activities. Time limit -'3 minutes.
Council meetings are broadcast on KCPR,91.3 FM. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in
L all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(605)761-7410. Please speak to the
City Clerk prior to the meeting if you require a hearing.amplirication device. For more agenda information,call 781-7103.
1
Council Agenda Tuesday, June 6, 1994
PUBLIC HEARINGS
If you have-filled out a Speaker S' lipVthb :MayotWircailryou�to the podium' .:::PIease::sppaK.........
... .. .....
into the microphone and give your nameand city
: . . of:.residence`for the record. P.lease:hmd
wurcommentsto:3 minutes; .consuItant::andproject presentations limited.to 10minutes.:::...
If you challenge the issue in court; may be limited only issues
you m you or:.......
someone` raised at i public Anearing:.:as'::� described :b6IoW,: or:: in: `written
: .this
correspondence delivered to the City before or .during::the.:pub:ilch:. ea:nng.:.: .
► 1. LAND USE ELEMENT REVISIONS (JONAS/462 - 3 hrs.)
Continued public hearing to consider revisions to the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
(Continued from 3/28/94, 4/5/94, 4/26/94, 5/3/94, 5/10/94 and 5/17/94.)
* RECOMMENDATION: By motion, direct staff to make appropriate changes to the February
1994 Draft General Plan Land Use Map.
Please bring agenda report and related material from previous meetings.
. .. .-7777771
COMMUNICATIONS (not to exceed 15 minutes)
... . .. ....
At this time, any Council Member or the City Administrative Officer may ask a question.for.:..
clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on his ocher activities. In addition
subject to Council Policies and Procedures, they.may provide a reference to staff.o r other.
resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the . Council at
subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter
of business on a future agenda (Gov. Code s54954.2).
A. ADJOURNMENT.
2
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE.CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MONDAY, JUNE 6, 1994- 7:00 PM
CITY HALL- COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 990 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ROLL CALL:
Council Members
Present: Council Member Penny Rappa, Dave Romero, Bill Roalman,
Vice-Mayor Allen K. Settle and Mayor Peg Pinard
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer; Diane Gladwell, City
Clerk; Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney; Ken Hampian, Assistant
City Administrative Officer, Arnold Jonas, Community
Development Director,John Mandeville,Long Range Planning
Manager; Glenn Matteson, Association Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
P.C.I. Mayor Pinard asked for a moment of silence in memory of the 50th anniversary of D-Day.
I
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
C.LR.1. Mayor Pinard reported on the Mayor's Select Committee's meeting regarding the Air
Pollution Control District's recommended representation of three cities (North, Central and South
County)and three Board of Supervisors appointees. Recommendation will be presented to the Board
of Supervisors.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. LAND USE ELEMENT REVISIONS (File No. 462)
Council held a public hear consider revisions to the Land Use Element of the General Plan
(continued fro 3 894, /5/94 4/26/94, 5/3/94, 5/104, and 5/17/94).
Mqc— itEd,'OtiT
Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing open.
Andrew Merriam, representing the Dalidio family, reviewed the proposal submitted by Vice Mayor
Settle and stated It met with the Dalidio's intent. He requested the land use map be updated to reflect
the current changes.
Bill Bird developer of the commercial portion of the Dalidio property,stated 640 customers of J>C>
Penny had requested a new store, and requested Council give specific direction to staff.
Bill Toma, San Luis Obispo, reviewed letter requesting changes from the Chamber of Commerce.
City Council Meeting Page 2
Monday, June 6, 1994- 7:00 PM
Martin Tangeman, representing Alex Madonna, stated the Froom Ranch design was 95% complete,
and requested changes to allow Interim open space designation. He objected to the 4-to-1 open
space requirement on the Los Osos Valley Gap property as unworkable.
Michael Moms. 1304 Pacific, representing Allen&Yolanda Righetti,requested the urban reserve line
be moved to allow the property to be planned at one time, the property be designated as residential
expansion and open space, and questioned the prime agricultural soil designation.
Jean Heatheson. Righetti's granddaughter, objected to the prime agricultural soil designation as
Incorrect.
Jay Parsons. Righetti's step-grandchild, requested the entire property be shown inside the urban
reserve line,objected to the prime agricultural soil designation,and requested notice for proceedings
to review the prime agricultural soils designation.
Mayor Pinard closed the public hearing.
Council continued their review of the Land Use Element.
Moved by Settle/Roalman to amend section 1.12.1 to read, °Overall Policy. Communication and
cooperation between the City and nearby government institutions is important and must be maintained
because changes in the number of workers, students and inmates of the three major public
Institutions near the City directly influence the City's economic base, land use, circulation and ability
to manage growth. The City should continue to work with Cuesta College and Cal Poly's approved
enrollment master plan targets as to their impacts on the City'; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/Roalman to amend section 1.12.2 to read, 'The City favors Cal Poly's approved
enrollment master plan targets and these should not exceed campus and community resources. The
City favors additional on-campus housing,enhanced transit service,and other measures to minimize
Impacts of campus commuting and enrollment; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/Roalman to eliminate the background sections of 1.12.3& 1.12.4; motion carried (5-
0).
Moved by Settle/Pinard to adopt sections 1.12.3 and 1.12.4 amended as recommended by the
Environmental OualityTask Force(EQTF);motion was lost(2-3,Council Members Rappa,Romero and
Roalman voting no).
Moved by Rapoa/Romero to adopt section 1.12.3 amended to read, 'Policy: The City supports
communication and cooperation between the City the California Men's Colony. The City shall
continue to work with the California Men's Colony and the associated impacts of increased inmates
avoid resource constraints" (staff to clean up wording); motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle1Roalman to adopt section 1.12.4 amended to read,'Policy: The City favors measures
such as course offerings at satellite campuses and enhanced transit service to avoid housing and
commuting impacts of increasing enrollments at Cuesta College°, motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Raona/Romero to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation for section 1.13.1;
motion was lost (2-3, Council Member Roalman, Vice Mayor Settle and Mayor Pinard voting no).
i � \
City Council Meeting Page 3
iMonday, June 6, 1994-7:00 PM
Moved by Pinard/Settle to adopt the recommendation of the EQTF for section 1.13.1;motion carried
(3-2, Council Members Rappa and Romero voting no).
Moved by Settle/RaPpaa to adopt section 1.13.2 as recommended by Vice Mayor Settle (EQTFs
version,amended to omit in addition to those of the planned capacity of incorporated areas');motion
carried (3-2, Council Member Roalman and Mayor Pinard voting no).
8:40 P.M. Mayor Pinard declared a recess.
9:00 P.M. Council reconvened; all Council Members present.
Moved by Settle/Roalman to adopt EQTFs version of section 1.13.3; motion carried (3-2, Council
Members Rappa and Romero voting no).
Moved by Settle/Romero to adopt section 1.13.4 as amended to read, 'Development and Services:
Actual development in an annexed area may be approved only when the City can provide adequate
services for the annexed area as well as for existing development elsewhere within the City, except
as explained below and in parts 1.13.6 and 1.13.7. Actual development in a major annexation area
may proceed in accordance with the goals and policies described in this General Plan,as long as the
development of the annexation area does not result in the reduction of services or cause an increase
in the cost of such services to existing development elsewhere within the City. Water for development
In a major expansion area will be made available by any of the following or any reclaimed water and
I water conservation. Uses of private well water may be considered on an interim basis until municipal
water becomes available if it demonstrates there is no loss of municipal water supply;motion carried
(3-2, Mayor Pinard and Council Member Roalman voting no.)
After discussion, staff was directed to present a reformatted section 1.13 with simpler language
(general consent).
Moved by Roalman/Pinard to adopt section 1.14 as recommended by the EQTF; motion carried (3-2,
Council Members Rappa and Romero voting no).
Moved by Roalman/Pinard to reconsider the previous motion; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Roalman/Settle to adopt section 1.14 as recommended by the Planning Commission
amended to replace °should°with "shalla; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/RaPea to adopt 1.15 as recommended by the Planning Commission;motion carried
(5-0).
Moved by Settle/Pinard to adopt section 1.16 through 1.16.5 as recommended by the EQTF, omitting
the sentence, 'The City will offer to host an initial session° from 1.16.2; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/Pinard to adopt section 1.16.6 as proposed by Vice Mayor Settle (Section D to read,
'Voter approval for any significant change in designation from open space, agricultural or rural land
use to urban land uses.1; motion carried (3-2, Council Members Rappa and Romero voting no).
Moved by Settle/Rappa to adopt section 1.16.7 as recommended by the Planning Commission;motion
carried (5-0).
City Council Meeting Page 4
Monday, June 6, 1994-7:00 PM
Moved by Settle/Raoua to adopt section 1.16.8 with the revised wording, 'The City will pursue a
memorandum of understanding between the City and County governments, pledging that neither
agency will approve a substantial amendment to its plan for San Luis Obispo's planning area without
carefully considering the comment and recommendation of the other. The key feature of the
memorandum would be the City's acceptance of the planned amount of growth and the County's
agreement to not allow urban development within the planning area, but outside the City.'; motion
carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/Roalmen to adopt section 1.17.1 and 1.17.1(a)as recommended by the EQTF;motion
carried (3-2, Council Members Rappa and Romero voting no.)
Moved by Settle/Roalmen to adopt 1.17.2 and 1.17.3; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/Raoua to adopt section 1.17.4 as recommended by Vice Mayor Settle (°Cluster
District. The City should encourage the County to adopt a amendatory cluster district°for appropriate
areas of the Greenbelt under County jurisdiction In order to implement Policies 1.7 and 1.9 and better
preserve the open space qualities of the land. The City recognized the County major and minor
clustering programs and TDC programs°); motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/Raaoa to adopt sections 1.18.1 through 1.18.3 amended to reflect participation of all
entities; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/Roalman to adopt 3.0.1 through 3.0.3 as recommended by the EQTF, amended to
add section 3.0.4 to read, 'Compatible mixed uses in commercial zones should be encouraged'; '
motion carried (5-0). f
Moved by Settle/Pinard to adopt section 3.1.1 as recommended by the Planning Commission;motion
carried (5-0).
Moved by Settle/Rappa to adopt section 3.1.2 as recommended by Vice Mayor Settle (°Locations for
Regional Attractions: The City should focus its retailing with regional draw In the locations of:
Downtown,the area around the Intersection of Madonna Road and Highway 101 and the area around
101 and Los Osos Valley Road.'); motion carried (3-2, Mayor Pinard and Council Member Roalman
voting no).
Moved by Roalman/Settle to adopt 3.1.2(x)to read,°Lower Higuera Retail Area Enhancement The City
shall consider the potential for better utilization of the underutilized service-commercial district along
Higuera and Parker Streets and between Madonna, South and High Streets; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Roalman/Rappa to refer section 3.1.2(a)to the Planning Commission; motion carried (4-1,
Mayor Pinard voting no).
Moved by RaRRI/Pinard to continue this Item to June 14th; motion carried (5-0).
11:05 PM there being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Pinard adjourned
the meeting to Tuesday, June 7, 1994 at 7:00 PM.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 8/16/94 L�)"!&t
ne R. Gla ell, Phy Clerk I'
DRG:cm
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
May 27, 1994
TO: John Dunn, CAW FOR: Council meeting of June 6, 1994
FROM: Arnold Jona ommunity Development Director
VIA: John Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manager
BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Land Use Element update - EQTF proposals involving consistency issues,
referral to Planning Commission, or additional environmental review
SITUATION/RESPONSE
It is staffs understanding that the Council intends to discuss the following parts of the draft
Land Use Element at the -, 6 hearing:
JVJL
- Growth Management (starting at policy 1.12);
- Commercial and Industrial Development;
- Public and Cultural Facilities.
Staff has already transmitted an evaluation of the Growth Management and Commercial
and Industrial Development sections (May 5 memorandum). No EQTF recommendations
for the Public and Cultural Facilities section raise issues of consistency, referral, or
environmental review.
Staff will provide additional evaluation of the EQTF features for parts expected to be
discussed at future meetings.
Staff has been asked to identify features of the draft Land Use Element recommended by
the Environmental Quality Task Force (EQTF) which:
May not be consistent with General Plan elements or other adopted policies;
May need to be referred to the Planning Commission, because the Planning
Commission did not discuss them;
May need additional environmental review, because the potential impacts have not
been addressed in the draft EIR or the EIR Supplement.
Requirements for consistency, for Planning Commission consideration, and for
environmental review are established by State law. Council has asked staff to identify these
items as the Council proceeds through the draft element.
gn:LUE-CO MEM
MEI TI G AGENDA
RECEIVE DE ';-:.:=ITEM #______
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
MORRIS JUN 6 f9�4, PETER R.ANDRE(Retired)
£a BUTTERY MICHAEL J.MORRIS
CITY COUNCIL JAMES C.BUTTERY
WN LUIS Q815?—Qj CA- DENNIS D.LAW
`I
J.TODD MIROLLA
P.TERENCE SCHUBERT
SCOTT W.WALL
MARY E.McALISTER
R � CIL CDD DR KATHRYN M.EPPRIGHT
(bJune Ap�
AZ ❑ FIRE CHIEF
I EY ❑ PW DIR 1304 Pacific street
.
MWORIG ❑ POLICECHF Post Office Box 730
13MGMi TEAM ElREC DIR San Luis Obispo
California 93406.0730
❑ ILE ❑ U71LDIRIR
Councilwoman Penny Rapp ❑ PERS DIR AND DELIVERED Telephone 8051543-4171
City Hall - Fax Number 8051543-0752
City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
RE: LUE/RIGHETTI PROPERTY -
Dear Penny:
I am writing to you on behalf of my clients Allen and Yolanda Righetti. The Righettis
are the owners of 145 acres of land located to the southeast of the City and bounded by Orcutt
Road to the east and Tank Farm Road to the south. Exhibits 1 and 2 to this letter are a general
Location Map and an Orcutt Expansion Area Map respectively to assist in.identifying the
Righetti Parcel.
The Righettis have owned this land for more than 55 years and for the past 25 years have
had a cow/calf operation on their ranch.
Because the Righettis have no immediate plans to change the use of their property, they
have not been closely following the City's update of the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
It has just come to the Righettis' attention that the proposed LUE will affect the future use of
their property. The Righettis have requested that I bring three comments to your attention as
the proposed LUE pertains to their property:
1. The proposed Urban Reserve Line would cut through the middle of the
Righetti parcel:
The Map at Figure 2 of the proposed LUE shows the Urban Reserve Line cutting
across the middle of the Righettis' 145 acre parcel. This seems to us to be inappropriate for
at least two reasons:
1 - As a parcel of land in single ownership, this property should be planned as a
j whole. If a comprehensive Specific Plan is to be developed for the area, it makes no sense to
leave almost 50% of the Righetti land outside of the planning area.
r:�tva�ywoz>rx�.Iu
I
I
ANDRE,
A PROFE55IONAL LAW CORPORATION
1M]1ORRI�IS
& BUTTERY
Councilwoman Penny Rappa
June 6, 1994
Page 2
- Considering the fact that Edna Islay Tract directly south of the Righetti property
is within the Urban Reserve, utility connections and traffic circulation will be facilitated by
including all of the Righetti parcel within the Urban Reserve. This will provide for a logical
extension of these facilities to an infill area.
For your convenience, Exhibit 3 shows the Righetti parcel entirely within the
Urban Reserve.
2. The entire parcel should be designated as a residential expansion area.
The proposed map shows the Righetti parcel as partially residential expansion and
partially open space. While it is clear that the hillside protection and open space policies in the
LUE will apply to this property, it makes sense to zone the entire parcel as residential expansion
with the exact areas of hillside and open space protection to be determined through the planning
process should some request to develop the property be made in the future. Also, since the City
requires a Specific Plan be prepared for the Orcutt Expansion Area, designating a portion of the
property as open space at this time before any Speck Plan has been offered with regard to the
property would seem premature.
In other areas of the city, the LUE designates as open space those areas which
indisputably must remain undeveloped. Clearly the prominent geographic feature on the Righetti
Ranch is the hill referred to as "Righetti Hill." For your consideration, Exhibit 4 shows Righetti
Hill as open space but defers any other such designation pending the future submittal of a
Specific Plan.
3. The agricultural land, prime soil designation shown in the EIR is
inappropriate, especially given the historical use of the property. _
The City's EIR classifies the Righetti property as prime agricultural soil. This
classification is based upon an erroneous assumption as to the quality of the soil and further
ignores the lack of water available on the property. For the past 25 years, the Righettis have
run a small herd of approximately 20/25 cows on the property. No crops have been grown on
the land and none are likely to be grown given the soil condition, the lack of water and the
climate relative to the property. To mischaracterize this property as prime agricultural land is
to ignore all of the component parts to a successful agricultural operation and to further ignore
the historical use of this property. While the property has unquestionably been in agricultural
use, the,agricultural operation is and always has been quite marginal.
(:11C1((1fIgI14I�ti�f.IP
_r
ANDRE, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
MORRIS
& BUTTERY
Councilwoman Penny Rappa
June 6, 1994
Page 3
I am enclosing as Exhibit 5 the proposed soil designation map which shows the Righetti
property with the prime agricultural land designation which should be removed.
In summary then, the Righettis request that you extend the Urban Reserve Line to include
all of their property, designate the entire property as a residential expansion area except for
Righetti Hill, and eliminate any reference to prime agricultural land with relation to this
property.
We expect to have several people prepared to speak to these points and answer any
questions at your meeting on Monday, 6 June 1994.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Michael J. Morris
MJM:pe
Enclosure
cc: Allen and Yolanda Righetti
f:Net4k�ha1�lrappLl7
ti
a
,��iS•'�� � `,* _,� Asa-� -��rra�1
' . 9 J
:...,..
s
• 1 �•::•::•• .�iV �i Ii IAV�.Y����`.
��aLL,i].O .•�i .ii i �•i i.�IV•
r 1• \ b�
•iiiiiiiirr \\ \\\\\\\\\\ //// // // / / / / / / /I/ \ \ \\
•rrrurrrrrrrr
•rrurrrrurrrrr \\\ \\\\\\\\\\
•rrrrrurrurrr rrr
rrrurrrrrrrr• .rrr / / /
.r.rIt",rrr..0 .,
r
.rrrrrrrrrr(urr
eeee'e Ile
le
r
/rrurrr
r rruur
iiiiiii
•• \\\\\\ iiriiii
•..rrrrrr ♦\\�\♦ ■ ® ■:
vrurrrr
•ururrr \\\\\\
.rrrrrr ♦\\\\♦ ..
.rrrrrr
rrrrrr ♦\\\\\ .�..�
\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \
.rrr.
rrr \\\\\♦
\ \\\\\\\\\
\ \ \ \ \
RIG
/ .:......... ..
\\\ TANK ARM ♦\\\\\\\\\\\\ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\ ♦\\\\\\\\\\\\\♦
Residential neighborhood: A large area for
\\\\\ the development of a variety of housing / / / / / / /
♦\\\♦
\\\ \ types along with supporting uses such as /
\x�♦ parks, elementary schools, and / / / / '01
/
\ \ convenience shopping.
\\\
00
General Plan Land Use Map T
Source: Planning Comm. Draft (Feb. '94) N
ORCUTT EXPANSI®N AREA
RIGHETTI RANCH Exhibit 2
uIIUIII// \\ \\\\\\\\\\ /It// / / / /
/l///
/I///// \\\ \\\\\\\\\\ te It It It
u//u////I/u/ /I/
/////v
/tv//I
r //
It It /r/ /r/ / / /♦ / // //
// /// r// // / / /r It //
It It It I It It It It
/ ItIt It
It
•'..lett' \\\\\\
\
/ /
/
RIGHETT/ RANCH
r ..:......:......
It rrrr r
It
/ \\
// \\\ ■,newts ■ . tttn�e� ��� ■VIEW■
AS
\\ \\\\
de It
\\ IANK-�FARM \\\\\\\\\\\\\ / / / / / / / /
♦\\\\\\\\\\♦ ♦\♦ ♦\\\\\\\\\\\\\♦
It It It It
Residential neighborhood: A large atea for / / /
the development of a variety of housing / / /
types along with supporting uses such as / / / / /
vc1♦ parks, elementary schools. and / / /
convenience shopping. t
/ / /
It
♦\\\\\\
If
/ / / / / / / /
// / // / / / / / / / / / Je
r/ It rl/ / / / / / / / / /
Revised URILIResidential Designation N
ORCUTT EXPANSION AREA
RIGHETTI RANCH Exhibit 3
vrrrr rrrr,rrr \
•rrrrrrrrrrr/rrr \\\ \\\\\\\\\\
•rrurrruurr,
•rrrrr rrr„rrr: .iii / / / /// /// ////// ////// /
vrrrrrrrurrry
vurrrrrrrrr 4a�'r
r,rrrrr
QKL!T7 .rr
burr ♦\\\\\ ::_�:
\\\V%
\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \
r :.
RIGHETTI RANCH
♦\♦ TANK\\♦ ♦\\\\\\\\♦ / / / / / / / / / / /
♦\♦ •FARM
\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\♦ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
Residential neighborhood: A large area for
\\\\\ \ the development of a variety of housing
types along with supporting uses such as
vC\ parks, elementary schools, and
convenience shopping.
Revised n URL/Open Space Designation p gat on N N
ORCUTT EXPANSION AREA
RIGHETTI RANCH Exhibit 4
•
.... ..........
`;� ti •
:..
..:•....S.' rf f
....`....`.. .............. +•.
2 _ HETT/
ANCH
.. .......: ..
. r•{
..•.•..
..........
A .•.�Lam'�::. ::•: ..\ `.. ' I
1�.::::: •.•:. r,.
:.: -
Y:i►.M.IV11'iV.`ik:;=: a
... .
i:::=:=: ::•: ;:;s: :•::
■
■
e m m m •'•
CLASSI & II SOILS
Urbanized
Currently Undeveloped
" City Classified " Prime Soils T
Source: LUE E1R (1993) N
ORCUTT EXPANSION AREA
RIGI ETTI RANCH Exhibit 5
I 614 911 1962 T;zoinm EMIT. 01
AGENDA
DATE jN 4-q ITEM # I
TROJAN ENTERPRISES
DATE: June 3. 1994
TO: Mayor Pe Pinard inard and Members of the City Council (Please distribute to all
Council Members.)
COMPANY: City of San Luis Obisno F:M�AAPAIO
DD]DR
❑ FIN
FAX NUMBER: ffi05) 781-7109 ❑ FIREO PW THIS IS BEING SENT BY: Dill Bir ❑ POLNUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET): 1 ❑ REo❑ urnIF UNREADABLE PLEASE CALL (618) 914-4691 p PER
FAX (818) 914.3962 I
1 understand the City Council will be discussing the Dalidio Property Monday evening, as
part of the continuing L.U.E. review process. As you kr10w, we have entered into on
agreement to purchase and develop the roily acre commercial area rand we have three
retailers, Costco, J.C. Penney and Target very anxious to get their stores under
wnstruction and open.
It is extremely important that Monday evening the Council provides ll-ie city staff with
direction to move torward with the approval process for this project. Even though the
past few years have Produced the following events, it would be very helpful for you to
make It clear to thtI staff the importance of the Dalidio Project proceeding as soon as
pussible.
1. The previous City Council voted unanimously to approve the Dalidio development
plan.
2. The Mayor appointed economic task force voted 11 1 to expedite the Dalidio
development plan.
3. The city and Dalidio family reached agreement on a sizable gift of property to the
city. in return for approving their development plan.
4. The Council voted to permit the Dalidio development plan approval to proceed
Independently of the L.U.E. update.
5. The Council recently voted to permit nPw nommercial growth adequate to satisfy
the Dalidlo Deveiopment Plan.
Everyday that goes by that these stores are not open causes an enormous amount of
sales tax revenue to escape to other cities. Please give us and the staff your voice
Monday evening to expedite this project.
Thank you. �vyy� RECEIVE®.
,,I UN - 3 1994
...
err courtclt.
SAN LUIS OBISP_O,CA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOh1ATION GV L./oR/��spB�lo
P.O. BOX 8114 MEETING AGENDA
SAN LUIS E: (805, CA 93403 8114 �STEM # �.
TELEPHONE: (805) 549.3111
�D (805) 549.3259 DATE 6 9
SAY ?. 7199, May 23 , 1994
CITY OF SAN LUIS Mi. 5—S LO—VAR—VAR
City of San Luis Obispo
General Plan
Planning -Comm Draft
Mr. Arnold Jonas
Community Development Department
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo CA 93403-8100
Dear Mr. Jonas:
Caltrans District 5 staff has reviewed the above-referenced
document. The following comments were generated as a result of
the review:
b. (Reference Page 41, "Dependent Care") - Encouraging on-
site child care facilities while reducing parking
spaces seems contradictory to us. We believe it is
unlikely that employees will be inclined to wait for a
bus or vanpool with their child. or elder parent. This
is especially true for the winter months. With that,
these new facilities would seem to encourage employees
to drive their own cars to sites with fewer parking
spaces available. Perhaps the idea of dependent care
facilities should be coupled with consideration for
creating an adequate number of short term (15-30
minute) parking spaces for dropping off and picking up
dependents.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any
questions, please contact me at (805) 549-3683 .
sincerely,
rry Newlan
District 5
Intergovernmental Review Coordinator
11 COUNCIL It CDD DIR
VAO 13 FIN DIR
ACRO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
C71 EY O PW DIR
C'f CLE1VQOR G O POLICE CHF
O MGWTEAM ❑ REC DIR
O C READ FILE O UTIL DIR
F�
0 PERS DIR
ML .nIG AGENDA
DATE ITEM l�
CENTRAL COAST
ENGINEERING 24 May 1994
E1289
396 Buckley Road
San Luis Obispo
California 93401
(sos)544-3279 ITFeATTt)RNEy
CR
FAX(805)541-3137 DD DIR
Allen Settle O RM DlR
City of San Luis Obispo FIRE CHEF
P.O. Box 1800 G o PWDR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 BOE CHFTEAM t7RECDIRRe:Land Use Element (Froom Ranch) D FILE t7 unL DSR.� o PERS D1R
Allen...
In response to our phone conversation about the land use element implementing
the Froom Ranch as a commercial center, below is language we would like
amended or included:
A. Removal from the Irish Hills Expansion Area. Major expansion policy,
(1) limits commercial uses in expansion areas, and (2) requires an approved
specific plan prior to annexation of lands (time consuming). Any Froom
Ranch development plan will be inconsistent with these two policies
(including the present application #41-94).
Request. Remove the Froom Ranch (Option Two, Full Development) from the Irish
Hills Expansion Area by amending the general plan land use map, and Figure 2 of
the land use element (See Exhibits A and B).
B. Land use designation of general retail commercial. This would expedite
annexation and development plan processing by eliminating (1) the need for
a general plan amendment (interim/conservation open space to general retail
commercial), and (2) staff's concern of vague reference to regional attractions
around Highway 101 and Los Osos Valley Road. RECEIVED/
MAY 2 7 1994
CfrV CLERIC
1`..orSls°y%ttle.wps
2
Request. Designate the land use of general retail commercial on Froom Ranch
(Option Two, Full.Development) on the general plan land use map, and designating
the Froom Ranch (Option. Two, Full Development) on. Figure 2 of the land use
element (See Exhibits A and B).
C. Eliminate reference to Optional and Special .Design Area. Our original
goal of this request was to (1) add land use element language that provided
for-the development of the Froom Ranch; and (2) have a land use designation
of general retail commercial. A special design area designation with a land
use of interim/conservation open space is .not what we want. Having to
change the interim open space designation to general retail commercial
requires a.general plan amendment (time) with the obvious question being,
"Why amend the general plan when we just,finished the update?"
Request. Designate the land use of general retail commercial on Froom Ranch
(Option Two,.Full Development) on the general plan land use map, and designating
the Froom Ranch (Option Two; Full Development) on Figure 2 of the land use
element (See Exhibits A and B).
Another concern of ours i$ the.Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact. Report
If all was to proceed and the general plan adopted as we desire; any development
plan would require an initial study as to. consistency with the land use and
circulation elements certified EIR. As the draft is .presently written; it would
.require the project to include those mitigations within it (or possibly others of
equal value, but at the expense of additional time for review). Please consider the
following changes:
D. Amendment of the Land Use and Circulation .Elements Supplemental
Draft Environmental Impact Report. Findings for consistency with the.
settle.wps
3
certified land use/circulation elements EIR will help the annexation and
development of the Froom Ranch. Development plan consistency with this
document expedites the process by (1) eliminating the controversy of negative
findings and overriding conditions, and (2) makes it possible to not require
additional environmental review beyond the initial study. To achieve this, it
would help to include what we refer to as our environmentally superior
mitigation measures so when staff evaluates our development plan, findings
for EIR consistency will be made. Outlined impacts addressed in the
Supplement for both Option One and Two are,Jobs/Housing: Traffic, Energy
Consumption, and Air Quality, Geology, Health and Safety, Flooding,
Agricultural Land, Views, Historical & Cultural Resources, and other topics
(see inclosure).
Mitigation #1 (page 36). We have consistently objected to the Figure 4-G
Froom Commercial Mitigation of the Supplement as a superior mitigation for
Jobs/Housing. The issue behind Jobs/Housing is (1) air pollution, and (2)
traffic congestion and management. The City of San Luis Obispo has a
jobs/housing imbalance because people drive into the community from
outside the planning area or city sphere (it is yet not clear, houses from the
planning area versus commercially zoned square footage from the city
'sphere; apples and oranges) Also questionable is that the potential number
of jobs is determined by dividing commercially zoned square footage by a
factor of employees/sq. ft. (whether the property is developed, or
developable is not part of the equation) and the makeup of
employees/household (the study assumes that all residents who live in San
Luis Obispo, work in the City too).
settle.wps
4
Request. Include the following mitigations in the Supplement noting that anyone
of three as an acceptable finding, (1) a no net gain, equal replacement of the housing
capacity from the Irish Hills area (anywhere between 100 to 360 units) to an
acceptable site, (2) providing traffic reduction programs (egregional transfer station,
park and ride, bike lanes), and (3) travel demand management for the project.
Eliminate Figure 4-C.
Mitigation #2 (page 36). Your wording on regional attraction is acceptable to us
and consistent with the mitigation.
Mitigation #3 (page 36). The perceived wetland habitat is man made with the
construction of Los Osos valley Road (no culvert release under the road
section) and the existing businesses along the Calle Joaquin Drive (existing
drainage easements and facilities poorly maintained). Replacement at a
ratio of 4 to 1 is not acceptable and not consistent with recent policy votes.
Request. The impact is not Class I or II because the wetland area is not significant.
A Class III finding has less than significant adverse impact requiring no finding.
Because the wetland is (1) not natural and unplanned (2) very small in size and (3)
insignificant, impact should be Class III not requiring mitigation.
Mitigation #4 (page 36). We agree that drainage be controlled, but the
reference to detention in the finding also designates a specific location for
the basin. How can this be without knowing and accommodating
development goals?
Request. Remove reference "west of where the creek turns from east to south in
the recommended open space dedication (and bounded on other sides by future
residential use, future auto sales, and the Froom South large store location)"
settle.wps
5
leaving the mitigation to read, 'To accommodate flood control for Froom Creek,
provide flood water control and riparian corridor enhancement per City
Engineering Standard-
Mitigation
tandardMitigation #5 (page 37). This finding is acceptable.
Mitigation #6 (page 37). The Froom Ranch full development project does
not object to the findings for traffic and circulation. Our changes include
construction timing and phasing for these improvements.
Request. Amend mitigation to read:
A. Participation with others in the widening of the Los Osos Valley Road to
four lanes when future plans and traffic volumes warrant the construction.
B. Designate Los Osos Valley Road as a 'parkway arterial" dedicating 6 travel
lanes with each phase of development.
New Mitigation #8. Mr. Madonna still questions the need for open space
dedication. The Irish Hills greenbelt does not require an easement to
protect it from development and sprawl. Current City and County
government codes (1) prohibit development on slopes with 30% slope and
greater, (2) prevents buildings from silhouetting; (3) restricts roads and
driveways from steep grade, (4)protects sensitive hillside habitat, (5) designates
the property as agricultur%onservation open space, (6) limits what type of
development can occur, (7) et cetera, et certera, et cetera. Bottom line, it will
be very difficult for anyone to develop, even without an easement.
Request. The summary of impacts includes four types of potential project and
cumulative impacts designated as Classes I, 11, 111 and IV. A Class IV impact is a
beneficial impact. The general plan provides exemptions for projects that provide
settle.wps
6
benefit to the community. Please consider whether the Froom Ranch project can
be exempted from open space dedication because of the following benefits to the
community, (1) improving Los Osos Valley Road, (2) correcting the Froom Creek
flooding problem, (3) providing much desired shopping, (4) providing jobs, no matter
what leve4 (5) contributing to the general fwul, (6) creating spinoff sales to Other local
merchants, and (7) constructing a high quality facility above an beyond any
expectations.
If you have questions about this postal, please contact me (544-3278 work,
466-8225 home anytime this weekend). Thankx for the your time and help.
Dennis ScHEU
settle.wps
u
! A ( �".;.
r
C1 '• I �.
ft
ILK
"I ZVI"074 IMP
16
Mw
44
••.iii..p.�S•,�.�•.
Cid C
Omni COM a TO i 1 •
r
111ylful uu uuu u
--......raavaa a=.aa,.aaG11L V�USIe '
Draft•EIR Supplement
Froom Ranch Option #2
Description & Setting
The site consists of about 105 acres which would have land use designations different from
those shown in the hearing draft (Figure 4-B). As this Supplement was prepared, there was
no development application showing specific land uses. The City Council has directed that
commercial use be evaluated. Commercial encompasses a wide range of businesses, from
warehouses, to services such as printers, and department stores and specialty stores. In
evaluating potential impacts, this Supplement assumes certain likely types of development,
as explained below. These assumptions are based on information presented by the owner
during a July 1993 City Council hearing.
The Froom Ranch includes substantial area in the Irish Hills which is not proposed for
development, and presumably would remain undeveloped. Tlie following areas would have
new, non-open space designations under this option.
A About 20-acres at the northern end of the Froom Ranch, opposite the Pacific Beach
School, recently have been grazed. Surrounding uses include grazing land, cultivated
land, the school, vehicle sales, and houses. The adopted Land Use Element shows
this area as interim conservation/open space,with the eventual use being residential,
as part of an Irish Hills specific plan. The draft Land Use Element show it the same
way. With this option, the site would be shown as general retail, with the intended
use being a warehouse store. The general retail designation gn typically accommodates
1� department stores, specialty stores, restaurants, and entertainment. Many types of .
0� service businesses and offices also can be developed. This assessment assumes that
this area would accommodate a warehouse store of� e-
S160,00 uar
is t e r Ra North" alternative site forsuch a store.). However, this land
use designation, unless sti laterother could accommodate the full range of
uses allowed in the Downtown and Madonna Roa $
B. About acres of nearly level land, west of the Auto Park Way area, recently have
een grazed. The adopted Land Use Element shows this area as interim
U� conservation/open space, with the eventual use being residential, as part of an Irish
�eHills specific plan, with open spa a extending from directly opposite the Auto Park
'� Way intersection to the s6uth. The draft Land Use Element shows it the same way,
except for about ten acre ire tly opposite Auto Park Way,which would be reserved
\ f ehrcte-drslrip • �Vi option #.2, this area would be designated services and I
manufacturing.
This assessment assumes that this area would accommodate abo�200,000 quare-
.
feet building area of, primarily: warehouse stores, as in the area tib. the north; ehicle
sales, rental, and repair; sales of building. materials, landsca a'supplies, and
furnishings. Service businesses, some types of offices, and light manufacturing also i
could be expected.
GMAGPEIR.SUP
28
Land Use Element & Circulation Element Update
Draft EIR Supplement
^�,�
^ �•��' _
`t ' About 53 acres extend from the nearly level land along Los Osos Valley Road to the
�Ner part o s to the southwest. This area, used for grazing, includes the
v� Froom Creek chdillell. The adopted Land Use Element shows this area as
conservation/open sp e. The draft Land Use Element shows it the same way. With
option #2, this ar would be designated tourist commercial. The urban reserve
would be-exa d to include this area, which is outside the urban reserve line as
s� e adopted and the hearing-draft maps.
This assessment assumes that this area wou}d accommo to a 150-unit hotel with o\�`
conference facilities and associated retail u es, and 100,0 square-feet of building
materials, landscape supplies, and furnishi gs sales. (This rea includes the "Froom
Ranch South" alternative site for a warehou a store, which As briefly evaluated in this
Supplement.)
Ea1Lq1 Con i tency
Community goals 8, 9, and 11, and the adopted and draft housing elements, favor having
sufficient residential capacity to accommodate the increase in workers expected to result
from the capacity for nonresidential development. (This is not a matter of achieving a
jobs/housing balance within the City, but of preventing the current imbalance from growing
substantially worse.) A key issue of internal consistency is the draft Land Use Element's
capacity for nonresidential growth (about 58% increase in workers) substantially exceeding
its capacity for residential growth (about 25% increase in dwellings). See the discussion of
jobs/housing balance below.
The draft Land Use Element says stores that attract customers from throughout the region
(generally, San Luis Obispo County) should be focused downtown and around the
intersection of Highway 101 and Madonna Road (policy 3.2). Warehouse stores would have
regional draw. To resolve the apparent inconsistency of locating such stores in this area,
the City could do one of the following:
A. Determine that such uses would still be "focused" at the preferred locations,.
considering the, relative amounts of land and floor space devoted to them, and
the range of region-serving retail uses, at the preferred locations.
(B. 1 Delete the policy, or amend it to include the Los Osos Valley Road area,
perhaps referring specifically to warehouse stores as suitable for locations
other than Downtown or Madonna Road.
` See recommended mitigation measure # 2, below.
About one-half of what is now shown as the Irish Hills expansion and specific plan area
would no longer be within that area. Presumably, a specific plan would not be required for
development of any part of the Froom Ranch.
\ GMAGPEIR.SUP 29
Land Use Element & Circulation Element Update
Draft EIR Supplement
To maintain consistency, several maps and tables in the Land Use Element, the Housing _..
Element, and the Open Space Element would have to be changed.
Impacts
-Jobs/housing —_
Option #2 would reduce rede 1 capacity by abou 360 dwellings and increase the
capacity for workers by at leas 1,100, rther imbalancing a elationship between jobs and
housing. This is a significant�'mp ct, causing the differ nce between residential and
nonresidential capacity to grow wi er by three to four percent. The change would also
contribute to a significant cumulative impact. See recommended mitigation measure # 1, _
below. j
-Traffic, Energy Consumption, and Air Quality
P -''--,.
Extensive commercial development of the Froom Ranch would require anges to s Osos
Valley Road not proposed by the draft Circulation Element (such ash 'dening to s lanes),
to provide acceptable levels of service.. Vehicle dealerships, a convention facil ty, and
warehouse stores are less amenable to trip reduction efforts tha I most other inds of
development.
Full development as outlined above would generateabou 16,00 more vehicle trips per day
than would the equivalent land area divided between ope sp ce and eventual residential
uses, as shown in the draft Land Use Element and as assumed in the draft EIR. (This
amount reflects trip generation rates corresponding with trip reduction programs in the draft
Circulation Element, and a reduction for "pass-by" traffic –shoppers visiting the retail uses
because they are passing by on a trip made for a different primary purpose).
Traffic levels on Los Osos Valley Road would increase significantly above levels projected
for the draft Land Use Element. The most heavily impacted segment would be between
Calle Joaquin and Highway 101, with the Madonna Road and Calle Joaquin intersections
having substantial congestion as well. Levels of service would change as shown on the
following page, even with the trip reduction measures and roadway changes proposed in the
draft Circulation Element. -
GMAGPEIR.SUP 30
Land Use Element & Circulation Element Update
Draft EIR Supplement
9
Level of.service Level of service
Draft Land Use Element Froom option
Los Osos Valley Road:
West of Madonna Road
Eastbound E F or worse
Westbound A . A
East of Madonna Road
Eastbound A
Westbound C For worse
East of Calle Joaquin
Eastbound D F or worse
Westbound A B
Highway 101 bridge
Eastbound A A
Westbound F F or worse
T or worse" means the time of extreme congestion the peak traffic period- would
last longer than under "F' conditions.
A new road connecting Los Osos Valley Road in this area with the proposed extension of
Prado Road has been discussed, but has not been evaluated in detail as part of this
supplement. Such a connection may-N:=anal)g irLfurther-eaviFonm review if a
specs rc e� ioprrrent�-pr os�al is made. It will be examined in the "project study report"
which must precede development of a new interchange at Highway 101 and Prado Road
A preliminary review shows that the diversion of traffic from &-V&He would
Abe-minimal, and-the-new-intersection-would-impe e traffic flow along Los Osos Valley
Road. There may be a minor of traffic from Madonna Road.
By further imbalancing th jobs/housing capacities, this option would have significant
impacts on traffic,.energynsump ion, a d air quality.
See recommended mitigation measure #6 below. SII
oNgot
-Geology, Health.and Safety
i
I
All sites in the southern Los Osos Valley and South Higuera Street area are on
unconsolidated alluvium, which is highly subject to shaking and possibly subject to
liquefaction in an earthquake. A fault trace has been found at the north end of the urban -
development in this area, but its course has not been followed under the developed area. r
Any additional large structlrre with high public occupancy, especially with merchandise on
GMAGPEIR.SUP 31
I
L-
Draft EIR Supplement Upuare
high shelves, is a concern. Also, soils in this area tend to shrink and swell substantially with
changes in upper soil moisture, posing a threat to the structures but generally not to the
environment. The City's standard mitigation in the form of construction standards and
inspection will provide adequate seismic safety for the building structure itself,
equipment, Iighting, and shelves. mechanical
J,
�. . 1
Code requirements do not address the stability of merchandise on the shelves. There is a
significant potential for public injury due to heavy items (some in glass containers), falling
from above head height during an earthquake. See recommended mitigation measure # 5,
below.
-Flooding
Any additional urban development in the watershed tends to cumulatively accelerate runoff,
confine the areas which can be occupied by flood water, and expose more people and
P property to harm. Risks vary greatly by location, and usually can be mitigated, but often
with secondary impacts. Enlarging or lining channels to accommodate flood flows often
�u reduces groundwater recharge, destroys wildlife habitat, and creates unattractive features.
Flooding is a concern with option #2, which would create more impervious surface than the
adopted plan, and would extend development into the 100-year floodplain.
The Los Osos Valley Road frontage opposite Auto Park Way, the Froom Creek channel,
and the southern roughly one-quarter of the site are within the 100-year flood plain (EIR,
page 6.9-3). Overflow from Froom Creek would contribute to floodwater, probably less than
two feet deep outside the creek channels. City code requires new buildings to have floors
one foot above a projected 100-year flood level, and allows them to displace flood water so
the flood elevation can increase by not more than one foot in the area.
Without— ecia mitigation, development of this site under option #2 probably would
ddress flooding simply by importing fill to raise the building pad and by realigning part of
the Pre reek channel. See recommended mitigation measures #1 and #4 bel
ow.
Agricultural Land
All of the site except the lower hills consists of prime soils EIR Fi
would directly and-permanently convert an additional 95 acres o prime 6oils,)in addition the currently designated Irish Hills expansion area. Individually nd cumulatively,
conversion of prime soil is a significant impact. Option #2 differs su'Sitantially from option
Z #1 by extending the an reserve line to include land which the adopted and draft land use
elements show as o n sp ce.\'i -
the prima itigation recommended below --reducing the scale of the project-- is not
accep other possible mitigation for conversion of additional prime soils would be
designating as agricultural open space all (rather than one-half).of the land owned by the
same person on the east side of the road, at the "Los Osos Valley„gap". .
GMAGPEIR.SUP 32 j
Land Use Element & Circulation Element Update \
Draft EIR Supplement
�1 M -Views
CC11AJ
h7dentified
he view at this location frm Los Osos Valley Road over grazin land to as a vista havin high scenic value g the Irish Hills is
C moderate scenic value fro 1� Auto Park Way northerlyL(adopted ted Sce Auto Park Way, and
and draft Circulation Elemknt, Figure 6). Development along scenic roadways
Element
block views (adopted Scemc� y should not
4ighwa s �lemen
lement policy
�143-B). Commercial buildings woulq,W- ely have visual impacts raft sim aorto he residential
i�� buildings shown in the draft EIR Igure 6.12-6). Commercial buildings, however, tend to
be taller and wider than residential buildings, but more widel s aced
from the roadway. Commercial development could be aymaac visual and et bac ion�hIn
IN&
ticular,.tourist commercial development on the lower hills southwest of Calle Joaquin
uld reduce the sense that the urban area stops at the area occupied by Howard Johnson
d Motel 6's southern location.
e more intensive and extensive development envisioned in option #2 would have more
evere visual impacts than option #1.
0 �Seerecommended mitigation #1 (including Figure 4-C) below.
„,-Habitat
J i
Q Wildlife habitat is a concern mainly with option #2. The following sensitive habitats exist
")on the site, in addition to the relatively common grassland and scrub communities typical
j of similarly situated grazing land. The Froom Creek channel provides
.� burrowing owl (designated a species of special concern), in part because the channel lacks
nest sites for
dense vegetation associated with riparian areas that have not been heavily grazed. The
lower hills contain rare plants limited to.soils derived from serpentine rock, and plants
associated with seeps and springs in combination with serpentine soils, as well as live oakand bay woodland. The site supports ten California Native Plant Society listed species. 1.
Wetlands occupy nearly 40 acres-of the site, including about 23 acres of freshwater marsh
near the intersection of Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin, with
I
Park yea a thin strip of marsh
along Los Osos Valley Road beginning north of Auto pa
y (Most of the marsh
appears to date from construction of roads and buildings in the area rather than from before
European settlement. However, considering previous losses of lands in the are
wet
such sizable resource is important.) a, any
As noted in the previous Froom Ranch project EIR, a project of the scope envisioned
option #2 would eliminate or significantly harm several sensitive habitats. The impacts `
could be reduced with mitigation, but they could be avoided only by reducing the scale of
the project. See recommended mitigation measures #1, #3, and #4 (including Figure 4-C) I
below. The draft Open Space Element contains policies and programs for protecting I�
wetlands and other sensitive habitats.
GMAGPEIR.SUP I!
33 { l
Uratt EIR Supplement _r \
-Historical & Cultural Resources
The existing house near the base of the hills is a good example of early wood-frame ranch
dwellings. Historical or architectural assessments have not been done, but would be if a
future development proposal would remove or substantially change this building. Showing
the vicinity for commercial rather than residential use would not have a substantial impact
on the building itself. However, a residential neighborhood, as intended by the adopted and
draft land use elements, probably would provide a better setting for preserving the house
on site than would a commercial designation intended to accommodate a warehouse store.
Cultural resources are a concern mainly with option #2. 'Bedrock mortars and other
cultural materials in excellent condition have been found on the lower hillsat the southern
end of the site. Development in this area has the potential to destroy theresources. The
se
previous EIR concluded that impacts could be mitigated to a level of insignificance by
avoiding the archaeological sites. However, the natural settings of the sites would be lost
if development surrounded them. See recommended mitigation #1 (including Figure 4-C)
below.
-Other Topics
i
Impacts of other kinds would be insignificant, or are speculative to address at this time and
would be evaluated when'a specific project is proposed.
i
i
I
1
GMAGPEIR.SUP 34
a �
Poa
Ma
Pacific Beach School
future 10
residential use1 Qat�10
1 O
future auto sales. �3
r .•• Irish Hills �—• \
\o
'C—open space dedication
riparian enhancement
I "Froom South" location
for large store
�l \
�F.
a
iSte �o.
I
,figure 4-C: Froom Commercial Mitigation A '
N
CTL / Or LAND USE & CIRCULATION ELEMENTS UPDATE
�- San lU1S OBISPO EIR SUPPLEMENT
990 Palm Street/Post Ottice'Bo:8100•San Luis Obispo.CA 93403.8100
35
Land Use Element & Cirr- '.tion Element Update
Draft EIR Supplement
.
Mitigation for-Qption #2
If commercial development is to be accommodated on the Froom Ranch site, beyond the
approximately ten acres opposite Auto Park Way which is reserved for vehicle dealers under
the draft Land Use Element, the following mitigation should be included. This mitigation
assumes that the project intent is primarily to create a site for a warehouse store.
1. To maintain policy consistency concerning residential capacity, specific plans for
major expansion areas, and protection of open space resources (including creeks,
hillsides, and archaeological sites), limit the additional commercial space to about 20
acres at the southeast corner of the site, near Los Osos Valley Road and Calle
Joaquin (Figure 4-C). Doing so would also minimize further imbalancing
jobs/housing capacities and reduce impacts on traffic, air quality, residential noise ,
exposure, and views.
2. To maintain policy consistency concerning location of stores with regional attraction,
do one of the following (approach "A" is preferred):
A. Amend policy 32 to include an exception for warehouse stores near the
Highway 101 and Calle Joaquin intersection.
B. Make a finding that such uses would still be "focused" at the preferred
locations, considering the relative amounts of land and floor space devoted to
them and the range of region-serving retail uses, at the preferred locations.
(This would not address cumulative impacts of designating additional area for
region-serving retail uses, as noted in the discussion of the McBride
commercial expansion, above.)
3. To offset the loss of wetland habitat, the owner would dedicate property he owns at
the north edge of Laguna Lake to the City (or a City-designated conservation
organization), equal to at least four times the area lost on site, for enhancement and
permanent protection as freshwater marsh habitat, consistent with the Laguna Lake
Master Plan. Development proposals will comply w44,City resource.protection _
policies and programs coritained•in the Open Space Element.
4. To accommodate flood control without long-term harm to the Froom Creek riparian
habitat, provide flood water detention (possibly with dry-season recreational use)
west of where the creek turns from east to south in the recommended open space
dedication (and bounded on other sides by future residential use, future auto sales,
and the "Froom South" large store location). Also, restore and protect a broad
riparian corridor generally along the existing Froom Creek alignment.
If the full 20 acres are not needed for the large store, detention area could be ,I
combined with additional wetlands protection on the eastern side of Froom Creek
in that area.
GMAGPEM.SUP 36
Land Use Element & Circulation Element Update
Draft EIR Supplement
A `
S• To provide an acceptable level of risk to public safety
I store will be contingent on the owner , occupancy of a warehouse
merchandLSe, based on an Inde enden imp a restraint system for
recommendation. p qualified seismic safety evaluation and
6. To provide acceptable levels of service on roads serving the site, do the following in
addition to the projects recommended
by the draft Circulation Element:
A- Widen the Los Osos Valley Road bridge over Highway 101 to four
g, Designate lanes.
hicletravel lanes Plus s 0sos bike Bans,oad from"Parkway arteria]" and provide six
f Madonna Road to Highway 101.
I � C• Plan Los Osos Valley Road from the San
Higuera Street as a four-lane arterial (actual proviision of ddiiCreek tional San s
contingent on future traffic levels).
Note: These additional traffic measures would not be need
approach of recommended measure #1 is followed. ed if the basic land use
i�
1
1
1
1
GMAGPEIR.SUP
37
.s!
I� STING AGENDA
ITEM # ....-
WARREN A.SINSHEIMER III SINSHEIMER, SCHIEBELHUT & BAGGETT
ROBERT K. SCHIEBELHUT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ROBIN BAGGETT STREET ADDRESS
K.
MARTIN J. TANGEMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1010 PEACH STREET
THOMAS M. DUGGAN POST OFFICE BOX 31 FACSIMILE
MARTIN P.LIHNKE HNKE I
DAVID A.J6d
��` 0E jOSAN LU15 OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 93406.0031 805-541.2802
STEVEN J. ADAMSKI RE V
THOMAS D.GREEN S[� 805-5412800
M.SUZANNE FRYER i t 1".4 N 1701
CYNTHIA CALDEIRA CLIENT 0201018
W. ARTHUR GRAHAM
CITY COUNCIL
SUSAN S.WAAG
ROY E.OGDEN SAN LUIS OBISPO#CA_
THOMAS 1.MADDEN III
CHRIS A.CARA
MARIA L HUTKIN
June 1, 1994
Gir'COUNCIL MCDDDIR
C ❑ FIN DIR
Peg Pinard, Mayor AAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
City of San Luis Obispo J�T,��LERKOO I ❑ PO DIR
990 Palm Street cLERW'ORIG [3 POLICE CHF
P.O.Palm
8100 ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
Box ❑ C FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
San Luis Obispo, California 93403-8100 ❑ PERS DIR
Re: General Plan Land Use Element/Alex Madonna
Dear Mayor Pinard:
In preparation for the upcoming hearings with regard to the Land Use Element, currently
scheduled for June 6, 1994, I noted an error in my letter to you dated May 17, 1994. In the
second full paragraph on page 2, I erroneously stated that Section 8.5 of the Draft Land Use
Element provides that if any of the parcels in the Dalidio Area are developed, no more than "95-
98%" of the total land owned by all three land owners in that area could be developed, with the
remainder to be preserved permanently as Agricultural Open Space. That obviously is in error.
In reality, Section 8.5 provides that no more than 20% of the total land owned by all three
owners could be developed, with the remainder to be preserved permanently as Agricultural
Open Space. I regret any inconvenience this error may have caused.
In addition, since our May 17, 1994 letter, we have received and reviewed copies of
alternative proposals suggested by Councilmember Settle, which were apparently generated prior
to the hearing of May 17, 1994. We support those proposals relating to the Froom Ranch, with
one exception. We would respectfully request that the City Council correct the gerrymandered
effect of the Urban Reserve Line relative to the Froom Ranch. As presently proposed, the
Urban Reserve Line is drawn in such a manner that a peninsula of land which extends into the
Froom Ranch to the edge of Los Osos Valley Road near Highway 101 is created and left outside
the urban Reserve Line, whereas the Line again returns to outlaying areas neighboring and
adjacent to property within the Urban Reserve Line. We can perceive no rational basis for this
gerrymandered effect which operates to exclude some of Mr. Madonna's property fronting Los
Osos Valley Road. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Urban Reserve Line be drawn
in a consistent manner along the hillside so that all, and not just a part, of the Froom Ranch
Peg Pinard, Mayor
June 1, 1994
Page 2
property immediately adjacent to Los Osos Valley Road is included within the Urban Reserve
Line.
Very truly yours,
SINSHE ER, SC14IEBELHUT & BAGGETT
I
I T EMAN
MJT:tlg
g:\ltr\Madonna\HilWde\7Pinard.601 _
cc: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Department Director
Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney
WARREN A.SINSHEIMER III SINSHEIMER. SCHIEBELHUT & BAGGETT
ROBERT K.SCHIEBELHUT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
K. ROBIN BAGGETT STREET ADDRESS
"ARTIN L TANCEMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1010 PEACH STREET
OMAS M. DUGGAN POST OFFICE BOX 31 FACSIMILE
.RT1N P.MOROSKI
uAVID A.IUHNKE SAN LUIS OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 93406-0031 805-541.2802
STEVEN J.ADAMSKI
THOMAS D.GREEN 805-541.2800
M.SUZANNE FRYER
CYNTHIA CALDEIRA CLIENT 0201024
W.ARTHUR GRAHAM
SUSAN S.WAAG
ROY L OLDEN
THOMAS).MADDEN III
CHRIS A-CARR
MARIA L HUTKIN
May 17, 1994
Peg Pinard, Mayor VIA HAND-DELIVERY
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
RE: General Plan Land Use Element/Alex Madonna
Dear Mayor Pinard:
This law firm represents Alex Madonna. As you know, we previously addressed
correspondence to the City Council with reference to the General Plan Land Use Element,
and its impact upon our client. This letter is written as a follow up to our previous
correspondence, in order to more specifically address some of the issues with which we are
concerned.
As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Madonna owns property in the Dalidio, Froom
Ranch and San Luis Mountain areas, as well as a substantial amount of the proposed
greenbelt/open space area surrounding San Luis Obispo. In fact, an overview of the
undeveloped property owned by Mr. Madonna within the outer boundary of the proposed
greenbelt area demonstrates that approximately 95-98% of his undeveloped property subject
to the General Plan is designated as open space, and therefore not subject to any
economically viable development.
Under the proposed Land Use Element, Mr. Madonna shoulders an inordinate
proportion of the City's plan for open space preservation. Under such circumstances, one
would therefore expect that City representatives would at least attempt to be as fair as
possible with Mr. Madonna's remaining undeveloped property. However, a review of the
current proposals demonstrates that exactly the opposite is true. Instead, current proposals
clearly set forth measures which are not only unfair, but which appear to be aimed
specifically at Mr. Madonna in a harmful manner.
Mayor Pinard
May 17, 1994
Page 2
For example, under the proposed draft of the General Plan, the Froom Ranch area
adjoining Los Osos Valley Road is divided, with a substantial amount of road frontage placed
outside the Urban Reserve Line and designated as greenbelt/open space, notwithstanding the
visibly apparent fact that the Urban Reserve Line actually had to be gerrymandered in order
to accomplish this impact upon the Froom Ranch property.
Moreover, Mr. Madonna's property on the east side of Los Osos Valley Road (the
Los Osos Valley Gap) is also apparently singled out for special treatment. Although it
appears to be the last undeveloped parcel on the east side of Los Osos Valley Road,
development of that parcel is prohibited under the terms of proposed section 1.8.2 (unless
that parcel can be described as a small, isolated parcel essentially surrounded by
urbanization, which is unlikely since the contiguous properties on two sides are not
developed). However, if some development of that particular parcel were to be allowed, it
would not be allowed to occur unless the majority of the parcel were permanently preserved
as open space (section 1.13.7). Other specific provisions relating to this particular site
prohibit further development on the sixteen (16) acres fronting on Los Osos Valley Road
unless the remaining property owned by Mr. Madonna to the east is permanently preserved
as open space and additional land also permanently preserved to meet the requirement that
four (4) acres be saved for every acre which is developed (section 8.4; see also section
3.5.7). This parcel is also singled out in section 8.5, which provides that if any of the
parcels in the Dalidio area are developed, no more than 95-98% of the total land owned by
all three landowners could be developed, with the remainder to be preserved permanently as
agricultural open space. Given the inherent conflict between the three owners, this provision
alone may guarantee the inability to develop this parcel.
In addition to the currently proposed limitations to the Froom Ranch (including
gerrymandering of the Urban Reserve Line alongside Los Osos Valley Road to exclude some
of the road frontage, the proposed limitation of residential use only for the remaining
frontage area of that property, and the probable application of a save four acres for every
acre lost formula to that property despite the fact that already the City has moved to place
approximately 95-98% of Madonna's undeveloped property within the outer limits of the
greenbelt under open space protection already), and the severe limitations which would
operate to prohibit development on the Los Osos Valley Gap/Dalidio property owned by Mr.
Madonna (see discussion above), the General Plan Land Use Element also singles out Mr.
Madonna for punitive treatment with regard to the San Luis Mountain area. Those
provisions, including sections 6.2.6(k) and 8.1.1., have been the subject of a prior letter to
the City Council, and will not be addressed again here. A review of the General Plan
indicates, however, that no other landowner has been separately treated in any similar
manner through the imposition of substantial (and probably impossible) restoration
requirements as a precondition to development of a separate and unrelated parcel of property.
Moreover, the proposed terms go even further by appearing to require the permanent
Mayor Pinard
May 17, 1994
Page 3
dedication of open space of the entire area between Highway 101 and the top of San Luis
Mountain, which would appear to be substantially all of the undeveloped property adjacent to
the existing Madonna Inn.
In summary, Mr. Madonna has been asked to shoulder far too great a burden in the
interest of preserving open space for the residents of the City of San Luis Obispo. Further,
even though approximately 95-98% of his undeveloped property is placed within open space
categories, even the remaining 2-5% is subject to severe and, in all likelihood, impossible or
impracticable limitations upon development rights.
Based upon the above, it is our considered opinion that the General Plan Land Use
Element simply goes too far in proposing to regulate land use with respect to the property of
Alex Madonna and, as such, that those regulations constitute an unconstitutional taking as
applied to each individual parcel, and as applied to Mr. Madonna's property as a whole,
requiring compensation to Mr. Madonna.
Accordingly, we appeal to your sense of fairness and justice in your consideration of
these provisions relating to and impacting upon the Froom Ranch, the Los Osos Valley _
Gap/Dalidio property owned by Mr. Madonna, and the Madonna Inn/San Luis Mountain
area. We do not believe that it would advance the interests of the residents of San Luis
Obispo to approve such provisions over objection through the adoption or application of
overreaching and excessive regulations. We request that you give appropriate consideration
to the rights of Alex Madonna to the economic and productive uses of his property, and
especially those parcels in the Froom/Los Osos Valley Gap/Dalidio areas. No other
landowner has been required to sacrifice as much as Mr. Madonna insofar as the proposed
greenbelt and open space areas are concerned. Given the nature and extent of that sacrifice,
the additional provisions relative to the Froom Ranch/Los Osos Valley Gap/Dalidio
properties can only be described as punitive and excessive.
Very truly yours,
SINSH i HI BELHUT & BAGGETT
21 f
T G MAN
MJT:tjP
g:1dtr\Madonna\5Pinard.516
cc:-Jeffrey G. Jorgenson, Esq.
Mipa Coftn4caff(emen's AIJ06fion
Boxy l MEETING AGENDA
` $a,t ,�uu Opo 9303 DATE 9 ITEM #
- ,
�1S �Og1510 CP
5941 Vxi
June 1, 1994
Peg Pinard, MayorI Ii CDD DIR
City of San Luis Obispo ❑ FIN DIR
990 Palm Street a ❑ FIRE CHIEF
P.O. Box 8100 rriEY ❑ PW DIR
San Luis Obispo, California 93403-8100 � �° [3 POLICE CHF
❑ , ❑ REC DIR
❑ FILE ❑ U nL DIR
Re: General Plan Land Use Element Update ❑ PERS DIR
Dear Mayor Pinard and Council Members:
On behalf of the San Luis Obispo County Cattlemen' Association, I would like to
register our serious concern regarding the direction undertaken by the current draft proposals
for the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and particularly those proposals advanced by the
Environmental Quality Task Force, as they relate to private property rights. As you may be
aware, our membership is extensive and consists of a number of landowners who would be
seriously affected by implementation of many of the policies set forth in the draft proposals.
We are greatly concerned about the serious and substantial restrictions which are being
proposed for land in and around the vicinity of the City of San Luis Obispo, including land both
within and outside the proposed Urban Reserve Line. A substantial amount of that land is
designated as "Open Space", and is subject to severe restrictions on the ability to create separate
parcels or make improvements of almost any kind to that property, thereby depriving the
landowners of the reasonable benefit of their land. By way of example, the land-of one of our
members (Alex Madonna) is almost exclusively within Open Space designation, thereby stripping
most of the economic value from that property, while his remaining property immediately
adjacent to the City limits, and within the Urban Reserve Line, is subject to very severe
restrictions including extensive permanent dedication requirements, development prohibitions,
or unduly onerous restoration conditions.
It is imperative that the City Council act out of a sense of fairness and with appropriate
regard for the rights of all citizens, including C property owners.both within and immediately
adjacent to the City limits. Those policies adopted by the City Council will substantially, and
perhaps severely, impact upon the rights of those property owners. The San Luis Obispo
County Cattlemen' Association believes strongly that property should not, and legally cannot,
Peg Pinard, Mayor
June 1, 1994
Page 2
be taken without just compensation. The requirement of open space and greenbelt dedications
should be placed only on publicly owned land or should be the subject of appropriate and just
compensation to private property owners. In addition to compliance with legal requirements,
the City Council should also be concerned with, and address, fundamental notions of fair play
when it acts in a manner which impacts upon the rights of property owners.
Accordingly, we urge you to carefully consider the rights of property owners at the time
that you consider and act upon each of the draft proposals contained in the General Plan Land
Use Element.
Very truly yours,
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
CATTLEMENS' ASSOCIATION
WALT NIELSEN
President
cc: Penny Rappa, City Council
Bill Roalman, City Council
Allen Settle, City Council
Dave Romero, City Council
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Department Director
1
MF71NG AGENDA
y EES- ITEM #.
r.; 1091
CITY COUNCIL
Luis Obispo county SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
ARM BUREAU
May 31, 1994
Mr . Bill Roalman
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St .
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Councilman Roalman :
I am enclosing a copy of an article that was printed in last
week 's New Times . As you may recall, I testified the week
earlier at the City Council hearing regarding the very real
urban/agriculture conflicts that are faced by farmers in, around
and surrounded by city residents . This article reconfirms our
concerns .
Sincerely,
MARILYN B ITTON
Executive Manager
encl .
Copies to : Mayor- Pinard
City Council
0UNCIL ]RECDIR
R
Fr
AO HIEF
VTTORNEY
Cd CLERKIORIG CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM RRIR
651 Tank Farm Rd.
Sian Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 543-3654 `
oES ym�.`�o..°�NY�y 'G•Cdvd
.�N°no
cs
Eo= Yoc m
d= am � m ``poo; yS °�CuaL°' dJm> ° y0
o3. . gC0a7
La*y5G > wov B°amtuoy
r3m
•Lo°Ywyfl3�NCC3''Wy�t��om¢n�Y. ECLm'm�-'.muYm-'9uNtc°NN—mpNtoovao•_m:E.—m ccmm' Nm°�YoomvCi °��m1y .mC3cC7i ❑oum a`eo-0m.0C �my'm m-2Y oy..
a.0
CNYm0�Tr°
'•`3�,t>m9
o
ou° opd ,t No
dwm e°sagyo > 3?
my o r � >, � o M. � LaEo �=0Emc -um
yoe
S ° m .mend 9 m o
o E.0 m m poT0 `to -m '@
.0 � E mYm= o•v cm (uy
0.da7'°
a�Y
uOG um 3 7d>=4 - mYcr]m 4 ' t
5 Lm OC
' vai : °
m•5EU o E od° cu mu ; .0
o �
ci ca o �
o .1,30 �myEyW
x a"$xe=a. e� „... Y •. %„.a e 'fl a m _ 0 7 m U p .v9 '� m m OO y
c�
m N e
,� rood .. ot yy •C m `dS:fl3 >'m�' y y C � iS
��`'�* ,�F Y � dkx•, G C C -.yi'=C m���'v, m ” �-_ 7� _ � G Ct V
�` `px�-h' ' Y 3 tl1 m 9 m •O• y .: u O L•a
0 °,Y S td o-
mm'o—> � Tmooy dr
x� p> S �s�6 u'fl C c� C t0 N O C m `n
'TM'"e '1 'a3 .'y '�7 Y m .0 °� 7 o;_F' �N C 1 O ° 3-. y O m y
k r a' a
a ° 9o y ems °>°.5'- u u rm o >,4'=0 = u ' Y E v
2.
m � mcmi. aEiu ^ yY m� oWr ' � d m
.R'i .': „a o-i : •. x 2 3 W 0 rJ- > C u YL G. ..] O:vi E m �'O S'+
i
E'� m v°o w m C m V
a cz
m Y m d U O > m 40: L 00
° ° cr� dp �avm
« O C
Eel 4pT •O CO C COaN OpLm'9O 9a>O ri E ut mTmmL CwamdO0O ' mCdtu y =EmE C' OCU
'T-
vi
m Jr, cm
m•°t h cc
V ° :.,,a
: ..� tee . .,..• q, „�,. ' 4 �.. o u- C F a m
■ L o G1 Y a u m m N o ov �_w�: E r
%
L® •.c}ti3O,vQ"�''('[��("vay�+3s�7,',,a QYQ>m' .'m$-:J�>8Rm3c��di'���°e°�°mmC'.'LEmy"�U�Lfl3+L�dNE>mm�o'°.'p'd DVoYm ca1l�".a.i'NyNY,�+O=OmTb..LmYO mydEE Dc_OdmpUZ>'mmC°o a•mtOa==Nm1pWmi.e-Nu3
.,mCemV9�Zm Om'mcS•m�-md•^aUC�mmmmd7u?=>i+�c
A N E- do .fl Nri
m O mm� o = ° �N�mmEm3>dm
•p eLm°t==�°o•i��fla'E
.ti:C�ov9C
vUdcY>b7°-LJtemyoyoyy7
E-Z
ta-�WO0,
CL=. = �> u Er5e_O
75 >-0 „Lio
�7
-
7E9uayaan. od0 = 5co* cp -Fm _ .2
HCC.E
E.rmmmPEmo >,cu L u -p. m
'aCo E y ' O -sd'oCyrm m � m mm t > N
� E0cON
md �L
3 � wmL . t nNm- CG 5bo�� dm °3cto 3 "
° v =` ° V
° m = o ^ms ° E 05 9
Z 9ymEc � � b °mV ? o iv9 m•fl'O
'S5 Om •-O
O. Lu 0 � m d U— N z wcm - O NLC m
aCm m � C Cma m OE
0 y oEm
5 oc3 � > m3mE� amm d
moFT .o d
MIEN $� ZEa o OuLV `aFF
UO m pza to mc E.0 � � mEta y y o^ m� NCD
-
a w a) � cc m
C/D o200EA.a mc- 3:
sad
C6Cyuy O 0 m Y N
m u
Z ? > om m m m pF3S�omYy=�wmOOu°CO .-
� �
Qo m > 7.0,v; 3 Sc
P= moo° m NX o� � m �c_> m
r h'� a vd N Oo �m cc L � U � g a
� U � VN ° flsit ° V dmOTo m o
caJeSTu
mfoar3 = . yme ° moyCL-;j -0o
� o `�� o °1o � mdcEmopm
c ° E > m� ° � m t > co > WO >0 Pob .ad �m y= md,mommy U YommmuL
„)N Q= m ° u lo
3
�mmLo� au�xH�om� msemo 3 m•�m��P. 30Q � co oeo�n A"�o°0y�.cLF6qmo' pdyr.aeo -U, dm: _0 ° u ° 0mE "i �1o O 0 u 3C' ^'O FCOC
> ' o $ � Smu °m ° oain
uo7Ey&.
w
._
5cism3o7m = L ^
YSmyo5m u; NAmo
o 3Y � °E03
0 amvdEY o
Z :w r =r,q E o:UO�C 3 N