HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/18/2006, PH4 - APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION TO APPROVE A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, council.
j agenba nEpout
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development DirectorDD
Prepared By: Whitney McIlvaine; s late Planner
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION TO
APPROVE A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND GRANT FINAL
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL TO A MIXED-USE PROJECT AT 2238
BROAD STREET. (ARC/ER 62-05, Terry Mohan, Appellant)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Draft Resolution A (Attachment 6), denying the appeal and upholding the Architectural
Review Commission's action to approve the project and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, based
on findings.
DISCUSSION
Situation
On June 19, 2006, on a vote of 7 to 0, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approved a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and granted final approval to the design for a mixed-use project
with 91 residential units and approximately 25,000 square feet of commercial lease space, known
as The Village at Maymont. On June 26, 2006, the City received an appeal objecting to the
review of the project's traffic mitigation and parking reduction.
Data Summary
Applicants: Halferty Development Company& DeBiekes Investment Company
Property Owner: Albertson's
Representative: RRM Design Group
Zoning: C-N-H, Neighborhood-Commercial & C-S-H, Service-Commercial — both with the
Historical Preservation overlay
General Plan: Neighborhood-Commercial & Services & Manufacturing
Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact was approved
by the ARC on June 19,2006.
Site Description
The project site occupies approximately 7 acres on the east side of Broad Street between Santa
Barbara and Alphonso Streets. Access to the site is available from three streets - Broad Street,
Alphonso Street, and Roundhouse Avenue. Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way adjoins the
site on the east. The City's Fire Station #1 is located immediately to the north. To the south
and west are offices, service-commercial uses, and houses.
4- I
I
Council Agenda Report-2238 Broad Street
Appeal of ARC/ER 62-05
Page 2
Appellant's Position
In his appeal, submitted on June 26th, the appellant states, "I feel that the traffic mitigation on
Broad and Santa Barbara Street as well as the parking reduction were not adequately reviewed by
either commission meetings. A matter of this importance needs to be decided by the City
Council."
Applications for Architectural Review and Planning Commission Use Permits do not typically
involve City Council review unless appealed. The applicant's request to abandon an undeveloped
portion of South Street will require City Council approval.
Although the appellant did receive written notification of public hearings for The Village at
Maymont, he was not present at either the Planning Commission or the ARC hearings, nor did he
submit any written objection to the project for consideration by Commissioners. However; he
did provide a statement of his concerns to the City Council in conjunction with the initiation of
the street abandonment process. Please see Attachment 5.
Planning Commission Review
On May 24, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed the project's proposed mix of uses, site
planning, requested parking reduction and the proposed abandonment of an undeveloped portion
of South Street. The Planning Commission approved a Use Permit for the project, including a
30% mixed-use parking reduction. Since the 10-day time period allowed for an appeal of the
Planning Commission's action has expired, the Commission's action is final. Therefore, the issue
of a reduced parking requirement is no longer subject to appeal.
Architectural Commission Review
The ARC schematically reviewed the project's architecture and site planning on April 17, 2006
and provided direction to the applicant. On June 19, 2006, the ARC approved a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and granted final approval to the project's site plan and architecture, based
on findings and subject to conditions and environmental mitigation measures. The appellant's
concerns focus primarily on the adequacy of traffic mitigation.
Environmental Review and Traffic Mitigation
Copies of the project's initial environmental study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND), prepared by Padre and Associates, were distributed for review to members of both the
Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Commission. The Planning Commission
found that the environmental review adequately addressed potential impacts, but did not take
action on the proposed MND. As the hearing body taking final action on the development plan,
the ARC was also responsible for taking action on the project's environmental review.
Accordingly, the ARC approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact,
which includes several traffic impact mitigation measures.
� - a
l f
Council Agenda Report—2238 Broad Street
Appeal of ARGER 62-05
Page 3
A traffic study was prepared for the project by Penfield and Smith and is included in the
environmental initial study. It identifies potential impacts related to trip generation and
distribution, signalization, and levels of service at affected intersections. The study has been
reviewed by City planning and engineering staff and by development review staff at the
Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Mitigation measures were developed to reduce
potential impacts to a less than significant level. In addition to extensive staff review, these
mitigation measures were reviewed and discussed by both the Planning Commission and the
ARC. The list of approved traffic mitigation measures is attached. (See Attachment 3.)
1. Traffic Generation:
The traffic study prepared for this project evaluated the impact of project trips on surrounding
streets and intersections in terms of Level of Service. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative
measure of traffic conditions ranging from LOS A (free flowing conditions with little or no
delay) to LOS F (congested conditions with long delays and lengthy vehicle queues). Level of
Service is most critical at peak A.M. and P.M. traffic periods.
The mixed-use project is projected to generate 1675 average daily trips. (Previous projects
proposed for this site were projected to generate roughly 5,000 average daily trips.) The project
would contribute roughly 79 A.M. peak hour trips and 152 P.M. peak hour trips. While these
numbers are not large, the added trips impact streets and intersections which are already heavily
traveled and operating at or near unacceptable levels of service. When analyzed in conjunction
with existing conditions and likely impacts of other approved projects on the roadways and
intersections near the project site, this project's trip generation is deemed a significant impact
under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Mitigation measures required to offset traffic-related impacts include:
a. Widening Broad Street to accommodate a landscaped center median and a second
northbound left-turn lane between South and Alphonso Streets;
b. Frontage improvements, including a landscaped parkway between the street and the
sidewalk
c. Installation of a bus pull-out and transit shelter;
d. Fair share contribution to a future light at Broad and Woodbridge Streets;
e. Reconfiguration of the intersection at the Broad, South and Santa Barbara Street
intersection to accommodate the additional traffic lane and improve the pedestrian
crossing; and
c4 - 3
Council Agenda Report—2238 Broad Street
Appeal of ARGER 62-05
Page 4
f. Adjustments to existing signal phasing and installation of new pedestrian countdown
signals at the Broad, South, and Santa Barbara intersection.
2. Traffic Circulation:
It is the City's goal to reestablish a continuous vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian path of travel
through the neighborhoods on the east side of Broad Street between Santa Barbara Street and
Orcutt Road. The Village at Maymont will improve the Emily Street segment of that connection
between Roundhouse Avenue and Alphonso Street. In addition, the applicant will dedicate right-
of-way and pay half the cost of roadway improvements to provide a future connection to Victoria
Street. Another condition of project approval addresses providing a pedestrian and bicycle
connection to the railroad safety trail planned for the west side of the railroad tracks (to the east
of the project site).
3. Signalization:
In his letter to the.City Council received on June 19, 2006, the appellant states his suggestion to
develop the South Street right-of-way adjacent to the Fire Station as a signalized entrance to the
project. This 5-point intersection configuration was rejected by City Council in 1993 as
undesirable and unsafe when reviewing alignment alternatives for a South to Bishop Street
connection. (A connection via Roundhouse Avenue was identified as the preferred alternative.)
The appellant also suggests a signalized entrance to the project at Alphonso Street. Caltrans
rejected that option as too close to the Broad, South and Santa Barbara Street intersection to be
functional. The Highway 227 Taskforce identified signalization at Woodbridge and Broad Streets
as a feasible alternative. Caltrans is responsible for determining when traffic volumes warrant the.
installation.
In addition to required adjustments to the signals at the Broad, South, and Santa Barbara Street
intersection, the project applicant is also required to contribute the project's fair share of the cost
of a signal at Woodbridge Street.
Conclusion
The project site is zoned for commercial and mixed-use development. Any project approved for
this site will generate a certain amount of additional traffic. Because of its residential component,
this mixed-use project will generate far less traffic than a project with only service-commercial
and retail-commercial uses. The project's potential traffic impacts were reviewed by professional
traffic engineers, the City's environmental consultants, City staff, Caltrans staff, Planning
Commissioners, and members of the Architectural Review Commission. The appellant's
suggestions for traffic signal locations were previously studied and rejected in favor of other
alternatives. Mitigation has been identified and agreed to by the applicant to reduce project-
related traffic to a less than significant level. Therefore, the appeal of the ABC's action is
unwarranted.
J
Council Agenda Report—2238 Broad Street
Appeal of ARC/ER 62-05
Page 5
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue review. This alternative would be appropriate if it is determined that additional
information or analysis is necessary to render a decision on the submitted appeal.
2. Adopt the draft resolution upholding the appeal and denying the ARC approval of the
project design and the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact. Since the
appellant's speck suggestions regarding signalization at Broad and South Streets,
adjacent to the Fire Station, and at Broad and Alphonso Streets have been studied and
rejected, it is unclear what revisions the applicant would need to make to the project
design in reaction to the submitted appeal.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Reduced project site plan and bird's eye view
3. List of traffic mitigation measures
4. Appeal statement
5. Letter to City Council
6. Draft Resolution A, denying the appeal
7. Draft Resolution B,upholding the appeal
Available in the Council reading file and at the Community Development Department:
Reduced-size copies of the project plans
A copy of the project initial study
May 24, 2006 Planning Commission Resolution
Minutes of the May 24, 2006 Planning Commission meeting
June 19, 2006 Letter of ARC Approval
Draft minutes of the June 19, 2006 ARC meeting
April 17, 2006 Letter of ARC action to continue with direction
G:\CD-PLAN\WMCILVAI\CC\62-05 Maymont appeal.doc
�J
R Ir
„► �, �- '•■rel
•
w YFwr`ti ..
i
t
a^
Ty
f 3 i
�� � � '� Vit•'` '
VICINITY
MAP P r
•
2238-
Broad
w}•. :. 4 _
!:� _"ir'rrt•�'tit'J"' ..:.yyr. Yi_— .. .. t... -^�'.�.. :;y i'� ..s�'i �,'�E _ �tl� a hlN�.
-
y I •� '" '� tt rt' T J
� 8. . - re.`• _ .. it •r ., � ,�•-,
1P. 11
-90
it":.liaj
16
low
+•r 3 � 5�1y"1
fir
r yt
.< < `` Y ♦ nCY 1 F
�,. w, �� , f.. ��{..[.''•� � f °fes.�� i I�` y�1i. Gr 1��I. .�'i.
Attachment, 2
All
fl �
FC^�
Om
O i -
TI
2 1
Wo ; T
nca
cw
r�i m ✓ ;
1 �
_ Tg
N�
v
Dz
zs`
- T ox
NC
AA
O
DDDDD 33333 nnnn� S a t �°..
i vvvvD i i r "' y I.f T
}
L
3333D 33333 33nn
CErxomZ c a 5m2 =m320
r
0.CL ,'in. a 3 3 m x
adccD aacc� mc� � n `
• a m Z
% 1
�� ar't's / '►
M...,41 .t -
D
m
A� INVI
' .��{It ,� IFia}'yA'1 �11�Sn° t•{ fes"
,7 fT
'UN (�]i
111 �i 77
n-
i
i res_` ��f ���� ?.����'I���+�j�-1,��, �•• .f �,
� fQj i/�ti If,
` r 1 � 11W, z
Q /� ^.` r�- �7e��._:� fit} 1��►� �I� `.,.4�� � �4 C,
7:'o
fk
+ ■■ w
_ �>! ,• �- iir v r.il'\�. I ;,;':)•'fir
Attachment 3
Traffic Mitigation Approved for The Village at Maymont
ARC/ER 62-05
6/19/06
36. During construction, the following will be implemented:
a) Trucks (delivery, hauling, and transportation trucks) should be scheduled outside the A.M.
and P.M. peak period (7:00 to 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 to 6:00 P.M.);
b) Construction-related traffic shall use on-site roads wherever possible; and,
c) Warning signs should be placed on Broad Street prior to and during construction to notify
through traffic of trucks entering and exiting the site.
37. Santa Barbara / High St. This intersection is forecast to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour.
The project will add traffic in excess of the City's traffic impact threshold to this intersection. The
addition of exclusive tum lanes on the minor street and a two way left turn lane on the major street,
restores the intersection operation to LOS C. This would require removal of on-street parking and/or
widening of Santa Barbara Street. The City has identified such a project in their TIF program. Prior to
construction, the applicant shall pay its traffic impact fees toward this future mitigation.
38. Santa Barbara / Roundhouse Rd. This intersection is forecast to operate at LOS F during the PM
peak hour. The project will add traffic in excess of the City's traffic impact threshold to this
intersection. The addition of exclusive turn lanes on the minor street and a two way left turn lane on
the major street, restores the intersection operation to LOS C. This would require removal of on-street
parking and/or widening of Santa Barbara Street. The City has identified such a project in their TIF
program. Prior to construction, the applicant shall pay its traffic impact fees toward this future
mitigation.
39. Broad St/Santa Barbara St-South St. This intersection is forecast to operate at LOS E during the PM
peak hour. The project will add traffic in excess of the City's traffic impact threshold to this
intersection. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall design, subject to the
approval of the Public Works Director and Caltrans, the following improvements, and shall dedicate
the necessary right-of-way to accommodate construction of such improvements. With the proposed
mitigation, the intersection operation will be restored to LOS D.
a) Intersection improvements (including roadway widening, signing, striping, raised median and
signal work) to provide two northbound left-turn lanes at the intersection of Broad and South
Street. The left-turn phasing for the north and southbound approaches shall be modified to
accommodate lead-lag left-turn phasing. In lieu of this improvement, the Director of Public
Works may consider and accept other equal mitigation (e.g. a roundabout design). In the
event the roundabout design is pursued by the City and development of that alternative is
likely to delay occupancy of the project, the developer has the option of posting a payment
and performance bond for its fair share of of the design and improvements in lieu of
completing such improvements.
Village at Maymont Traffic Mr..gation
Page 2 AttaChment 3
b) Roadway widening to accommodate the following cross-section of Broad Street (at South
Street) from the southwestern curb line: one 5-foot bike lane, two 11-foot travel lanes, one 3-
foot raised median with irrigation and landscaping, four 11-foot travel lanes, one 4-foot bike
lane, one 12-foot tum lane. Traffic impact fee credits may be requested for a portion of the
improvements made to the Broad Street frontage of Fire Station #1. Note: The applicant is
encouraged to submit the necessary Broad Street design exceptions to Caltrans immediately
so construction of the improvements will not be.delayed.
NOTE: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall complete the improvements
identified within this mitigation measure subject to review, inspection and permit issuance by the City
and Caltrans. It should be noted that the City has also conditioned other projects (specifically Four
Creeks) to make improvements to the Broad Street intersection. Specifically, Four Creeks has been
conditioned to deposit a mitigation fee for the lane conversion work and pay their fair share of the
intersection widening either through the TIF fee program if it has been modified to include this
improvement or pay their TIF fees plus a fair share mitigation fee as determined by the Public Works
Director. Assuming Four Creeks proceeds with their project, a percentage of the lane conversion and
intersection widening will be paid for by others. In the event the roundabout design is pursued by the
City and development of that alternative is likely to delay occupancy of the project, the developer has
the option of posting a payment and performance bond for its fair share of the design and
improvements in lieu of completing such improvements.
40. Broad Street/Woodbridge Rd. This intersection is forecast to operate at LOS F during the PM peak
hour. The project will add traffic in excess of the City's traffic impact threshold to this intersection.
The addition of exclusive turn lanes on the minor street will not restore the intersection operation to
LOS D. This intersection has been identified by the City as a potential future candidate for a traffic
signal for the purposes of providing a protected pedestrian crossing of Broad Street. Prior to the
issuance of building permits, the applicant will be required to pay the project's fair share toward the
design and installation of a future traffic signal at this intersection as determined by the Public Works
Director.
41. Broad Street / Santa Barbara-South Street intersection. Pedestrian Mitigations. Due to the mixed-
use nature of the proposed project, which is in proximity to a community park and on a safe route to
school, the project is anticipated to generate pedestrian traffic through the signalized intersection at
Broad Street and Santa Barbara-South Street. The existing intersection is substantially skewed,
creating long crossing distances, particularly on the north, south and east legs. This skew has also
necessitated a right turn on red restriction, due to poor visibility between northbound drivers making a
right tum and pedestrians crossing Broad Street at the south leg of the intersection from west to east.
42. As shown on Sheet EX2, prepared by the Public Works Department and dated April 7, 2006, the
applicant shall realign the pedestrian crosswalk on Broad Street to reduce the pedestrian crossing
distance.
43. Additionally, the applicant shall design and install eight countdown pedestrian indicators. A common
problem for pedestrians at signalized intersections is a lack of understanding of what the pedestrian
indications mean. This lack of understanding can result in pedestrians being stuck in the crosswalk
Attachment
Village at Maymont Traffic M,._aation 3
Page 3
while opposing traffic has green light and causes other pedestrians to wait at the curb unnecessarily..
Countdown pedestrian indications are designed to reduce this confusion, by informing pedestrians
how much time remains for them to cross the street. Traffic impact fee credits may be requested fora
portion of the cost of the pedestrian indicators.
44. Broad Street. The applicant shall be responsible for the design and installation of signage, striping,
and raised landscape median improvements on Broad Street between South and Alphonso Streets.
Signing and striping improvements shall be extended through each intersection to provide the
necessary lane transitions.
45. Future Connection to Victoria. It.is the City's goal to ultimately provide a vehicle, pedestrian and
bicycle connection from the subject property to Victoria and Woodbridge Streets. Providing this
connection will improve the project's circulation. As such, the project's site design shall not preclude
this connection and the applicant shall make an irrevocable offer to dedicate the right of way
necessary for this connection and pay for%of the cost of the.roadway improvements.
46. Emily/Alphonso Connection. A vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle access connection and easement
shall be maintained from the terminus of Emily Street to Alphonso Street. Such easement shall be
recorded prior to occupancy.
47. Internal Circulation. Private streets and drive aisles shall be designed to comply with the City's
standards.
48. Bus Pullout. As shown on Sheet EX2, prepared by the Public Works Department and dated April 7,
2006, the applicant shall design and install a bus pullout, shelter and associated amenities in
compliance with City standards on the site's Broad Street frontage. All transit improvements shall be
installed prior to occupancy clearance.
49. Maymont Place Aisle. Parking for vehicles entering Maymont Place shall be set back 50-60 feet to
reduce the potential of vehicles stacking out onto Broad Street or blocking pedestrian access while
waiting for a vehicle to back out of the end parking space.
50. Railroad Safety Trail Connection. Prior to theissuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit
a site plan and grading design illustrating how an ADA accessible path can be provided from the
subject property to the Railroad Safety Trail as indicated on project plans.
51. Railroad Crossing. Figure #2 Streets Classification Map in the City of San Luis Obispo
Circulation Element shows a proposed railroad crossing between Roundhouse Avenue and
Bishop Street. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall make an irrevocable
offer of dedication for a 16-foot easement along the project's Roundhouse Avenue frontage
for future slope bank grading necessary to accommodate the railroad crossing.
� " la-
Filing Fee: $100.00*
_d Date Recei ed
N/AZ Cl��I�
a �„ i CIS Of 'REFER TO SECTION 4 Attachment
san Luis OBISPO
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION
_Ie(?P- YYI�+I r b ►STA CERA S��►�J�SOetSPo
Name Mailing Address and Zip Code 930)
Phone Fax
Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
Title Phone Fax
SECTION2.. SUBJECT OFAPPEAL
1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the:
A R c CMZ- n s
(Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered:� bak IT 2CjC7lX
3. The application or project was entitled:
4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member:
on
(Staff Members Name and Department) (Date)
5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom:
SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL
Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your
appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages,if
necessary.. This form continues on the otherside.
(�Y �
Pagel of 3
Attachment 4
Reason for Appeal continued
tr�
QJ-
AAA
Q
SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY
The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and
encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City
Council consideration of an appeal,:including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a
planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of$100,which must accompany the
appeal form.
Your right to exercise an;appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an
appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be
notified in wnting'of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your
representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your
case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes.
A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you
need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be
advised that if your request for continuance is received,after the appeal is noticed to the public, the
Council may not be able to grant the request for con#inuange. Submitting a request for continuance
does not guarantee that it,will be granted,that action is at the discradomof the City Council.
I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when
s _d
al is sche ed for a public hearing before the City Council.
(Sigria re of Appellant) of
lcicceptions tot fee; 1)Appeals ofTree.Cominittee decisioes. 2)The above-nami dd appellant has already paid
the City$1.00 to appeal this same matter to a City omciai.or Council advisorybody.
This item is hereby calendared for�,/LLJ V Igo L UCS(-V
—T
C: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Department Head
Advisory Body Chairperson
City Clerk(original)
Page 2 of 3
8/03 If-4
I
SLO Citycouncil-Agenda ItemC-7,South Street Adandonment f'u>.tachment 5 Page 1 of 1
TFrom: Terry Mohan<catsdad@sbcglobal.net> CEIVED
To: <slocitycouncilCslocity.org>
Date: 6/18/2006 7:35 AM JUN 1.9 2006
Subject: Agenda Item C-7,South Street Adandonment 8t 0 CIN
CLERK
Dear Councilmembers,
As you know I am very interested in the long term traffic and safety problems that will occur in the area of the Broad,South
and Santa Barbara intersection if our developement and remedies continue to be applied in a hodge-podge fashion with no
long term plan. I brought up the subject of traffic mitigation for theVillage at Maymont last year when they first proposed
the project and then to Vic Montgomery at the last ARC meeting. I was unable to attend the Planning Commisssion meeting
but noticed on the televised replay Vic has resurected the traffic island that was one of the major contentions for the
Albertson's project
Having worked at this site for more than ten years I am well aware of the traffic problems that will occur at Roundhouse and
Santa Barbara,and the two exits onto Broad Street. Eventually the plan is to divert some of the traffic onto Victoia Street but
that will only push the problems into another neighborhood.
My suggestion has always been to use the proposed South Street abandonment as an exit/entrance to be aligned with the
traffic signal already at South and Broad. Vic Mongomery's contention that Caltrans plan to signalize Broad and
Woodbridge were dashed when Caltrans demonstrated their reluctance to install traffic control devices at the recent South
Street meetings.
As a taxpayer in this City I don't see how you can expect me to vote for a sales tax increase to aleviate traffic congestion if
you approve this obvious traffic jam creation where the developer feels that they have no civic duty to do the right thing
initially.
This project needs to have a traffic signaled exit Either South Street or make the approval of the project contingent on the
developer getting Caltrans to approve a light,paid for by the developer,at Alphonso Street. This is not a deal breaker for the
developer and will save the taxpayers down the road from having to fix this problem.
Terry Mohan
2416 Santa Clara
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
set
RED FILE CDD DIP
Lo
@ FIN DIR
MEETING AGENDA 12 FIRE CHIEF
DAl� ITEM # C7' a PW DIR
�POUCE CHF�REC DIR LML DIRHR DA
p LrGdc/G
file://C:\Docutrents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Loc U%2OSeaings\Temp\GW}00 ,
0O1.HTM 6/19/20
Attachment 6
Draft Resolution A
RESOLUTION NO. (2006 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S
ACTION TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO "THE VILLAGE AT MAYMONT,"A
MIXED-USE PROJECT AT 2238 BROAD STREET (ARC/ER 62-05)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission conducted public hearings on April
17, 2006 and June 19, 2006, to approve plans for a mixed-use project with 91 residential units
and approximately 25,000 square feet of commercial lease space; and
WHEREAS, Terry Mohan, 2416 Santa Clara Street, San Luis Obispo, filed an appeal of
the Architectural Review Commission's action on June 26, 2006, based on concerns with the
review of traffic mitigation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 18, 2006, and has
considered testimony of interested parties including the appellant, the records of the Architectural
Review Commission's actions of April 17, and June 19, 2006, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Negative Declaration with Mitigation
Measures (ER 62-05) as approved by the Architectural Review Commission.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project
(ARC/ER 62-05), the appellant's statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes
the following findings:
1. Traffic mitigation measures established for the project (ER 62-05) have been
appropriately reviewed and adequately address potential traffic impacts resulting from a
mixed-use project with 91 residential units and approximately 25,000 square feet of
commercial lease space on the project site at 2238 Broad Street.
i
�i
Attachment 6
Resolution No. (2006 Series)
Page 2
2. The project's site planning and circulation layout are appropriate for a mixed-use project
in the Neighborhood-Commercial and Service-Commercial zones at 2238 Broad Street
and will be compatible with surrounding development.
3. The City Council has reviewed and concurs with the action taken on June 19, 2006, by
the ARC to grant final approval to the project (ARC/ER 62-05) based on 4 findings, 31
conditions, 34 code requirements, and 53 mitigation measures.
SECTION 2. Action - Appeal Denied. The appeal of the Architectural Review
Commission's action is hereby denied. Therefore, the Commission's action to grant final
approval to the project is upheld, based on findings and subject to the conditions, mitigation
measures and code requirements as outlined in the final ARC approval (ARC/ER 62-05).
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18`h day of July, 2006.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk Audrey Hooper
APPROVED:
City Atm Jonathan Lowell
GACD-PLAN\WMCILVAIUtESO\ARC 62-05(Maymont appeal-deny).doc I
Attachment 7
Draft Resolution B
RESOLUTION NO. (2006 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S
ACTION TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL TO "THE VILLAGE AT MAYMONT," A
MIXED-USE PROJECT AT 2238 BROAD STREET(ARCIER 62-05)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission conducted public hearings on April
17, 2006 and June 19, 2006, to approve plans for a mixed-use project with 91 residential units
and approximately 25,000 square feet of commercial lease space;and
WHEREAS, Terry Mohan; 2416 Santa Clara Street, San Luis Obispo, filed an appeal of
the Architectural Review Commission's action on June 26, 2006, based on concerns with the
review of traffic mitigation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 18, 2006, and has
considered testimony of interested parties including the appellant, the records of the Architectural
Review Commission's actions of April 17, and June 19, 2006, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Negative Declaration with Mitigation
Measures (ER 62-05) as approved by the Architectural Review Commission.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:.
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration.of the proposed project
(ARC/ER 62-05), the appellant's statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes
the following finding;
(Findings for upholding the appeal to be inserted after specifically articulated by the City
Council.)
`-C ��
Attachment 7
Resolution No. (2006 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 2. Action - Appeal Upheld. The appeal of the Architectural Review
Commission's action is hereby upheld. Therefore, the Commission's action to grant final
approval to the project is denied.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18`h day of July, 2006.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk Audrey Hooper
APPROVED:
City Attorney Jonathan Lowell
GACD-PLAMWMCILVARRESMARC 62-05(Maymont appeal-uphold).doc
Filing Fee: $100.00
RECEIVED raid-l._ Date Received
J' id 2 61006 wa 6i z 01c
llr f. Cl
CITY CLERK 'REFER TO SECTION 4
sa -
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION
I EC�ZY YYlaa� o��t�� ��rA Ct�w► S�.a l.�,r0e�S�o CA
Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Q31oi
Phone Fax
Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
Title Phone Fax
SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL
1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the.
A R Q 02- cis
(Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: t N`Q �cl - 2001
3. The application or project was entitled:
4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member:
on
(Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date)
5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom:
SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL
Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your
appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if
necessary. This form continues on the other side.
Page 1 of 3
n7
d
°6 -
Reason for Appeal continued
oA- *%�A
SECTION 4. APPELLANTS RESPONSIBILITY
The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and
encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City
Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a
planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of$100% which must accompany the
appeal form.
Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an
appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be
notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your
representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your
case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes.
A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you
need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be
advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the
Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance
does not guarantee that it will be granted;that action is at the discretion of the City Council.
1 hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when
nn�
eed for a public hearing before the City Council.
Co IQ0
(Signa re of Appellant) ffiatA
•Exceptions to tbb fee: 1)Appeals of Tree Committee decisions. 2)The above-named appellant has already paid
the City$100 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body.
This item is herebycalendared for
('v�c.ve c.C
c: City Attorney C, &P 6 r-- w c tl` rill rr��VIA.L
City Administrative Officer �^C1t
--de �Z �r ( t _ 1 VIA-
Department Head - /w a � L� `33"-�"
Advisory Body Chairperson - /3u
City Clerk(original) u JD y/OU 5 �, L C,W
r Ck I'`) tiC�. Page 2,,of 3�
LaJL
8/03 < -�2y S $✓ �+ f-D
Elaira Cano-Commendation for Frank HP-nandez
From: Audrey Hooper
To: Linden, Deborah; Walter,Jay
Date: 6/23/06 8:01 AM
Subject: Commendation for Frank Hernandez
I'm not sure if you've seen Ken's memo yet re Frank Hernandez, but via this e-mail, I'll ask Elaina to add
this to the 7/18 agenda as a presentation:
Certificate of Commendation - Frank Hernandez
(Will that work?)
Jay, do you want to invite Frank? The meeting will start at 4 and he can be there at that time if that works
best for him.
Also, Deb do you folks have a certificate you want to prepare are do you want us to do that and run it by
you??
Thanks,
Audrey
CC: Cano, Elaina; Hampian, Ken; Walter,Jay
i
OpE,C city of san Luis omspo n
a° Police Department
• Memorandum 1042 Walnut
'(UISUYPO SLO, CA 93401
(805) 781-7317
"Service; Pride,Integrity
June 20, 2006
To: Jay Walter, Public Works
From: Deborah Linden, Police Department
Subject: Commendation for Frank Hernandez
On June 7, 2006,just past noon,Public Works/Parks employee lission
Plaza when he noticed a man appearing to watch a school n
the Plaza. Frank recognized the man as someone who had
unlawfully annoying children.
Frank maintained visual surveillance of the man in order tc ed
the Police Department and reported his observations. Frani
photograph the man while he was watching the children, anthe
officers.
When officers arrived and investigated the situation,they fou: _,;,-nian had previously
been convicted of annoying/molesting children and that he was on active probation with a
specific prohibition against having any contact with children. The suspect was arrested for
violating his probation and other charges.
I would like to thank and commend Frank Hernandez for his keen observation and actions,
including photographing the suspect and calling the PD. Frank's involvement was critical in
getting this repeat offender back in custody, and our children are safer for it. We all should be
very proud of Frank's actions and his commitment to the safety of our community.
Cc: Frank Hernandez
Ken Hampian
Council
De artment of Community" welo ment 990 of San Luis Obispo
p tY; p I 990 Palm Street
Planning Application San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-7172
Project Address 2238 BROAD Parcel# 004-845-004
Project Title THE VILLAGE AT MAYMONT
-Other Addresses 003-755-001 (642 EMILY);0044845-002(2201 EMILY)
Legal Description CY SLO PM 32/35 PAR B
Zoning 1 C-N-H Zoning 2
Property Owner ALBERTSONS INC A DE CORP
In Care Of PROPERTY TAX DEPT
Owner Address PO BOX 20
BOISE ID 83726-
Applicant Name HALFERTY DEVELOPMENT CO. Day Phone(949)733-3823
Address 5289 ALTON PARKWAY, IRVINE,CA 92604
Representative RICHARD A. DEBEIKES Day Phone(949)300-6303
Address 5289 ALTON PARKWAY, IRVINE,CA 92604
&DEBBIE RUDD, RRM DESIGN 3765 S.HIGUERA STE 102 93401
Appellant#1 Terry Mohan Day Phone(805)547-9733
Address 2416 Santa Clara
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Send correspondence to Applicant;Owner;Representative SPECIAL INFORMATION
2ND ZONE C-S-H Covenant exists for future frontage improvements
Application made pursuant to Chapter/Section of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
Planning Services Summary
Application# Type of Application Received Fee
ARC 62-05 Conceptual review of new mixed-use 4/19/2005 $2,282
development project with 91 residential units
and 25,000 sq.ft.commercial space
ER 62-05 Evaluate environmental impacts of proposed 11/22/2005 $2,147
mixed-use project with 91 residential units and
28,000 sq.ft.of commercial space
LLA 62-05 Adjust lot lines between properties. SLAL05.035311/22/2005 $1,228
ABAN 62-05 Request for street abandonment of South 4/18/2006 $7,265
Street within project area
U 62-05 Use permit request for new mixed-use project 11/22/2005 $2,698
with 91 residential units and 28,000 sq.ft. 01 06/26/2006 08:54 027364 PLL'
commercial space PLAN APPL FE $100.00
V 62-05 Variance request to allow a maximum building 11/22/2005 $772 ANDIE
height of 50 feet where 35 feet is allowed.
AP-CC 62-05 Appeal to the ARC's approval. 6/26/2006 $100
Total fees $16,492
Received By PAM RICCI
Fee Paid by Applicant (14110)Rep (2282) Appellant#1 ( 100)
Assigned planner WHITNEY MCILVAINE
Hearings ARC Arch.Review Commission 6/6/2005
ARC PC Hearing 6/6/2005
LLA PC Hearing 2/8/2006
V PC Hearing 2/8/2006
ARC Arch.Review Commission 3/20/2006
ARC Arch.Review Commission 4/17/2006
ARC CHC Hearing 4/24/2006
ABAN PC Hearing 5/24/2006
ER PC Hearing 5/24/2006
U PC Hearing 5/24/2006
ARC Arch.Review Commission 6/19/2006
ER Arch. Review Commission 6/19/2006
I
LAW OFFICES
WILLIAM S. WALTER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
TELEPHONE (605) 541-6601 THE BELLO HOUSE EMAIL
FACSIMILE (805) 541-6640 679 MONTEREY STREET WWALTERQTCSN.NET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401
2006 7RECEIVED
e v July 18_ L
` 006
HAND DELIVERED cou �.LCDc� DIRcao U FIN DIR LERK
ACAO FIRE CHIEF
City of San Luis Obispo ®ATTORNEY 9L PW DIR
Mayor Dave Romero and El CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
City Council Members 0 DEPT HEADS Fe REC DIR RED FILE
�ff ..3 L? UTIL DIR MEETING AGENDA
990 Palm Avenue r�,,�•, � Cj�HR DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 934 Ca a DATE� ITEM # f
Subject: Appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's Action to Approve a
Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Grant Final Architectural Approval to a
Mixed-Use Project at 2238 Broad Street(ARC/ER 62-05,Terry Mohan,
Appellant)
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
This office represents the applicants for the above-referenced mixed-use project located
at 2238 Broad Street, Halferty Development Company and DeBiekes Investment Company
(ARC/ER 62-05). We will specifically respond to the appeal of Terry Mohan, which, with all
respect, presents conclusory, vague and unsubstantiated allegations regarding this long planned
and very meritorious project. The appellant appears to be toying with the appeals process,
having failed to appear at the prior public hearings leading to the approval of the project.
The following sections of this letter will demonstrate why the environmental
documentation for this project is entirely consistent with requirements of law and why the appeal
is without any legal merit.
1. The Appellant Lacks Standing To Pursue This Appeal
The City's records demonstrate that the Appellant lacks standing to bring this appeal.
The Appellant's participation in the hearings before this appeal is, at best, spotty. Before
challenging the decisions challenged herein, the Appellant is required to have exhausted his
administrative remedies prior to the final decisions of the ARC and the Planning Commission.
He failed to establish such standing by failing to present his objections at each of the hearings of
the other City decision making bodies. One cannot fail to attend and present his objections at the
"lower" administrative bodies and then choose to file an appeal.
2. The Appeal Is Limited To Traffic Issues Only
The Applicants have the right to due process of law, which means that the issues raised
by the Appellant are limited to those issues which are raised in the appeal. In this case, those
City of San Luis Obispo
Appeal of Mixed Use Project at
2238 Broad Street
July 18,2006
Page 2 of 2
issues are limited to traffic issues, which are only vaguely and indefinitely referenced in the
language of the appeal. The Applicant concurs with the advice of the City Attorney that this
appeal is strictly limited to traffic issues. Although the appellant mentions parking in his appeal
materials the matter of parking for this project was settled at the Planning Commission hearing
and Mr. Mohan did not timely file an appeal of the Planning Commission's action.
3. The Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Is Consistent With The
Requirements Of Law
When determining the type of environmental document to prepare for a project that is
clearly not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), a lead agency
must prepare an initial study. The initial study is used to determine whether a project may have a
significant adverse effect on the environment. CEQA allows mitigated negative declarations to
be used when:
The initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the
environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals
made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed
negative declaration and initial study are released for public review
would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where
clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and
(2) there is no substantial evidence the project, as revised, may
have a significant effect on the environment. (Public Resources
Code Section 21064.5).
Assuming, somehow, that the appeal challenges the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for this project, it is still clear that the law provides that an EIR is required
whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair argument" that significant
impacts may occur, even if other substantial evidence supports the opposite conclusion.
(No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75). The "fair argument"
standard creates a low threshold for requiring an EIR. The principle behind this low
threshold is to have an EIR resolve "uncertainty created by conflicting assertions" and to
"substitute some degree of factual certainty for tentative opinion and speculation." (No
Oil, supra 13 Cal.3d at p. 85).
When the record as a whole shows that the purported evidence supporting a fair argument
is really not substantial, an EIR is not required. Substantial evidence includes facts, or expert
opinion supported by facts. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, Section 15064(g)). It is not argument,
speculation, unsupported opinion or evidence of impacts that do not directly relate to physical
impacts or the environment. Testimony or other evidence which expresses generalized concerns
and fears do not rise to the level of a"fair argument"that a proposed use will create a substantial,
or potentially substantial, adverse change to the environment. Finally, the City receives the
i
I
City of San Luis Obispo
Appeal of Mixed Use Project at
2238 Broad Street
July 18,2006
Page 3 of 3
benefit of the doubt on legitimate, disputed issues of credibility. (Quail Botanical Gardens v.
City of Encinitas (1994)29 Cal.4th 1597, 1603)..
4. CEQA Provides That The Mitigated Negative Declaration And Project
Conditions May Refer To Citywide Mitigation Programs
In this project, the project conditions proposed by staff require compliance with a variety
of citywide mitigation programs. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i)(3) provides:
A lead agency may determine that a project's incremental
contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable
if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously
approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific
requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative
problem(e.g. water quality control plan, air quality plan, integrated
waste management plan) within the geographic area in which the
project is located. Such plans or programs must be specified in law
or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected
resources through a public review process to implement, interpret,
or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public
agency.
The City's proposed mitigations are in fact a program authorized by Section 15064(i)(3).
Particularly with regard to traffic mitigation fees,the Appellant fails to demonstrate that the city-
wide traffic mitigation conditions do not reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance.
5. Appellant Must Have Competent Expert Evidence Based
Upon A Proper Foundation
Abundant authority supports the City's actions in finding no significant impacts. Both the
Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration constitute substantial evidence in support of
the City's decision. (Friends of"B"St. v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1003).
Testimony and reports by experts supporting a finding that a project's impacts will be
insignificant also constitutes substantial evidence supporting the City's decisions. (Uhler V. City
of Encinitas (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 795, 805.) In Citizens for Responsible Dev. v. City of W
Hollywood(1995) 39 Cal.AppAth 490, 502, the court rejected as a basis for requiring an EIR"an
irrelevant generalization, too vague and nonspecific to amount to substantial evidence of
anything.11
To constitute substantial evidence, there must be a detailed factual foundation for any
expert opinions. (Citizens Comm. to Save Our Village v. City of Claremont (1995) 37
City of San Luis Obispo
Appeal of Mixed Use Project at
2238 Broad Street
July 18,2006
Page 4 of 4
Cal.App.4th 1157, 1170.) Even testimony from a competent expert will be rejected as not
constituting substantial evidence when it is based upon an inadequate foundation or specific
information about the project in question. (Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.AppAth
1359, 1422.) Expert opinions on the ultimate issue of whether a project's impacts should be
classified as "significant" do not address factual issues and should not be treated as substantial
evidence. (Citizen Action To Serve All Students v. Thornley(1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 755.) If
a foundation is not established, the agency must disregard the comment. (See, Gabric v. City of
Rancho Palos Verdes (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 183, 199, where testimony by a neighbor that views
would be blocked by a proposed home is not substantial evidence, because the neighbor did not
testify that she had examined and measured the view and line of sight.)
The Appellant provides no adequate foundation for his personal knowledge of
substantial facts as required by the courts in Lucas Valley Homeowners Assn v. County of Marin
(1991) 223 Cal.App.3d 30, 142; and Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990)
225 Cal.App.3d 872. The Appellant may have expressions of subjective concerns and personal
beliefs which have been held not to rise to the level of substantial evidence upon which to
require the preparation of an EIR. (Newberry Springs Water Assn v. County of San Bernardino
(1984) 150 Cal.Ap.3d 740; Perley v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 424.)
Speculation and unfounded conclusions are not substantial evidence which can be used to require
the preparation of an EIR. (Citizens Comm. to Save Our Village v. City of Claremont (1995) 37 .
Cal.AppAth 1157, 1171; Citizen Action To Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222
Cal.App.3d 748;Snyder v..City of S. Pasadena (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 1051, 1060 n4.)
Testimony by a witness who is not competent to render an opinion on the subject matter
cannot be deemed to be substantial evidence requiring the preparation of an EIR. (Cathay
Mortuary, Inc. v. San Francisco Planning Comm'n (1989)207 Cal.App.3d 275.) An agency may
disregard testimony if the witness is biased or if the testimony is inherently improbable or not
credible for other reasons. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 222
Cal.App.3d 1337; Newberry Springs Water Assn v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 150
Cal.App.3d 740, 750; Brentwood Assn for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134
Cal.App.3d 491, 504.) Evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous may be disregarded.
(P.R.C. §§ 21080(e), P.R.C. section 21082.2(c), 14 Cal. Admin. Code Regs. §§ 15064(g)(5),
15384.) Indeed, any public comments not based upon a specific factual foundation do not
constitute substantial evidence as a matter of law under CEQA. (P.R.C. § 21082.2(c).)
The Appellant fails to meet the standards for requiring further environmental review.
i
City of San Luis Obispo
Appeal of Mixed Use Project at
2238 Broad Street
July 18,2006
Page 5 of 5
6. The Appellant Fails To Present Substantial Evidence To Challenge The
Legal Adequacy Of The Mitigated Negative Declaration
The Appellant also fails to present any substantial evidence meeting the standard
of review for the adequacy of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. This standard of review
has been summarized in 1 Practice Under The California Environmental Quality Act
(supra, § 676, pp. 322.2-322.3):
Without substantial evidence in the record showing that significant
adverse impacts will remain after mitigation, a court must presume
that the conditions adopted by the agency in a mitigated negative
declaration will be effective and will ensure that impacts are
mitigated to an acceptable level. See Perley v. Board of
Supervisors (1982) 137 CAM 424, 434, 187 CR 53; Running
Fence Corp. v. Superior Court (1975) 51 CAM 400, 423, 124 CR
339. In other words, the burden is on the Petitioner to demonstrate
that there is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair
argument that the proposed project may have a significant effect
even after mitigation measures are considered. If the Petitioner
does not meet this burden, the mitigated negative declaration must
be upheld. Citizens for Responsible Dev. v. City of W Hollywood
(1995) 39 CA4th 490, 45 CR2d 917. Citizens Comm. to Save Our
Village v. City of Claremont (1995) 37 CA4th 1157, 1167, 44
CR2d 288; San Bernardino Valley Audubon Soc y v. Metropolitan
Water Dist. (1999) 71 CA4th 382, 390, 83 CR2d 836.
The Appellant fails to present substantial evidence in the record showing that
specific impacts remain significant which result directly from this Project. The Staff has
proposed mitigation measures and which address all potentially significant environmental
impacts from the Project and reduced those impacts to a level of insignificance.
7. Conclusion
The arguments presented by the Appellant are so shallow as to not event meet the
arguments which arc reminiscent of the Court's rejection of a summary and unsubstantiated
comment letter in Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th
556, 579-581:
We can conclude Pala's comment letter does not constitute
substantial evidence under the applicable "fair argument" standard
because it consists almost exclusively of mere argument and
unsubstantiated opinion,which are excluded from the definition of
City of San Luis Obispo
Appeal of Mixed Use Project at
2238 Broad Street
July 18,2006
Page 6 of 6
substantial evidence under CEQA. (Guidelines, Section 15384,
Subd. (a).)
It is respectfully suggested that the same conclusion must be drawn with regard to this
Appeal. The Appellant's subjective beliefs regarding alleged traffic impacts are not substitute
for competent expert opinion which must be found within the record.
For these reasons, it is respectfully requested that the City deny the appeal, and proceed
to exercise its discretion in approving this project with proportionate conditions.
Very trulqours,
-S:_Walter