The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/21/2002, 3 - COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE DALIDIO PROPERTY/MARKETPLACE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSA Co hn a L Mc 5Du 5-21-02. ac,Enda Report ,3N CITY O F SAN LU I S Q I FROM: Vice M Ma and Coun Member Ewan Prepared by: a ampian, City Administrative Officer ndeville,Director of Community Development SUBJECT: COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE DALIDIO PROPERTY/MARKETPLACE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. CAO RECOMMENDATION 1) Determine that the revised land use distribution, and other recommendations by the Council Subcommittee, compose an appropriate basis for a new City project application for Dalidio property; and 2) authorize the Vice-Mayor to sign a letter asking the Board of Supervisors to direct the Marketplace proposal back to the City for further work and processing. DISCUSSION Background The City General Plan designates several types of land use for the Dalidio property between Highway 101 and Madonna Road (Attachment 1 and 2). General Plan policies seek to balance preservation of open space resources on the property with future development. Efforts to plan a project that meets all the policy direction provided by the General Plan have been demanding and complex. To say that opinions `vary" regarding the development — or non-development — of the property is a major understatement. The future use of this property has been among the most controversial land use issues the City has ever faced. Ultimately, if a compromise is to be reached, it must be grounded in our General Plan (the community's "Constitution") and in the practical realities confronting the City. The Dalidio Property Dilemma in a Nutshell Many of our residents have strong, protective feelings about the Dalidio property, and for good reason. The property serves as a"signature" gateway into the City, and it is a beautiful reminder of our community's agrarian roots. Therefore, we often hear citizens say that the property should remain entirely in agriculture for all time— that the City should "just keep it open", `not allow any development". As well intended as these sentiments are, they overlook some important practical considerations —considerations that, if not addressed, could result in more intense development of the land over the long term than what we can agree to now. Outlined below are several real-world constraints associated with the Dalidio property: 3-1 i Council Agenda Report—Council Subcommittee Recommendations for Dalidio Page 2 1. The property is surrounded by the City limits—but it is not within the City limits.. 2. The only way for the City to have any formal control over the land use of the property is for the property to be annexed and become a part of the City. 3. Projects in the City are reviewed by staff, city advisory bodies (e.g. Architectural Review Commission) and the Council to assure that community standards are met. 4. The property cannot become a part of the City (annexed) without the property owners' consent. 5. The property owner will not agree to annex into the City if the City will not allow a level of development on the property acceptable to them. Thus, an agreement with the landowner is needed for the City to have formal authority over the eventual use of the Dalidio property. 6. At different times over the years,the owner has wanted to develop most, if not all, of the 131 acre property. Others have wanted the City to protect all of the property in open space. 7. Through regulation, the City cannot protect anything unless the property is within the City limits, and we do not have the millions in funding that it would take to buy all of the property for open space (In 1991,based on an appraisal, the property owner offered about one-half of the property to the City for about $6 million. One can assume that attempting to buy all of the property over 10 years later would be even less feasible.) 8. In the early 90's, after great community debate over"development or no development", the property owner offered a compromise: if the City would agree to allow about one-half the property to develop,he would dedicate the remaining one- half in a permanent open space easement. 9. In 1994, the City Council embraced this compromise and included it in our General Plan. 10. In February 2001, a project application came to the City that did not appear to protect one-half of the property, due to the inclusion of roads in the open space"count" and because of a 9 acre"interim open space" area that the applicant eventually wanted to develop commercially. In addition, the EIR was not certified due to concerns about adequacy. 11. After the Council denied this application,the property owner took a substantially changed development proposal to the County for processing. This proposal had far less land designated for open space than in prior proposals. While there are substantial obstacles to developing such a project in the County, it may be possible. 12. If a project were approved in the County (and the Board of Supervisors has done it before), then the City would lose all access to the groundwater basin, and lose all sales tax (including new sales tax and transfer of sales tax from existing City businesses). 13. Even if an application in the County eventually stalls or fails, a different City Council could approve a larger project than presently envisioned in the General Plan some day in the future. The More Recent History As noted above, the most recent project proposal, called the Marketplace, was denied by the City Council on February 13, 2001 due to concerns regarding the amount of open space proteeW' njand Council Agenda Report—Council Subcommittee Recommendations for Dalidio Page 3 EIR adequacy. That proposal included annexation of 131 acres and development of portions of the land area with various uses(see Table 1 for a summary of the proposed uses). The Marketplace sponsors followed the Council's denial of their proposal with an application to the County for a general plan amendment and development permit for an expanded version of the project presented to the City. The City opposed the application to the County for three main reasons: (A) Inconsistencies with both the City and County plans and policies; (B) the County's inability to provide urban services and infrastructure to such a project; and (C) the City's greater ability to assure high development standards and mitigate the environmental impacts created by the project. The County Board of Supervisors reviewed the Marketplace proposal on January 15,2002. At that meeting they determined that a Board subcommittee (Supervisors Pinard and Achadjian), Marketplace representatives, and a City Council subcommittee should meet to further explore options for the Marketplace proceeding under the City's jurisdiction. The City Council appointed Vice Mayor Marx and Council Member Ewan to represent the City. This committee met several times during the period between February 2002 and May 2002. On May 10, 2002 Supervisors Pinard and Achadjian presented the attached proposal to the Subcommittee, which was given to them by the Dalidio team as a proposed compromise. The Council subcommittee is recommending that the full City Council consider creating a revised development scenario for the Dalidio property along the line of the attached"Proposal 3"(Attachment 3), as discussed below. Proposal Via Supervisors Pinard and Achadjian To summarize this proposal (illustrated in Attachment 3/Proposal 3 and also outlined in Table 1), overall open space protection is increased by nearly 23 acres from the prior proposal (and exceeds the General Plan 50% requirement by over 13 acres), potential long-term commercial use is decreased some (while accommodating a hotel to enhance our conference capacity), and future ambiguity over land uses is eliminated. The area previously designated as residential could change to Business Park (or, in the opinion of the Subcommittee, remain residential, if the applicant can resolve issues with the Airport Land Use Commission). The Subcommittee further suggests that the City assure groundwater access (and preserve other options) by requiring that the Dalidio property open space is dedicated to the City in fee. To be more specific, the land use distribution for the Dalidio property would recognize that about 12.3 acres are needed for a new interchange of Highway 101 and Prado Road and extension of Dalidio Way to connect the interchange with Madonna Road. The acreage for roads is reduced by about two and a half acres from previous 15 acre figures because there is no longer a roadway proposed to cross Prefumo Creek and connect the Dalidio property with the Madonna "Gap" property. An open space area would be created to preserve 51.7 acres. An additional 7 acres becomes a linear park open space that preserves the mature trees and riparian vegetation. The ultimate use of the "interim open space" shown on the General Plan Land Use Map is resolved by designating 7 of the 9 acres to commercial development with the balance going to open space. This added commercial land would allow for a hotel that would work cooperatively with the Embassy Suites to meet the City's goal of improving our conference facilities. 3-3 Council Agenda Report—Council Subcommittee Recommendations for Dalidio Page 4 In addition, it is important to note that it has always been the applicant's intention to later pursue the commercial development of the "interim open space". If successful, this would result in a total of 49 acres of commercial uses on the property. Without approval for this added commercial acreage, the property owners would only agree to an open space easement on the Dalidio open space area. However, unless the City owns the land, we cannot be assured of certain public uses, such as a well for important groundwater supply. Thus, the interim open space designation has created some uncertainly about the level of long-term development on the property and the manner of open space protection. Therefore, although not specifically offered in the proposal presented by the Supervisors, the Subcommittee recommends that agreeing to commercial uses of 47 acres (with no ambiguous "interim"use hanging in the balance) should come with the expectation of ownership of the open space on the Dalidio property(instead of an easement). The I 1-acre area currently designated in our Land Use Element for residential land use is proposed as business park. Two acres formerly dedicated to a road to connect the Dalidio and Madonna Gap properties is added to the 11 acres for business park, totaling 13 acres. The change from the residential land use is due to County Airport Land Use Commission opposition to residential uses in this area. The Subcommittee suggests that either use should be considered acceptable to the City, with the recognition that it will depend upon what the applicant can achieve in light of the ALUC issues. This overall layout results in a split of about half of the developable land on the Dalidio property going to development and half going to open space 60 acres/58.7 acres. However, to further implement the City's goal of preserving rural landscapes at its entrances, the applicants would also permanently preserve an additional 20 acres of open space off-site (this could be via a conservation easement). The combination of a 58.7 acres of open space on-site and 20 acres off-site amounts to 78.7 acres of open space protection. This new proposal preserves substantially more open space than the previous proposals. In addition, the Subcommittee recommends that this offsite open space be in the vicinity of the Highway 101 entrance to the City and consist of quality farm land. The acreage breakdown of the proposal in comparison to the Marketplace application considered by Council in February 2001 is shown below: Table 1 Land Use Previous Marketplace "Proposal 3" Application Marketplace Revision Roads/HighwayRoads/Highway Interchange 15 acres 12.3 acres Commercial retail and hotel 40 acres 47 acres Residential 11 acres Residential or Business Park 13 Interim Open Space(applicant requested 9 acres long-term commercial Open Space on-site 56 acres 58.7 acres On-site Total 131 acres 131 acres Open Space off-site ag gateway) 20 acres Permanent Open Space Sub-total 56 easement 78.7(at least 58.7 in fee title* *Not specifically included in the proposal, but should be asked for by the City. Council Agenda Report—Council Subcommittee Recommendations for Dalidio Page 5 Summary The proposal recommend by the Council Subcommittee offers the following advantages: 1. Exceeds open space requirements of the General Plan, and protects more open space along the Highway 101 corridor than prior proposals—most in fee ownership instead of only in easement. 2. Provides City access to very important added groundwater. 3. Allows the City to set the standards for the development by assuring that it is reviewed by City staff, city commissions(e.g. architectural review), and the City Council. 4. Provides some added commercial development in order to achieve conference center goals. 5. Recognizes and works with the practical considerations,and thus can be implemented. 6. Avoids a long,potentially costly battle with the County and the applicant. Next S=s The County Board of Supervisors will reconsider processing the more expansive Marketplace application at their June 4°i meeting. Because the Mayor has previously stepped-down on this issue, a letter from the Vice Mayor has been drafted to state the recommendation of the full City Council. This letter will assist the Board of Supervisors evaluate their options for the Marketplace project, and hopefully persuade the Board to decline further processing of the general plan amendment request and refer the project back to City. A draft letter for the Vice Mayor's signature is attached to this staff report to convey the full Council's recommendation to the full Board of Supervisors, should the Council choose to proceed in this fashion(Attachment 4). It is important to note that at this point, the City Council is simply being asked to accept and communicate a land use distribution and open space protection strategy for the property that will establish an acceptable basis for a new project application to the City. However, for the project to actually be approved in the City, there remains much added work and public processes. These include amending the development application to more specifically detail the concept,renegotiating an agreement for interchange funding, EIR revision and certification, added Planning Commission, Architectural Review Commission, and City Council hearings, and securing an added 20 acres of open space along Highway 101. So, this action by the Council will essentially facilitate a new application for the project,but does not approve it in its final form. ATTACHMENTS 1. Property Area Map 2. General Plan Map of Property 3. Applicant Proposal Via Supervisors Pinard and Achadjian 4. Draft letter conveying the Council recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Electronic File Path: jm/L:/ccrpts/Marketplace CAR 3-5 San Lnis Obispo Depal nt of Planning&Bnilding CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC ._ -.....elu;- - - e .Nene •< .nt .._ _._..L1. �...' 1 .,L. .' +*t$i.,, STATE.LLNMWTY ...__.._. �^s1- .N�'w.+ IIS H tS] iaaerli , R • >�•.L Y .Dn++� FI 1 � 8�� I S[Mk S, N •f Cm m �.. Fnma 1 �3 ar ee��F a;' ` y .��4 s � .q ulo�� G' e � ^,�^.,,a• Nam ft. Dr'v..< + .arn¢mDr` Oel3v oNMar : g E y L c Ave. ,� X if yti < V ¢ •ad \ ..+ J � S•I war 6Wi•Le1L'¢ $> rho p `m M A I i Ta 1 -�4 L - .� /: ,• f l a r VlOI t MR1•n I ., ICE SDS• t.�� a g� � m � nn;,,+ ) e a• °� • NJ. /Q ml 1.1 UN W6 NATURAL aarmc¢urumem 1 REMM 's . _ 1y Aie<AffiONp 1 3 a •,/ _.._. gyd.__.....i. �N._ I♦� ...off .. �' 'd'_.�..... '�, . w •i• -�7C`r�"•� Imlir a SUIr•801 �. LLIIIS. .. ��.-i' �\ .: _;,F :;.:;•.....:fit?, �. OPEKSRA� •'—a E m m ,'6 mn" off � _ ��\::•.,: .� a -of ... •r M STREET", w.'`T`c -�.��G,l, / —��-1`�?" -:L^<;,v.:.c,•'w,s;:s'Y� � ( - °n'y $ 4TH '-9 '9 �.�._ '�� p�l:$ :^.�,4a `J .PC m ..e.. �r• '°wn y s _�' °. 4 SL y' +x��/: ea�'r^ ae • � �rrexna `r^ >.I.:or. A<, i °a• F ,'�y M aomuM�• ID e+- L uWq.R C a V- 0 Lea E er`�` m � �Bomlti D _ 1 L'f'"Madrlm Ln. .� "°tee' 0 N_� LL� 6 rarr ►d. / d /' • Grao6. Drlae � :aryr,�yY Project Site MMD \ j 1 4 TAX tARM ROAD TANK •R 4 I 1 1 fI1••r� C � 1 i tl 1 b e F.ro ti 3-6 Dalidio Annexation L lopment Plan INTRODUCTIO ,�,rr /rrri C-R = S .• r rr r r , r y PF Y C—R—PD �.\�:� ,rr rrr\r // rrri„r /rr rrr r / C—N -_ O_—PD - r r,R-1 rrr a ••• r r „ rrr -77 S. / PF ........... � °,rte- _ =— � ................. o C/OS-20 - \\ INTERIM OPEN SPACE \\ PARK MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY IN\ ' ' MEDIUM DENSITY IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII GENERAL RETAIL i g I TOURIST N-T-S. \\\ OPEN SPACE SERVICES & MANUFACTURING - PROJECT BOUNDARY Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning _ 3-7, April 19,2002pe e '✓ii`(d e—J' '41-1,':9., ��i i wj //pry P3� ---�oWe:7-7 /9 Re: Comparison of Various Proposals for the Dalidio Property,San Luis Obispo To follow is a comparison of three applications for Dalidio Ranch in San Luis Obispo: Proposal 1. The final application to the City of San Luis Obispo was determined by staff and the Planning Commission to be in conformity with the General Plan. An EIR was prepared for this application. At this point,the U.S. 101 interchange and the public roads component totaled less than 11 acres. The land use split was roughly 60 acres in open space and 60 acres in development. (See first proposal for layout and precise acreages.) Proposal 2.This application was prepared and submitted to the County of San Luis Obispo after denial of the above plan by the City in February 2001. Since the 50/50 rule no longer applied and housing along with larger hotel facilities appeared desirable,the development portion of the site was enlarged. In addition,more detailed potential uses for the open space were identified since the City was no longer to be the holder of the Open Space Easement. The commercial area was expanded by 5 acres. The housing and future urban area (interim open space)of the proposal were replaced with 30 acres of housing. Park and open space uses dropped to just over 39 acres. Roads and the interchange requirement increased to over 16 acres. Proposal 3. This proposal is the refinement of several months of negotiations between the City,County and Dalidio. It incorporates many of the concessions agreed to by both sides to date. Development now equates to 60 acres,roads to just over 12 acres,and onsite park and open space equal 58.67 acres. The plan has been redesigned to meet the intent of the original General Plan which requires approximately a 50/50 development open space development ratio. To facilitate acceptance,the applicants agree to purchase an additional 20 acres of open space offsite based upon an inventory of land in the possession of Neil Havelik,Natural Resource Manager of the City of San Luis Obispo. Summary Table Development Park& Ratio Excluding (acres) Open Space Roads (acres) (percent) Proposal 1 60.37 60.55 49.93%/50.07% Proposal 2 75.62 39.19 65.87%/34.13% Proposal 3 Onsite 60.00 58.67 50.56%/49.44% andTotal Os to 60.00 78.67 43.27%/56.73% 9&0705.15MaN0ption-Ltr 4-19-02.Ooc 3-8 CE 4-R COA9T MALL ucwar 1016 IPARKING --a—_—__PARKINGti PARKING --_ II aulmruv I I � 10 I® 11A; 12 \\ G II 0, PGs IfIQ l i Aeasi —� OFFICE NI 1 p \\ 33gg I. 9 tll B 6 ` \\\ I l i C Q COMMERCIAL 0 0694 40 acres I B 8 RESIDENTIAL 11.13 acres E R� IF - pp i /V / c � // FUTURE URBAN USES 9.24 acres I/ \ OPEN SPACE 53.53 scree First Proposal Land Use Acres Commercial 40.00 1 INCH=500 FEET Residential 11.13 Future.Urban. 9.24 60.37 Linear Park 7.02 Open Space 53.53 1 TOTAL PARK & OPEN SPACE 1 n n �' u, Public Roads a 10.08 c TOTAL PROJECT _ DATE: 1996 CITYAPPLICATION %w cirmol1 ASSOCIATES °Ezkertp F:%plolg M0705196G1G5.t51PI=XD=iWAImepes120021G1y- umy<urt Mme 18-02.PG5 419-02 MI&C esanno wi[r - �1:` J- LCENTRAL COAST MALL cexr wAsr IIrs PARKING � 10 ---0 _ PARKING a PARKING I MMWAY lI POST OFFICE qqI. COMMERCIAL \, '4 I ,—nacres ( mum RESIDENTIAL 11.13 acres 'IV FUTURE URBAN USES 9.24 acres + °+ OPEN SPACE t % - % \ \ 53.53 acres First Proposal Land Use Acres Commercial 40.00 Residential 11.13 1 INCH=500 FEET Future Urban 9.24 60.37 Linear Park 7.02 Open ace 53.53 n a� huts 06�.s Public Roads 10.08 c TOTAL PROJECT00 _ DATE: 1996 CITYAPPLICATIONannon t. � a �zkertp a � 2 A5 50C ! A , F F1proM996L9607051960705.15\Plan\DeaipnllmaBes@002+cityt unty<>trrent-sm-419-02p85 4-19-02 JulleC QSLO PR ENADE so Ems^"°�°R anoaEw� -PARKING I Ch _— — R N — O — PARKING —' _—ARKI G'_— _o — I � - I 5.0 acres awa WAY I' p P ao /!� I BIKE PATH i SENIOR CENTER r 2.00aa_es Q �4'COMMERCIA Lp PRODUCE 0 acres b U O ao b1p RTU: suis \ o J SENIOR Ube _ N. HOUSING �Ob N�'b I .. �e+acxes) .bbd° b odoio 4 a I' 4 , CAL POLY URBAwRURAL�',. STUDIES --- -- �' -- ti _ -------- uNEAR ASIAN -., -" FAR KPATH LINEAR PARK .r AGAR ENeSs) � � �� BIKE PATH pamrm GRAND irJ CAL POLY �"Z=v URBAN/RURAL f \ \\ _ .,1..,, ,� STUDIES ! \ AFFORDABLE HOUSING AFFORDABLE HOUSING f• rBIKE PATH(7+acres) T BIKE Second Proposal __- Land Use Acres Commercial 45.00 1 INCH=500 FEET Residential 28.62 Senior Center 2.00 75.62 Linear Park 9.09 Asian Gardens 4.00 Soccer Fields/Track 12.10 Cal Poly Urban/Rural Studies 14.00 Roads 16.19 TOTAL PROJECT 1 131M �- DATE.2001 COUNTYAPPLICATION Icenmon • ASSOCIATES F.VmD199a19a070S19e0705.15WIenlDmigMlmap sX20021eirytauMy-eum nt-M-4-15-02.055 4-19-02 JulleC r I I i I I bd i. —;� (::SLO PR MENADE sEo exisiWaa*[t I i,♦♦ PPOVCN.pE r \I I� L, _I,_ AARIaNG _ S E_ PARKING - __ ;- - PARKING _ ._ D J� 5.0 acres + O�lO1.O WAY J �• 11 POST/ OFFICE 93,m=I r BIKE PATH e SENIOR I 1 vp CENTER -pQ4 QY 2.00 cres tp Q p� U Q� I �fj COMMERjo_ PRODUCE c J2Attu a0 acres �b; p pbp -fpb4, sAEs 1 S SENIOR I 40 4 (btl�� bp HOUSING4bD :Ctj •� (8aacres) p}04 �._ Q , r .I \ �Q' •i CAL POLY .' -.. 1 STUDIES ASIAN PARK PATH LINEAR _--- LINEAR PARK GARDENS - 'A (4.00 acres) was BIKE PATHS / \\ STAND :f CAL POLY URBAWRURAL STUDIES AFFORDABLE HOUSING 3+acres) AFFoagDABLEcresHOUSING BIKE PATH BIKEPAT Second Proposal --- - Land Use Acres Commercial 45.00 1 INCH-500 FEET Residential 28.62 Senior Center 2.00 75.62 Linear Park 9.09 Asian Gardens 4.00 Soccer Fields/Track 12.10 Cal Poly Urban/Rural Studies 14.00 TOTAL PARK& OPEN SPACE 39.19r Roads 16.19 - r TOTAL PROJECT 13100 DATE.2001 COUNTYAPPLICATION arinon 17, • A S S 0 C I A FS lu F1pro)119981960705=07051SPI==Des!pnu=Dn12002k1iy- untys mm-sm4-18-02.085 a19-02 JulieC r \ — I I ' SLO m ExcrwnwRti I I� PM NG ----_y PARKING --J 5.0 acres 10 Pte° V U ' ^ 1\ ` e mK , er +vb.on6+n 7 JUp J o� +� jo,COMMERCIAL�O 2c o 110 42 as Obb IC'p b Cil 5 BUSINESS Ib c - �b 10 b b ao s •^ PAW 9 O�eb � DOb U� DbO ,. 13 acresb b Q4 ++ F ,y 0 H �� (LOWES) % EXISTING TREES Third Proposal Land Use Acres ,INCH=500 FEET 47.00 Business Park 13.00 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT 60.00 Park and O en ace 58.67 Off-Site Open Space 20.00 I TOTAL OPEN SPACE 1 7867 Public Roads 1 12.33 TOTAL PROJECT 131.00+20.00 , DATE.APRIL 2002 DRAFT PROPOSAL > On `Uses and locations shown are for conceptual purposes to , • , • armshow general propordons.The plan will be refined if tha ASSOCIATES proposal proceeds through the development plan process. F:1pra1190519807054950705.15%PlanoesiwA[mages12002,L*y untyamrna 4-18-02.p85 5.15-02 JulleC I ❑C? 8LO PR MENADE �L mwrawoE II \ \\ CL _ - y PARKING1 PARKING 1 II I "MING _ I ING LL, jujjiIC—IL 13� 5.0 acres nN.IAOMAY D �pD Il i ODEFF Ars 'r 1� a r 'b 4I It 6 •j p �bU " 7 Qe Z q.COMMERCIAL Q o �b� 42. U b� _10 zi BUSINESS I __ �r b' 'k Jo b iolbko a ib b PARK Eb:b� tUbb4b �#1�b- b00 13 acres b b b;j v: k1 :n O Wn � F _ Q H (TARGET) (LOWES) \ EXISTING TREES Third Proposal i Land Use Acres 1INCH=500 FEET Commercial 47.00 Business Park 13.00 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT 60.00 Park and Open Space 58.67 Off-Site Open Space 1 20.00 TOTAL OPEN SPACE 7867 Public Roads 12.33 TOTAL PROJECT 131.00+20.00 i DATE.APRIL 2002 DRAFT PROPOSAL \_ In mon `Uses and locations shown are for conceptual purposes to , • , • jaishow general proportions.The plan will be refined'd the A S S O Cl A h S proposal proceeds through the development plan process. F:1pmP19951g607O5MO7C5.15tPlanIDesign\ImagesUO021cityuwlytument•sm-4-18-02.PB5 5.15-02 JulieC /q7✓}� ��►�IIIIIIIIIIIIIII;��pllll►IIIII �� city of sAn luis oBispo Rll fi j 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 May 21, 2002 Chairperson Shirley Bianchi Supervisor Harry Ovitt Supervisor Peg Pinard Supervisor K.H. Achadjian Supervisor Mike Ryan County Board of Supervisors County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Dear Chairperson Bianchi and members of the Board of Supervisors: On June 4, 2002, your Board will again consider a proposed General Plan Amendment that will allow for the processing of an application to develop the Dalidio Farm property within County jurisdiction. Because developing such an urban-like project in the unincorporated area is inconsistent with both County and City policies and good planning principles,when your Board considered this amendment on January 15, 2002, the City Council urged that,you deny the request. However,we also expressed a willingness to work with the applicant to find a mutually satisfactory approach to developing the property within the City. The Board ultimately decided to postpone action on the amendment and invited the City to meet with a committee of Board members and applicant representatives to discuss alternatives for the property. Council members Marx and Ewan represented the City in these discussions, and Supervisors Pinard and Achadjian represented the County. We wish to thank the supervisors for the helpful and constructive role each played during these sometimes difficult discussions. We believe that their leadership helped to produce promising and workable alternatives. More specifically, on May 10, 2002 Supervisors Pinard and Achadjian asked to meet with the Council Subcommittee to present what they viewed as a very promising compromise (see Attached"Proposal 3"). Although there remain further questions and more details to work out, in general the Subcommittee agreed that the compromise offered some significant advantages over earlier options, including the application now before the County. Therefore, onMay 21St,the Council subcommittee presented the concept to the full City Council. In summary, our Council agrees to work with the applicant to accomplish a project that will: , 1. Be largely consistent with the City's General Plan, thus reducing the amount of new studies and other application requirements; 3-12 /O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. v Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. 2. Be very similar to Proposal 3 (attached), allowing significant development of the property, while protecting more open space than envisioned in the previous proposal to the City (56 acres vs. about 79 acres); 3. Protect the 58.7 acres of open space in fee title, instead of via an easement(as in the former proposal); 4. Require that the acquisition of 20 acres offsite be located in the vicinity of Highway 101 at the southern end of the City and consist of quality farm land. 5. Eliminate the uncertainty of the previous 9 acre`-`reserve", which the applicant eventually wanted to develop commercially, in addition to the initial 40 acres of commercial land designation. 6. Provide for about 47 acres of commercial development in order to include a hotel that would help meet the community's need for enhanced conference facilities; 7. Provide for access to the groundwater basin to improve community water supply and work conjunctively with our water reuse project; 8. Involve a binding development agreement at the appropriate stage in order to create greater certainty for both the applicant and the City; During the past three and a half months, all parties have worked very hard to address the many issues involved in the future use of the Dalidio property, and more issues and some development review processes remain before a project can be formally approved. However, in terms of what ought to be the primary question before the Board of Supervisors—Is the City of San Luis Obispo willing to work with the applicant in good faith to process a revised project for the Dalidio property?—we think the answer is clearly"yes." We therefore respectively request that the Board terminate the General Plan Amendment before you and refer the applicants to the City of San Luis Obispo so that the process of revising the project can be initiated, consistent with the concepts outlined in this letter. Sincerely, Jan Marx Vice Mayor cc: City Council Staff distribution 3-13 11AY.20.2002 10:46AM KING VENTURES 110.867 P.1/2 Ae � A MEETING AGENDA. DATE5-2-1- 21ITEM #= V E N T U R E S May 20, 2002 Via Facsimile 605-781-7109 Total Pages: Two Mayor Allen Settle Vice Mayor J;an Marx Councilmembers Ken Schwartz, Christine Mulholland, and John Ewan CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 990 Palm I San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: SILL B RD'S MARKETPLACE PROJECT Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers: I arrived Is S'an Luis Obispo in 1960, Two of the present Councilmembers will recall that in the early 1960's parking was so generous that one could park almost directly in front of any retailer at any time of the day. Today that obviously is 'not the case. The Downtown area is vibrant, successful, and the envy of ma6y other communities; but perhaps most important, the pride of this city. It seems to me that this "special place" has taken years to create, with Input from the entire community, yet it is in a delicate balance. The Downtown has developed into a very unique mixed-use format that appears to have effectively blended a quality residential feeling with a retail base. Recent newspaper articles have indicated that Mr. Bird's plans (500,000 SF) include small shops, life-style retailers, and even more specifically, a village type market lace. Isn't this what we have Downtown? Why then would we. gamble with what has taken years for this community to develop? It is only fair that the Dalidio family be able to sell their property and It Is only reasonable tat Mr. Bird be able to submit a development plan; but It is even more import., that this Council recognize how dramatic the effect could be on the Downtown's viability. What safeguards can this Council instill? Mr. Bird has made comments that he has no intention of competing with Downtown businesses and that he Is not promoting restaurants or theaters Into his marketplace, I arra not sure this is accurate; as an example, we have recently been seeking funds for the rehab of the Fremont Theatre and were told by a Southern California lender that they were not Interested because they had heard that a theater chain was talking with Mr. Bird about a,, IG project! RECEIVED MAY 2 0 2002 King Ventures 290 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805 5444444 6051 COUNCIL .MAY.20.2002 10:46AM KING VENTURES N0.867 P.2/2 I city of San 4uis Obispo May 20, 2002 Page Two I would hope that these concerns can be alleviated; but it is obvious that there needs to be more than verbiage - where are the commitments and warranties? Respectfullylsubmitted, LTCOUNCIL = t7D DIR YCAO = =iN DIR 3rACAO - FIRE CHIEF GrATTORNEY C Y'N DIR ErCLERK/ORIG Z POLICE CHF ]oh E. King' ❑ DEPT HEADS c R=C DIR Er rgllgogla Q UTIL DIR 3E I ❑ ❑ wR DIR i i RED FILE WARREN A. SINSHEIMER 1010 Peach Street MEETING AGEg�NDA. San Luis Obispo,California 93401 DATE `'�Z ITEM #�5 May 17, 2002 Reply to: Post Office Box 31 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406-0031 Phone No.: (805)541-2800 Fax No.: (805)541-2802 Email: was@ssblaw.com The Honorable Allen Settle HAND DELIVERED San Luis Obispo City Hall 990 Palm Street 62'COUNCIL C7 CDD D!R San Luis Obispo,California 93401 GtACO E =1N- C t�ACAo � -iRE cwl€= UATTORNEY Cv' Pbd DIR Re: Marketplace Project 201CLERK/0RI® Z P�Uj 2; r;,= 13 DEPT HEA D 6ZR . Dear Mayor Settle: p According to this morning's Tribune,you will shortly be asked to approve a new variant on the Marketplace development between Madonna Road and U.S. 101. This is a flawed project that does not deserve your support. I strongly urge you to say no. The proposed Marketplace project will entitle the developer,whoever that eventually turns out to be,to develop 500,000 square feet of retail space. Of that total,approximately 300,000 square feet are projected to be used for the types of retail uses traditionally, and by plan, reserved to the downtown core of San Luis Obispo. These are sometimes called lifestyle tenants,as opposed to the "big box"stores. if you and your colleagues on the Council approve the Mat'ttetplace project you will j umpstart the destruction of our unique downtown San Luis Obispo. The Village concept which is included in the Marketplace project will create a replacement downtown. However, it will be a downtown where there is unlimited free parking, where there are no City in lieu fees, where there are no unreinforced masonry buildings waiting to be rehabilitated, where there are no special historical design criteria, where delivery truck access is easy and where the web of special regulation simply won't exist. Just the possibility of such a place coming on line will chill tenants' interest in committing to downtown retail space.The vibrant but fragile downtown that the City has nurtured, and where the Council has encouraged investment for thirty years, will wither far faster than one might imagine. Please look around downtown, then think of the many downtowns around California and elsewhere that have died when local Councils approved massive projects on the periphery of a city. RECEIVED MAY 17 2002 I SLO CITY COUNCIL J The Honorable Allen Settle May 17, 2002 Page 2 The village concept has no place in the Marketplace location,if you truly believe that downtown is worth preserving. Please do not approve this approach to land use. Sincerely, 1 r�� arren A. Sinsheimer WAS:mac f:\GENERAL\Ltr\SINO'W&C\19SE1 LE-05;7.wpd MEETIN AGENDA. DATE XI'02 ITEM40 # 3 y� w WOCA 4"1 �l �. aOlt&" T . R-COUNCIL ❑ DIR FI �. [9-CAO p FIN DIR p'ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF !FrATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR "'_FRKQORIG El POLICE CHF ' 504 ❑ REC DIR +✓ 7R18��t&- ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ HR DIR :FRIEI2.0TY COUNCIL T0 'd ZTZ8 6b5 . . . ANIINA.-31133 Wti 0£: 80 NOW ZO-OZ-hqW RFD FILE May 19, 2002 MEETING AGENDA. DATE5 '_ITEM # Allen Settle Mayor City of San Luis Obispo, CA Dear Mr. Settle; I'm writing to you about the proposed project located on the Dalidio property that you will be considering and voting on Tuesday night. My concern is the amount of retail space that is involved in that project plus the retail space adjacent to it. This is far more retail space than is offered in Downtown San Luis Obispo. At the present time our downtown is unique and healthy and of course we want it to stay that way.I know that businesses must be able to take care of themselves in the face of competition,however;due to the size of this development I'm not at all sure that the smaller businesses located downtown will be up to the task of facing this type of competition. My main concern, however; is that with a situation like this I don't believe that business people will continue to invest in the future of the downtown area as they have in the past and this would be very detrimental to the all of us. The downtown also has some future dollar expenditures in earthquake retro-fitting and fire sprinkler systems that will be forced on property owners. I feel that the sprinkler systems will be the straw that breaks the camels back. Granted this is in the future, but it's there. The money that has to be paid for the protection of the creeks is another of many costs added to doing business in San Luis Obispo. I know in the past that each of you on the Council has studied every item that comes before you in a through and professional manner and that is all that I ask of you Tuesday night when this item comes before you. I would like to offer my appreciatation and thanks to you for serving our community; I know the time it takes, B'COUNCIL CDD DIR CTCAO L FIN DIM WACAO G RIR@ CpiEE rk RATTORNEY L PW CIA WCLERK/CAId b 061 E 0HP liciano ❑ DEPT HEAD9 6 RECD 15A Q�RtAuM t U'lIt D`101CyRb John A.Feliciano 264 Daly Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 =RECEIVED Tom & Jim Copelant P.O. Boz 1348 R t D F I L San Luis Obispo,California 93406 (805) 543-0660 FAX(805)547-9654 MEETING AGENDA DATE5'e ITEM # May 17, 2002 Dear Mayor Allen Settle, On Tuesday night you will be voting whether or not to indorse the Bill Bird Marketplace project. The proposed project is to include entitlements for 500,000 s.f. of retail space,which approximately 300,000 s.f. will be entitled for lifestyle tenants and a major high quality lifestyle department store. If you endorse this project and allow it to proceed through the development process,you will eventually destroy what is unique about Downtown San Luis Obispo. Once entitlements are in place,you cannot control who will eventually occupy the space in a project. A new major Department store, especially a Macy's,will in itself, create very high demand for other lifestyle tenants to locate in the project. The cost of providing space for retailers,restaurants, offices and other businesses in the downtown is 3 to 5 times what it costs a developer to build space in a field on the periphery of the City. Given the choice of lower occupancy costs, unlimited parking and access, and a major Department store as the Hub of the Bill Bird project,the merchants and businesses we now enjoy in our Downtown core will begin to disappear. You cannot expect business people to continue to invest their resources in the downtown area if the elected officials of the city are not willing to support and protect the uses that are essential to the Downtown. Please don't tear down what we have by allowing a"replacement downtown"to be created on our periphery. Please do not let the County Supervisors influence your decision as this project is much too complicated to ever get built in the county. Please vote no on endorsing the Bill Bird Marketplace. ff COUNCIL Q'CAO N C' Sincerely, GCACAO 1Z Firs€ '=,�IeF GrATTORNEY C. Pll!?,)r RtLERK/ORIG C PCiUl..F OHF ❑ DEPT .�HEADS - ^`T `'?EC 1Ia� LIR Tom and T Copeland RECEIVED MAY 1. 7 2002 I SLO CITY COUNCIL 04/26/1991. 18:52 8555435574 MAINS PA(M 52 THE MAINO BROTHERS CORPORATION ITL9 207-2619 R e 0 F I L_E 1 7O!!8 .I GARDtSTRCCT SAaI J U15 001Ypo.CALW*&NIA 93401 i TBLipNCHi:(803) 543-2240 MEETING AGENDA FAR; !805) 843-8574 DATE 5_di"02 ITEM #3 May 20, 2002 B COUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR YCAO ❑ FIN DIR [ -ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF 2 ATTORNEY 0 PW DIR 9CLERK/ORIQ ❑ POLICE CNF Mr. Tom Copeland El DEPT HEADS ❑ RECDIR 1144 Chorro street fr7' ❑ LfT14®IR ❑. ❑ HR®IR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Toms Unfortunately I will nqt be able to attend the City Council meeting Tuesday night. However, I wish you and Jim mould offer my strong objections to the "Dalido" Elevelopment. To support this project is simply a sanction of a "second city" given all the benefits of old downtown San Luis Obispo but without charm or acceptance of any of the taxation to support all the facilities required of such an endeat►or. Let us support San Luis Obispo and continue to increase its allure. Please vote no on the Bill Bird market place. Sincerely, .J. Ma Please forward- to Council 9riem370 +rs. RECE:021002 D 14„aY SLO CITYERK Bellces RSD FELE Sporting Goods DATE 5_1 J 0?- 3 $86 MONTEREY STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 Dear Mayor Settle, Please do not.approve the latest Bill.BirdMarketplace.scheme because its`village theme" would duplicate our downtown retail mix. It took-more than 200 years for downtown San Luis to evolve, let's not take-it for granted.by damaging its sensitive balance. Furthermore, five-hundred-thousand S.F. of new retail-space coupled with the existing Madonna Plaza and Promenade could make us look like downtown Fresno in a few years; dead and dismal. ` Give our existing downtown a chance-to complete its current vision by voting.no on the Marketplace development. Sincerely, Tom Bello �NCIL CIC 0 G FINDRIR ❑ FIRE CyIEF ATTORNEY. . O- UCLERfGORIa` PWDIR C1 DEPT C POLICE CMF FADS C REC DIR UTIL DIA O.HR Dip, RECEIVED tMAY Z O 200: SLO CITY CLERK -qt #.ays to pfy RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DATE &-ITEM # �/—Z.*- � a,- � :17+ 1241 San 1-.vxi5 Obispo G UNCIL-=O-Cnn-7cl— Q-A C SIRE-Er-11EF-- ORNEY ❑ PW DIR ❑ CLERKIORIG ❑ POLIEUHL ❑ DEPT HEADS ❑ REC DIR V^�'-❑ UTIL D I R ❑-FIA-DfR— RECEIVED MAY 2 0 2002 SLO CITY COUNCIL c Diane Shetvem — 1241 Beach St 1 Sn Luis 013 s CA 93401-39235 C i� Caun �;i q yo pQ 1� s.�, c/3ya/ -3zet.�