HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/2002, PH3 - CODE ENFORCEMENT ORDINANCES AND IMPLEMENTING RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE Ocouncil *'�`9-17-02
A ac En as Report
C I T Y OF SAN LUIS O B 1 S P 0
FROM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney
Prepared By: Gilbert A. Trujillo, Assistant CityAttorn
SUBJECT: CODE ENFORCEMENT ORDINANCES AND IMPLEMENTING
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURES FOR THE COLLECTION OF CIVIL FINES FOR
MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS.
CAO RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Introduce an Ordinance Adding Section 1.12.095 to Chapter 1.12 of the Municipal
Code Imposing Civil Penalties for Violations of the Municipal Code.
2. Introduce an Ordinance Adding Section 1.12.130 to Chapter 1.12 of the Municipal
Code Authorizing the Recovery of Attorney Fees to the Prevailing Party in a Code
Enforcement Action.
3. Introduce an Ordinance Adding Chapter 1.24 to Title One of the Municipal Code
Adopting Administrative Code Enforcement Procedures For the Imposition and
Collection of Civil Fines for Municipal Code Violations.
4. Adopt a Resolution Approving Administrative Guidelines in Connection with the
Issuance and Processing of Administrative Citations Pursuant to Chapter 1.24 and
Establishing the Amount of Administrative Fines Payable Under Such Citations.
DISCUSSION
Introduction:
The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code and City Charter authorizes the City Attorney to exercise
his discretion to pursue code enforcement actions either through criminal (infraction or
misdemeanor)prosecutions or civil injunctive actions. In 1998, the California Legislature
enacted Government Code Section 53069.4 which enabled municipalities to issue civil
administrative citations for routine code and ordinance violations. Accordingly, if approved by
Council, the City would have three code enforcement tools from which to choose the most
appropriate and efficient enforcement action, to wit: 1) a civil administrative fine citation
administered by staff, 2) referral to the City Attorney's Office for the filing of a criminal
prosecution, or 3) referral to the City Attorney's Office for the filing of a civil injunctive action.
The ordinances adding a civil penalty (1.12.095) and attorney fee recovery provision (1.12.130)
are proposed as additions to the City's current enforcement program when the City Attorney
.r
Council Agenda Report—Civil Administrative Procedures
Page 2
elects to file a Superior Court civil injunctive action. These proposed ordinances are separate
and distinct from the proposed Civil Administrative Citation Program (Chapter 1.24) as will be
discussed below.
1. Civil Penalties— 1.12.095
The proposed ordinance establishes a civil penalty of$250 for each day a violation of the
Municipal Code occurs. Currently, there is a deficiency in the Municipal Code when the City
Attorney elects to file a Superior Court injunctive action to obtain code compliance. While the
City may obtain an injunction ordering a violation abated, there are no civil penalties authorized
by the Code. 1 In contrast, a criminal misdemeanor conviction is punishable by a fine of not
more than $1000 and/or imprisonment not to exceed one year. (San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Section 1.12.030). Consequently, there is no incentive for a defendant property owner to
voluntarily comply prior to the City seeking an injunction. In addition, once the City files an
injunctive action, there is no consequence to an owner if he delays compliance until ordered to do
so by the Court after a trial.
2. Attorney Fees— 1.12.130
The proposed ordinance, as authorized by Government Code Section 38773.5(b), authorizes a
prevailing party to recover his or her attorney fees in a code enforcement action when the City
elects, at the initiation of that individual action or proceeding, to seek recovery of its own
attorneys' fees. Arguably, an attorney fee provision is a two-way sword. However, staff believes
that the possibility of having to pay the City's attorney fees for a civil injunctive action will have
a significant effect on encouraging recalcitrant owners to voluntarily comply with staff's
correction notices. In addition, staff believes an attorney fee provision will encourage
settlements prior to trial.
3. Civil Administrative Citation Program—Chapter 1.24
After careful study and research, the City Attorney's Office supports the implementation of an
Administrative Citation Ordinance. Staff research revealed that there are several models of
administrative ordinance programs which, if emulated and configured to work within our
existing Code Enforcement Program, would be very beneficial in maintaining the long and short
term health and safety of our City. The cities of Ventura, Simi Valley and Santa Barbara, as well
as larger cities such as San Diego, Long Beach and San Jose have implemented these model
programs successfully. City staff, including representatives from the City Attorney's Office,
Code Enforcement, Building Department and Neighborhood Services met with the City of Santa
Barbara's Code Enforcement Division to discuss the merits and implementation of their
Administrative Citation Program and determined that such a program would be beneficial to the
City's code enforcement efforts as an additional tool. Staff discussed this program with -
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, and they were supportive of the concept.
The Municipal Code does authorize a civil penalty for wastewater discharges that cause pollution in the sum of not
less than$1000 per day per violation. (San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 13.08.390).
3 '0?_
i
Council Agenda Report—Civil Administrative Procedures
Page S
The proposed Administrative Citation Ordinance, if approved, will be implemented without any
additions in staff resources or significant change in code enforcement polices and procedures.
With the Administrative Citation Ordinance as a tool, staff will increase its effectiveness in
dealing with non-life-threatening but reoccurring code violations. This increased efficiency
should provide measurably better service to the community and help to ensure that our City
maintains the integrity of its zoning, building, design review and sign ordinances.
The City shall continue to employ a philosophy of voluntary compliance when seeking to enforce
violations of the Municipal Code. It is envisioned that as staff documents or verifies a violation
of the Municipal Code, the Code section violated will be recorded, the necessary correction
identified and a date for abatement of the violation will be provided in writing to the property
owner/violator. This investigation,photos,necessary corrections and abatement date will be
forwarded in the form of a Notice of Administrative Citation (example included with attached
Guidelines).
The initial Notice of Administrative Citation will include the following_information: property
owners name and address; date of inspection; municipal code section violated; a narrative
description of the violation, and remedies for abatement stated in plain, simple, non-technical
language; photographs of the violation (if obtained); a statement(warning) advising the property
or business owner that if the violation is not abated within the time frame specified; they will be
subjected to an administrative fine; the amount of the fine; the date of the fine if voluntary
compliance is not obtained. A full list of these items is included in the Guidelines.
Once the dates for abatement expire, staff will return to the site to confirm abatement:: If abated, -
the recorded parcel will be cleared of violations and the enforcement'file closed. If not abated,
the owner will be responsible for the prescribed fine set forth in the Administrative Citation.
Once served an Administrative Citation, the owner/violator will have three options: (1) abate the
violation within the designated time period;.(2)pay the citation fine, abate the violation and call
for reinspection; or(3)request an administrative review before a Hearing Administrator(the
Chief Building Official, Neighborhood Services Manager, or other person appointed by the City
Administrator). If during the administrative review, the Hearing.Administrator finds that a
violation has occurred, the owner must pay the citation fine or face further legal action by the
City, including the possibility of additional citations and[ortraditional:civil_or criminal_
prosecution. If additional violations are identified within.twelve months of the initial citation,.a .
subsequent Notice of Administrative Citation will be sent and fines applied without any warning,
until the violation is abated
Government Code 53069.4(b)(1) provides.that an owner may.appeal_the.Hearing Administrator's -
final decision within 20 days by filing an appeal with`the Superior,Coumand.upon paying,a_.__ _ .
$25.00 appeal fee. The statute further provides that a copy.of:the.City's;file shall.be admitted
into evidence as prima facie evidence of the facts stated.therein. Accordingly;lit is not necessary
for City staff to attend the appeal hearing in the Superior Court to prove its case.:The burden _
3 � 3
i
Council Agenda Report—Civil Administrative Procedures
Page 4
rests with the property owner to convince the Court to overturn the City's administrative
decision.
The Finance Department's Revenue Management Division will collect citation fines. Accounts
Receivable will send a bill to the violator. Finance will provide reports reflecting the status of
payments on the Citation Program. These fines may be recorded in a new revenue account, with
a transaction code and project number. The revenues which may be collected from this program
may be placed in the General Fund, and used to create "Abatement Accounts." These accounts
can be used to give staff the ability to hire contractors to abate certain nuisances, when the
owners are financially unable to comply. The City could, if appropriate, lien the property for the
City's costs to abate the nuisance.
If approved, City staff will be conducting public education of the new ordinance. This education
will take the form of new handouts, a cable channel video, business and community organization
presentations or similar venues to distribute and educate community members.
4. Resolution Establishing Administrative Guidelines and Fines
Included with this report is a Resolution which assists with the implementation of the program.
Specifically, the Resolution adopts the Notice of.Administration Citation Guidelines which
creates a framework for implementation and administration of the program. Additionally, the
Resolution details the administrative penalties which will be assessed in the event of non-
compliance and repeat offenses ($100 fine for I"offense, $200 fine for 2nd offense, and$500
fine for 3`d or more offenses within a one-year time frame). Government Code Section 53069.4
limits recoverable administrative fines and penalties for violations that would otherwise be an
infraction to the maximum infraction fines specified in government Code 36900. The proposed
fines are also consistent with Municipal Code Section 1.12.040 which provides the punishment
for infractions.
Conclusion:
This Administrative Citation Ordinance is an important tool for Code Enforcement staff who are
involved in the City's efforts to promote a healthy and safe community for the citizens of San
Luis Obispo. The ordinance takes advantage of recent changes in California State Law,which
allow municipalities to de-criminalize violations and be more effective and efficient through the
imposition of civil administrative monetary penalties.
FISCAL IMPACT
It is not anticipated that the adoption of a Civil Penalties (1.12.095)or Attorney Fee (1.12.130)
ordinance will generate substantial sums to the General Fund since the City's policy is to obtain
voluntary compliance rather than seek to punish offenders with monetary penalties. In
appropriate cases and in accordance with City policy,the City will continue to agree to
settlements wherein it will either waive or suspend any fines or attorney fees provided that the
defendant voluntarily abates the violation.
Council Agenda Report—Civil Administrative Procedures
Page 5
Similarly, it is not anticipated that the Administrative Citation Program(Chapter 1.24) will
generate any significant fiscal impacts to the City in terms of additional staff time or significant
revenue.
CONCURRENCES
The Community Development Department,Finance Department and Police Department concur
in the recommendations.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may elect not to adopt these additional code enforcement tools and direct
staff to continue with current code enforcement procedures.
2. The Council may elect to adopt one or more of the proposed ordinances.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Ordinance Re: 1.12.095 (Civil Penalties)
2. Proposed Ordinance Re: 1.12.130 (Attorney Fees)
3. Proposed Ordinance Re: Chapter 1.24 (Administrative Citations)
4. Proposed Resolution Re: Administrative Guidelines
5. Government Code Section 53069.4
l Administrazive Procedures.agenda
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE NO. (2002 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO ADDING SECTION 1.12.095 TO CHAPTER 1.12
OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE IMPOSING CIVIL
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 1.12.095 is hereby added to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to read as
follows:
1.12.095 Civil Penalty.
Any person who violates any provision of this Code may be liable to the City for a civil
penalty not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) for each day or part thereof that said
violation occurs. The City Attorney is authorized to bring a civil action in any court of competent
jurisdiction to recover such civil penalties for the City.
SECTION 2. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City.Attorney, together with the
names of the Council members voting for and against it, shall be published at least five days prior to its
final passage, in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance will go
into effect at the expiration of thirty(30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the _ day of - , 2002, AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo at a meeting held on the _'day of , 2002, upon motion of ,
seconded by and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk -— —.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
y 6. J ge n, . y Attorney
3 -6
Attachment 2
ORDINANCE NO. (2002 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO ADDING SECTION 1.12.130 TO CHAPTER 1.12 OF
THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE AUTHORIZING THE
RECOVERY OF ATTORNEY FEES IN
CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 1.12.130 is hereby added to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to read as
follows:
1.12.130 Liability for Attorney Fees.
The prevailing party in any civil action or administrative proceeding filed to abate a public
nuisance and violation of any provision of this Code may recover its attorneys' fees. The recovery
of attorneys' fees by a prevailing party is limited to only those individual actions or proceedings in
which the City elects, at the initiation of that individual action or proceeding, to seek recovery of
its own attorneys' fees. In no action shall an award of attorneys' fees to a prevailing party exceed
the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by the City in the action or proceeding.
SECTION 2. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the
names of the Council members voting for and against it, shall be published at least five days prior to its
final passage, in The Tribune,a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance will go
into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the _ day of , 2002, AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo at a meeting held on the _day of , 2002, upon motion of ,
seconded by and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ff Jo gens , Cit Attorney
3� �
Attachment 3
ORDINANCE NO. (2002 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO ADDING CHAPTER 1.24 TO TITLE ONE OF
THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 1.24 is hereby added to Title One of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
to read as follows:
Chapter 1.24
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
Sections:
1.24.010 Purpose; Adoption of Administrative Guidelines.
1.24.020 Applicability.
1.24.030 Definitions.
1.24.040 Maintaining Public Nuisances Prohibited.
1.24.050 Abatement of Unlawful Conditions -Notice.
1.24.060 Extensions of Time.
1.24.070 Amount of Civil Fines.
1.24.080 Manner of Payment-Civil Fines.
1.24.090 Appeal of Notice of Administrative Citation,
1.24.100 Hearing Procedures.
1.24.110 Appeal Decision.
1.24.120 Right to Judicial Review.
1.24.130 Collection of Unpaid Fines.
1.24.010 Purpose; Adoption of Administrative Guidelines.
A. Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to enable the City, acting as a charter city pursuant to
Article XI, Sections 5 and 7 of the state Constitution, to impose and collect civil administrative fines in
conjunction with the enforcement of provisions of this Code. Notwithstanding the provisions herein, the.
City has and shall continue to employ the philosophy of voluntary compliance when seeldng compliance
withthis Code. Prior to the implementation of the-enforceirient policies and penalties stated herein,
voluntary compliance approaches, when-practical,.should first be used in order to educate City property
owners and businesses concerning the requirements of this Code and the-corrective action necessary to
correct a violation of this Code.
B. Administrative Guidelines Approved by the City Council. -Concurrently with the adoption of the
ordinance establishing this Chapter, the City shall prepare and promulgate administrative guidelines
3'9
Ordinance No. (2002 Series) - Attachment 3
Page No. 2
which shall, among other things, establish policies for providing appropriate and adequate warnings with
respect to possible Municipal Code violations to those persons who may receive an administrative
citation, to provide direction to City staff for the correct process of issuing a Notice of Administrative
Citation, and to establish the proper format of the Notice of Administrative Citation, and for service of
that Notice in a manner consistent with the requirements of due process (hereinafter referred to as the
"Administrative Guidelines"). Such Administrative Guidelines shall be expressly approved by a
resolution of the City Council prior to their adoption.
1.24.020 Applicability.
A. ENFORCEMENT OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. This Chapter makes any violation of the
provisions of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, including but not limited to all uniform construction
codes adopted by reference and as amended pursuant to Title 15 of the Code, subject to administrative
fines.
B. ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY. This Chapter establishes the procedures for the imposition,
enforcement,collection, and review of civil administrative fines pursuant to State Government Code
Section 53069.4 and pursuant to the City's plenary police powers as a charter city.
C. REMEDIES NOT EXCLUSIVE. The use of the administrative enforcement remedies provided
by this Chapter is solely at the City's discretion. By adopting this Chapter, the City does not intend to
limit its discretion to choose the use of any other remedy,civil or criminal, or other administrative
procedures, for the abatement of such violations that the City may select in a particular case, including
procedures for the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.
D. STRICT LIABILITY OF THE OWNER. Because serious Code violations may impact public
health,welfare, and safety and the adequacy and safety of housing, this Chapter is intended to impose
strict civil liability upon the owners of real property(or the owner of a business where the violation is
caused by or relates to the operation of a business)for all violations of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code which may occur in the City of San Luis Obispo regardless of the existence of specific or general
intent or prior knowledge of such violations and,further, regardless of any intent(or lack thereof) to
violate the Code.
1.24.030 Definitions.
The following definitions apply to the use of these terms-for the purposes of this Chapter:
A. CODE VIOLATION. Any violation of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
B. DIRECTOR. The Department Head,or his or her designee, responsible for enforcing the
Municipal Code with respect to his or her Department.
C. HEARING ADMINISTRATOR. The person appointed by the City Administrator to serve as the
hearing officer for administrative hearings.
Ordinance No. (2002 Series) - Attachment 3
Page No. 3
D. ISSUED. Giving, mailing, or posting a Notice of Administrative Citation to a person where
"issuance" is deemed to have occurred on the earlier of the date when a Notice of Administrative Citation
is personally served on a person, the date it is mailed to a person by posting in the regular United States
mail, or the date it is physically posted on real property where a property related Code violation is
occurring.
E. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION. An official City Municipal Code violation notice
issued to a person(s) notifying them that they are in violation of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
with respect to certain real property or the operation of a certain business. In the case of an initial notice,
if the violation has not been corrected by a specified date, a civil administrative fine will be imposed.
Subsequent notices regarding the same type of violation, within any twelve-month period, may be cause
for imposing additional administrative fines without warning.
F. PERSON. Any of the following:
1. An individual who causes a Code violation to occur.
2. An individual who maintains or allows a Code violation to continue,by his or her action or failure
to act in a lawful manner.
3. An individual whose agent,employee, or independent contractor causes a Code violation by its
action or failure to act in a lawful manner.
4. An individual who is an owner of real property where a property related Code violation occurs.
5. An individual who is an owner of a business or who is the on-site manager of a business and who
normally works at the site when the business is open and is responsible for the activities at such premises.
For purposes of this subsection "person" includes a natural person or a legal entity including but not
limited to, the owners,majority stockholders,corporate officers, trustees, and general partners of a legal
entity. There shall be a legally rebuttal presumption that the record owner of a parcel as listed on the
County's latest equalized property tax assessment rolls is the person responsible for a Code violation on
such parcel. In addition, where applicable, a commercial lessee, sublessee, or operator of a business on a
parcel shall be presumed responsible for Code violations relating to the operation of the business (for
example, sign ordinance violations) on that parcel.
1.24.040 Maintaining Public Nuisances Prohibited.
Pursuant to the authority of State Government Code Section 38771 and Sections 1.12.070 and 1.12.080
of this Code, any continuing violation of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code constitutes a public
nuisance. Therefore, any person owning or having possession of any real property in the City of San Luis
Obispo who is in violation of any provision of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code may be determined to
be maintaining a public nuisance provided, however, that it shall not be be intent of the City that this
Chapter preempt any private nuisance right of action or any and all other legal remedies available to
private parties to abate such nuisances.
1.24.050 Abatement of Unlawful Conditions-Notice.
A. INSPECTIONS. Whenever City staff has inspected a property and finds that conditions
3^ID
Ordinance No. (2002 Series) - Attachment 3
Page No.4
constituting a violation of the Municipal Code exist thereon, the Director may use the procedures set forth
in this Chapter to abate such nuisance as authorized by law.
B. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION ISSUANCE. The Director may issue a Notice of
Administrative Citation for a violation to any person or persons whom the Director deems appropriate if
the Director has determined, through investigation, that a violation exists. A person to whom a Notice of
Administrative Citation is issued shall be liable for and shall pay to the City the administrative fine or
fines described in the Notice of Administrative Citation when due pursuant to the provision of this
Chapter.
C. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CONDITIONS. Every person who applies for and receives a permit,
license, or any type of land use approval (such as,but not limited to, a development review approval, a
subdivision map approval, a conditional or special use pen-nit, a zoning requirement modification, a
variance, or other discretionary approval) shall comply with all mandatory approval conditions imposed
upon the issuance of the permit, license, or other such approval. If a person violates any condition of such
permit, license, or similar land use approval, that person may be issued a Notice of Administrative
Citation and may be held responsible for administrative fines under the provisions of this Chapter.
D. CONTINUING VIOLATIONS. Each day a violation of this Code exists shall be a separate and
distinct violation and may be subject to a separate administrative fine. A Notice of Administrative
Citation may charge a violation for one or more days on which a violation exists and for violation of one
or more applicable Code sections.
E. PRIOR VIOLATIONS. The City may take into consideration the fact that a person has been
previously issued a Notice of Administrative Citation when the City is determining whether to accept an
application or to grant any permit, license or any similar type of land use approval for that person and
such Notice of Administrative Citation may be used as evidence that the person has committed acts that
are not compatible with the health, safety, and general welfare of other persons and businesses within the
City.
F. CONTENTS OF NOTICE. The Director shall generally issue a Notice of Administrative Citation
to the owner or owners of the real property upon which the violation exists as the person presumed under
this Chapter to be responsible for the violation. The Administrative Guidelines as approved by the City
Council pursuant to Section 1.24.010 hereof shall, among other things, identify those items of information
which must be contained in the Notice of Administrative Citation issued to persons and alleging a
violation of the Municipal Code.
G. SERVICE OF NOTICE. The Notice of Administrative Citation and any amended Notice of
Administrative Citation shall be served by mail or personal service in the manner provided for in the
approved Administrative Guidelines.
H. PROOF OF SERVICE. Proof of personal service of the Notice of Administrative Citation shall be
documented as provided for in the approved Administrative Guidelines.
3'1�
Ordinance No. (2002 Series) Attachment .3
Page No. 5
1.24.060 Extensions of Time.
If the Director receives a request from any person required to comply with a Notice of Administrative
Citation, the Director may grant an extension of any fine due date and abatement deadline if the Director
determines that such an extension of time will not create or perpetuate imminent danger to the public
health and safety. The Director shall have the authority to place reasonable conditions on such an
extension.
1.24.070 Amount of Civil Fines..
A. FINE SCHEDULE. The amount of fines for violating particular provisions of the Code shall be
set in a schedule of fines adopted by resolution by the City Council concurrently with the ordinance
adopting this Chapter. The schedule may include escalating fine amounts for repeat Code violations
occurring within specified periods of time.
B. DUE DATE FOR FINES. Fines are due on the day specified in the Notice of Administrative
Citation, or, in the event of an appeal, as determined by the Hearing Administrator.
1.24.080 Manner of Payment-Civil Fines.
A' PAID BY MAIL. Fines shall be paid to the City within thirty (30) days of the due date. Payment
shall be made by check or money order. The Director, for purposes of convenience and ease of
processing, may authorize payment to be-made in accordance with any other method, including
designating a location within the City for such payments.
B. FURTHER VIOLATIONS. Payment of an administrative fine shall not excuse the person from
correcting the Code violation. The issuance of a Notice of Administrative Citation or the payment of a
fine does not preclude the City from taking any other enforcement or legal action regarding a Code
violation that is not corrected, including issuing additional Notices of Administrative Citation 8r the
initiation of criminal or Superior Court civil abatement proceedings.
1.24.090 Appeal of Notice of Administrative.Citation.
A. APPEAL TO HEARING ADMINISTRATOR. Any person aggrieved by the action of the.
Director in issuing a Notice of Administrative Citation pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter may
appeal such notice to the Hearing Administrator. If no appeal is filed within ten (10) days of the date of
issuance of the Notice of Administrative Citation, the order of the Director shall be deemed final. -
B. CORRECTIONS. Revocation of the Notice of Administrative Citation
.by the Hearing -•.
Administrator or voluntary abatement of the nuisance either on or prior to.the Notice of Administrative. _
Citation due date, and any authorized extensions thereto, shall cause the case to be closed.
C. CONTESTED APPEALS. To appeal a Notice of Administrative Citation,-the person receiving the
Notice(the"appellant') shall file a signed written request following the appeal procedures outlined in the
Notice of Administrative Citation. An appellant may contest the Notice of Administrative Citation by
S
Ordinance No. (2002 Series) Attachment 3
Page No. 6
denying that a violation occurred, by denying that it was not corrected within the required correction
period or, if applicable, by establishing that he or she is not the owner of the real property or the owner of
the business at the time the violation should have been corrected.
D. RECEIPT OF AN APPEAL REQUEST. To be effective, the appeal request must be received by
the Director within ten (10) days of the date the Notice of Administrative Citation was issued. Where a
request is mailed by the appellant, the request shall be deemed filed on the date received by the Director.
The Director is authorized to designate an address on the Notice of Administrative Citation to which such
appeal requests shall be mailed.
1.25.100 Hearing Procedures
A. APPLICABLE HEARING ADMINISTRATOR. For hearings involving violations of this Code,
the Hearing Administrator shall be the person designated by the City Administrator to serve as the hearing
officer.
B. MIE AND PLACE OF HEARINGS. Hearings shall be conducted by a Hearing Administrator
on the date, time and place specified by the City.
C. APPEAL OF RECORDS. The Director shall ensure that the pertinent Notice of Administrative
Citation are delivered to the Hearing Administrator in sufficient time prior to the appeal hearing. Before
the hearing, the Director shall also make available to the appellant a copy of any additional information
concerning the Notice of Administrative Citation which will be provided to the Hearing Administrator.
D. PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE. The appellant shall be given the opportunity to testify and to
present evidence relevant to the Code violation specified in the Notice of Administrative Citation.
E. USE OF REPORTS AS EVIDENCE. The Notice of Administrative Citation and any other reports
prepared by City staff or by the Director concerning a Code violation or attempted correction of a Code
violation that are provided to the Hearing Administrator shall be accepted by the Hearing Administrator
as prima facie evidence of the Code violation and the facts stated in such documents.
F. STAFF WITNESSES/ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. Neither City staff nor any other
representative of the City shall be required to attend the appeal hearing, nor shall the Hearing
Administrator require that there be submitted any evidence,other than the Notice of Administrative
Citation, that may exist among the public records of the City with respect to the violation. However, any
such appearance or submission may be made at the discretion of the Director.
G. CONTINUANCES. The Hearing Administrator may continue an appeal hearing if a request is
made showing good cause by the appellant or the Director. All continuance requests shall either. (1)be
made in person at the hearing by the appellant or his or her representative if the appellant is physically
unable to attend, or(2)be made by a written request received from the Director or the appellant. If the
continuance is granted, a new hearing date shall be set within thirty(30)days. If the continuance is
denied, the hearing shall proceed then and there as scheduled, and if the appellant is not present the
3-�3
Ordinance No. (2002 Series) Attachment R
Page No. 7
request(s) shall be deemed abandoned in accordance with subsection I below.
H. RULES OF EVIDENCE. The Appeal Hearing shall be conducted informally and the legal or
formal rules of evidence need not be followed. The Hearing Administrator does not have the authority to
issue a subpoena.
I. FAILURE TO APPEAR. The failure of the appellant to appear at the hearing, unless the hearing
was continued per subsection G above, shall constitute an abandonment of the appeal,and shall constitute
a failure to exhaust administrative remedies concerning the violations set forth in the Notice of
Administrative Citation.
1.24.110 Appeal Decision.
A. NOTICE OF DECISION. After considering all the evidence and testimony submitted at an appeal
hearing, the Hearing Administrator shall issue a Notice of Decision within two (2)business days to either
uphold or revoke the Notice of Administrative Citation based upon a conclusion of whether a violation
occurred. The Notice of Decision shall be mailed within one (1) business day subsequent to the Hearing
Administrator's issuance of the Notice of Decision by first class and certified mail, postage prepaid,return
receipt requested, to the appellant or their designated representative. The failure by the appellant to
appear at the appeal hearing shall be noted on the Notice of Decision by the Hearing Administrator. The
Hearing Administrator may reduce or cancel the amount of any administrative fine or revoke the Notice
of Administrative Citation in unusual cases when extenuating circumstances make doing so appropriate
and in the interest of justice. The decision of the Hearing Administrator shall be final.
B. PAYMENT OF FINE AFTER APPEAL DECISION. The filing of an appeal shall suspend any
fine assessed in the Notice of Administrative Citation. In the event that the Notice of Administrative
Citation is revoked, the fine shall also be revoked. In the event that the Notice of Administrative Citation
is upheld, a new compliance deadline and fine due date shall be established by the Hearing Administrator
and indicated on the Notice of Decision for the appeal.
1.24.120 Right to Judicial Review.
A. APPLICABILITY OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53069.4. The appellant may seek
judicial review of the Hearing Administrators decision by filing a further appeal with the San Luis
Obispo Superior Court within twenty(20) calendar days after the appellant receives a copy of the Notice
of Decision, in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Section 53069.4. The
appeal filed with the Court must also contain a proof of service showing a copy of the appeal was served
upon the Hearing Administrator for the City of San Luis Obispo.-The appellant must pay to the Superior'
Court the appropriate court filing fee when the appeal is filed.
B. FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL.:Nd appeal is permitted ffrom a'
decision where the appellant is deemed to have abandoned the contest of the Notice of Administrative
Citation by an unexcused failure to appear at the appeal hearing or by the failure to request an
administrative appeal hearing before the Hearing Administrator. -
3�1�
Ordinance No. (2002 Series - Attachment 3
Page No. 8
C. FORWARDING OF RECORDS TO SUPERIOR COURT. The City Attorney or the City
Attomey's designee shall forward to the Superior Court within fifteen (15) days of the Court's request, the
pertinent Notice of Administrative Citation documents for any case appealed to that Court. If the
Superior Court revokes any Notice of Administrative Citation, the City will refund to the appellant the
Superior Court filing fee paid by the appellant.
1.24.130 Collection of Unpaid Fines.
A. CITY REMEDIES. The City, at its discretion, may pursue any and all legal, equitable, and
administrative remedies for the collection of unpaid civil administrative fines.
1. Remedies Cumulative. Pursuit of one remedy does not preclude the pursuit of any other
remedies until the total fines owed by a person under this Chapter have been collected.
2. Refusal to Issue Permits. A City department may refuse to accept an application for a City
permit or license or to refuse to issue, extend, or renew to any person, who has unpaid delinquent fines,
liens, or assessments, any city permit, license, or other City approval pertaining to the property that is the
subject of a Notice of Administrative Citation and an unpaid administrative fine.
3. Suspension of Issued Permits. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Code, any permit,
license, or any type of land use approval issued by the City to a person who has unpaid administrative
fines totaling$500.00 or more which remain delinquent for thirty(30) days or longer may be suspended
by the department which issued the permit or other entitlement. The suspension becomes effective ten
(10) days after the date the notice of the suspension is placed by the issuing department in the United
States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the person, and continues until the administrative delinquency
is paid in full. The person may request an appeal/or review hearing pursuant to the specific permit,
license, or other City approval procedures or ordinance if such a request is filed before the ten (10) day
period ends.
4. Criminal Remedies. The City Attorney, at his or her discretion, may also issue a criminal
citation or complaint (infraction or misdemeanor)to-any person for a Code violation when the applicable
fine has not been paid.
B. VIOLATIONS CONSTITUTE A PUBLIC NUISANCE. The Director may pursue the remedies
described in this Section whether or not the City is pursuing.any other action to terminate an ongoing
Code violation that was the basis for anadministrative fine or-to otherwise abate the violation or sanction
the property owner. To compel Code compliance;the City may also seek to collect assessed fines by ..
means of a nuisance abatement lien or special assessment against the property where a property related
violation occurred in'accordance with the procedures in Government Code Sections 38773.1 and 38773.5.
C. LIEN CONDITIONS. To recover any delinquent administrative fines as a lien or special
assessment on real property, the following conditions must be met:
1. The Director must submit to and receive approval from the City Council for a resolution
certifying the amounts of the liens and special assessments sought to be collected from each property
3-�5
Ordinance No. (2002 Series, - - Attachment 3
Page No. 9
owner; and
2. The total amount of the delinquent fine against the property owner must be delinquent for sixty
(60) days or more.
D. LIEN COLLECTIONS. The Director is authorized to take any steps necessary to enforce
collection of the lien or special assessment, including but not limited to the following:
1. Request the County Recorder to record a notice of any lien or special assessment certified by
resolution of the City Council.
2. Request the County Tax Collector on behalf of the City to collect any special assessments
certified by resolution of the City Council.
E. NOTICE OF LIEN COLLECTION PROCEDURES. All Notices of Administrative Citation shall
contain a notice that unpaid fines are subject to the assessment and lien collection procedures of this
Chapter. This notice shall satisfy the notice requirements of Government Code Sections 38773.1 and
38773.5 when a Notice of Administrative Citation is served on the person. In addition, the Director shall
by first class mail send notice to each property owner at least ten (10)days before the City Council
considers the resolution to certify the amounts of the liens and special assessments stating the date, time,
and location of the meeting. The lien or special assessment shall be imposed on the date the Notice of
Administrative Citation for the Code violation is issued to the responsible person and shall become
effective upon the recording of a Notice of Lien or Special Assessment by the County Recorder.
F. CONTESTING CERTIFICATION OF A LIEN. A person may contest the amount or the validity
of any lien or special assessment for a civil fine at the public hearing when the City Council considers the
resolution to certify the liens or assessments. Such contests shall be limited to the issue of the amount or
validity of the lien or assessment and may not consider whether the underlying Code violation occurred.
Pursuit of such a contest by a person is necessary to exhaust the administrative remedies concerning a
legal challenge to the validity of any such lien or special assessment.
SECTION 2. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attomey, together with the
names of the Council members voting for and against it, shall be published at least five days prior to its
final passage; in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance will go
into effect at the expiration of thirty(30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the _ day of , 2002, AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo at a meeting held on the_day of , 2002, upon motion of ,
seconded by and on the following roll call vote:
3-I6
Ordinance No. (2002 Series, Attachment 3
Page No. 10
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price,City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
214101ta •
er9f id. Jor ense , it Attorney
3-I�'
- Attachment 4
RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES IN CONNECTION WITH THE
ISSUANCE AND PROCESSING OF ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS PURSUANT
TO CHAPTER 1.24 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE AND
ESTABLISHINGTHE AMOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINES PAYABLE
UNDER SUCH CITATIONS.
WHEREAS, on , 2002, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo introduced for
first reading Ordinance No. (2002 Series) which adds new.Chapter 1.24 to Title One of the San
Luis Obispo Municipal Code,entitled"Administrative Code Enforcement Procedures", pertaining to
the issuance of administrative citations for San Luis Obispo Municipal Code violations; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 53069.4 and San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code Chapter 1.24 enables the City, acting as a charter city pursuant to Article XI, Sections 5 and 7 of
the State Constitution, to impose and collect civil administrative fines in conjunction with the
abatement of Municipal Code violations; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 1.24 of the Municipal Code also establishes and provides that the City
will continue to employ the philosophy of obtaining voluntary compliance from property owners,
individuals and businesses who violate the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 1.24 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code provides that the City
Council shall by Resolution prepare and promulgate administrative guidelines consistent with the goals
and policies of Chapter 1.24 which establishes, among other things,the requirements for the contents
of a Notice of Administrative Citation and the requirements for proper service of such a Notice; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 1.24 provides.that the City Council shall also adopt a Resolution
approving and establishing the amounts of the administrative fines to be imposed pursuant to Chapter
1.24 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Administrative Guidelines for Chapter 1.24 of the City of San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code dated 2002, attached hereto as Exhibit A, are hereby approved.
SECTION 2. The following Fine Schedule is established for Administrative Citations issued
pursuant to Chapter 1.24 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code:
A. For a violation of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the administrative fine
shall be the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00)for each such violation.
B. For the second violation of the same Code section occurring within twelve (12)
months of the prior violation, the administrative fine shall be the sum of Two Hundred Dollars
($200.00).
C. For the third violation, or additional violations thereafter, of the same Code section
occurring within twelve (12)months of the first violation, the administrative fine shall be the sum of
Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00).
Resolution No.
Page 2
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall go into effect upon the final passage and effective date of
Ordinance No. adding new Chapter 1.24 entitled"Administrative Code Enforcement Procedures"
to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
Upon motion of , seconded by , and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of , 2002.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED: y
qw0tt, SCJ-
fitilkitor1rAy
3�1�
ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION GUIDELINES
( 2002)
The following Guidelines have been compiled as the basic structure for implementation
of the Administrative Citation Program(Chapter 1.24 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code).
Individual Departments and Divisions may vary slightly in their specific application of the
Citation Program.
1. REQUESTS FOR INVESTIGATION
All requests for investigation of a code enforcement matter are to be processed through a
designated staff person. This staff person will create an enforcement case, and if appropriate
schedule a field investigation, and forward a field investigation report (FIR) form to the
appropriate supervisor/coordinator or staff.
2. INVESTIGATION
Upon receiving a field investigation report form, investigating staff when necessary may
review Permit Plan, the City's Records File(s), and Archive Plans (as needed) in order to prepare
for their site investigation. Site investigations will be conducted with staff's safety as a high
priority. If there is any indication of a possible hostile or confrontational environment on the
part of the property owner or other present party, City staff should consult with their supervisor
and should not hesitate to request assistance from the Police Department for the purpose of
keeping the peace.
Additionally, all investigations will be conducted pursuant to the requirement of law, and
in an efficient and courteous manner. Photographs/images will be obtained as needed based on
the judgment of the investigators.
Each field investigation report form will contain the following information:
a. Date of investigation;
b. Name of investigator;
C. Code sections violated;
d. Plain non-technical description of the violation; _
e. Statement of remedy(what needs to be done); and
f. Time frames for follow-up investigations and for final abatement.
3. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION PREPARATION
Digital images/photos, when obtained, will be organized,numbered, and indexed as to
date,time and exact location and photographer. This will allow the City the proper foundational
basis for using the photograph as evidence at a later time, if necessary. The identified violations
on the field investigation report form shall reference the appropriate image/photo numbers that
depict the violation. The field investigation report form and the photos/images will be forwarded
Exhibit A
3-ao
to the designated staff person who shall be responsible for preparing the Notice of
Administrative Citation. Once these documents are prepared and reviewed, a final copy will be
prepared for posting and/or mailing to the appropriate individual or property or business owner.
4. SERVICE OF NOTICE
The Notice of Administrative Citation and any amended Notice of Administrative
Citation, shall be served by the following method:
a. Personal or Mailed Notice. Personal service or certified mail,postage prepaid,
return receipt requested, to each owner as required pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
1.24 of the Municipal Code at the address as it appears on the last equalized assessment
roll of the County or as otherwise known to staff. The address of the owner shown on the
assessment roll shall be conclusively deemed to be the proper address for the purpose of
mailing such notice. Simultaneously, a copy of the same Notice shall be sent by first
class (regular) mail to the same address. If a notice that is sent by certified mail is
returned unsigned, then service shall be deemed effective pursuant to the regular mail,
provided the notice that was sent by regular mail is not returned.
b. Failure to Receive Notice. The failure of the person with an ownership (title)
interest in the property to receive any notice served in accordance with these guidelines
or Chapter 1.24 of the Municipal Code shall not affect the validity of any proceedings
taken under this Code. If the address of the owner of record, after diligent search,cannot
be found, the notice may be served by posting a copy thereof in a conspicuous place upon
the property for a period of ten (10) days.
5. SERVING A NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION
Clerical staff may be designated to process all certified mail requests while investigation
staff will process all property posting requests themselves. Certified mail returned due to
inaccurate addressing will have the mailing information confirmed and be mailed once
more. Posting will be used in the event service by mail is unsuccessful. Posted notices
will be considered served 10 days after posting on the property in a conspicuous location.
Proper posting shall consist of enclosing the Notice in some form of seated plastic and
either securely taping it to the property or stapling or tacking the Notice to a stake and
staking the property with the Notice.
6. PROOF OF SERVICE
Proof of service of the Notice ofAdmittistrative-Citation stall be documented at the time
of service by a declaration under penalty of perjury exec-uted'by the staff.person-effecting _
service, declaring the time and manner:in which:service was made and filed in city records.
Exhibit A
2
J-0(1
7. CONTENTS OF NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION
The Notice of Administrative Citation shall consist of the basic form, attached hereto as
Attachment 1, and should contain the following information:
a. The correct full name of the owner or owners.
b. The date on which an inspection established the Code violation.
C. The Municipal Code section violated.
d. The City address where the Code violation occurred.
e. A narrative description of the violation established by the inspection stated in
plain,,simple, non-technical language. Photographs of the violation are
encouraged.
f. A narrative which describes the remedies for the abatement of the identified
violation.
g. A statement (warning) advising the individual, property owner or business owner
that if the described conditions are not abated within the time frame specified,the
City may proceed, as authorized by law, to assess an administrative fine as
authorized by Chapter 1.24 of the.Municipal Code.
h. A statement assessing the amount of the fine and setting the effective date of the
fine if voluntary compliance is not obtained by the date established in the Notice
of Administrative Citation.
i. A summary and statement of the procedures necessary to pay the administrative
fine.
j. A statement advising that any person having any title interest in the property may
appeal the Notice of Administrative Citation to the Hearing Administrator. The
statement shall also include instructions as to how to request an appeal.
k. A statement that the Code violation is a public nuisance and that collection of
unpaid administrative fines may, at the City's.option,be enforced as an
assessment or lien against the real property.
1. The signature of the staff person issuing the Notice of Administrative Citation.
in. The date the Notice of Administrative Citation is issued.
n. Any other information deemed necessary by the City for due enforcement or fine
collection purposes.
8. RECORDS AND RECORD KEEPING.
All final City staff work documents (except those documents identified as "Confidential—
Attorney/Client Communications")pertaining to the business of an enforcement case should be
immediately sent to the records division of the appropriate City Department for filing in the
street files. Incoming correspondence,reports, surveys, etc. should be immediately sent to the
records division for filing in the street files. Enforcement staff may keep duplicates of these
documents in their personal files if they wish. No original public records should be kept in
places other than the records division.
Exhibit A
3
g-aa.
9. FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATIONS.
Follow-up investigations may be scheduled by staff upon completion of the preparation
of a Notice of Administrative Citation. Investigating staff will keep their code enforcement
follow-up current. Follow-up investigations may be scheduled as follows:
a. For violations which do not need permitting, at the end of the prescribed time
frame;
b. At time of permit application; and
C. At time of permit issuance dates.
10. CLOSING CASES.
Enforcement cases will be closed once all applicable fines and fees have been paid in full,
and the violation has been abated or a building permit has been finally inspected and approved
for occupancy.
11. APPEALS AND HEARINGS.
A Notice of Administrative Citation may be appealed in accordance with Sections
1.24.090 through 1.24.120 of the Municipal Code.
12. PAYMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINES.
All fines may be paid in person at the Finance Department located at 990 Palm Street.
Mailed payments are to be addressed to City of San Luis Obispo,Finance Department, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249.
Exhibit A
4
�-a3
NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION
FIRST OFFENSE
DATE:
(Name and Address) CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Article#
SUBJECT: A.P.N.:
SITE ADDRESS:
ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.:
Property Owner.
Property records indicate that you are the owner(s) of the above referenced parcel.
This office has investigated your property and documented the following violations of the San
Luis Obispo Municipal Code:
1. CODE SECTION:
VIOLATION:
REMEDY:
(repeat as necessary)
The (Building Official, Code Enforcement Coordinator, Neighborhood Services
Manager,Fire Marshal) has determined that these violations must be abated as stated above.
The citation requires that all plans, specifications and calculations be submitted and required
permits secured therefor(when specifically required), and the work physically commence
IMNIEDIATELY/WITHIN 30/90 DAYS from the date of this citation. Further, all work must
pass final inspection WITHIN 5 30 180 DAYS of the date of this citation.
***THIS NOTICE IS REQUESTING YOUR VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE. IN
ORDER TO AVOID BEING FINED$100.00 FOR EACH OF THE VIOLATIONS
ABOVE,PLEASE MEET ALL OF THESE TIME FRAMES.***
If any required repair or demolition work is not commenced and completed within the
above time(s) specified, the City may, in addition to the fines previously stated(1)order the
subject building(s) property vacated and posted to prevent further occupancy until the work is
completed, and may(2) proceed to cause the work to be completed and charge the costs thereof
against the property or its owner.
In the event that the time frames stated herein are not met and fines have been imposed,
any person having title interest in the subject property may appeal the fines to the Hearing
Attachment 1
1
Administrator. Appeals are deemed filed once the City receives a signed letter of appeal.
Letters of appeal must be received within ten (10) days of your receipt of the"Administrative
Fines Bill" from the City's Finance Department. Appeals can be delivered or mailed to "Appeal
of Administrative Fines", 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249.
The violation(s)identified in this notice constitute a public nuisance and collection of
unpaid administrative fines can be enforced as an assessment or lien against the subject real
property,pursuant to San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 1.24.130.
If you have questions regarding this notice,please arrange to visit the City offices at
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. We are open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. State and Federal holidays are observed. I may also be
reached at (805) 781-
Your cooperation is solicited in the resolution of this matter.
Date: Sincerely,
City Staff Member
Attachment: Field Investigation Images
Attachment 1
2
3-�5
Attachment 5
GOVERNMENT CODE § 53069.4
(A) Section 30061(Citizen's Option for Public Safety Program(COPS)). z
(B) Section 29660.4(booldng fee reimbursement).
(C) Item 9210-106-0001 of the Budget Act of 2001(technology grants).
(b) The Legislative hereby recognizes the importance of the agend identified in subdivision{a)in
perfoFming essential'police protection services within these agencies' respective communities and, in
enacting laws,shall attempt to encourage finding equity among all local law enforcement agencies for
public safety purposes.
(Added by Stats2001,c.176(S.B210),3 13.)
Historical and Statutory Notes,
2001 Legislation ment Omnibua Act of 2001;see Historical and Statutory .
Short title,legislative findings,declarations and.intent Notes under Civil Code 9 1360.5.
relating to Stats2001,a 176(S.11210),the Lveal Govern-
§ 53066. Community antenna television system; franchise or license; rules and regulations
Notes of Decisions
6. Fees operator may not exceed $4.75, even though provider
Entire late fee of $4.99 charged by cable television remitted 24 cents of fee to city as franchise fee. Mambog
provider upon a customer's failure to make full and timely v.MediaOne of Los Angeles, Inc.(App.2 Dist.2000)98
payment was a"delinquency fee;and thus violated stab CaLRptr2,d 297,81 CalApp.4th 1366,review denied,
ute under delinquency fee charged by cable television
§ 53069.4. Enactment of administrative fines and penalties; maximum amounts; procedure,
review and appeal
(a)(1) The legislative body of a local agency,as the term'local agency"is defined in Section 54951,may
by ordinance make any violation of any ordinance enacted by the local agency subject to an administra-
tive fine or penalty. The local agency shall set forth by ordinance the administrative procedures that
shall govern the imposition, enforcement, collection, and administrative review by the local agency of
those administrative fines or penalties Where the.violation would otherwise be an infraction, the
administrative fine or penalty shall not exceed the maximum fine or penalty amounts for infractions set
forth in subdivision(b)of Section 25132 and subdivision(b)of Section 36900.
(2) The administrative procedures set forth by ordinance adopted by the local agency pursuant to
paragraph (1) • • • shall provide for a reasonable period of time,as'specified in the ordinance, for a
person responsible for a continuing violation to correct or otherwise remedy the violation prior to the
imposition of administrative fines or penalties, when the violation pertains to building, plumbing,
electrical,or other similar structural or zoning issues,that do not create an immediate danger to health
or safety.
(b)(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1094.5 or 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure,within
20 days after service of the final administrative order or decision bf the local agency is made pursuant to
an ordinance enacted in accordance with this section regarding the imposition,enforcement or collection
of the administrative fines or penalties, a person contesting that final administrative order or decision
may seek review by fling an appeal to be heard by the municipal court orb the su erior courtin a
county in which there is no municipal court where the same shall be h e novo, except that the
contents of the local agency's file in the case shad be received in evidence. A proceedi IL under this
subdivision is a limited civl ease. A copy of the document or instrument of the agency providing
notices of the violation and imposition of the administrative fine or penalty shall be admitted into evidence
as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. A copy of the notice of appeal shall be served in d
person or by first-class mal upon the local agency by the contestant. fi
(2) The fee for fling the notice of appeal shall be twenty-five dollars($26). The court shall request
that the local agentys Me on the case be forwarded to the count,to be received within 15 days of the
request The Court shall retain the twenty-five dollar($25)fee regardless of the outcome of the appeal
If the mart finds in favor of the contestant,the amount of the fee shall be reimbursed to the contestant
by the local agency. Any deposit of the fire or penalty shall be'refunded by the local agency in
accordance with the judgment of the court.
(3) The Conduct of the appeal under this section is a subordinate judicial duty that may be performed
by traffic trial commissioners and other subordinate judicial officials at the direction of the presiding
judge of the court
Additions or changes Indicated by underllne; deletions by asterisks •
3. '
1
3076
Attachment 5
�i
§ 53069.4 GOVERNMENT CODE i
(c) If no notice of appeal of the local agenLya final adminiahstive order or decision is filed within the
Period set forth in this section,the order or decision shall be deemed confirmed.
(d) If the fine or penalty has not been deposited and the decision of the court is against the contestant,
the local agency may proceed to tolled the penalty pmw=t W the procedures set forth in its ord'mance.
(Amended by Ststa1998,a 931 W2139),¢ 216,eff Sept 28,199&)
Law Revision Commission Comments
1998 Amendment
Section 68069.4 is amended to accommodate unification which there is ao mnaidpal court.CAL Const.art.VI,10
of the municipal and superior courts in a county. Cal. (anperior count jusisdictimr);Code Civ.Pros 861(muniei-
Const at V1,1 6(e).See also Code Civ.Proc.If 85,85.1 pat court jurisdiction). See also Code Civ. Pros 11 91,
(limited civil cases)&Comments 904A 1085(trial peooeduea and writ and appellate juis.
A limited civil case is within the original jurisdiction of diction for limned dvn cases). [28 CaLL.Rev.Comm Be-
the munkipal court or of the superior court in a conoty in pmts 51(1998)]. -
Library References
Legal Jurisprudences The Rutter Group,Landlord-Tenant(Friedman,Garcia
Cal Jur 3d Muni 11 216,218. &Hagarty)If 5:48.1,5:376.1,6376$5:375.3,5:375.4.
Treatises and Practice Aida
Wrtlem,Procedure(4th ed)Writs 1 800.
4 53069.65. Attorney Geneml'Cooperation with the INS I
Notes of Decisions
Purpose L5 d Severability
League of United Latin American Citizens v.Wilson, .
C.D.Ca11995,908 FSupp.766,[main volume]on recoadd.
L Construction with federal laws station in part 997 FSupp.1244.
League of United Latin American Citizens v.Wilson, Because federal-law preempted portions of California
C.D.CAL1995,908 FSupp•755,[main volume]on reconsid- initiative measure(Proposition 187)that related to initia-
eration in part 997 FSupp.1244. tive'a declaration,which stated that proposition's intent
I.S. Purpose was to require cooperation between state and federal
govermnent,notification,and denial of•benefits and ser-
Overarching purpose behind Proposition 187 was to vices to illegal aliens,declaration was not separately en-
reduce the burden on State resources caused by illegal forceable, acid could not be upheld League of United
immigrants People v.Rizo(2000)94 CaLRptr.2d 875,22 Latin American Citizens v. Wilson, C.D.Cal.1997, 997
.. Ca14th 681,996 Ptd 27. FSupp.1244.
4 53069.8. Contract authority-, supplemental law enforcement services; conditions
I
Notes of Decisions
Civil rights liability 2 undertaken with respect to incidents or complaints at the
Reimbursement of costs 1 _ facilities. 82 Op.Atty.Gen.no,6-28-99.
2 Civil rights liability
California Sherift ov�
L Reimbursement of costs represented aunty in whichheacted as local
A county may not contact with private operator, of official' not State of California, and therefore,
detention faciities h would be mbject to liability under 11 1983 si�s
housing federal inmates and detainees alleged overdetention of detainees. Streit v. County of
under terms requ g the operators to reimbuse the Los Angeles, C.A.9 (COL)2001. 236 F.9d'65$ certiorari
aunty for the costs of the sheriffs response actions denied.
16307L Registration and licensing of li earms, exclusive regulation by leglelatum
Notes of Decisions
Sales 2 which City deesified as 88ab relay Night Special"(SNS);
. by enam, statute that ezpteee(y preempts field of regis. .
8 Sehx of firearms, sta0ne that predudes
State hew did not p�6r Homee,regof�mt for carrying
within Stat city did of preempt
pt city,r�ce that banned, mcceaiable lfeea:me in tatak iontlme,and statute that
of any handgno peeempta field of sellmg b*1 ine Sans,legielatare did not
Additions or changes indicated by mrdefl[ne:4eletions.by astetlske • • •
4
3-a�
council
j acEnaa aEpoin
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director;
By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner flR
SUBJECT: COPELANDS PROJECT FINAL EIR&APPEAL OF PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT FOR PALM-MORRO
PARKING/OFFICE STRUCTURE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution(Attachment 9):
A. Certifying the EIR with a finding of overriding considerations relative to aesthetics/visual
resources, air quality, land use and short-term construction noise.
B. Denying the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Use Permit for the
Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure component, based on findings.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution(Attachment 10):
A. Certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with a finding of overriding
considerations relative to aesthetics/visual resources, air quality and short-tern construction
noise. (This varies from the Planning Commission's recommendation above only in terms of
identifying land use as a significant and unavoidable impact.)
B. Upholding the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Use Permit for
the Palm-Mono Parking/Office Structure component, based on findings and subject to
conditions.
REPORT IN BRIEF
The Copelands Project is one of the largest and most ambitious projects to be proposed in
downtown San Luis Obispo in recent decades. After approval of an Amended Memorandum of
Understanding (Amended MOU) between the City and Court Street Partners, LLC (Copelands)
on December 11, 2001, the Council identified the project as "the highest priority private
development project in the City". The project consists of the redevelopment of two separate
downtown sites mostly used for surface parking, with a mixed-use retail, office, and restaurant
development at the comer of Monterey, Osos and Higuera Streets, and a multi-level parking
structure with ground floor offices at the corner of Palm and Morro Streets.
-I/-
Council Agenda Report—Copelands Project(ER 192-01; ER/U 193-01)
Page 2
The Council is being asked to certify the Final EIR for the Copelands Project and consider an
appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the use permit needed for the Palm-Morro
Office/Parking Structure. Over the past eight months while the EIR was being prepared, various
aspects of the Copelands Project have been presented at advisory body meetings for review and
discussion. The design of the project was conceptually reviewed by the Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) in January, and given schematic approval in August. In February, the
Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) was introduced to the project and fieldwork concept plan
for cultural resources recovery. The CHC reviewed the actual fieldwork plan and made a project
historical consistency determination in April, and then reviewed the Cultural Resources section
of the EIR in June. The Planning Commission was introduced to the project in February,
discussed the Draft EIR durinj the public review period on June 12`h, and considered
abandonment requests on June 26 .
On August 14, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final EIR and use permit for the
Palm/Morro Office-Parking Structure. The Commission took action recommending that the
Council certify the EIR, with some direction on modifications that they desired. The most
significant requested change to the EIR was to add consistency with land use and planning
policies as another Class 1, significant and unavoidable impact area associated with project
development, because of the project's lack of a housing component. The Commission also
denied the use permit for the Parking-Office Structure because they felt that it was not properly
located on the periphery of the downtown core, and was too tall and massive for the project site.
Because staff is not in agreement with all of the Planning Commission's conclusions, the CAO's
recommendation differs from the advisory body's recommendations. In particular, staff does not
agree that the project's lack of a housing component warrants a Class 1 environmental impact,
and that the proposed Parking/Office Structure as designed is inconsistent with City policies.
Through the Evaluation section of this report, staff provides the basis for the conclusions that the
project is consistent with current City plans and policies.
DISCUSSION
Planning Commission's Action
At their August 14, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission considered the Final EIR for the
'projectand required Use Permit for the Palm-Mono Parking/Office Structure component. On a
4-1 vote (Commissioner Boswell voting no), the Planning Commission voted to recommend that
the Council certify the Final EIR for the project. The two main concerns of the Commission
with the Final EIR were the conclusion that the lack of housing could be found consistent with
the General Plan and mitigated, and the supporting discussion in the document regarding
potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles at the garage access point on Palm Street.
The Commission specifically asked that the project's consistency with Land Use Element Policy
4.2.1 that includes the language that "all new large commercial projects in the downtown should
include dwellings", be modified to a Class 1, significant and unavoidable impact. The
Commission did not support the payment of an in-lieu housing fee as appropriate mitigation to
find it a Class 2, significant, but mitigable, impact. They also wanted more technical statistics to
4 -2-
Council Agenda Report—Copelands Project(ER 192-01; ER/U 193-01)
Page 3
support the conclusions of there not being a significant impact and a discussion of further design
alternatives to minimize pedestrian and automobile conflicts.
On a 3-2 vote (Commissioners Cooper & Osborne voting no), the Commission denied the
required use permit for the Parking/Office Structure proposed at the corner of Palm and Morro
Streets. A majority of the Commission felt that the structure was not located on the periphery of
the downtown core and that its bulk and scale were not appropriate. An earlier motion to approve
the use permit per staffs recommendation failed on a 2-3 vote.
Data Summary
Applicant: Court Street Partners, LLC
Representative: APS,Architectural Production Services
Zoning: Central Commercial with the Historical Preservation overlay zone(C-C-H)
General Plan Designation: General Retail
Environmental Status: A Final Environmental Impact Report(EIR)has been prepared.
Project Description
The revised Copelands Project includes the following two components:
1. Court Street; 999 Monterey Street
(Planning Application Nos. ER 192-01)
The Court Street site is the existing City surface parking lot located at the comer of Osos,
Monterey and Higuera Streets, and including Court Street. Plans indicate that it would be
developed with a three-story retail/office complex with interior terraces and pedestrian ways. A
pedestrian street is proposed to run diagonally through the site from the intersection at Osos and
Monterey to the Court Street pedestrian way and Higuera Street. A total of about 37,000 square
feet of retail, 16,000 square feet of office, and 9,000 square feet of restaurant uses are proposed
in this component. Retail will generally be located on the first two levels with third floor office
space and a restaurant.
2. Palm-Morro Office/Parking Structure; 919 Palm Street
(Planning Application Nos. ER,U 193-01)
The Office/Parking Structure would contain five levels of parking and accommodate 243
parking spaces. An approximately 16,000 square-foot office space would be created at the
ground level of the parking structure with the main entry off of Palm Street. The parking spaces
would be provided in five levels, consisting of three semi-enclosed levels and a roof level, above
the ground floor offices, and one below. The main public access point to the parking garage
would be from Palm Street with access to basement parking for designated office workers from
Morro Street. A pedestrian plaza is planned between the library and the proposed structure with
continued access to Morro Street. Access to adjacent parking areas of private properties would
be provided from the Morro Street entrance to the garage.
q-3
Council Agenda Report—Copelands Project(ER 192-01; ERIU 193-01)
Page 4
Evaluation
The following paragraphs discuss project issues related to the review of the Final EIR and use
permit in detail. The discussion here has been expanded to add further analysis of the main
issues raised by the Planning Commission on August 14, 2002.
1. The Final EIR
EIR Adequacy
The Final EIR is a compilation of the Draft EIR and responses to comments. Responses to
comments are a written evaluation of comments on the environmental issues received from persons
-who-reviewed the Draft£IR. Copies of all the written comments received during thepublic review
period have been incorporated into the Final EIR. The minutes of the June 12, 2002 Planning
Commission meeting are also included as comments in the Final EIR.
The responses to comments were prepared by the consultant and reviewed by City staff. The
Council needs to review and consider the information contained in the Final EIR to determine
whether it is complete and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
this review process is known in CEQA as certification. If the document adequately evaluates
environmental issues and appropriately responds to comments, then the Council should certify
the EIR.
Highlights of EIR Changes
As requested by the Planning Commission, changes to the text of the document made since the
review of the Draft EIR are incorporated directly into the Final EIR. Therefore, the Final EIR
consolidates changes into the body of the main document, and it is not necessary to have-a copy of
the Draft EIR to understand the changes. As a result of the comments received during the public
review period, there were no significant changes made to the discussion of different issues areas in
the EIR. Some of the changes or additions that were made include:
Section 2.0, Project Description: A paragraph was added to explain how the proposed parking
structure will satisfy the new parking demand of the project and that the applicant will also be
paying parking in-lieu fees for the new parking demand created by the Court Street component
(Page 2-6).
Section 3.1,Aesthetics and Visual Resources:
• A supplemental photo simulation view of the Court Street component was taken across
Higuera Street from Mo's with accompanying text discussion (Pages 3.1-22& 3.1-23).
• A supplemental photo simulation view of the Palm/Morro component was taken from the
intersection of Osos and Palm Streets (Pages 3.1-24& 3.1-25).
Section 3.2,Air Quality:
• Potential asbestos hazards with the demolition of the existing office building at the corner of
Palm and Morro were highlighted(Pages 3.2-8& 3.2-9).
q_�
Council Agenda Report—Copelands Project(ER 192-01; ER/U 193-01)
Page 5
• APCD-recommended mitigation measures were added(Page 3.2-10).
• Clarification to other previously recommended mitigation measures were made (Pages 3.2-
13 &3.2-14).
Section 3.3, Cultural Resources: The Historical Setting discussion was modified per the
suggestions of the CHC(Pages 3.3-2&3.3-3).
Section 3.7,Land Use: The City's "Access and Parking Management Plan"was referenced(Page
3.7-10).
Section 6.0,Alternatives: Reference was made in the text (Page 6-5) to the new photo simulation
done of the Palm/Morro structure from the intersection of Palm and Osos Streets (Page 6-8) with
the reduced scale alternative.
Errata Sheet(Attachment 3)
As mentioned previously, the Planning Commission directed that some changes be made to the
Final EIR with their recommendation for certification. The requested changes are highlighted in
Attachment 3, which is labeled as "Errata Sheet". Also included as part of the Errata attachment
are the Executive Summary and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, as they would need to be
revised by changes included in the Errata. Ultimately, whatever components of the Errata Sheet
that the Council also supports would become a part of the Final EIR. The Errata Sheet contains
the following recommended changes:
• Population and Housing Growth
The Commission suggested that two sentences be deleted which concluded that only a small
percentage of project employees would come from outside the area. In terms of the
immigration discussion, the Commission seemed to focus on the likelihood of some workers
commuting from nearby communities in the County, rather than the new jobs attracting
workers from other parts of the State or country.
The Errata Sheet shows the two disputed sentences removed per the Commission's direction.
However, the EIR consultant suggests that the text remain as originally drafted given that the
office component of the Palm=Morro component would be occupied by City workers already
occupying other buildings in the downtown, rather than another tenant that may be
introducing new workers to the area. The rationale being that this situation reduces the
potential impacts associated with immigration, and supports the validity of the original
statements.
• Exterior Lighting and Glare
The Commission suggested that one of the mitigation measures in the Visual Resources
section of the EIR be more prescriptive in terms of the types of lights that would be allowed
on the roof level of the proposed Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure. A sentence has been
added which calls for any light standards to be shielded and directional, limited in height to
�5
Council Agenda Report—Copelands Project(ER 192-01; ER/U 193-01)
Page 6
10 feet above pedestal mount, and specified in terms of light type and intensity. City and
consultant staff supports this additional language to the mitigation measure.
• Land Use Element Policy 4.2.1
This is the LUE policy that suggests that all large new projects in the downtown contain a
housing component. A majority of the Commission was not swayed that it was infeasible to
develop housing on the site, and that the impacts on housing could be offset with the payment
of an in-lieu fee. They asked that the Final EIR conclude that the project is inconsistent with
this downtown LUE housing policy, and find it as a Class 1, significant and unavoidable
impact. City staff is in disagreement with the Commission's conclusion on the magnitude of
this impact. The rationale for this opinion is discussed below in Section 3 of the Evaluation
portion of this agenda report (page 15).
• Pedestrian Safety on Palm Street
The Commission wanted more documentation as to how the consultant concluded that the
potential for pedestrian and vehicular conflicts at the main entry to the parking structure off
of Palm Street was found to be insignificant. The discussion in the Errata would be added to
the Response to Comment labeled PCM-25. Consultant staff is suggesting the impact be
reclassified from a Class 3, insignificant impact, to a Class 2, significant, but mitigable
impact, to allow for monitoring of potential safety issues. Staff supports the addition of this
discussion.
Significant& Unavoidable Impacts
The EIR concludes that the project will result in significant and unavoidable Class 1
environmental impacts in terms of:
• Aesthetics — visual impacts because of the height and the mass of the proposed Palm-Morro
Parking/Office Structure;
• Air quality - from long-term mobile emissions associated with vehicle trips from the Court
Street component; and
• Noise—short-term construction noise.
Therefore, the City would be required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations if it were
to accept the project as submitted. While it is not something that it recommends lightly, staff
believes that the benefits of the project outweigh the need to make such findings and feels that it
can support recommending the adoption of a statement of overriding considerations for the
following reasons:
Aesthetics:
Of the three identified significant and unavoidable impacts, the conclusion that relates to
aesthetics is probably the most controversial and subject to debate. While the consultant has
done an admirable job of providing a technical basis for their conclusions of a Class 1
yk
Council Agenda Report—Copelands Project (ER 192-01; ER/U 193-01)
Page 7
environmental visual impact from the development of the Palm-Morro Structure based on the
view from KVA 1 (the opposite comer of the intersection of Palm and Morro Streets in front of
the existing Palm Street parking structure), there have been differing opinions expressed at both
Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission (ARC) hearings regarding the
magnitude of the visual impact.
When the Planning Commission discussed the Draft EIR on June 12, 2002 during the public
review period, there was some debate about whether this was truly a significant visual impact.
Several members of the public and some of the Planning Commissioners felt that the added
height and scale was appropriate for a public building in the core of the downtown. The
common thread of these speakers was that taller and larger buildings in the downtown were
consistent with General Plan goals to maintain a compact urban form. However, some members
of the Planning Commission had reservations with the height and scale of the parking structure.
On August 5, 2002, the ARC unanimously granted schematic approval of both project
components with direction. Copies of the follow-up action letters from the meeting are attached
(Attachment 8). Commission direction on the Palm-Morro Structure asked for further design
refinements to enhance the building's appearance, but did not mandate that it be reduced in
height or scale. The ARC did have the Aesthetics and Visual Resources section of the EIR as an
attachment to their agenda reports, and carefully reviewed the photo simulations and discussed
the report's conclusions and mitigation measures.
Given the ARC's support for the Palm-Monro Structure as designed, with some refinements, and
the fact that there is Land Use Element policy which encourages added height for some
downtown landmark buildings, staff believes that the appropriate findings for a statement of
overriding considerations can be made.
Air Quality:
The County of San Luis Obispo is currently in "non-attainment" for the State standards for ozone
and PM10 (fine particulate matter, 10 microns or less in diameter). Increased traffic associated
with the project would incrementally increase the pollutants in the air. Projects proposed for
development in non-attainment areas should adopt all "reasonably available transportation
control measures" to mitigate the-impacts associated with new development. This applies to all
new projects within the City's urban reserve. Mitigation strategies recommended, included those
added since the Draft EIR based on a letter received from the local Air Pollution Control District
(APCD) office, would reduce emissions associated with the proposed project. However,
proposed mitigation measures will not reduce emissions below established SLO APCD
thresholds.
The proposed Court Street component, which is an infill mixed-use development in the
downtown core, will provide for continuous storefronts along the street frontages of an existing
City block that is now dedicated to parking. This will allow for continuous retail activity at the
street level consistent with General Plan policies. This type of development is dependent on
comparison-shopping and shared parking facilities, which by its nature promotes consolidated
vehicle trips. Staff believes that this type of development will enhance the downtown's strong
pedestrian orientation and classic land use patterns, which will in turn help to address air quality
Council Agenda Report—Copelands Project(ER 192-01; ERIU 193-01)
Page 8
concerns.
Short-Term Construction Noise:
The short-term construction noise impact relates to caisson construction and drill rig work
proposed at Court Street and the proximity of the residential units at the Anderson Hotel. Even
with compliance of allowed hours of construction activities per the Noise Ordinance, and best
management-practices to attenuate noise to the greatest degree possible, it is anticipated that on
about 15 days where there is drilling work for caissons that noise levels identified in the City's
Noise Ordinance will be exceeded. This significant and unavoidable finding of a short-term
construction noise impact was adopted with the certification of the Court Street EIR in 1989 by
the City Council with the review of an earlier project proposed.for the same site.
Options in Considering the Final EIR
The Council has the following options in responding to the conclusions of the EIR:
• Disapprove the project because it has significant environmental effects;
• Require changes in the project to reduce or avoid a significant environmental effect;
• Approve the project as designed, mitigating impacts to a level of insignificance where
feasible, and adopting proper findings in support of a statement of overriding considerations
for those impacts that cannot be fully mitigated. An agency is not required to select the most
environmentally superior alternative.
The EIR identifies four alternatives to the submitted project including: 1) the reduced project size
alternative; 2) the reduced project intensity (residential) alternative; 3) the mitigated project
alternative; and 4) the no project alternative. In forwarding a recommendation on the project to
the City Council, the Commission indicated a preference for Alternative 3, the Mitigated Project
Alternative, which incorporates all required and recommended mitigation measures discussed in -
Section 3.0 of the EIR with the noted changes in the Errata Sheet. The EIR identifies this as the
environmentally superior alternative since impacts would be reduced for most issue areas and all
project objectives would be met.
In terms of its review and evaluation of the EIR, the Council should keep in mind what State law
requires with the review of the document. The judicial criteria for analyzing the adequacy of an
EIR indicate that it needs to be a good faith, objective effort toward full disclosure, and include
adequate information to properly evaluate the project's potential impacts on the environment.
The EIR needs to contain all of the required elements called for in CEQA, but does not need to
exhaustively evaluate issues. Perfection is not required, and minor technical defects are not
considered fatal.
2. Anneal of Planning Commission Use Permit
Table 9, Uses Allowed by Zones, Footnote 13, of the City's zoning regulations (Section
17.22.010) requires the processing of a Planning Commission Use Permit for all multi-level
parking facilities in the C-C, Central Commercial zone. This section of the regulations also
q_8
Council Agenda Report—Copelands Project(ER 192-01; ER/U 193-01)
Page 9
allows for deviations to setbacks, building heights, and other related property development
standards through the use permit process. The Use Permit includes the following components:
1. Allow the multi-level parking facility.
2. Allow ground floor office space in the C-C zone.
3. Allow a maximum building height of 70 feet.
4. Allow a Floor Area Ratio of 5:1.
The Planning Commission on August 14"' denied the use permit for two main reasons:
1. The Structure is not properly located on the periphery of the downtown; and
2. The scale and height of the structure are not appropriate at the proposed location.
The following paragraphs-discuss the components of the use permit in more detail. Again
discussion has been added to highlight the Planning Commission's position on issues, and the
basis for staffs analysis, in documenting the reasons for the variances between the Commission
and CAO recommendations.
Allow Parking Structure
Given their size and potential impact on the character of the surrounding area, the zoning
regulations require that all multi-level parking facilities in the C-C zone be processed through a
Planning Commission use permit. One of the issues debated with the review of this parking
structure has been whether the location of this parking structure is consistent with City plans and
policies. In consideration of the use permit, the Planning Commission on a 3-2 vote concluded
that the proposed-structure was not-properly located on the periphery of the downtown core.
The following paragraphs discuss details of relevant policies in more detail. Three documents
containing policy direction on where new parking structures should be located in the downtown
are highlighted. They are the Access and Parking Management Plan, the Land Use Element, and
the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center.
Before reviewing the discussion of these public documents, the .Council .should recall that the
location for this parking structure is a result of the Amended MOU and direction from Council to
Copelands to solve to the greatest extent possible the parking deficit created by the
redevelopment of Court Street. The parking structure is to be built on property Copelands owns
and was the reason that negotiations for property acquisitions were originally undertaken
between the City and Copelands — we each owned property that theother desired. Copelands
cannot build the parking structure on some other property that they do not own.
Access and Parking Management Plan
The City's Access and Parking Management Plan, revised in July 2002, contains Policy 4.4
which calls for "parking structures and surface lots to be located along the periphery of the
commercial core as a means of eliminating traffic congestion and enhancing pedestrian
activities." The proposed Pahn/Morro parking structure is consistent with this policy regarding
appropriate locations for structures, as the component site is on the northern periphery of the
core, defined in this document, as the Downtown Association boundary.
H
Council Agenda Report—Copelands Project(ER 192-01; ER/U 193-01)
Page 10
city of san Lum osispo
lf�
Q
1 O Downtown Associetlon Bounds ry
\ G7 ProGoseG Pahang Structure
N
30tl.. 0 ..3W Fust 1�
® j1
Figure 1. Downtown Association Boundary
Also Policy 4.1 of the Access and Parking Management Plan states "parking should be provided
in the commercial core for shoppers, tourists, employees and patrons of government and private
offices." This policy implies that commercial core parking should primarily be available for
short-term parkers. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy since the Court
Street,component is-primarily a retail project and-short-term parking will be provided in the
Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure, which is located within convenient walking distance.
Land Use Element
Land Use Element Policy 4.10 supports the provision of parking structures in the Downtown
Core so people will walk, rather than drive between points within the core. The policy reads as
follows:
Y-/0
Council Agenda Report—Copelands Project(ER 192-01; ER/U 193-01)
Page 11
4.10 Parking(Downtown Policies)
"There should be a diversity of parking opportunities. Any major increments in parking
supply should be in the form of structures, located at the edges of the commercial core,
so people will walk, rather than drive between points within the core. Retail uses outside
the core; and professional office developments, may have on-site parking for customers
and clients. "
While the LUE map shows the boundaries for the commercial core differently than the
Downtown Association area used by the Access and Parking Management Plan as its definition
of the core, the proposed structure is still near the edge of the designated area. The map of the
core contained in the.LUE is shown below.
crty of San lUis OBISPO
,r
ixr=:
t f,
ifr�
0 Downtown Core Boundary CLUE)
Q Pmposod PaMnq.S2tuctum
N
300 0 3W Feet
Figure 2. Downtown Core Boundary (LUE)
In their findings for denial of the office/parking structure, the Planning Commission indicated
that the development of the structure was not consistent with LUE Policy 4.10 because its
proposed location was not located on the periphery of the downtown core. Staff believes that the
Council Agenda Report—Copelands Project(ER 192-01; ER/U 193-01)
Page 12
location of the proposed structure is consistent with the policy since it is one block removed from
the outer edge of the boundary and not in the immediate center of the core.
Beyond the debate of the location being on the periphery, the proposed parking garage is
consistent with the policy in that it adds a major increment of parking spaces in a structure.
Another advantage of the proposed parking structure is that it removes a surface parking lot
which is clearly in the core of the downtown and replaces it with parking on the edge of the core.
Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center
The Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center, commonly referred to as the "Downtown
Plan" was adopted by City Council Resolution No. 8165 in May of 1993 and amended in 1995.
The Downtown Plan was-developed to provide property owners, developers, interested citizens,
staff, and decision makers with a single document that graphically illustrates a long-range vision
for the downtown and provides guidelines for public and private projects. The plan was
purposely not adopted by ordinance to give it status as a "vision" and "guidelines", rather than
mandatory policy. Building footprints were added to the plan to give it more realism, but are not
meant to be fixed or required development envelopes. While the plan and its elements are
conceptual to provide for flexibility and creativity in the design of projects that may not have
been fully anticipated at the time of plan adoption, the core concepts and pedestrian patterns are
important and need to be considered with the review of projects.
For Area 5 on the Downtown Plan, which includes the Palm/Morro Street site component, the
text of the plan calls for a walkway through the center of the site, as well as pedestrian
connections to Palm and Monterey Streets. The plan also calls for Morro Street to be closed to
accommodate a large multi-use building facing Palm Street, with retail on the ground floor and
offices above. It further recommends that residential uses be included on upper levels and set
back from the street. Multi-level parking is also called for which takes advantage of the site's
sloping terrain.
The project is generally consistent with the plan in that it includes the.multi-level. parking
structure with office space and provides for the requisite pedestrian connections. However, a
residential component was not included on this limited site to maximize the amount of parking
provided. The long-term goal has been to develop a more substantial housing component on the
property across the street from this site.
Allow Ground Floor Office Space
The allowed and conditionally allowed uses in the C-C zone support the general land use pattern
of retail uses on the ground floor with office and residential uses allowed on upper floors with a
use permit. Land Use Element Policy 4.16.1 indicates that offices with frequent client visits are
an appropriate use in ground floor spaces since they contribute to street level activity. Therefore,
when use permits for ground floor offices are reviewed, staff looks at the type of office proposed
and whether or not it meets the criteria regarding frequent customer visits.
In the case of the 16,000 square feet of proposed office space on the ground floor of the proposed
T-��
Council Agenda Report—Copelands Project(ER 192-01; ER/U 193-01)
Page 13
structure, this finding can readily be made since the Council has indicated its support for this
space to be occupied by City offices. Current plans call for this space to be occupied by the
Community Development and Public Works Departments to allow for a centralized location for
those seeking development-related permits. The two departments have frequent visitations from
the public. In addition,the offices are located near other government services. This clustering of
like uses is generally encouraged and more convenient for the public. Land Use Element Policy
4.17-specifically calls for additional government office space to be developed nearby City Hall
and the County Government Center within the downtown
Building Height Exception
The maximum building height allowed in the C-C zone is 50 feet, which is the tallest allowed
building height of any of the City's zoning categories. This relates back to Land Use Element
Policy 4.15, which calls for the commercial core "to remain compact and be the city's most
intensely developed area."
Another Land Use Element policy, Policy 4.16.4 is key to analyzing the appropriateness of the
proposed structure's height:
L U 4.16.4.Building Height
New buildings should fit within the existing vertical scale. They should respect street-
level views of the hills, allow sunlight to reach public open spaces, and defer to a few tall,
"landmark" buildings. Generally, new buildings should not exceed two or three stories
(about 35 to 50 feet). Where necessary to protect significant views, sunlight, and street
character, new buildings should be limited to two stories, or about 25 to 35 feet tall. A
few taller, landmark buildings (about five stories or 75 feet) may be developed where
they will not obstruct views or sunlight for public spaces. These taller buildings would
be more appropriate at mid-block than at corners, and their floors above the second or
third level should be set back to maintain a lower street facade. The-tall buildingsshould
include publicly accessible, open viewing spaces at the upper levels.
The proposed Parking/Office Structure will-be 70 feet above average natural grade at its tallest
point, which is the top of the elevator tower. This is a significant exception to the allowed
maximum building height of 50 feet, but consistent with the above policy of allowing some taller
landmark buildings. It is important to note that the bulk of the structure ranges in height between
51' and 62'6". Staff believes 'that parking structures by their design and functional use
requirements often need to be larger and taller than other types of downtown buildings. In
recognition of this fact, the zoning regulations have enabled a simpler process for needed
property development standards like height, which is through a use permit, rather than a variance
process.
In Comment PCM-29 on Page 13 of the Responses to Comments, the heights of other nearby
government buildings are called out. This response notes that the Library is approximately 55
feet tall and that the stairwell comer of the Palm Street Parking Structure is about 48 feet tall.
This provides some context for the scale of other significant buildings in the near vicinity. While
the new parking structure will be taller than the two other referenced buildings, the height of the
bulk of the structure, excepting the elevator tower; is generally in scale with nearby
/1- /3
Council Agenda Report—Copelands Project(ER 192-01; ERX 193-01)
Page 14
development.
In conclusion, staff supports the height exception for the following reasons:
1. The similar scale of other nearby buildings;
2. The provision in the Land Use Element for taller, landmark buildings in the downtown;
and
3. The built-in provision of the zoning regulations, which enables the Commission, or in
this case, the Council on appeal, to approve certain property development exceptions,
such as height, for multi-level parking structures.
The Planning Commission did not agree with staff's analysis regarding the consistency of the
proposed Parking/Office Structure with LUE 4.16:4. In denying.the use permit, the Commission
specifically found that the structure was not a landmark building, was not stepped back on the
upper floors, and was not located mid-block.
There was extensive discussion at the Commission meeting as to what constituted a "landmark"
building. The LUE does not itself provide a specific definition of a landmark building so staff
consulted other technical sources. A landmark is defined in The New Illustrated Book of
Development Definitions as "any site, building, structure, or natural feature that has visual,
historic, or cultural significance" Webster's dictionary defines a landmark, as "a building of
unusual aesthetic or historical significance." Kevin Lynch in his seminal planning book, The
Image of the City, without assigning a specific definition, talks about buildings and features
throughout the world that have become landmarks. 'The reasons they are known as landmarks
varies from small-unique building-.elements to historical importance to large-scale and visually
prominent features. Lynch also notes that the activity associated with an element may also make
it a landmark. Given the ambiguity and subjectivity of the definitions, staff believes that in
naming local downtown buildings such as City Hall, the County Government Center, the
Anderson Hotel, the Mission, and even the newer Marsh Street.Parking Structure, that it was
consistent with these definitions.
Policy 4.16:4-includes language that-taller; landmark buildings would -be more appropriate at
mid-block than at corners. This wording indicates a preference, but not a mandate. The
proposed structure is located on the comer of Palm and Morro Streets, but because it is located
on a°long narrow lot, major portions of the structure-are .also=mid-block.- In fact, the tallest
portion of the structure, the elevator tower, is mid-block. The lowest profile of the building is
along Palm Street.
Policy 4.16.4 also states that the floors of taller, landmark buildings above the second or third
level should be set back to maintain a lower street fagade. The main reasons that this is not
feasible with this project are the limitations of the site in terms of its size and orientation and the
need to maintain a functional building for its intended purpose, which is a parking garage.
Setting back the upper stories of the building would significantly reduce the number of parking
spaces, with little impact on the total cost, thus greatly_ increasing the cost per space. Moving the
parking structure footprint further to the interior of the block would create further issues with
maintaining circulation for service and emergency vehicles and the Library's Bookmobile.
Council Agenda Report—Copelands Project (ER 192-01; ER/U 193-01)
Page 15
Shifting the building toward the interior would also compromise goals of enhancing pedestrian
circulation and creating a Library Plaza Area for special events. The parking structure as
designed is consistent with the provision of Policy 4.16.4, which indicates that tall buildings
should include publicly accessible, open viewing spaces at the upper levels.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
The floor area ratio (FAR) is defined in the zoning regulations as "the gross floor area of a
building divided by the lot area". In the case of the proposed structure, the FAR is 5.1 (123,000
=24,026 = 5.1). In the C-C zone,a maximum FAR of 3.0 is normally allowed, and a FAR of 4.0
is allowed with a transfer of development credit for open space protection.
The Land Use Element indicates that exceptions to the FAR should be established for special
circumstances. Again the zoning regulations allow exceptions to property development
standards related to the development of multi-level parking structures to be considered through
the required use permit, rather than.a variance process. Therefore, for the same reasons noted
above for the building height exception, staff has recommended findings in support of the
exception for FAR.
3. LUE Policy 4.2.1 (Downtown Housing)
This Land Use Element policy discusses the desire to retain existing housing units and develop
new ones in the downtown. One sentence from this policy that has gotten considerable attention
with the review of the Copelands Project has been that "all new, large commercial projects
should include dwellings. "
The proposed project that was negotiated with the applicant and described in the Amended MOU
does not include housing in either the Court Street or Palm-Morro components. Staff believes
that the permissive wording of the policy ("should" rather than mandated "shall') allows.Council
to support the project as designed and also to find it consistent with the General Plan, with the
payment of in-lieu housing fees as appropriate mitigation. As a reference on policy intention, the
State General Plan Guidelines provide some guidance. The guidelines specify that the use of
"shall" indicates an unequivocal directive, while "should" signifies a less rigid directive, to be
honored in the absence of compelling or-contravening circumstances. Generally, "should"
policies are meant to be implemented unless there are prevailing or overriding public interest in
doing otherwise..
In terms of overriding public benefits of the project, staff has established the following list,
which was also reviewed by the Planning Commission, and is consistent with General Plan
policies and goals:
1. Urban design continuity — The project results in-the development of a parking
lot site with an attractive mixed-use project that is not achievable without private
capital and investment.
Council Agenda Report—Copelands Project (ER 192-01; ERIU 193-01)
Page 16
2. Improved pedestrian amenities — The project provides pedestrian streets or
paseos in both of its components. This provides for improved pedestrian
movement through the downtown with project development and also creates the
possibility of future linkages through other sites.
3. More attractions for tourists—The project helps to realize City goals of keeping
San Luis Obispo as the regional shopping hub of the County. It also provides
further tax dollars to keep the downtown vital and the center of the community.
4. Improved business synergy — The project creates incentives for other property
owners to seek improvements to their own sites, and results in increased revenues
and foot traffic.
During the negotiations between the City and the applicant, there were discussions regarding the
possibility of providing a housing component within the project. However, including housing in
the Court Street component-was.found to be infeasible since there would not be any on-site
parking available for residents. While this may not always be a fatal flaw in a successful
downtown housing scheme,-given the site's location where nearby parking is all metered or
privately controlled, it would be more problematic than a site more on the periphery of the
downtown core where some non-metered parking spaces might be available for overnight
parking in closer proximity. In larger cities, there are examples of successful mixed-use projects
that do incorporate housing. However, often these projects are located on much larger pieces of
property were the housing component could be more successfully segregated to minimize the
typical land use conflicts such asnoise, security and privacy issues for residents, and also to
provide convenient on-site parking.
The practical issues with providing housing on the Court Street site mentioned above were
echoed in comments by Housing Authority Director George Moylan at the Planning Commission
meeting of August 14th. The Housing Authority recently signed a 40-year lease with the
Anderson Hotel, which provides smaller, lower-cost housing unitsfor seniors. Mr. Moylan felt
that it was presumptive to conclude that on-site parking, even for a senior-oriented project, is not
necessary for a housing project. He has found that many of the Anderson Hotel residents do own
cars, and that many seniors who would like to be residents choose not to because of the lack of
parking for their cars. He also discussed the practical obstacles to providing even moderately
affordable housing in-the center of=downtown. The high cost of the land,the need for aaarge site .
to create economies of scale, and the ability to accommodate higher density development.have
resulted in the Housing Authority's pursuit of development on the periphery of downtown, rather
than directly in the core.
4. Project Parking
One of the key concerns with the review of the project has been parking, since the Court Street
component will be developed on one of the City's most convenient surface lots in the downtown.
A 243-space parking structure with office space will be built on the Palm-Morro component site
a block to the north. The project, including the Court Street mixed uses and the Palm-Morro
offices, will satisfy its own parking demand of 159 spaces, plus provide an additional 84 spaces
I-lb
Council Agenda Report—Copelands Project(ER 192-01; ER/U 193-01)
Page 17
for non-project parkers. In addition, the applicant will be paying parking in-lieu fees for the new
parking demand created by the Court Street mixed-use component, which was identified in the
Amended MOU as being 128 parking spaces. The in-lieu fee identified in the Amended MOU
was $4,000 per parking space.
The actual number of parking spaces for which in-lieu fees will be paid may vary slightly
depending on the gross floor area of the building that is ultimately approved by the City once the
development review process has been completed. As an example, the floor areas for restaurants
shown on-the latest set of plans, which were distributed to the Planning Commission for their
August 14th meeting, and reviewed by the ARC on August 5`h, have increased from what was
included in the EIR's project description. This type of change would result in the applicant
being required to pay additional in-lieu fees because restaurants have a higher parking
requirement than retail and office uses. Staff does not see this as an important concern since the
EIR concluded that the project would not result in significant impacts on the downtown parking
supply.
The Planning Commission, in recommending certification of the Final EIR with some additional
information and modifications, but denying the use permit for the parking structure, creates a
conundrum in which the project as defined in the EIR could not proceed. Although the
Commission indicated their support for the pedestrian orientation and mixed uses of Court Street,
without the 243 parking spaces that are proposed in the Palm-Morro Structure, there could be
different conclusions for the impact analysis of several of the EIR issue areas. Beyond the
obvious concern of having adequate available parking downtown and the need to change the
Transportation and Traffic section of the document, there could be ramifications to other EIR
issue areas such as air quality and land use. At minimum, a supplement to the EIR, and
potentially a subsequent EIR, would need to be prepared to document the modified conditions .
and scope of the revised project.
Another important point regarding the elimination of the parking structure from the project is
that the public's involvement in the review of the project is seriously compromised. Much of the
discussion provided at earlier meetings on the project, including the EIR scoping meeting,
focused on parking concerns. Had there been an announcement prior to the August 14"' meeting
that the parking structure was no longer a part of the project, there might have been a much
different dynamic and tone from public speakers, especially related to concerns with adequate
•parking being provided to replace spaces lost with development and new uses proposed.
5. Conclusion
On December 11, 2001, the City Council amended a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between itself and Court Street Partners, LLC (Copelands). While the Amended MOU set out
certain terms and schedules for the planned project, it still needed to go through all of the
required steps in the City's development review process for a new mixed use project and
parking/office structure. Since last January, the project has been reviewed at many advisory
body meetings of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC), Cultural Heritage Committee
(CHC), and the Planning Commission. Also the project required the preparation of an EIR,
which was reviewed thoroughly by the Planning Commission, and had the Visual Resources
Council Agenda Report=Copelands Project(ER 192-01; ER/U 193-01)
Page 18
section reviewed by the ARC, and the Cultural Resources section reviewed by the CHC. Given
the number of individual meetings where aspects of the project have been reviewed and the
amount of public testimony received at these various advisory body meetings, criticisms that the
process has not been open and accessible to the public clearly seem unfounded.
On August 14,-2002,-the Planning Commission recommended certification of the Final EIR for
the Copelands Project to the City Council with some modifications; but denied the use permit for
the Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure. In recommending certification of the Final EIR, the
Commission suggested that the lack of housing in the project be classified as a Class 1,
significant and unavoidable impact. The Commission's action to deny the.use..permit was based
on two findings, which were that the Structure not being properly located per City LUE Policy
4.10 on the periphery of the downtown core, and that its scale and height did not meet the
parameters for a landmark building per LUE Policy 4.16.4.
As discussed in detail throughout this agenda report, staff has provided a rationale for why its
recommendation differs from the Planning Commission on two fundamental issues, which are:
1. The project's lack of a housing component should be classified as a Class 1,
significant and unavoidable environmental impact.
In staffs opinion, LUE policy contains language that encourages, rather than
mandates a housing component in the project, and believes that other sites would be
more appropriate for residential development.
2. The proposed Palm-Mono Parking/Office Structure is improperly located and too tall
and massive.
Per LUE Policy 4.10 and City's Access and Parking Management Plan Policy 4.4,
staff has made a case for the structure being properly located on the periphery of the
downtown core. Also Per LUE 4.16.4, the scale and massing of the project are
consistent with surrounding buildings, and noted exceptions areappropriate given
the functional considerations ofa parking structure.
CONCURRENCES
The comments and recommendations of various City departments are incorporated into the EIR.
FISCAL IMPACT
As part of the 2002-03 Financial Plan Supplement, the Council approved the budget and funding
strategy for the parking and office components of this project, which include the proceeds of the
sale of Court Street, available working capital and debt financing. This was preceded by an
extensive analysis of the long-term fiscal impacts of this project and how the City could finance
it portion, when the amended MOU was presented to the Council in December 2001. Since the
proposed project is consistent with the adopted budget (page E-7 of the 2002-03 Financial Plan),
there is no adverse fiscal impact associated with the CAD's recommendation.
y r�
Council Agenda Report—Copelands Project(ER 192-01; ERIU 193-01)
Page 19
ALTERNATIVES
1. Accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to certify the EIR with designated
changes, and deny the use permit for the parking structure.
As discussed above, following the Commission's recommendation in this instance would
raise the following notable issues:
a. A supplement to the Final EIR or a subsequent EIR would need to be prepared to
describe the modified conditions and re-evaluate environmental impacts.
b. The City would no longer be able to meet the terms of the Amended MOU and would not
be able to provide new parking facilities for the amount included in the Guaranteed
Maximum Price (GMAT.
c. The additional environmental work required would delay the project to such an extent
that the developer,would have to be willing to renegotiate with the City. The developer
would unlikely be able to move forward with the project given contractual obligations
already in place with certain tenants.
d. -The loss of the existing surface lots with the demand of Court Street without the provision
of associated parking would have a deleterious impact on the supply of parking
downtown.
2. The Council could decide not to certify the EIR and to deny the appeal of the Commission's
denial of the use permit.
This option would result in the same consequences as identified above. The Council should
refer to Page 8 of this agenda report for the judicial criteria for evaluating an EIR and list
specific findings as to why it was found to be inadequate.
3. Continue the request. If the Council continues action, then specific direction should be given
to staff and the applicant regarding further information needed.
This alternative is not recommended given the tight timeframe of the project and the potential
implications for being able to properly meet established deadlines of the Amended MOU and
GMAX.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Vicinity map
Attachment 2: Reduced size project plans
Attachment 3: Final EIR Errata Sheet
Attachment 4: Appeal to City Council of Planning Commission's denial of Use Permit U 193-01
Attachment 5: 8-14-02 Planning Commission follow-up letter and resolutions
Attachment 6: Draft 8-14-02 Planning Commission minutes
Attachment 7: Letters received regarding 8-14-02 Planning Commission hearing
Attachment 8: 8-5-02 ARC meeting follow-up letters
Attachment 9: Draft Resolution reflecting the Planning Commission's recommendation
Council Agenda Report—Copelands Project(ER 192-01; ER/U 193-01)
Page 20
Attachment 10: Draft Resolution reflecting the CAD's recommendation
NOTE: Copies of the Final EIR are available for both review and sale in the
Community Development Department.
Q:\Council Agenda Reports\Copelands Project(Council Report)
�-ao
R �, A
Attachment 1
PF-H pF_H S9�
y
o C-R
Q s
P F-H 9
F-H PF
R-4 -H
.-R
--H
V�
QP
C-C-H C-C
-C-H -C
_C-H
C H C-C
CC
C-C
C-C H si15z`li` ��'
C
C-C
H
C-C C-C O
C- H C H C-C
G-C
O
H
�P
C-C-
C O -H
C-C C
-3-
C R-3
O
VICINITY MAP ARC, R & ABAN 192-01
N
999 MONTEREY
LIM
VICINITY MAP ARC & U 193-01 ;
919 PALM STREET
y�I��ld ff
WN
EUM
we
mm
SH
Imm
HIM
minds: ........ ...
..........
Aft�thmeni'2
Rif all
lilt
IT
Jim
V JO
-
113MIS Wso
Jj
011NON
vm-
16
vp
�Nw
kP7. 1=1
k.
7 M =R
cis t E
Ai
m
it
CL ti
............
uvld Yu
.. 111T
Attachment 2
t r
A
A
11,MEVE
Attachment 2
t •6
AA
JT
4-
Nt
: /j����]���'1''�' .F, ..7 t s.._.s.W \����"",;;_'\/�`J� __ •�-Iii(:
1qjE
lit
An
IP
If
H
61
I,
wJ
:.T
6? 5 J,
Ile
2.4
Et
1"r
jr
Attachment 2
ql
of
i
49
FL 1. 1"I El IF. is §95
i
1.t
Attachment 2
F-77111-
IJ� d
T
it
L
4f
1^^N .,.I
Attachment 2
Ed
I T I T
Attachment 2
rMM-,�30
II
(=ED cl:l a
7 cn In El
(=m cu CE
TICE] m cl I
C:i p m cii al
h
-
CT
I jolm—
Eo
cg
E6
EB
Ek t
m m ED m
El
EU Ej ED Cil
C13 M Ol M
M Cil [D
cil a] C33 mI
03 M C13 M ;Hl
LJ-I
i-3o
.......... ...... ...u11,1
..I,1,111„
Attachment 2
1
�
'K
I J
LI
EE3
C13 ED ID
IMD
or
I
o 11.1a Ills d
Attachment 2
3
4
T7 v
1�1
r tk�
77�7
ti
0 .1 .1 0
F-T-Ir-I
ji
!L lik
\K,
R�\MRR
,
hm
IT
.1.11 ln-Vld PI1 M'd
at
1. , ; L
Attachment 2
71
IOIP9
p 4
F 1A
T
ei I
1 .
L3381si OHHOY4
----- -----
Ju
ir ---
IE
co
z I
IPSPP
Atta.chment 2
Jw -
1.4
,1-77r
q-
..........
Attachment 2
it r
go!,
fpm
Z, R ;a-
0 owl i to
92
NA,
I E.
im Im R,
...... ..........
a Eff El AMm pa
A gbh orv:,
........... ........
Attachment 2
02
WR 4
JIM I.U.I C.
J
o -51
I k7
ibr
1 12
Rml
NN
Attachment 3
Errata Sheet
Planning Commission Hearing on Copelands Project Final EIR
Comments & Responses
August 14, 2002
1. Population and Housing Growth
Commissioner Cooper stated that revisions to Section 4.2.1, Population and Housing, are
needed because San Luis Obispo has a very low unemployment rate, therefore nullifying
the EIR's assumption that a small percentage of employees would come from outside the
area. However, he also noted that CalPoly students were likely to be the major source of
employees for newly created commercial retail and.restaurant jobs.
In response to Commissioner Cooper's comment, the EIR consultant asked the Planning
Commission if it would be acceptable to simply delete the phrases objected to by
Commissioner Cooper. The proposed text revision follows the Commission's direction.
The EIR consultant believes that the original statements should be retained because the
City intends to acquire the office space and transfer existing employees to the
Palm/Morro site component, therefore reducing the potential for inmigration. In regards
to local unemployment rates, according to the State of California Employment
Development Department (EDD), the July 2002 unemployment rate for the City of San
Luis Obispo was 3.6%, slightly above the overall rate of 3.3% recorded for the County of
San Luis Obispo. The City's rate increased in 2002 to 3.6% from an annual average of
2.8% estimated in 2001.
The proposed revisions (strikethrough) to page 4-2 in the Copelands Final EIR appear
below.
4.2.1 Population and Housing Growth
be filled F'.. the existiag 1abe ..1 and would of likely nttfaet immigratien t.. the
Retail and restaurant jobs would likely be filled by currently unemployed residents of the
City of San Luis Obispo or adjacent communities. Therefore, population and housing
impacts would be less than significant. The Court Street site would include
approximately 12,740 sf of office lease space and the Palm/Morro site would include
approximately 15,700 sf of office space, to total an estimated 28,440 sf of proposed
office space. Studies on new housing demand for office space in the South Coast area of
Santa Barbara indicate that general office space averages one employee per 180 sf. of
gross floor area (Santa Barbara County 1988). Applying this assumption to the proposed
Copelands Project results in an estimated office space capacity for 158 employees
Attachment 3
(28,440/158). Assuming 1.4 employees per household, the estimated number of
households associated with the newly created office space is 221. it e- l '-e .......•-Bed th
Luis Obispo f r the newly , eated .ebs. It is more likely that most of the employees
would come from the existing workforce. Assuming that approximately 15 percent of the
estimated total employees would come from outside the San Luis Obispo area for
employment opportunities created by the Copelands Project results in an estimated
housing demand of 32 units (221 x 0.15). While it is speculative to estimate the amount
of new housing demand as a consequence of new development, a nexus between the
development of new office/retail space and housing demand can be demonstrated.
Indirect economic growth from tourism-related spending would also generate jobs, but
would not be expected to attract out-of-town workers or create housing demand.
2. Exterior Lighting and Glare
Commission Cooper stated that more detailed information was needed on glare
mitigation for rooftop lighting. He stated that the EIR needed to include physical design
solutions, not performance specification. Deputy Public Works Director, Tim Bochum
spoke in support of the type of lighting proposed at the Marsh Street Garage Expansion.
Commissioner Cooper stated that VIS-3 should include these types of specifications
about exterior rooftop lighting. The Planning Commission's direction was to modify
condition VIS-3 of the EIR to add physical design criteria.
The proposed additional wording to page 3.1-27 is underlined below.
Mitigation Measures (Consultant-Recommended)
VIS-3 Where possible, all light fixtures shall be shielded so that neither the lamp
nor the related reflective interior surface is visible from the adjacent
public streets. Low level urban accent lighting may be exempted from this
provision with approval of the Architectural Review Commission. 1 If ipht
standards are used on the roof they shall be hooded, directional lid
fixtures, similar to those approved for the Marsh Street Garage
Expansion, that shall not exceed ten feet in height above pedestal mount
and have no more than two 150 wattage high pressure sodium (HPS)
lamps.
` -30
- . Attachment 3
3. Land Use Element Policy 4.2.1
On a motion made by Commissioner Boswell, the Planning Commission made the
finding that the proposed Copelands Project is inconsistent with Land Use Element
Policy 4.2.1, therefore it should be classified as a significant, unavoidable (Class I)
impact to Table ES-1, Class I Impacts- Significant, Unavoidable Impacts That May Not
Be Fully Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels. The Planning Commission did not
concur with the statement on page 3.7-15 of the EIR that, "A residential component for
the proposed project was determined to be infeasible with the current project design
because of space constraints for permanent on-site parking facilities necessary to
accommodate a viable new housing development".
The proposed revisions to Tables ES-1 and ES-2 are shown in the attachments.
The proposed revisions to page 3.7-15 are provided below.
Impact
3.7-2 Development of the proposed project would not include residential
housing or affordable residential housing elements as encouraged for
all new large commercial downtown developments in the City's
General Plan Land Use and Housing Elements, and the Conceptual
Physical Plan for the City's Center(Downtown Plan).
General Plan policies LU 4.2.1: Existing and New Dwellings, LU 4.16.2: Upper Floor
Dwellings, LU 4.19: Implementing the Downtown Concept Plan, H 2.3.1: New
Development Project Requirements, and H 6.2.3: New Commercial Development
Downtown, as well as the Downtown Plan, encourage, but do not mandate new projects
to include a housing component. A "should" policy is intended for implementation
unless there is a prevailing or overriding public interest in doing otherwise. AFesidenti�al
pr-ejeet design beeause eF spaee
eenst-r-aints fer- pennanent on site_parking f :l:t:e
. dtblhousing v e to eae ae e , ous
e e ��
Mitigation Measures
To itig to lande (.t .�..t.. .1. te eensiste«ey ith adoptedd el:insin-aiv the
G43, of San Luis Obispe's ,.lamming deeume..ts t The proposed project will contribute to
the production of affordable housing in the City through its payment of inclusionary
housing program fees. The following standard regulatory condition
will be implemented,however the payment of fees would not mitigate housing impacts:
Attachment 3
Standard Regulatory Conditions
LU-2 In compliance with the City's Housing Element, in-lieu fees equal to 2%of
the total construction value of the proposed project would be required to
help finance affordable housing units. Thew fees ape ...•dent of
Residual Impacts
The Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council, in their
review of project plans will discuss and consider the project's consistency with the City's
planning documents. The public benefits that would be achieved with the development
of the project called for in the City's General Plan include: greater urban design
continuity, improved pedestrian amenities, more attractions for tourists, increased
revenues, and improved business synergy for all downtown businesses. In evaluating the
project, the Planning Commission and City Council would need to determine if the
substantial public benefit resulting from the private redevelopment of the Court Street
property, which would not be possible without private sector participation, is an
overriding consideration to not incorporating housing into the project. If the project is
ultimately supported, the Downtown Plan should be modified when next amended to
reflect the footprints of approved buildings.
4. Pedestrian Safety on Palm Street
Commissioner Boswell requested that the data Frank Sherkow read into the Planning
Commission record on the number of cars exiting the Palm/Morro structure and the
number of pedestrians at peak hour be added to the response to comments (PCM-25). He
requested that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) include an action
if pedestrian/car conflicts are identified. The Planning Commission requested that a
project alternative to pedestrians crossing in front of entrance/exit on Palm Street be
proposed. In the response to this comment, Aztec Engineering, the transportation
subconsultant, asserts that relocating the proposed driveway would result in additional
problems without tangible benefits.
The proposed revision to response to comment PCM-25 is contained in the paragraphs
below. Following the response to comment are proposed revisions to wording on page
3.9-26 to require monitoring as a mitigation measure. The EIR consultant recommends
that the impact 3.9-6 be reclassified from "non-significant" (Class III) to "significant, but
mitigatible" (Class II), thus the monitoring program would be included in the MMRP.
Proposed revisions to Tables ES-2, ES-3, and the MMRP are included in the attachments.
� _qb
Attachment 3
Proposed Revision to PCM-25
Based on the traffic impact analysis prepared for the Project, the projected evening peak
hour traffic volumes at the Palm Street driveway are approximately 261 vehicles
(including 90 outbound trips and 171 inbound trips). According to data obtained from
similar projects by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), more inbound vehicle trips are
expected during the PM peak hour as a consequence of restaurant and entertainment
destinations. Pedestrian projections during the evening peak hour were estimated to be
approximately 61 pedestrians. This translates to approximately four (4) vehicles every
fifteen seconds and one (1) pedestrian every sixty seconds. According to Highway
Capacity Manual, the pedestrian crossing would be operating at a level of service "C."
(This analysis is based on the assumption that the pedestrians are crossing an
unsignalized intersection crosswalk.)
As proposed, the garage access point on Palm Street would be straight and level with no
visual obstructions from landscaping or on-street parking. The sidewalks would also be
enlarged in this area. Assuming 30 MPH vehicle speeds on Palm Street, AASHTO
(American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials) recommends that
a minimum of 200 feet of stopping sight distance be provided. The proposed project
would exceed this standard. In order to reduce the conflict of pedestrian and vehicles,
care should be taken to continue to maintain adequate sight distance. Caution should be
exercised in constructing street furniture, bus shelters, landscaping walls, and trees, or
other features, that would impede sight distance. Additional measures to ensure safety
could include:
■ Proper warning signs for exiting vehicles such as "yield to pedestrians."
■ Posting and enforcing low speed limits signs into and out of the garage.
■ Proper lighting and signs for pedestrians warning about exiting vehicles.
However, it is suggested that the situation be monitored before going ahead with the
installation of these measures. Other parking garages in the downtown area work safely
and effectively without these measures. Therefore, evidence of a developing safety
situation should be observed prior to taking these extra strategies.
If problems were determined to be present, and could not be mitigated by changes to
street furniture, landscaping and other hindrances to maintaining clear sight distance, then
the measures shown below might be considered:
■ Installing convex mirrors at the driveways for motorists (where sight distance is a
problem).
• Intelligent Transportation systems animated LED signals to alert drivers about the
approaching pedestrians (as shown in Figure 1 below) would be effective.
�-y I
` Attachment 3
Figare t.The top pNgagrapn snows the ITS gorge
sigaai and the MR=phomgr*shorts tlx ITS
addhioet signal.
Operational strategies could also be considered. This might include a cross-guard at the
driveway entry/exist point during the peak period(s). Some sort of signal system could
also be considered. These should only be considered if there are special conditions, that
might include a high percentage of young and old pedestrians, non-correctable sight
distance, or very high volumes of vehicles and pedestrians. It should be noted that even
in locations such as large amusement parks, downtown Los Angeles and Las Vegas, and
similar places, these operational strategies have not been necessary.
San Luis Obispo has several parking garages in operation currently. According to City
Public Works staff, there is no evidence of pedestrian safety problems at any existing
driveway/sidewalk location. In addition, no evidence exists in current technical literature
that the type of pedestrian crossing situation would generate an inherent or emerging
safety concern.
Based on the perceived pedestrian safety issue, the Planning Commission requested that
the traffic consultant evaluate the possibility of moving the proposed Palm Street garage
entrance/exit to an alternative location. Since no impact or projected safety problem has
been determined, and the volumes of pedestrians and vehicles are relatively low at this
location, moving the driveway is not necessary for traffic reasons. However, we concur
with the Planning Commission's comment that this situation should be monitored for the
area immediately around the Palm Street — Morro Street intersection after the project is
occupied. A required monitoring condition has been added to the EIR and MMRP that
includes checking on queuing, traffic signal warrants (including pedestrian wan-ants), and
any potential pedestrian/vehicular conflicts.
If the proposed entry/exit on Palm Street were moved to Morro Street, the topography in
that area and Morro Street's relatively narrow road width would potentially produce sight
distance and car queuing conflicts on the street and in the garage. The entrance/exit on
Palm Street should not be moved further west (toward the intersection with Morro)
Attachment 3
because of sight distance and potential conflicts with car turning movements and
queuing. Since no pedestrian safety conflicts have been identified, it is Aztec
Engineering's professional opinion that relocating the proposed driveway onsite would
result in additional problems without tangible pedestrian safety benefits.
See proposed changes in wording to page 3.9-26
Impact
3.9-6 Potential traffic safety impacts generated by the parking facility
access points at the proposed Palm/Morro parking structure would be
less than significant. However, monitoring of traffic operations on
Palm Street should shall be done to determine actual future effects.
Pricing strategies (e.g., reduced rates for early-arriving parkers and
late staying parkers), and broad use of transponders (i.e., "flash-
pass") could be used to ease queuing conditions, if they develop.
Mitigation Measures (Applies to Palm/Morro Site Only)
Mitigation Measures (Consultant Recommended)
TRA-5 X& A monitoring mitigation is required. HoweThe City should include
monitoring of these segments of Palm Street as part of the preparation of its annual
Traffic Safery Report. Key monitoring elements to track are traffic collision histories and
queue lengths. Signal warrants should also be monitored to determine if and when
signals at the Palm/Morro and Palm/Osos intersections might be justified Mitigation
will be warranted when:
is East or westbound traffic on Palm Street queues back through the
Morro-Palm or the Morro-Osos intersections as a result of access
limitations to the Palm-Morro garage entrance on Palm Street.
Special queuing monitoring for peak hours and special events should
include monitoring conditions prior to opening day for the
Palm/Morro garage and regular monitoring thereafter.
ii. An increase in the rate of unavoidable traffic collisions above existing
base year conditions.
4.43
Attachment 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
y y O t Q U al c0 A U N ° 7 N
E i = . L 3 4G L L L N 'O V N L W •U O
4;.2 r—ZZ v 4) o "a � .3 � a>i � a. � o E c c E a
N
R N > C _ 0 • a� a> " 0 mi E € 3 >
[� R O t0
to " 'O •a v N 0.-O O a) y ,L,y .g U 'O = O .0 A.t
y L •= '= L'. A cRi ' O fl. vs.. °> H 'RC •° C .y0. d .O 'c=—a U
00 ._ E ro v ° .cc i d a=i = = E c
j m ctL aat E > 3 0 � •c `- n.•= n ° 3 oa N �_ L E c '
C y a) O a0.° U y C y O .. W R U .E y •O Q .D y U R y
+• E o r o R c `° °°- a °�N' n > a�-i °U' o .R m oa `° a� E E �c 3 •c=_u
'C T y a: N U O N — > .L... — O y p = .� O y .R. y
v o LIU
N m y > i c s .E oo•=72 a y a eu u y y v L o «y T
DO v ° a•Q C aEi ° _ w ,� c a. ca
= 0. ao'E c¢ = v o n .
C [L- m cmc to 3 m c°� CU a °ate °L' 0. 0 ¢ t 'y .� S a E aU m .€ a
LTW > � •• U vc Fly ° L L F ca p
My •y _ � aUi � 'C U •O � �
m w. G7 7 .L.+ N v 0. ptb L N •Up p y T `� O O L = 'in O _ .O y •p
= 3 itl C Y NCo
O Q Ot .U. d d v
V] lu A A U R ° Y td L a) t O vA C '= C L.+ T C. n.
0. .U. y E W 0 wL. 0..0.. 7 9 E U t0 y y ,O .N .� y C U O N Cn
c i o .c U ao Mott > a>i .o cc 5 °��' -0 m to== ° cn y _ � �
eC ir ._ N o ° gym 3 c mv° 3 d — c o. _ m m � � L° 0
Q •. .c c ° -0 s y .5 z •• v ° o m f6 0 cy F c c c c F- U c
a) a�1L... na U •C A U Y U L A a) «. y U L t O y y a)
L o0 ,r > cC 75 _ `'.• : E. = to u U A L o
°�' s ti m �°c � ami p h n ca .0 E o c
Co = .N.+ N .p+ 6r y N CU y ,C Q = `n N 'U U U �. .0 p L y
"• C y = 1r~ = O .L.. R U a) G .= C i0 N p 'D O T O �. O ?� R C U
+�+ O y N U w O .= v E O. t 'C •� = G N I
0: ERH -Zv.o- E � y `¢ �a > cc > m. Lo � a� ocuoc - a�iy .v_
h E m R R " i 0. > .0 R i �... C w U y •� C R r0 .�_ A O 'j .3..
U N °A' t :.= s E v E E °' 3 a ° a> > U m > coi 0 - E '0 o 0 0. c� v o c' c
_w �°, '40,
v ° " O ' =Op° o y ° °a °�' a d 3 5 5 a y a
> cOu U _ = p N. a=i L >.u N L }�}.. L 3 Ci =
CQ U y = y ` C y 'O O '- i 0. Goy O F y tu �_' O —to R
6 C N 7 Ci U C i0 '> .°C .0 O O y 'O •R L O '°D U U .ro Y n C N y R t=C
0 0 0 ou 09 •c a Ods > QN .0 > cE o- ° E ; o • a °
> y c cC c ° y cc s eo o f > o U a .� p R o y x a A Q o
_ �w = = L o03
Ear e o o c '� �C S s A o D' °—' e y a� : °o € to o f °
!r d'G 'D y d) U 4• r 3 a) � L pq •+ 'C y > = N � .L_.. ' � •y ° '� °
C 4U v n'w N oca=i ytL ° a�t A .3 •m '> '4 � C " . > " CL
L', OAU0l . 0 0 E y c� y ay
° ° .00. = •° aam Q` .; E .S .E € ooB0cM ? o
� Vcc 0
rO m >
> xv � � — 4dovO A na > U R i � < °y' d E U is a'
y
cc
1
ra U _ O
(u
rw CQ o, 'pis U o ia �= � ,a� O
CQ d •� �' v = C. OZ CO
=
`e Cc
:E ° ami _ .ow
3 0. M C y 0 .— R O
$ E E U
Y 4. O'9 d 0 c-0
of O eO C 0. 7 O. 7
p U 0. OD U 0 0 O .0
W C R O N s i Q1 ° U N
J > > c O T F U A 0 t
V d N � .cd 3 N 'D p •�
CQ p •y OQ
> = d U
U .,�„ N i- 2-
U 0.
T '1 c 0. G. Q' M !� 7 v 0 Q
ES-14 Copelands Project
Final EIR
4
Attachment 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
C
O
t
F
°
° E
� m
.y
a
o E
E =
� E
O
E ou mU
'LC�•RL.vURLRp^.Q`'I my s,'dmaEV°�_O°'
—tRv°a�_ti?�.•'•c._iD7Oc�cOd.AY i�� Y?cv=>mE3� LCaO°p =RV- moCoo •=dO-o°;�sFaS�a°Zo=Yscyvi—vaEoytrfloaaNii 'CHocflo�.'._.G_E. 3°' 9 yc.mtihO". c=iv oc�M °°—'F•flE3=Ofl�..., N,sEiaco.^mhooHVamNVO' tCORv_y=O3m
I
LN:m3Na°+'i
CL u
sNs_—
CcRYZ ERm cm ° Unv > o.
s3 N
•a. D
M " = = r. O GO .y
'Cu 0 u e E a
'- at mysEM =�u wZ
0. = 0= i �` GDNnO = = .0cUO ¢
'c uC > Mdi
40
U r
E d = _OE
C O 0
M -= NCL _ O
i � vd) 'hzhiz = °
rsr- c - E E .S a
om Fo oA Uma �d EA NUC - y
a o � s a $
ow Qt; F > N A — R_v rcCcjn"
0 . r- U la&
•c b E ceQi la 'y •�
y
1 �
a..
a
r.l
U v1 't
d
a
ti
1 O
W �
V
B
�.
Q
F
Q4
rl Q
Copelands Project ES-15
Final EIR
y-•ys
Attachment 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
o �
O O V
C 6O 0 •O G O vi vi•� E .0i 3 C .� d
N"0 m a c ..°
u $ oR o N •.`L R .y E
=> e • : cCo 0
_ � -
v a vsH � ° E C4 LZ NcE ` c
E�
X
a °
F" UO,U R > °r' •` 0 0. s _ U F o �a .� •x o ° c y . o y o
° .0 ao ° on- y E .to
- E n ° ° os a
y Y O U 7 V0. C C y L 70 E w V b = O C N
l "U. y •O N t N s R N = C y •n V U
F-1 tQ w R s �' = Rc .- 6..0 •v c x <.. 3 cUtl T
+�- 6 00c4 c 3 ° : E _ 'E E 0 m R N u o E c O o- R
5 0 - cn ° o o d p o .0 E = v c c c o c R E
-m '�.•.N c..
to
3 aCi '0 0 'w a� y •` R •° '� ° '= d c
.. c y Q•c a o E c 3 E N ° o «=L _
o
° > E U o = o ° R o ° ❑ o y E CL_ oo y ° c
° c u y N G '� c o x a c > E E ° - :Y c 3 = R
5U v � � a� � O c 3 W c 24. E E yr d
y L O = C
f_ y o ° R N y = O E 0 L a, 3 0o v
N L N U R = = C •y C E L ° L 0 .0 O N
O 7 .� 'N .L.. O N L •0 O 0 7 y0• .a 0 C L' 0 0
L T U C _ ._ '0 G 0. 4. in N V1 v0i
O 'E •o •= a _ 'r d U E is m d 2 -0 00.o c .. R M 4. O E
•Z y •� 0 O •C. V. = V y 4R 'V y 9 4.. ai•C V N N O V
aci Q = > "0 O.f/1 R 0 0 -- y •y y O -O A 5 E U C C ^'� •0
E O 00 ° „ _ . -0 _ E c L O m N „ 000= U 3 E
n 5 y Q = R O R E y '_ " y 0. 0• .0 � w vFi v E
E d R U c
W ° = c N = w = o o d 00 is 0 y y °� E
a� Y T..E O L a� .c �' L R 0 N R 0
s
0L 53 3° «o - on "
v
O 0 R 0 E M E m-0 c Ec •E�= o° EO ,E im° oOwc
R ' 0a E -0 -0 N EscN
`yo-
tE 3 uN Cr0L
00 kN0YOC N2
0
NC Ed .Nc
O Nc 0 O R u OT ° �
x
•c oE 45
> u a u 'N0yH.
U LtiC ORT ° ,"CLC❑yc0
.t
0
0 .—
r-o 'E 0= _ E
PC y L) LISN � .0 Q
_ LyU O ' VdNNyo_
° IIyN mp " 3 � Cr
N 40- O C13r Vcc
� 00 a CES O
C "aEvoo EEC • n•ao, U - 'o
V ° V 7 C N
X OOL V) OO O U
C V 00
O R E = yR
T ` R .N
0. • R u° °U > R °- ° = w �o = uo O 6 .° O
.tuZ a R R 2 Z a E 0 R a 3_
Z - R Z •0
to
R A d
Y7 y aN V
a.
CJ 4] O C R N U
CE a 'fl L 'v M ^ = C X U
E
�+ w c
O Eco E U = L R b=q ° 'C
G'O C O 0 p G `� O
VJ 'p U y N s Si m O y m y
q e a s =o Doc v y
_ a
RS 0 �.t = '� E 0 .L N p
U Z
_ E = C C E = p �... C b0A y .>_`
aaONR ° � sE y � .=
ay 0 o cc aoiCO ° y' p N
3 j 3v Cd
ItsN .d, O V E .�.. i 7 > N
Z't� O U y 0 r O 00 O
6 v0. aci •aUWw � r 3
ES-16 Copelan&Project
Final EIR
Attachment 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
C
s
F
.a a
E
+• o
� 9
_� VN
T L _
t... •C O
GTi
CIO
C O A U
R = Q
R1 3 00 c = o tiU
CD
_ u m a s Q o
> N _
Cc Lu u
CC `—° 3c � '� 0' ` �
O i t C d C
1. tO. R 0a d 0
c p c00a c o
o € 2 m = E
V Cq N vi CCL
V 3LY y d s7 N
ri. O y
cc d N u E
00 �
17 h O y u. O N C O ,E R O
E G ca U a' E L d
a s 4 E ° d ° y
° a z
° z °
�+ J.+ Nl N •N 6 0 d y E.
zv c v E.
axi w m c oz .m. n. °cU
� d
CC ra
C
� C
U v�
W a
o
u ou
E Z
Copelands Project ES-17
Final EIR / 1
�' 4T
Attachment 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ds � s
o N 0 N
E @ r E s6
O CCi O
E U y E U y
O a R O a m
L L
OD ac 'o ao 0
v� rx � 3a E3a
C
ca
cc A L ,C C .0
F A N E l0 N sO 3 N ld .0 — > •> O 7i ,vii •`�yi
L t N •�+ N ° .�I.�I wl Ei
N Z
j o •� s Y .a v) oq p v p y ai °'y v ami 'i'o R.•idI
o c CL Cs w c E c > dl° CO —c` �I
F 0 u c NU a3 3 E A c E a= of a� ° � � v°I�
a c' u v Q °� 0 m .N v > O >1 E °I a c vc �I 3
'V h V .L... O L N •D L"' N — .E 7 L N LO. NH r0 •C �!4r
.O U N B O O L �_ .D Li O'N Li
O tCC O N C 0 d E C 'C 0 O y d L •C r E Li aI Oi >I G
E
r,uQ. msNNEoL sv oE > o
> c > oo E fi
�=>
C > O O = �e od 'I1 3
O
v mE ° a> fu ao:- Y aN -0 o "
= > .0 .0 > L � W amVi
OI M AI
U
o - M! m
to
—x0 cc, $ E m o
X M O 1+
Ifii!
3"c
N NVC >o / °
0. YCu — LCa CCs cc
O N j
Attachment 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
O
N 0
� N
V 7
E ,
� N �
E V 'N
>
w 0 y y
C
u .r o
E `
= Eb �
� a °
o 'o
•CG � 3n.
C
s L on c 0 0 •a r E
F m a of °�j a� U .0 C u'R ca s v v a °n o o
4-. = O E N 'C ° O. O O 3 N -Oi'Oi 0 _. a� L c0 = `3 O
p u LI.�? U p 0 u U U -_ Ca � u 3 3y. O OL ft R R a u
0 �0•+ r3 Lv= 3 c ?; U d d o m 5 t o w �—'
(�Q to .0o0+ N= N0 AC RCl�ivpV _ .O. C GN 1�_�` O7q'O G , U _ cN ° - oo • = N. 7 @0
¢° EE o
.
LC 4L •N�7 —o !� oR� �ii p NL• A yd;�c N ' � ' ] oiU0= c uLpcV N
V E = y 6 y C
O 3 5 ^ O 0 o- 00 Mc = al
p . cu 0 r appc
,
rL
ts to
Ga.CuC ^' •° of • Lx > � ,E fla c ocai ° o 0 ` _ « iO'
oaN tn. 0 � vE E A o
0
O0sw C) c E om
o = a
>
A = L p E y 0 £ p "E .2= m 'c ° d N o m E
E p
U d c c vis d v c c u ro u ¢ v a c a V U Q
R o y U U!
U yA =y EU oN _ .yR —:: m sm •u •t nm,E N Noq LN c ' mU ouca °p, =
o 00 >
N 340 .= a� vi R 5 C aai u = .� �' c v > o > E N m R •o s c a c H v
o o v w U Y z .S c°i R CL. u = `3' 0 -0 c E >
�"! •> ctl y ¢
E
UU , c,• U° 3 •£ bA—• UN sUO N N y. N 'o o >R = Cp yd L S
tEE
o V -0 .yO o U — y :f7 CE ONyO O O O o.5 O4O •OC n ui vO =- C L ,""
° x. u m - -6 0 N
N 0
y .3
o
0 c ob cc 3 V p •-� E N 5U
OcNC '
E dcm E p O u > is O
E = a — u a
to
° tc N G• H
CJ x � >o
•�31 •0 = U °' m u o0. •
'Clt40- o � occr � == o 5 ai 0
_ � U a Ca E
.
_OcpN>
a L V o
c u .5
9 N
LE E ^y H = U a
C A N 0 E E t
.r ° ro U 0 °
., � E
0 Z .2
o Z '"0
g -0 Ca
"0o N Oo
d. R
=ca
u 0 c o n '0 o N p
N � o u4. ca •yt t
U > > O u o
�. OC = N U
Q cc L d
Ve = r a E 4t"„ D p 0
Q o 9 s `cd
Copelands Project ES-19
Final EIR
q,o
Attachment 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARC
� d
3 Q �
N N
E E m
c
� O
U L L}.
U •E ; ONO •E ; •Oq
U .� 0 a. c=p O a. A
r.4 •� � _ ,E r
it O N 2 y N
U = � O _ y0
N N N, �
ta=. N U N U
N a p a ° O
3 p, 3 d
C
CC
s > N °
_
L2
.s - c N H> O A «+
Ac •C A= •'vp>ai' _NU M-
ne= d
E ymz wU D o = H10 U =
U t OR 3 vo oCOs
c c 3 cic . • a E CL.- c
" . V ; 2 ' 0 m a ti M -� U'o y O c : � d •C N" - E = N @soo .- , •vYNL cdaUa
yU ¢ i
p cc .: U a u c°i
�M_eURa+ s�ECC`o'. oc°RUoac>c`°°ai LFtNNaE-ii v°.>Q •--9_ .'_R°yC t=a` Lm.O,.. �cmC YQ .O.. EOa A=°' o=° yO 7 .D° Oo-'ti u ooa v°�' Ya_F=' oR Oy LL`'. c Na,.Hy° •LcNR U0vv
L•°D
LvCc
LOE
c `J Z ' 00.0o Qad - = a,cm czy ? U oN .0o £ c - cI" iZzvcti
o ° tb c C to o
= Qw a ° cy v o cE .•2 c
.° E . O c 0 O EL•_
O = Q. �
O; �£ Q ' U N C
E > O A .N
b OU N
v r- d = zU a t` °
n c. E d '�
a o s
= o $ = c c N m °' L .o ❑ 3 'ro > m �° g` _ ° Q it c > L L o
E.. s � E � � •R E = o c c mL. Uc = � � s cL No c � � ° c y
p E L '� a� o a v c S c v c V c r L A .v N .�
v i e o0•H ° c ° Q y m E '� s L`°' p Q n .� .� o c ' o d e s a v z Nto q � 0 >
d ti _ o y > ¢ a>'i v d c °c a y c d ' � _ c v v n 3 v s y
O iO iO E •— ` N iy �.
.� N N O in CO•p 'C O = C m L t = = Q C fC y •E O [Q •L+ ; v i
R v ° s L o o u Q ° _ = n N R
t# m «' U •c F. E o �' o 2 z E °'15 C N oo U
O a.R d Nl •O L p L y •_ N OLO.. L C =
C=D U aci m y U .5 v z `m 3 3 FL : R E a °.' n U n 's co `e d v aci U A y o
c
E v�
y y
c >'
..
A N ca O .to O 'O
a
0 c E c a
U ,j N
`' N CU'3 N N
y a i J G ULL
NO
A.
°n =
> _ v
V] y
W Cl L C v 3 L �'L ••+
ry OS ` N t� R a' M O cUC
lC6s � � �•_ � M a, a• �
BCS - v NCO r .5 .£ U
ES-20 Copelands Project
Final EIR
��50 .
Attachment 3
CEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N 4: �G
CJ .C. L V C •° •O
"� O S •C p N V O C O C O C
�- L N O � y C •C pN] r V31 +t..• N r
DV N C r N L �L
4D R y. V CO Ca
C =
OJ
GCm=p sunV s oL°a_ ,adi •cpi � UN tr`
= vO E O E
U u
wNl0
CM
` , E - 0 y a o `bEy � y .- O L � = E E
N cE 2 . ,w
� o 0 O
0 0 0 0
X son °� E V -0 o V ? V
E V 0 c _ w �, Q r `o Y
tCy C = M bCn p V 0 •C ren C C C V C C V C
CQ LOD o U •N N d� V -2 V s••, O V O V L. etl
d U N .� N u �:+ N U 4 N u 4:
A on t — 'L d•O O d C d O C d O C d O c
aye p p c E c E :? E
o bn E v on E y ,op
14 ¢ U •D lO L N L N L VI L N
�i
L C L
C O ep p ep
O tcC E y R V
CO v 0 •0
C> •G,'C '.V- Ay E = m e ° Cc
Vx p •0 d> OL aNOL
�l Amin h `omaW. R ¢ a° = E u •o = � y o V D
G N C - C R bA Lam[] �' d ro U •O .� y L .CV. 'V CO .- V
F. E •� Q Q p _ p 2 c _ y p c L o N : u m °' x ° o - u m
eyC eca N c a>i c y V s ❑. .> h e E U U U s
bD oU E °' o ' _ v y c � o ° ° ' ° cd : en E to
u R V .�, °' E O �' E ¢ V 0 0 3 .0 ¢ > R
aUi m E o _ ¢ V y y d ° ¢ c ° °L' p s `a a c a
V O ed C •C
CO 0 s csi c c ° o o °EL' O.a °� 3 °a = a ami o E R y Q r c ami
eC .�U $ • v m " 3 m o " CM
m y �- .R E a0i E ' a0i E a9i
oaEi a t s ° on u v
V 'O d'V O > O ea •O Li. V Q C w 0 C '0 L .� y 0 0 0 C 'fl y
0 ys �,= c o o cY ea � = y dC 0 y � � V e_. E- o .4 = s
Ca
h LVOT € •C 0 M •M C.. u C p o C t 00
y .L.. .� O >�C s O 0 .0 �" _ = cc
s
c C d 0 V u s v m p 3 c V c V °' n 0 c
u L = � N € o$s
CO Cs c = " 'a < 0 , � a� u moo ^
= U Q N Q 3 R bn = C • N Q V x N C N
G m O a o o `� L .s a y h °-' c o v u 'v � 'E
d V O c V �.. 7 v _ •� + 'O V G N .V ov04 O' O �
•,� y s a°i °n cA c C v b" Q. N d L L Cu > "
+' o s <:. '- V c `� 'N C c c N_ G. p y C o y c u d O s V 0 4 N -� �; is
C 0 o �= °' 0 °' m y o s °� . y c m ° E C on ° ` 3 ° E
c s .r 'V v _
d Q i 2 ° td O C N N •p 'fl A N@ y C i M .0 U 'U C lO
;y O E u d " •°; — 'a mss ' � � 'o c os c Aas
A c 0 . t7 c 0 N V O > m E L 0 >
GA v HULL] o d h d H U 3 v LO w H 3 y0 o`b R °L' S H . m CLO A
e
V ^ NV L. O V
L L 0 � L �O yV N L
Lo b y 00. C 'o J c •o y ALV
o 00 Q o A a y . O o eCo p•c o eVa o0. 0
., 3 .E 3 E y N 3 0 0 E L 3 E
Vi V 04
Q V ^R N '^ A 0 ,— N V 4 7
0 iC
p, N V0 r- R V.
V cOi ,v a9i 0. C aci 'aN •� 0. O R '0 n 'a0i •� 0.s
X04 E cc 'ES °, o •ynyoE0 .0 = c •°.-n00EBy
N `.t d'E0 SO w d, V on d• ,0 d V M � � ' � d 0 0
d CL c c�•0c .5 c s 5 eco c-.° = EL
0 R .°--' R a;a •0
V d s 0 = o V t y N °� m
'Q F `° C F c0i y a'vi Lc] " = O F- u a0i E
0 3 w s 0 3 O 0to
IT
F a o° v dd c n •; m vi c oc_nGo0v o o°oo n wE �o
V M .0 M •C L M •N OA M .0 s O. bn M U 'in on
Copelands Project ES-21
Final EIR
x-51
Attachment 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMAM
c
R
R y
g
dG.'O N '+� O °
C w c a c R _ E c s E c
p c E ,E a=
c >
.Vi 'fl •c
> o c Eai
p E'" o Q H '
R cE
0 —
L Y = .` uaa
E ECo—c E' i0. c0 N
V V L • R N
V
R i L V O cp = L c c N
++ 0 ca
R U a`i Y O." N L d a N y
-x L0
4. os a� '� 4° E us L = u u a
MY F J U 0 to L4
0 F N N 3 N N
_ C d
Vi V 3 3 G 00 t Y0.. N R C N C = C.D .E = U R
Z N N
a ° c0.0 ''� a"i ° ° ° 0 E 9 c v 3 o to ? y c`a c o a E A
R L c c m c b o u c V O eq 3 o R o. N R fV p,
o cr a� c c ° u L ._ R N c N
[y p 3 a m n 0 ° s aEi H a= ti C7 r c $ R $ ° d c
_c
> tnU € mace = sem = °ac R a�i � � � `o ,c .E3cRsEsRQ
o s E o N 0. o0 0. _ o c c R aci c _ `� t o .� c o
C4 X •R N rcJ y V L .0 y = N 0 u �` V U b G E �- V ° G c R
00 a> E '� t u o R -J s O u • E c E d m ca d d £ n E .R
Cp L R .— 'D R L L c u c h A OD d t
�+ ° .7 4.. — d. G.'D V c L N .. = E .0 U R E U 'X N Co •iE o
° OA i0 ' c t T T d N -J 01
d V = C C _ ^ y i0 i C G C W v
USV oN ._ � > o a`oc c � EvE � R � Hc � ° 'oE _ �
d ouu ' o- Ac ' H E E � � � u .9 � o dcL � m E
E � a as c t ° �_ � � u� 3 R • a-> _ L D L u € = N
C o °q ° a' � 3ua � r sVc so � n cm = � 000
V on.D R _.W — �' N R �p L c .p tr, L c R p 3 c O.N a c
m co E r ° y j n R L v 12u u u u
"' y o H °' to O o a c C R R a y Y u
E _o F d a .y c a c c s c -O 3 N .a.
ri O V V] V n R = �" O V O O L R Of0 N G.��y V
F cVi C y fl 0. R V m aui ` U E •U t C c w c O 4O Y O RU O N Q C N
W2 c R "' R 0. E ,E N o R E �' L° R c L *=o . L o acs c u N .
v `o ' ° c3 — u L os = a v H s 2 = V � _ c o o R RL d
N y
O= — Q] iC v D. a� = —Cu O N 'O R y E c R ' c U L
d.. a> > c N o c E r0 s R = 'O
G — = Q v •L °' o u 3 E u N L c N
m o N € caro L° as E7 ER3 Eu = o c 'an. oR os
u L u c u R u ca E u ar' m u u � � E ro °—' � v A n9uR u0 .� c v
o = 0
Uo C7 > ? Rcauc ? ocN > 3an ndd m 3 oo F 4 u LRa
N ou
E
Oo
V E �= O y9 a Nm ai
NrnC] ZNR
oR
u is E n o =' ani
0- �- oL R } `o v R R c d 3 u
qp z o n a a N II u z cG z z n.3 z a a R z a 3 E R �o . N o o N L c
G N R d
V �
d L =
r � Z3 V •0 4
= V = u Q
3 a 3 n• c,
►. U E p V G _
VJ •� V N V /� n' M
Vi p '�N O .?� •O V O Q
R L
R �"• L z
> G. R _
0 o E c o E i'_ `c
ri 30� ° o > 3
Ns c ca °
F cRi R c E- U `:
lu
LO
S ._ oq
ES-22 Copelands Project
Final EIR
Attachment 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
C = a� y
• cc 0 s y
"O y 0 on CS =
0 0a
3 o 3 L cc-
U a cco d v
C o 0 U 3 y F y cci �cr a s
0 � c •o
i ° > c 0 E 0 ° a c o
u E v 0 „ y °s a._ 5tl R
O O m .O aUi O -° m.' a y .
w a, c > E o a c 3 .° m e > a
.00 O 3 °� 'c R c a`i '_ E ,>O,
c s �.a) m E 55o •o w°
O' E V C y N DL S fl-'(� V H
•C y N
U cc y
C
R
y U c Oy LL:
O (. c =
h N 3 t y 0 .0 •Z > N C =
u E 3 s 0 c p R > •E a,-
3
E
o c ao c
o
> f
0 0 o 0
0. 0
ar D O y H a c M U aci c E
3 y Q „ c Ln a) L Y 10
J ° u `0' c-0 E t `0' c 3 u
Qcor0E r = yo F0- o ° axi .
�. ° _ 3 00 a0i E
o E .� 'o v 0 0 O L
' s — o c c v oA
N U .° a m
E o o y >0 9 Q o 0
y in LL . h
ti y C O O c y y y 7O O, y
U � � `0UM •y ys Oa0 � L v �0
= y 0 0. a. ycu
m 0 Q. = a) 0 0 .O . �..
L` W 0. C A O
F a � zO
Z13 = 4 _ .EWD
s
�. O O o a) A E
a O ~ U F
7 C y d 0.
o" z "" A y " •'c o > t E y e ti
" C CL E- .9 - o = 0 4 c o y
s p oLe
O p = ti 0 o aci F 2m a0i ani �4 •N- cv
u > s y c Eo
oa°i > ° R 00 o o a w
2 ° U cvos L2 cM cG .] NUa. 0
r
w b c S
CJ m c o w U
C.
a .�� 0 0 0 0 cU
0 i o 0 0e R aE
0i c
3 n > y 0GM
L' U
~ y � O ti .0
Q G'•9 "O
Vl "'��O � � Y LQ'i a� L
m a n. 4 a °a o:
v m.= E
L 0 0
co � '3 � + off =, N
CN/�1 � a o � y ac .�
� U Z! � O
W " 0 a C5c 0 y 3 ; U
�E
Q O n U F = c b 0
Z U_ y y,
^0 4., i cy
� ,c
E"� � � O �' � � i a 0 W•C
M .� U lcyp CC a)
Copelands Project ES-23
Final EIR
�I .53
PA"achment 3
EXECUTIVE SUNIMARY -.
a.�
O L
d 7 O 7 7 0 O
E Lz . E r E
Cp ,= c=a O O c=a O 7
VV 0 ..O U �° U
�
R c c CCI
orb
E U N E U N E U y
d cam o n o n. �
rl W c E � c .E � c .� �.
�. O ti O N O N
CQ H •@ 7 — R O, N R O —
U = -0 O = -0O d O
N N V U
bD a 3 ,O °' O O
v, a . 3a E' 3a � 3 ¢
.= c ri L
[- R o H o Cc cn o o a Y
n c o ° �' p,' °.° O a� c y y O
-'
CO
° mr•4R (1)i aOz R v N UQd '0U0 'Oc=
y C;3 GNO r V) O
= ° 'R = N a nycao U No
zEN
U s o 0 .4 0 ° c E c O °_' y °c c
:; aos N L A .> - 9 � H E n.w A c .� N w o p 2 o m
R 0 o .E `o R g � c 3 o dw ° ° o „ L
.. d Ca "0v c N m E __ c ° o N s c o t
r F .�+ V R C ¢ N c N Y L _ 3 L O .O V)
CZ 0c v E o cci h . N s 04 n aEi o ° •° L ro
° _ pp,. yF- 3 r-
0
•° o f c 0 3 ai aLi v 3 oA•°� 3 0 0 3 u mo�o••
O` C U eO c �.. V R U
U d N A ° c y N 0 p . N O N R V 9 = d = Q
r d 7 L E _ >
t j R y a o +_ to t j O a� aN� E
Td"
°
QJ
E r
GM 0E > = ons c .° — Eo
�
° ° c o ° > °
L c o N E
O y 3 •C ` •R E aLU.. d.Y O cC d0.•� 0 = N^ i 0 -0 C 3 N O .0
1 L N E.. V c' N �.R'iC n.• L «. Q U ° ° O JO 4... ° UMO
C ° `O E o a fE q 3 N s L s v y ° c
7i M
Zird0 hZ Yt n nai ami W E- � � [— wNc °
N E c MNF axi � NF-Oi U` 1 O
'> C NOA y �cO 'otaSiE c 7
m >a ad
Y0
L v U
a s y � 0 O N a> uVi C R
CQ O $ E U. a b O V
n. .o b t d ° p.._ m
~, a aXiU ,� 3 0 .= n ,c � Ls
7 L
VUtWa1i �LU°Q onc 7XdNnn •D
M CO
— p yN=E UN bA Ibn° RRRi Vyro
cN07 �..=ocdncE Evo
R to , _ c
ooa ° E
E p z c ° s ya ° =
• E = Q.u.30 OQ c m o
r- CO y N Y E
RN E �` v 4 w w Co � v d
N u
W O d N O. d ld cO M N N U c7
F o 00 v ° X i °
v �.. = E x rn EN o ��°•+ b a>i a
ES-24 Copelands Project
Fina!EIR '�-r
Attachment 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
°
N
� _ U
:+ E
0
c ° O
' v
u ca .ro •�
N N W
a E u N
vca U O a. m
_ .E
w O N
Q)
R E O d
3 = o
O `
C E 3 c
C
N
L R C = N y y N 7 .Lp+ O 3
r R �L}a�. L u a) L.n N p Q) L
C
g Vl 4) N O ° 3 O p Cc L 4.. 0 p Q)>.� N O
E C y O !n _
E.. y E= up 6 3 °c A a aai o` c E R `o :y m aai
U
c,LO. 2 d QUi > 0
, . i
y
ayi a 3 = R $ 3 m i 0 w o 0 0 v IJ m ° a on (u U
E .4 'Cr ODc ca
l� a•Cry N •� p, N '4'' °' O O y U U p ° OO• t O L L C N
� N wO +o• N o) U �d= s
50 .0 M . oQ " cEqy voL —�°. o0E cE ° � H ° R o c og 0
C tt
an E =3o O ._ E >
Ra3T Oi�
.aD on = ° � to . - r .ac3ar
.
H E °S N O w
YV] to p •D E 'i: E � O °V L o0 aD O
ic— ` � 0aim Ea �
0 r = > Oo `a o D ° ° °° of 9 ° 5 E o ° � y o f •° O � � c � U
qq c a R E 'N d A C
E a• V Q) t U U p N
55 L
{d '� S :: c • ao a �. E •v_ }oto o 0 `c° Q=i 3 H o Qai E = A
L•' d V N 5O=O='' �p .E �p O R 7 O O Oq G C0. R ca E C .t.. C O On u0i p a• "vOi
c S ) ;'c a� a. O $ a Win' 0cc 41 E � o=u.� V 3 E � QOi H s A 3
Ate ` cL L U U oa o Cr ° = L c
on Uto
°° `' Ucn a �a = c� Qoni � � v H o .° � 3 � m t .='' .S "a � `
p Hm e 'x t o 'A o c •oq fa] p 7.-
0 cs
bD F S O F o a F U 0 F S F U F U a E 2 m 0 O caQn
3
yCLO
n?
'1 'V L L = N V p Gn 1 L RI LL's
v LU Q � � hyo@ '� oc > Y 'I- UU � U
wT >
1.1 .'�. O N •= VN U t = 0 .0 O O.. L a. Q) '� 70 L U _
u.a •.' 3 O = on 4: a. �` O an p Co.� p U p v O
rr
rn 'o s h R ' c A w H a u uaLi
y
y pJz
le. ° v v .— ° a Y a—Ni on c a>i h
ZR p = �+
N Q L L =
M-0
OO = VO m p . my30 d
L 4 O (D a 6
u N
C/1 c a U OD.>
E
c
aV1 C a2 OL N N :: is N E •5 bn p 0 0 y •_ "' — VUi
L4 V 4 J� caw y a y N RS E fm = L d N O 4: 'U i
as
'Nn E f'1 an a. N Z O •O N [a A a. U u fn N N VII N V]
Copelands Project ES-25
Final EIR �C)
Attachment 3
EXECUTIVE SUMNIARl.__
� vLOi O 7 O
V c
Y E A E 0
O .0 Cu
V E V y EV H
CCd
�'. c0. R
C .E r C E t
�y O
E R R
C 9 E aEi fl v
bA a ° •g °. c •o
O
N c
RY oo "D U .. c
rA y f0 M R 'C N H O C .VLv C
o aU'.°O 'D c °2d FHu c°c =° d s >
• u .0 o f . ccC � OQ..l Oo
O � c , Q. ozoD o mm g TVc = v E Ac n
c ° tv 0 C mw y•.��°.+
acLoOin
d
aEi O
CD D U W 0 O N C R V]
w •— G N y E 7 G •v t0 cC 0 O d.CO. O L 5.+
E 0 0.= E pq O. ° u N y t R R y U O 0
0 0 U O G. N °oo U �E .c ' C C W C m cOa uyi C tOa cd t�V F
C
a m i 3 oL : c i w c .
o
=C.
o°'yM 33
. r-
0 OvRU 0. ° C O O
E0 S d > o Co.° E nC c * a o >,
fu
m .0
7A y .00 w 0
VU ti C
Fa cc O O OC
R
° CO �
U N4 Vo NO =_ CCn y
cc� ° gi - da .
yon � � ucCO HU '.
m 0 ° E V
E
d U fl' L V t
'C o o c L c r � V °
0 [- o =a y 0. oo d c ° Q R .= F c a> y
N
V W pn EYO l0 0. �, N
N R M O. N N U Oa. lO �D :� l� C� �, O
bD v U 3 C)O U . U a � U m nv. > > m M j u > U as
vCL
°
� T
Vi
R T _ " Cu
�d y
to 0 .-
(UD
E V v A V Q y 7
aC. O.L
O O a
R a. c O S � `
V o L U .2 3 ° d °
H M o = E c c
_ c E :o cn
y
E o O v o m
W L o s E C m `0
C ono
vi � . c v
t0 0. 0..—
ES-26 Copelands Project
Final E!R b,
y, V/
_
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (7Attachment 3
N W
_m o
u <
.3 s U C d
C' O y y N N RS .0 V V
° C o ou au
rr
.ro lc ca
N C y W •... p 40-
COZ Oy C O o E 3 C C N N
'C ,N OCL V N V o ca d.
a:
C � y
Cu � c a. m
CO om b'B
bC oa 7v
0
s O m N N G. U p N N N
'.0 O O E U
Cd
o to is C E E
C
u
� � c
F c10
am "
N N N 7
L
z. E U y
u o co
N N
as i
Q 'o u C o"i o 3
y L L •1 L
O O t 9
F :e •� FE
ac
Vi
'� .�
z z
V7 T N
1+
u c? N
CV CU
N L p L U L L
Q..-
as
N
o
O C1 O 0.J U �O O. O GV
.R. n.C Q a•E C=O
C U
v 0U � C
3 v
a r o a
M E Y N O
'FMo-...sLaC— CC CsCNC 'J[a
CA.
•CO
uCLa•- - 0Ho 0 CU cco= aC
a - ca ca nn.
C ca
C E
= NyN0 N O4) CONO
o.M •— L
ES-27 Copelands Project
Final EIR 1
Attachment 3
C y L L L L
0.
0.
r_C p p O O O
> > > > >
_ °
N = C O
R R p p
G a a m m
rz N J J C
a Y c a°i 0 ?,, ai
3 £ ac a c c = a =
° R E „ ° E „ ° £ „ O £ „ N
p a E > '� £ > "> E > '> E > >
c d o ° ._ o N ._ o °
a ❑ U ❑ ❑ U ❑ ❑ U ❑ ❑ U ❑ ❑
0 0
p v 0 O V O b b
Q Q a Q U U
o r o � o _
o o o
a` ❑ a` ❑ n. 0 ❑ ❑
O v
d q
6 0 ° 0 ° 0 ° o
y L L L L
y N y y y n a
ea we � 'e Y0 °
r. QU QU QU ❑ ❑
= N N
° > • ° E R o 3 o Nos ° s ° °'
py aC d C L G �_ R O y > Co Co .�.� C 9 Y O s (U y fn C .D •O O
U .p x .� R R C E i N W a+ V p C V O >�s
3 = to = `o N v y m = 0 aOi 3 R > N ° ° —
V Old v ,� .�
> $ 0 .5 � o � 0 ° 3 � ' v a� N V Q � p v a 3 3 £
E 0 -
6 R C ° y oq U v N >
y N 044: � y R .° p L a ... OD > U L rVii i 'D •> C , N y ti tE0 V
a d R 7 a M C V d N =
�Q R CA N Z ° N R bD'= .N T•p m = a� a'G y Oq N 3 0 = 7
= N N OD �' C R N R R y 'C y = U :: s cNG O V £ N
i c°"` .QhCR .LdC= HNEo o``�x vp3° Us£c =.° •H° a°3° _ Vi�na .Q>_ °3 O .y�a. =F> 'm3N p`° aani u� g °QEs >
V C C r-
0 > Oy
A ?cu c
5 °
L£ scLN
CO '- d t - N x v - .R R ! c C = E R = p Q D o y
`o_ € d aCi w N _o a a� s v 3 o a p 'y aRi
t a.N > C C L O N E = y .0 V .Y b0 U C Rf U 'L N
N N t0 O N U N
� N '7 U 'fl d CG O p = '� V � .'C+ ^y R N y a C A '"' � p 'y C „L, a a� S C N N•
... y ..] •NO s ._ ie c`C ri d bq i h y — t N ,..� _ N `N
N £ V `-' a R O C C OA y >�t y y'•O > 'R C C y d
R R N = os L °' y °' .0 0 ° c 44 N ° N — > ccl
oA :j .D ' «: w N C O cca� N :° a = = to V a N •E N
3
w0 R E
_
sy°' cn0 °dR] QNa) •c°Ro "�N sdv-> '3RR' � sN° ss —u °O- � ,E R 00N0 `N=N°o`-
m? -> 6E0 E
40-
a
'O c. = Q.y
Brq
R myvLZ
75.
£y
ILI Nt ` yd x000TN dt•03L°> a
0i=
O'
Q
z y-fib
Attachment 3
n• a m n. n. 0. 0. n. c. Ca
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
° -6 —Q) —(u6 d z u 4)
w > > > > > > > > > >
0 0 0
C ep mow 0j) oA CU mo to CLO OD
0 c c C c c c c c g c
O m m m m m m m m m U
C c c c c. c C c _Z3
c c o
0 0 �_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q)
S = a c C a c c c c ° CL c c a C c 0. c c a. C c n c c a-
0 c C a c
0 ° 0 0 ° 0 0 _o _° ° o o ° o 0 ' o o ° 0 0 ° oo c o 0
E _ E _ E _ E E _ E E E _ E _ E _ ❑
N .y N .y a) .y a) .y a) 0 O ,y y .y y y
0 0 .? 0 0 .? 0 0 .> O N .� 0 0 ?. 0 0 > 0 a>i ?. 0 a) .? 0 a>) .? 0 0 .? C
U ❑ ❑ U ❑ ❑ U ❑ ❑ U ❑ ❑ U ❑ ❑ U ❑ ❑ U ❑ ❑ U ❑ ❑ U ❑ ❑ U ❑ ❑ Q
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 ,VI 2 2
E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = rrz
•°
F U U U U U U U U U
o > >
C c C C C C C C on C y, OL N
•L •L •L •L •L •L •L •L •L O CL C
C 7 7 7 C C 7 7 7 •L, C. O
e
0
a
d O
L L L L L L L L L L
a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ea ILI0 0
> >
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N >
C o n L >
co cc:
vI
N R
N 4 _ _ r CO y 0 cyOC •O0 -0
E 'cC C L LSA H O N
.. IVIm c R E y aEi a R c E o o U
E G._ O O o a) ai L fl N y
T bA (Ltl Gam, r-
0'S R o L 0 w L •0 �_, :E 0 L e
0 a y 3 c o .o O c t 0
O ca °' d O 3 adi v c N H o w T y L C ❑ R y
Ya)p_ ., Q U O
m O
ziCC. —_RR n0C •fa0n) t�a' aUte+ otid6) w 'C Ca aR = OLcVOa 0 a3L .y '�ro .v3 'z00C` O cUaom)
> R C •Ocu co
c= M
IxI0 = 2 U o° oN La f VI
oE
O 0 yO
.LsCarn)
L a s c o c U b ❑ v a 0 ._ E • R > 0 > E R L
m v m ° t R n m 3 o w " 0 c o c 3 U
Q o i 3 m = °' o c -as = m o
C i y D . L E ° 3 C o y o y c 0 r-
0
u? Cu: ci ca s ` �u " °
M co
'y y a°4i — 9 y° — 0 3, 3 0p E n .N c T
0 0 o 0 0 v C o ❑
o v = R = E J v o L 0 cit 0
= R O ca � C
CL
nn
7
d do a � a a aQgaa a3 °adcRi 3aoRz .S 0 r-
ori
3
- Al achment 3
tit
riL L L L L
- R aa a a a
G O O O O O
b
•Vl N N
> m
y Q) ° C m U O C m O C
.° mac 3Eo 0n = 3Eo 3E
0 o a _o o Q
UUu � ate [= a �
C R A A R
O
C C C C
U O O O O
O m m m m
y U U O Q)
E o a a a a
F U O m O to O w O ,n
to o c o c o c o c
c
o` to o` .o°n o .an o .an
0 a` O a` O a` O a` O
c
O
w �
Ci N
d
dO
a d n. o. CL M. a.
E a o 0 0 0 0
to
N
° ° .� c a CID .� a c m s
mrLa 0.�. N C .0. 0 N
Ij
o ° a m o 15 a5 Z E E ccl
r to C4U
OC, m Q) m a m C L m •E
R m
0. 0 -0
C _ y u
U �. ayi c. ° E 0 E o a'� O m o o ° .. o
M. lO NL..• lQ n' L >l U UL" L •f L U r' U C .a U
R Qn N •O m U l m O Vj i U m .,L. JD O H d Q)
o c . c >
T U m C Y O N O 7 m M m t i U U O U
.d+ .R. _ C 3 .•. m C _ U y 'C Ql m 'v
y U .E 0 .D O t i U C 3E 7 7 0 �O N ,�? y a = S9 � O U
L ac°o= •E •� C U C a c. .=m.+G0.
O tr. o d N Y c N o U R c a. c.
iv. G .0 = y O 7 m p NU'L7 U �G N 'CVRi N '-CL
is 7
a ° 3 c = a N on= o s L . m N n t o
° ° x = N c .. m N m — o m c a c ° N c
T O L U U •O C iC 'O C Uh. m O .to ° ° U •+ O
U
m m .. > m m 3 ti-
O N y O C m 0 t p C
m U mCL 0
E X m E Q' c a o y c ai c — QEi U
cv a a? '� m = w £ `^ c > ° > v v c vi _.o om N EE
a c c e 'E 2 c ° O O o ° 0 0 o m a L O m z ° " C 9
xQdme � wwfla ° QU � aUit Q ° QEU Qa .c_
4
A,ttachment 3
C O O O O O
> > > > >
A A A A A
C O 00 00
� •y C C r_C
'y ° C ° c O a,
° 3 E 3 E o
`II�pI O2 0 'ti Ey 'y 0 'y
a ❑ aAE- UA ❑ U ❑ ❑ U ❑ ❑
c cc c
It A A c
0 0 0 0 0
a, ;° c?
E: O O O O O
o c o c o o c o c
L OL •O L L •O L O
O O GD O O m O W
a` O a` O c Z a` O
c
0
Cc —
E o '� � •
r > C N a) a7 N
G
> G > > >
� a A [= A A O
y O 0
y 0 O
N ? m r c 3 : 3 � .� t
c a,
c _ y > 3 ° E ��° 2
aEi 0 0 m y N o 0c 0 c o 0. D o - E
.0U m io `" 5 >, C,3 .0 0 00,0 �O 'o U m o
r-
00
' ' o o c y c c s
cs u c n = a N N = 0 0 M O a d
..+ = E
s L °
0 R 3 N Q 0 3 a L ,O = t d t 3 ya y
U i g 0 `O _ = ms s E a, a N 0
Mo.—
to o n c w i t y s __ o 0 �' c 5)i ° 5 N 0 c
o
a d E 0 c ao 3 c 0v s 0 a>i .o •° d L L.
d0 ° EF- o •-, .° ws R c N onG ° n .L R a, on
i ° ° C 0 'C 3 U �"' U �'. O �` 'a d a N 3
sem. aci to 0 U a L A _ a, o - c �° ° y r N `o_
0. aE, ° cL 0 ; a c a 3 o N o f •0 o c
E Jr c.. a a. 0 '' a,
o E h a £ c c o °' 'o o � > c o > aL, 0 0
_ L L o >
as 3 ou.0 c ca • ° s ° a c 0 " E 0 `° h N ou 0
O = c .°c `' op r C7 ca c a, 1O E v o t cc w
5 W lQ O F OL ° N O C R = O E v G N
cr a,. o E c c a a o a, CO c o ° ca ;a .• N_ 0 c = U >'
C a.'° D o c = ° c E N c ° n _ N y 0 . N n 0 on
c • o as a c Y o .4 ry = a 5 .= E =
r .o R > R t m c o 8 a o o " •E t ° m
to 0- 0
t 4) ¢ 00 � OJQcmo A
CO V N b=q y. a) O .V V , y' a, H b0 E bA•C Q, cu
++ cCC •N C 0 L' a. >, C d'O 0 � •N L" V r � E � a)
a� � � � Awn � : a� X0 ,20 ay a
5 y"� �
Attachment 3
y
g
o
� c
E
:A 00 ER
R o j
c C: U d
E
0 0
°+ '- E > =
UUOD
a
o m
d �
U
G cca C
N .-
E
U
O y N
O c
on
C c
c 'c
R R
d
:>
U I
ca�
v E
o u u 0
u °n.
N N 3 N O u O 40. O i
R W
d - y ° n c c R R Nr
aUi y °' t° 'C c H '0 C cc •�
c to cui ? a d c c y s. " a"i is a
C Cp ti L N `' C. C y E O vOi 3 0 R V i..� O.
O 0 j c N c a w d V O N G. C w O O R
C L '3 R V e0 R 7 p y L O N
-V m Nor g m 4) c A
C O R � c vOi � 0 .= d•= > O O N � N d ,c O
tow u
U _ O
U .- L > R E 0 7 L 4 y E C t« 'O
E m aCd
- v E °RL°v c A .o c 'L' tov H •� oc_o 0
ca
a 00
L c c o0 3 v o > E R y o c o
y N y 04 N L A•0O LNa�i yys Vyc .A. OOL sR c C s.. tR m .O`° CU wC-a� �- c Lw•CV sFR=O E
O
0 8 o"a •D O .
00 E.. G � c« as -0 , O C
C 000C ND
O Mo.
R
m H-
N
C h i O Y .D O Z u •- > H d •L+ G@ O 'N o O N
ar O d R II. R N N t .O C; £ .� w u
pp R 4 ¢ y E > .` iC A 'O •C > d 'OV" t.0 y 0 O O
O -14
E U T R � R 7 U 7 L
.00
6 �-cod
Attachment 3
tu
C p O O
7
> > >
v v v
O _>1co
>
7 C 7 C 7 C
C C C
G R E R o4Ed OD E6.
U a '� U � '� U c
v y v v y v v u v
p S v E S v E S v E
> •y E > >
7 p v •� 7 0 v •� 3 0 v •�
U U 15 0 U U m U U m
v •v
�... v op w v o0
U U U U = R
C C � ❑ _ � � y O
R = C R = C C.`
R n
FF
O = C C O O
a` U i U o` U a U a` o
c c c
o r
C3 R R R
y 'in d 3 j
Eo 'i v �, v v
d u S a c ac n =
E 0; E d ° E —,°, E —�°,
E > '>_ E > '> E > '>
UOL� U � C� U � �
>+ V C t fjy N Q N
L U R L •p c ° •OJ v' U CD L C p � a) U U p
to L �- >>�'-' R O _ "' C
v v •p « {�,`w E
E C R O pcc
> U U O R .1L O O. .R. t' v R O..O 'UD H U cc > p w 4„ y d = a 3 C
R U h L , R h V v 'C E z R N R y N C Q CD R pp
Z C _ 'O C of 'C 7 N _0 C N L s L YLv L to U R L �U t R 'C C wN.•
o v E °= LZ "0 3s vCOO u00'c 0 to a °�' .0 —
•, U 'O % 7 L R v N N E C v v 7.9 7 R v R U p= .t.. y R Y y m
L N C E O G.O w t v C 'O C
C L o v E w c E U o o 'o o .� y N v ° U ° _ v o U ° v a
° •E Q S > U R t v v O ` to ° v .L s n o > =a v
a v $ = v c v " v y L R v R R
'L OL .E ` •> Z Y U C v v ._.+ _ > N R C ° v N �' v O U
U > > o o a v a v = _�v -0 E U v yR N ;a n, 0 3 s E ` 'v R L v an c v •E R
° R U •en t o . > E S c v U o0 0 ..'C U L N o v n m w c o E
m u axi a > V s v E R t _n y z a v 00
Q o v o c .R c o Q 3 E
c `a " U L v O "' R 3 N �-• U O N 0 0 O is R w '� OA C 'fl V '� .N. OD U �U„ L 6 to
N
0 oc > vc tv acv > Em nn ' o � � hsRvuvc = ° ooE
L v 0 .O O t = C S U O L E 'O v R R = '4 N = ... E y U L C .II
Qr U U C t U N F = F 0 r = 0 `. E t .v C V] L C O y aNi O•� v L
C `a L y O 3 d t " c Q n A v- R o c R R E o R E N 3 v d v v CL C L
.� N R v .O > R z N U N v N = y .O R to U C C >
T
N C C) E = U R N C N C L O U r L
3 .E d 3 • v v s E t_ p R a o . s = a R .
y R U N € c U ^ a`i LC. E"' O -� v n cd ' O O v .0 L C F R y R
QQ L O ° U 0 O E v U A ` R R E " v; v -° c ° N y
aEi = 6 R o o S = E t _ �c v E a a v -,$ v t-__ L N z
v p N Q Q R v N p O OU'9 N = Q ° N a) O 7
ami A aNi o U Q7 c v 3 -� _ t = tv R a N ° lu c c s = = o .E o 3 m c A v o
G L Rs 3s vGN .? ot_ ,3y E v °� ms R = C' a `a L E 3
a t c > cr z p c 3
Q
R i+ 'RO C N N 3 N R 0 0 0 L N R •O N i. CO 'D R N U
R
ea N > O " .�' .a`i E O R C V = U •a" y ° C• N O
rr R N E O E N N C N t R n v C °. E •N w N t O N
X 3 E v E ° U N v U d .N Q OL V E 00 N O: O v C C R C N L C 3 L C L
U v 'H E ._ L Q U n c 3 v z 0. R Q o o U F v R n o o. o R U R N = RCL
7 ��W J
Attachment 3
F O O O O O O O
In 00 in 00 a 00
A m m m i
C C = L X '
L •T+ U `= V fz _ 2:, U �,i. C O C C
w. G. C O.C E d = E 3 E E
. o E -2 2
!F�» .O EO E i
E V • E N ' ca E V '!2 co d
> > > > M. > > O. Q.
OV •_ OUu O V ._ V U
V
Una Unarm
C
U O U U
•� C U '� C •� C.
O p p O p O p
A
•C U y C U V
G E o 2 0 = 0 2 g o t
y rc C
0 0 0 m o 0 0 0 0 0
L L U = L L U L L U
O a'n .o m•o .o at
a` ¢ =a a a` ¢ ro a` ¢ co
e
CC
0
V
C �
d %
£ 'o
d N N
0 0 0 0
0 o Q o
E> 0 -0 V —
•G.•"J' N S •L •3 'O F E N •y •� 'F., d O ce y = L L ..t+ L Rt = C..
n CO CC
a c w 'v °' co 0 .0 O >1 =) = v y Q.O y _ vitt s � 'D
o v A v a c 0 S V A CL
'3 E '� c a oL 0 0 c=o d s s H 3 � 0 y H w 0 ro.W
00':. C E• �; 'fl ca a� Y y ., c U .0 ¢ d y ._ s is .p •O
U ._ fn y iO N O V = M R .F. t 'O p O. C U p .V O C ..+ U 'N
R -" U = u c o 0 a N u u H 0 d 0 " c t on E E
C o c v '� o .° 3 a v r Co s ° °c' a`i
O o t U m E c n u ` C] R o y °' t_ °a,°4° Lo .> ° ° °
_ c u,
\/ c0 'D L •C OV •c0 L .O w V •u H O y 0 0 V R V R V O >'
c = d v M v M .L o R c c E o H o m c u N
ELcc
L •n > E 0 o a=i = cc o ° _ u .o � c ;: oq c m E c M
C O p M 4C t E L -O p •O O M ca "�' N o0 E R cQ o .E d
O o0 U VCo r- OA •0 Oq Q M .L O t U •a •� N O m N O p E =
ISL V = cO U M = \ .2 7 ... N = 7 L t .t... M M c0 A E cC cO N
4, t R N w a.n Q• O 3 N cr w M t _ L U N d LMC
OD a IM Ed �_ �= tr > L U u E u L E = 3 a"i n co _ .E 3 A is
•L an d coi a• m m h R = ,o .� CU t ¢ = E u co •E " h > � 000 = —Um
o
w y y _ N L .v C o N O .F
an d o „ y = 4 O ouv rpt
c_ € oq t . ._ _ o U o _ y u L > v oto
> u
C H 3 ,� _ d 40 c y N O m G cC ?� E — u = u a`� cua 'E c c bf7•C R —
�' m Q o S a = a`i mcc o
CL " o tr E U •`- •E o E H A c o a 0ar y c L 0
C � s c cr
oDoun _ � �_ � � � M vas c = c = 0m �
y v - c 'd a m ti o E M u o
Q [- •0 0 o u Q ¢ m m ¢
e y c=a c t a aui t _ a E o ° o ° 4) �`a 3 A ¢ 'C E
u ♦ RcM ` ' c0E .- =' sca0v �? � EuCm
ai M U Q 'a u ¢ o L d > :° m 0 0
V V y U u] A a'y tr ¢ ti d ¢ .E u ami T t m d Q c o E u m
S 3 . v L o S L _a -0 ❑] 0. 3 s c0 L S w u . cc V]
8 ����
Attachment 3
- p U y U y U U y
G o UM
O 0 O, o o, o O O
= C C =
O `00 ❑ 00 ❑ 00 in 00
i
7 7 _
3 � 3 E E
a •" o a o a
c c
Y y r
E o c E a c E c c y E 0. c 3 E c c
E o o C E o o E o o r u o o u t o 0
C N y R N y R V •N co !-' R U •y '� R U N
E > '> a E > '> E > > = a > > a a > '>
o u ._ u ou -
U ❑ ❑ ❑ U ❑ ❑ ❑ U ❑ ❑ ❑ a0 ❑ ❑ a0 ❑ ❑
0 c v c
w u o U u o u w u co
O is O cc O
y y U y u y u y O
,o ? ,o ? ,oCL
ti
O =
Y
O C € O C € O C € O = O to
•i p u •� p U •` 0 U •i: ° U •� C
CL V a. a U a a. U n. a. U a. a. 0
H y H
0 3 3 3
h N
•y
a
u u u u u u u u u u u
ad cE of of of oEE
E C d co o A Val O m o A m
> a > a > a > a > a a
ow OW u u 00 u u u
to
cc
O U 7 N U _ to u
u CLO ° R r- uu > ` E - w u c r v t
c u o u 0 m ai R cq w L =a
ao H c 3 . L S a o
o A a E E ° c E 0 ca o CO o o 5 .5 U 0 c m
O O y rn = O O u 2 R 'L R
= R A S a u 4, N a o a ° 0 o c Z R U .E to N y o ro y
O D ° u o m A c c o c o o a E o c Rto
_
w E y R a 3 R o N O 0 �' u u = ,E u H E.— v u a A •c m
'a t ar=i € �_� •� m c v .= �' w E P U — a= a 3 c`a ca '°�' OD
V ° ° 0 3 0 R n H R -� c d c .� ya aai_� > m co y
2 � _ U € 0
o o n0 � MC E i � =° E :H
E �,+._ .E Cca u
to u E.in u oq 07 u u w Cr] 3 R R O u Y c �, t o f .0 amu, R
i c v L �. c = o V R ° u — = a u R 0 E E u
pp o O R R u : o c c o u c v> cc n R
R *10 t_ v •. = G U cti •=N E C
L >�•–L .t.. 7 O ` ° U
E u L t
tv-
U y y 'fl E y y L rod 3 = �'.0 R 0 .0 R S L is 0
s aoi E d A a
cc o y E � U E ° � R 0 E' m 0 v c aui c R 0 o � c.c U Ca
i0+ t R w rn 3 v C/1 R a ce E ' L = L •�. O .y U y R N — '.R N E'
u v a 0 0 >, R •fl _ .a �; y.•v H :° E 2 = —
L! L r y .UO a N O' A U 9 U ti R OL R u O O M = L U O R
b vi u t L 7 U C N O C E m to 0
y
W Iva N cL')
.. _v u ad: ua o Eu O rR _ a o L=
to >
U E 2u
tr > wy
0 —
u ; u E E E c
R o 0 u u oc
= ti O U u
o E m .__ 3 > ^ E —R v� E =a R d = c mo E R ,o ° h R E
R `o o ° " R a e N 0 c ` :° c-' ' ^ = ?0 .E n = c
} u o R a �- > a°pi a �- o cc �- a �- a R ca 0
'a 0 3 ° = c � —
S $ = Uaa � .Em'H Smia� z S a3 Sci °am Sa`. 3 E o S c=a o0 y R 3 2
9 l^IYJ
Attachment 3
U y U y U y
0 n n
= oc o o c o o c o 0 0 0
0 R n' NR y' N R y' 7J N O
a>i :n a>i a>i a>i a>i
Q o O Q o 0 Q o 0 Q A Q
as Co M M
°J ayi ayi c c c c
Q = = a a, a a
= Y = Y C C C C
7r-
0 = = O = _ ' d v
3 E E 3 E E o c c c a c a c
o o E o o o o o o
O '� ltO R t
R E E O > ,N N E
y y h
E > '> E > � E > '> E > '>
0 o O ._ 0 0 ._ 0 0 ._ o 0 ._
Q Q U A Q U A A U Q Q U Q Q
� c c
ILII uo 0 0
•-� p •51 c y y.0
V
O ° O p U L
= d U 0. V 0 ° C ti y
R 4. R 4. •—, i' R c
O OL Q y .0 O O
o > p o > o $ c 0 2 on cn
L O U L O U L •� LY/1 C r•"
rL
0.` ¢ It in. 0.` Ua n
L c c c c
oc
_ E -° EA E cc E c
O +1..
°' = Y � Y � U ❑ U c U c U c
a � 3 E 3 E E o 0 0 0 0 c 0 o c
0 0 .0 o 0 0 .0 o 0 0 0
s 0. a n 0. 0. > > '> > > > > > '> > > >
A A Q Q Q A A Q Q A A
0 IZI IA
.=U. 00i ca R L _ 0
0 0. a:.° y °o E' c aci E c p s i u y `0 3 R y 0 •� c 0
r% p = E ,c .4 > y 3 .m = ?;s0 o E r I- c w d oIn
v
IA
z 0 7 .O+ E 'O R L y 0..� v s c F' L y s R E U y i
y N V 4 a w - 0. E >'s
i A R `" o ._ c o G y 2 p a :- 0 • R o
C 4. N - 'O Q 'C v U c
` W °' U c U y ' •O .� O ..+ i y = c +•+ �„ Y L O N E vi
CO = 0 0 y 0 U y w 0
s c o ° y c ai ai = v o to 3
c° co
c n •- a0— E = Cc 30 00-0 RM
m ° L ' E
v ayoL
° ° to
° = E m
oU o >,ScR o E
O EE
0 00
0 0 `° �'•O
N o o R ajp„ on or
CR
V aCi Y O R 'D y X c
= c `" c 0 E o 0 -0 c
O fl 0
°' o ff
L p O 0 U c y E O U 4. c R Q U a'y by Tp «• y 72
�' U C N
C y w• y ? cv R 4, y aL� •+ ;a T'O
C 0U -0c •Noy = 30� c $ ow ILI d o — ` ,�
O O R O E �"_ C1 .moi T L O [C U •p �'• L y O p s V y '
�G/�• m 3 _ L 0 'E o 0 t E 0 a.£ s_ 0 O CU E
0 o U U > 4 a p o g v 0 0 = L
i E c L Xa 0. " c $ y o n R r p
`= fi O p 0. E o Q 3 a - L E y
E o o a 0 c A v ai R 0.
O = Q C = V d t F R R ° L Q V �_ y U U O L ,d U O O ° .E = N L Q
++ O V] E .� rl
y F' 3 ._.+ C N N U U w a C
wo02a� °' � ° von3 � vo = � � c c0i 'Eg � O ^ 3 ' � n
E a Q c , CC-, o fi •�R a0i N R = y y 42 d .R i c
' d ° a0i c ° `° c o e = 0 0 X E Q o °_' o o O c a =' o ° 0 •v c
S U L U w ._ S 0.ri o C N .a a a> _ 0 3 R s ;t z R o R a y CL z R R R
10
Attachment 3
"o c 0 0 o a 0
0 0 0 � n �
� 0 0 0 c o o c o
f > > > > > to > > �n
O O a O a 00 0 0 M 0 0
e m on OD w ao op
o c c c c c c
%. •C •C C C C �_
R R R R R
1.. ,.. � 1.. C .1.. N
C N 0 " C
v 0. C O.
EOoo O o o U rE E >U O
U O U O U U U U R
U
U0 � UUIQ UCCU00 a. 0
C C CC C
O O O O O C
U V U U V O O C
_ a �
fA N N N N
E c c c c c g o t
F U U U U U O
" R c
an On Oo m On g 0 0 Q
c c c c c M U L
G M O
O 0 a` Q =M a`
a
0
.a
� C L
O °
3 U
0 0 0 0 0 o E
v C
r - V U U U U U R
> U U N U V L N
U �
vUi O 7 0 U � R L C U > G. U � C EC L.• H
`° 0
R r C C �•' ° DD V ° 'O N N r U z y ° a. U y O •N C r
Nc �� N •o ° a; E .°- aRi ai c c —° Ce
o ° ° E w v c U E z > v c
^^O
oc a 0 cu oo°
O y U R A
RV .4 •0 ai ° c_o aO
R>04m R
C R F U U N O O «_. C U aV+ U .y
r j i`a a=i 3 o c L vi m 0 m Co c E v) 3 N _a`°i a"i `y y c L_ O c
° N o c o U r H a d oR o °) = v o o c °) 3 E
U a R L •O ` 4 R R ° C R 3 0 7 L ' C U C NC `N ° L R
c •c N a
dcd
L co C d 7 Oq <` v O' O O _� ° U C t0 ° 0 Oy "' r O = y t E r0 > y O. ,C o
L ° U U L y R U 2 0 7 'G " a� C C O U C U U pq•O N H
.Q O L C V '- y W N R 0 7 L E 'O R y E ° .L.+ 3 C C N L R
L > U •r, o E L. % R o R y m
CL V U C O Y V O _ 3 V U L V] C C i C C U N ° U O — E V R
RL E 0oN r— "a 2 c E v fl U - ar R 5 .0 'E c u
o c U
G s 0 7 y ld y o C 'D 0.0 N R G.; S O 0 Q- - ip d 0 R O00 U •% O
OU N R •G' ° G vUi ° 7 6•,O. U i. y >' 7 .- N -0 U 0. p U L O i OD N c1 C y U C
c U c E U . R C % �,. N U E " c E o_ ,E
U U N L E N y p' U ,n U Y O N V) 0 �+' R
G 0 N ° d U c E ao m 4 0 > c % > c O E o o c = N C ._ .�
�Gr bo
W O C L �N-' �•„ y y U O N d. E N L y L L O .E �? > E O L N R m Q E �-
U ° E = c o 7 N •y R �O U R L O. 7 �•, F. O a 0 �" Q G. = V N Mto >
YI _ {y.. 1 E •� 1 E
0- 0
V > ¢ N F ° N L ° .O •° U yO V Q d L V
L o r .0 C N U N F N '- ° C cc
CQ
E • C o C= YV
O 0. > , 4 UU � 7 L` O9 N ^ 3 U Ev0A xw ° ° i
-° ° 0 v ° R
o0 OoZ . o o R o z — -CZ •o Z U E t z 0. acU z N
N u [�. F V] W
Attachment 3
I >1
a a ua 0c a n n
0 0 0 0 0
N
d W 0 0 0 d
ccn ew on on L' on en L' on �- oa
o c ca C c c c c c c c c c c C C
..= 7 .� 7 .= 7 •C 7 •�
> E C E c E C E c E C E c E c E c
A E R E V E R E S5 E `-° E � E m E R
oa 'o a. 0a. Oa o0. oa Oa. on.
y U7�, N U .� y U N U '.z U .1.. N U .7 N U , 0 U .7
Y ' C X .1„ C Y , C Y , C Y
° 30cc 3nc3Ecc3mac3Ecc 3 °' cc ° ac' E 3EE
a a, r 2 .? � r.� .s urs .s a, a s ur � .E urs •s3 � o•° �_ rs
C. R u ,y .�. R u ,H R u .`� R u .� C: R u .� R u ,h C; R u .� — R u
-0 O. > > .0 O. > > .O O. > > L d > > SJ O. > > O. > > ,fj a > > L G. >
7 u u .� 7 u u ._ 7 u u .� 7 N N ._ 7 N N ._ 7 N N ._ 7 N N ._ 7 u u
a ❑ ❑ ❑ a O ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U >
CIS '8 75
C y 0 N N NCL CL N N CL
OL
F-. O O O O O O O a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c
ao
L0_ o o L0 0`o _ LO Lo
`
a` a` a` a aL ❑
Y X Y
0 3 3 3
d
C
o u o p u u u u u u
cE 3 E 3 E 3 E 0 E aE aE
ECt � r � r � r � r Er ° r ° r ° r
r. co R R R R u R u R0 R
:E a a 0 a JD M. a > 0. > a > a
7 u 7 u 7 u 7 u 7 u u u u u u u
a ❑ a ❑ a 0 a ❑ a 0 ❑ ❑ a 0 0
p y U C y
I-
0 O •a R y
Y 0 .0 m e c u E
^ d E c u L o R R y R = R u 0
ccoa� t m u R u
u u u
t H
E S L u R r u
•�—0It
y L u y O 3
u y '�. id E v7i iFL 0
= t
E c = o o m i t o DRi in u v y E C " > 3 c c
d y u C C C C. L > u L
41-0
ca
y i 33E
v ° R c
R0iY
V1
'C S u 7 m N o
3 a 0 3 u cC o c coo .E .� C0 u •7 N C on 7
L 01 vi U G Y L C N U 0 d G '0 G E u L O"ca OD C O
ca E H 4Ri c o ' a'"o cCo u _ E = e6
Giy d u .R+ R N N v R R 7 C 7 N R o C .L+.
V v = y E u C y X y y .N O 00
W VJ .R b .u„ Y lL0 u
c u on o E
:05s y °c .°Q 3 a`� E .= > o u v aui y u E 0. °u° a>i Y
l p -o y c y u L v u L : a L L 'E 0 a. �, c - a. u
c 3 -0 t aOi aci V] — in on m p o 06 E ° on -0 m
i V w i� mon m y .N o c c
ca.
REc1
a aaa)
p C R 'C a
v
0 y cc
•>u >RCp to t R p o 'O ° c N o :40v o p c o R4 " oas3r° ` - y a0Y onS . 4) d my o u L uRto RuL_
0 L .. .. R ... R
W N N V. [Ca y y �.O- H n' j N s N U N '7 C t�1 .°C Vl V yO C V' c as �' to
r
a
°
ci
W X 7 m
L > 72
Fo a t uL O o C uX cL
c,o,.,
12 �'��
Attachment 3
O
o via 0 0 c n �
C w o 0 0 0 0
c
y N_
� O
•� V 0 0 0 �, �
U Q Q D o 00
L
O
R
G t t° o r a °'
G.U G E —
.0.
w = 3 E y y c y 0_ c E
E o 0 t
Q a' �
a
0 U
O ccCf
y
2 Co
C cc w
O O O C O
Jr- U
C O C O iyO.� L .� L VlL O U
o N o y o c o o.a a` Q m
0
e cd
o N y 3 y
d O ° Cz
ad 3E of oEc of o
c >
o _ y L
v o 3 0 d y p y o m °°- �� C p
v .R
= R0 4 .0 N C > > O R R C = N R °
° C T C w U
U ° 0 ep •y 'y y
CLL. W ° rRn O O c. U — C 7 •U N
y « E 3 0 .E o cn s c m a R N 3 R ° °
w N r R = ENE .y c a) O y C U L > y N •N v d R
U4°. N ti 4+
G N y c 0. V y p v .� L O p _ O E °
C F A •� N C 7 `n ° cd L .II = .D R R O 0 R R o
p R 0 W
U � v cos
0 t vi 0 'a.. �+ N .0 0 y' V •C V 0 L O p V
v� 0 0 3 c a=i o o e t R > ti Q-1 U D N
i °`' E ,G o v °' � °' c E :° �_ �_ " a0' a y __ 0 E r R 0 • N o a,
tom. Ac 0 A c E o v°, `mO 'C O c d3 3C V 3O.•�, vOi C wn
Cw 'o =
H 6.
0 0 V 4=° cO
aci
O .o O y p E •C
R' Y 0 w E R L
C a aoj
ci c c u o `0c v c v �' c o 0. 0 c "a aci c E c E
E E o
UN j UV c 4) c u
c U o ` ° o 0 0oo _y � OO U au s C O Op
0zC • L .— O 6 C « V U
0 Osa Ecc Q 0. to C4 p 00.0
sy�0-
=o G=o ¢ c LN 0 0 s
Ow GLRE cC " O R C R
O
O " OEO tu EO C 0 Ce lr •03C '- RO RoAC7O U
'cm0 o y > 0. L° n° . N p Lo or VC C o .o 0 "o 00 t'flE
E _E O C3. O •% C
y��iGrr alQ. 4CF-' pE oR R�`a mN aR CR NR t r ._° CL C 'C yr F^-. 'OR'. CR E-' •o_ •CR c`OC �(�"1 «LO .NE� NUON ��iOV O�. �yRCca �N0C .�R LpO .•op- 06 N C N • L y 'O
b a, CIO 0 d O
aR 00 � a U C.U
ui
13 Yo
- ;a.acs,dent 3
Uy
s' c .a a a
C o c o 0 0
y
fz >
Ca .a > >
0 cu
a 00 a O
C0 R N
>> d >
C L' C
c a c E C a c E c a CE
O £ m y c E d o R U o R
E > '.j E > ' >> >
O O
UL9C� C] UO � � U � 00
V
C O
O O >
U p
0 L
E 0 2 o a c
Q O
o > o o c o
L ° U L .� L
o aty o y o
a
Li Q R a a`
e
0
r
d q
d O
L L L
0
0
8CG 6
D in
y N
U dq O
CU C
C LQ C Y j
�
U V a O. Q.
.. � ° E t c
CL = A ;; c0 -0
r
T w 2 G 7 T
L CL Cy
O U j > L c E 3
0 .2 m0 CL
•>
L
O ,O CL '7 u N v
U — LZ
ca
E N
C y N N
y
•� o L p, � o
en ❑ �_ d E v c �.
N 03 vLQ Uba
iw L Y-R LL L
U
L N U
O N y R U
� U O LU
CU
cc a s � � E
CL O
y _" O C a d t N O y �`•
pp ea ca a� c y c
c
�> O
"coo
fu14
Date Received
RECEIVED
aw , o�
,1 city AUG s zooz
Al' san lues OBlspo
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION
C6prOWDS 1150 . AVY /3`fs , sGo,�� 93yo
Name Mailing Address and Trp Code
,5q3 - o6(;o ell
Phone Fax
AM/< AAWSoA1 Jel-Yf fh'G"FlIeA S7: STE 20/, sca &A
Representative's Name Mailing Address and.Zip Code
ptRoT A&Ctt7aC S / 2739
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:
ft,AlNI ACr Q Nt M f SSI0 it/
(Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) / '
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 10?-UST �'T_ 2010 Z
3. The application or project was entitled: /aAGM ZMQ?,Ra ftkfiV1 is M1JC7VA,6
4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member:j
(Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date)
SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL
Explain specifically what actions 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
Reason for Appeal continued Ae _
?w hFyt -L of A use tow-r- fig ilis PpWoSEb
CMt*> F AO DFFrciff t�VIIAN E. Oe MLitEU E VE Bea MS
�3VU-,D WG- �IUV(Pr=S tOW rPu31.1C &EAJeFrr-S, NCI .
Mucf( Alue- uD P 8140 Phi 4wj6s-• jr rtwlw rnowof
t2 INE U-33 bf WM- ffT- COURT .��7 �7r
C2XA f� Pds CXa2T ST. lz4Jc�T' rvftrcH tit
401A6VC- s t 4 MaCH WRIP kBrAZFrT " G
SECTION 4. APPELLANTS RESPONSIBILITY
The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and
encourages all forms of citizen involvement. The City, unlike most in California, does not
charge a fee for filing an appeal. However, placing an appeal before the City Council requires
considerable work and cost, including agenda report preparation and public notification.
Therefore, 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 scheduled to 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.
l he y agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when
said appe is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council.
0
(Signature of Appellant) (Date)
This item is hereby calendared for
C: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Department Head `ynG-
City Clerk(o . inal)
Page 2 of 3
10/01
CAttachment 5
�IIIIIIII II IIIII�II������;� �IIIIIIIII I�
Clyor
S�►�'1 �,llS O�1SpO
It I 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
August 21, 2002
Tom Copeland
Court Street Partners
P.O. Box 1348
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: ER 192-01: Analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed mixed
use development project
U and ER 193-01: Request to allow development of a parking structure,
ground floor office space, a floor area ratio of 5:1, a maximum building
height of 70-feet, and environmental review
Dear Mr. Copeland:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of August 14, 2002, recommended that the City Council
certify the Final EIR for the project with some changes, and they denied the use permit, as
addressed by the information in the attached resolutions.
The action of the Planning Commission on the EIR is a recommendation to the City Council and,
therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for public hearing before the
City Council on September 17, 2002. This date, however, should be verified with the City Clerk's
office at (805) 781-7102.
The action of the Planning Commission on the use permit is final unless appealed. We have
received a copy of your appeal of this decision and note that the Clerk's Office has set the matter
on the Council's September 17, 2002 agenda. Again, this date should be verified with the City
Clerk's office.
If you have any questions, please contact Pam Ricci at (805) 781-7168.
Sincerely,
onal
Whisena�'
Deputy Community Development Director
Development Review
cc: SLO County Assessor's Office
Mark Rawson Copeland's Properties, LLC
444 Higuera Street, Suite 201 966 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
c tmB% Resolution No. 5343-02 and Resolution No. 5344-02
he ity of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled In all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. 3
C Attachment 5
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5343-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR
FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 999 MONTEREY STREET
(APPLICATION # ER 192-01)
AND 919 PALM STREET (APPLICATION it ER 193-01)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on August 14, 2002, for the purpose of considering the Final EIR for the
Copelands Project located on two separate sites in the downtown at 999 Monterey
Street and 919 Palm Street; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and
forwarding a recommendation to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
regarding the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Copelands
Project Final EIR which includes the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence,
including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the
following findings:
1. The Final EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and was considered by the City prior to any approvals of
the project.
2. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City.
3. For each significant effect identified in the EIR under the categories of
Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geologic
Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality,
Land Use and Planning Policies, Noise, Transportation and Traffic, and
Utilities and Public Services, the approved mitigation measures contained in
the EIR will avoid or substantially lessen the identified adverse environmental
impacts of the project to a level of insignificance and have been incorporated
into the project. A J1q
Attachment 5
Resolution No. 5343-02
Page 2
4. The significant effects identified in the Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Air
Quality, and Short-term Construction Noise sections of the EIR will not be
fully mitigated to a degree of insignificance with the incorporation of all of the
identified mitigation measures included in the EIR. However, the Planning
Commission finds that the adverse environmental effects are acceptable and
makes a statement of overriding considerations for those significant and
unavoidable environmental impacts because:
a. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) unanimously supported the
scale and height of the proposed structure as proposed with four levels of
parking above the offices and one below. The ARC asked that further
refinements be made to the design to further improve its appearance and
pedestrian appeal. The ARC's direction is consistent with Mitigation
Measure VIS-2, which lists specific recommendations to enhance the
design of the structure. The proposed height and scale is consistent with
Land Use Element Policy 4.16.4, which encourages added height for
some downtown landmark buildings.
b. Mitigation strategies help to reduce project emissions and ultimately put
the air basin in closer compliance with established State and federal
standards.
c. The unavoidable adverse impact of construction noise is temporary in
nature and can be substantially mitigated by implementation of a
construction management plan that regulates the hours of construction,
noise reduction measures, and a complaint resolution process, consistent
with recommended mitigation measures.
d. The Planning Commission has identified the following overriding public
benefits of the project, which are additional reasons that the significant
and unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR can be found
acceptable:
• Urban design continuity — development of a parking lot site with
an attractive mixed-use project which would not be achievable
without private capital and investment;
• Improved pedestrian amenities — via the project's pedestrian
streets or paseos in both project components, and the possibility of
future linkages through other sites;
• More attractions for tourists — further tax dollars to keep the
downtown vital and the center of the community; and
• Improved business synergy — the idea of this project creating
incentives for other property owners to seek improvements to their
own sites and increased revenues and foot traffic.
Section 2. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that the City Council certify the Final EIR for the project, with the following
changes:
4,16
Attachment 5
Resolution No. 5343-02
Page 3
1. Project Impact 3.7-2, discussed in the Final EIR on Page 3.7-15 of the Land
Use section, which evaluated the project's consistency with Land Use
Element Policy 4.2.1 that includes the language that "all new large
commercial projects in the downtown should include dwellings", be modified
to a Class 1, significant and unavoidable impact. The Commission did not
support the payment of an in-lieu housing fee as appropriate mitigation to find
it a Class 2, significant, but mitigable, impact.
2. There shall be added discussion in the Responses to Comments, specifically
PCM 25, regarding pedestrian and automobile conflicts along the sidewalk in
front of the garage access point along Palm Street. The Commission wanted
more technical statistics to support the conclusions of there not being a
significant impact and a discussion of further design alternatives to minimize
pedestrian and automobile conflicts. As a related amendment, the Mitigation
and Monitoring Program would need to be appropriately modified.
3. Modify the discussion in Section 1.1.1, Population and Housing Growth, to
delete the following two sentences:
• New retail and restaurant jobs associated with the proposed project
would be expected to be filled from the existing labor pool and would
not likely affect immigration to the area.
• It can be assumed that only a small percentage of these households
would come from outside the area to San Luis Obispo for the newly
created jobs.
4. Modify Mitigation Measure VIS-3, discussed in the Final EIR on Page 3.1-27,
to add a sentence providing more specific performance standards for lighting
on the upper level of the structure.
On motion by Commr. Caruso, seconded by Commr. Cooper, and on the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Caruso, Cooper, and Osborne, and Chairperson Loh.
NOES: Commr. Boswell.
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Aiken and Peterson.
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 14th day of August, 2002.
konaJdWhisenand, Secretary
Planning Commission by:
W-�-b
C Attachment 5
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5344-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING A USE PERMIT FOR THE
PALM/MORRO OFFICE/PARKING STRUCTURE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 919 PALM STREET
APPLICATION # U 193-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on August 14, 2002, for the purpose of considering Application U 193-01 , a
Planning Commission Use Permit to:
1. Allow the multi-level parking facility;
2. Allow ground floor office space in the C-C zone;
3. Allow a maximum building height of 70 feet; and
4. Allow a Floor Area Ratio of 5.1; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and
forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
regarding the project; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Copelands
Project Final EIR which includes the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence,
including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the
following findings:
1. The development of the multi-level parking garage is inconsistent with Land
Use Element Policy 4.16.4, which indicates that a few, taller "landmark"
buildings that are up to 75 feet in height may be developed in the downtown.
The proposed parking structure with offices does not comply with this policy
since it is not a landmark building, is not stepped back on the upper floors,
and is not located mid-block.
2. The development of the multi-level parking garage is inconsistent with Land
Use Element Policy 4.10 because the structure is not appropriately located
on the periphery of the commercial core.
+11
1
C Attachment 5
Resolution No. 5344-02
Page 2
Section 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby deny application U
193-01 .
On motion by Commr. Boswell, seconded by Commr Caruso, and on the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Caruso, and Chairperson Loh.
NOES: Commrs. Osborne and Cooper.
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Aiken and Peterson.
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 14th day of August, 2002.
onald hisen d, Secretary
Planning Com ission by:
'Attachment 6
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 14, 2002
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:06 p.m. on
Wednesday, August 14, 2002, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Allan Cooper, Orval Osborne, Michael Boswell, James
Caruso, and Chairwoman Alice Loh.
Absent: Commissioners Stephen Peterson and Jim Aiken.
Staff: Associate Planner Pam Ricci, Economic Development Manager Shelly
Stanwyck, Deputy Public Works Director Tim Bochum, Principle Transportation
Planner Terry Sanville, Deputy Community Development Director Ronald
Whisenand, Assistant City Administrative Officer Wendy George, Assistant City
Attorney Gil Trujillo, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE MINUTE:
The Minutes of Junes 26, 2002, were accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Copeland's Proiect:
Assistant City Administrative Officer Wendy George provided some opening comments
on the Copeland's Project and its importantance to the downtown. She stated the City
Council was pleased when the Copelands proposed a plan to turn several parking lots
into major mixed-use projects, and that it was also greeted with enthusiasm from the
public. She noted there were circumstances that required changes to the initial
concepts, and as a result, the City Council entered into an Amended Memorandum of
Understanding (Amended MOU) on December 11, 2001. With the changes
incorporated into the proposal, the project continues to offer the City the kind of
complex, high-density, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly project that cannot usually be
built without a redevelopment agency. She explained that upon approving the
+I_G 1.
Draft Planning Commission Outes Attachment 6
August 14, 2002
Page 2
Amended MOU, the Council designated the Copelands Project as its top priority project.
She noted the terms of the agreement between the City and the Copeland's required
the development review process be completed in a timely fashion so a guaranteed
maximum price contract could be satisfied within a given time frame. She expressed
appreciation with everyone's hard work and efforts that were involved with this project.
a. 999 Monterey Street. ER 192-01; Analysis of the environment impacts of the
proposed mixed-use development project; C-C-H zone; Copeland's Properties,
LLC, applicant.
Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented a brief chronology of the Planning
Commission's review of the project. She presented the staff report recommending to
the City Council that the EIR be certified with a finding of overriding considerations
relative to aesthetics/visual resources, air quality and short-term construction noise.
She then explained in detail the four compnents of the requested Use Permit. She
noted there were three letters that were received regarding the project. She suggested
that the Commission keep in mind that the EIR should contain all the elements that are
required by CEQA and be a good faith, objective effort towards full disclosure. She
gave a brief summary of what the requirements are for recommending certification of
the EIR.
Commr. Caruso questioned recommending certification of the EIR, and noted the
Planning Commission must certify the EIR before they approve the Use Permit since
the EIR covers both projects.
Planner Ricci pointed out that the Planning Commission Resolution for approving the
Use Permit contains the findings for certification of the Final EIR.
Commr. Caruso noted that all actions at this meeting will be a recommendation, but was
under the impression that they had the final say on the Use Permit.
Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand responded that it is up to
the Planning Commission to decide how they would act on it. If they want to take final
action on the use permit, he suggested they modify the resolution to state, "this action
shall not take effect until the certification date of the EIR by the Council," so it is
approved subject to the certification.
Lisa Burns, AMEC, Senior Environmental Planner, gave a presentation on the changes
between the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the Final. She presented
overheads of the new added visual simulations done for the project.
Commr. Cooper expressed a concern on the statement on page 3.1-4 that pertains to
the lighting levels and asked if there were any other lighting mitagations in the EIR,
particularly for the rooftop deck.
Ms. Burns explained that the schematic details were researched and there were no
stanchion lights proposed.on the roof deck.
Attachment 6
Draft Planning Commission fug nutes
August 14, 2002
Page 3
Planner Ricci noted the lighting issue is also addressed in Condition 3 of the Use
Permit.
Commr. Cooper questioned if they were referring stanchion lights on the roof.
Frank Sherkow, Aztec Engineering, explained that when the analysis was prepared,
they did not have that level of detail, so they used the generic language that was
discussed.
Tim Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works, responded that specifying types of
lighting lighting that are shielded to shine down, rather than out, like those on the Palm
Street garage would be appropriate.
Ms. Burns commented that they are relying on the Architectural Review Commission to
address the detailed plans for the light fixtures.
Commr. Cooper expressed confusion with the population and housing growth numbers
in the EIR. He noted that the Consultant assumed that local population would be filling
newly created jobs and people would not be commuting from outside of the city.
Ms. Burns explained they were attempting to show the relationship between project-
related growth and housing. Those figures were for planning purposes and were taken
from a study that was 20-years old.
Commr. Cooper noted it would be helpful if the report stated that Cal Poly students
would be working these jobs. He felt it is not clear that they have a high unemployed
population here since most people employed in the city do not live in the city.
Vice-Chair Osborne asked if the pedestrian amenities are being improved with respect
to the current situation or to some other project?
Deputy Director Whisenand responded that the finding was based on the fact that the
Copeland project is going to be a pedestrian-style type of development, rather than an
auto-oriented development.
Vice-Chair Osborne commented that it would be a destination, and asked where within
the project could you walk around.
Deputy Director Whisenand explained this project provides important links for
pedestrians to walk through the site and to other areas of the downtown, which ties in
with Land Use Element goals for the downtown to have pedestrian-oriented
development.
Planner Ricci commented that the Downtown Concept Plan allows for a potential for
future linkages with other nearby properties.
Attachment 6
Draft Planning Commission N,.jutes J
August 14, 2002
Page 4
Vice-Chair Osborne noted on page 12 of the EIR, that a concern was expressed on the
proximity of the proposed parking structure to the existing Palm Street parking structure
and that pedestrian safety would be compromised.
Ms. Burns explained the Palm-Morro Structure was planned with a wider sidewalk to
improve pedestrian access along that frontage.
Frank Sherkow, AZTEC Engineering, explained there was detailed work done on
pedestrian movements, and they did not find a problem in the Palm/Morro intersection
area. He noted that it was suggested that an ongoing monitoring process be put in
place at this intersection.
Planner Ricci mentioned that there have been some modifications to the project design
since it was initially proposed, with pedestrian safety in mind.
Vice-Chair Osborne asked about the mitigation measures for the project.
Assistant Attorney Trujillo stated that CEQA requires that there be a direct connection or
nexus between an impact and any mitigation measure.
Vice-Chair Osborne noted that air quality was determined to be a significant impact
according to the EIR. He felt that there is a nexus between requiring pedestrain
improvements in terms of mitigating the air quality impact.
Attorney Trujillo stated that it is the Planning Commission's duty to identify any impacts
that they feel were not adequately identified in the EIR. If the Commission could identify
an impact, it is their discretion to recommend mitigation measures that are related to
this impact.
Economic Development Manager Shelly Stanwyck responded with regard to two letters
that the Commission received from legal counsel representing adjacent property owners
to the Palm-Morro Structure, Vintage Properties and .the Nelson Family Trust. She
explained that the two letters indicate that negotiations between the parties continue to
be ongoing. She commented on some issues that were raised and gave a brief
explanation of them.
Attorney Trujillo explained that the recommended Resolution is consistent with CEQA,
which defers to the City Council for approval of both the Final EIR and the Use Permit.
Planner Ricci clarified that it was staff's intention that the Commission approve the Use
Permit and recommend certification of the Final EIR to the Counil. She noted that the
first condition of the Use Permit relates to incorporation of all of the Council approved
mitigation measures in the Final EIR. She added that these mitigations would be
conditions of approval, and that the Use Permit would not take effect until after the
Council's certification of the Final EIR.
Commr. Cooper questioned what a landmark building means.
Attachment 6
Draft Planning Commission b...lutes
August 14, 2002
Page 5
Planner Ricci explained that the General Plan defines the downtown as the heart and
core of the community, and that structures such as City Hall, the County Courthouse,
and parking structures could be considered landmarks.
Deputy Director Whisenand explained that staff did not come up with the term
"landmark", which is language in the General Plan that was adopted by the City Council.
Commr. Cooper asked how much payment is being discussed as far as in-lieu housing
and parking fees.
Economic Manager Stanwyck responded that the parking is a negotiated amount and
pursuant to the Amended MOU, it is $4,000.00 per space and is calculated on the
space demand created by the Court Street compnent of the project.
Commr. Cooper asked what the in-lieu housing fees are.
Planner Ricci replied that the fees for Court Street are $120,000.00 and the fees for the
parking structure would be $130,000.00.
Economic Manager Stanwyck explained that these are not negotiated fees; they are
established through the City's Building Division and are based on square footages of
the building.
Commr. Boswell felt that the trip generation numbers are too high.
Mr. Sherkow responded that they found no significant impact of any sort in terms of
traffic.
Ms. Burns commented that an effective transportation management program could
achieve up to a 30% reduction in trips, but if they went up to 40%, which is the most
generous, it would still not mitigate air quality impacts below a level of significance.
Commr. Boswell noted they had calculated that there would be very little commuting
generated from the project based on employment, because most of the employment
would be taken locally.
Ms. Burns clarified that he was talking about a transportation impact.
Commr. Boswell responded that he is not convinced that all the employment for this
project is going to be from people who currently live in the city, which he felt is not a
traffic issue; it is a jobs/housing balance issue.
Ms. Burns noted it was pointed out in the Population and Housing Growth section.
Commr. Boswell was confused with the parking calculations. He asked if the mitigation
is the in-lieu fee and if the in-lieu fee is going back to pay for the garage.
All
Attachment 6
Draft Planning Commission i.... utes -
August 14, 2002
Page 6
Economic Manager Stanwyck explained what the terms are in the MOU for the in-lieu
fee.
Commr. Boswell asked where the need for the 159 spaces in the garage is coming from
if the in-lieu fee settles it?
Deputy Director Bochum explained one of the conditions that the Council imposed on
the project concept was to locate the loss of public spaces in the downtown. This is
why the effort for the overall project concept is to supply hard and fast parking supply in
order to meet the public parking demand.
Commr. Boswell noted the way the MOU is arranged; this in-lieu fee money would be
taken as part of the purchase for the garage.
Economic Manager Stanwyck responded that the City is ultimately purchasing the
parking garage and that the in-lieu fee would go into the parking fund, which addresses
a variety of City programs including future parking projects.
Commr. Boswell felt that this should have been stated in the EIR because it is very
confusing and appears as if they are double charging for the parking.
Mr. Sherkow mentioned trip generation numbers in the p.m. peak hours across the
Palm Street driveway of the garage is 90 out-bound, and the rest are in-bound from the
east or west. He stated the number of pedestrians crossing this same threshold at mid-
day on the south sidewalk is about 78 pedestrians, and the p.m. at this same location is
approximately 25% less. He noted they have one pedestrian per minute crossing this
driveway in the p.m. peak hours, and approximately four cars per minute.
Mark Rawson, Project Architect, responded to several topics of concern. He briefly
explained why housing was not a component of this project. He noted that without
parking on Court Street, it is less feasible to have housing. He summarized that the mix
of retail and commercial uses with City/government uses ultimately proposed in this
project are part of what contributes to a critical balance and keeps the downtown
healthy, vital, and active. He noted they have been able to redirect their immediate
goals and come up with a project that embodies all of the components that add to the
downtown. He commented that they have tried to reduce the amount of traffic in the
immediate downtown core so they could further the pedestrian ambiance. He
mentioned that the City's Downtown Concept Plan has tried to focus the parking on a
perimeter around the central core of the downtown, which is why the parking structure
has been proposed. He noted that the Palm-Morro Structure would have some
potential for a future conversion to an office use or other type of use.
Commr. Cooper asked if the original Downtown Center project was built to
accommodate an extra floor
Mr. Rawson replied yes.
Attachment 6
Draft Planning Commission Ates
August 14, 2002
Page 7
Commr. Cooper questioned if this project is going to be built to accommodate an extra
floor or two.
Mr. Rawson replied no.
Commr. Cooper asked if they would want to eventually accommodate housing.
Mr. Rawson explained they did not design the structure to support another floor level in
the future.
Commr. Cooper asked if the location for public art has been determined.
Mr. Rawson replied that they have not yet identified what type of public art will be
installed, but they are looking at some mosaic tile treatments in the paving.
Commr. Cooper noted that it is difficult finding spaces in the paseo where sculptures
could be displayed that won't encroach on the public right-of-way.
Commr. Cooper commented that if this building were to be converted in the future to
office use, it would not be suitable unless there were more windows, and asked how
they could adapt this building (Palm-Morro).
Mr. Rawson explained that, based on input from the ARC, more opening were created
in the Palm-Morro Structure. He noted that they were able to add windows to the shear
walls.
Commr. Cooper expressed suggested that there be more windows in the Palm-Morro
Structure for the office at the street level.
Mr. Rawson mentioned that they have discussed mono frames, but were told by
engineering experts that mono frame buildings are really not the way to build structures
anymore.
Vice-Chair Osborne commented on the relative scale of the two components of this
project, which are the Court Street and the parking garage. He felt they have been
aggressive on maximizing the size of the parking garage, but the Court Street building
could add another floor. He asked if they had considered going up four or five floors on
the Court Street Site.
Mr. Rawson responded they did not consider adding any other floors to the Court Street
site.
Chairwoman Loh appreciated the model submitted by the architect. She asked if the
new parking garage is the same height as the City-County library.
Mr. Rawson replied that it is pretty close, and explained that the top of the tower is
approximately 55 feet, and the top of the garage at Palm Street is approximately 52
feet.
Ob
Draft Planning Commission utes
Attachment 6
August 14, 2002
Page 8
Chairwoman Loh asked what the height is of the general parapet walls.
Mr. Rawson replied roughly 52 feet on Palm Street, and on the opposite end about 62
feet.
Chairwoman Loh asked how high City Hall is up to the gable.
Mr. Rawson replied that he is unsure and guessed approximately 40 feet high.
Chairwoman Loh stated that she considers City Hall a landmark. She noted when they
reviewed the Draft EIR, they mentioned the height of the parking garage, and potential
conflicts with the pedestrian traffic as concerns. She mentioned that the EIR included
an alternative with housing on top of the Court Street project. She suggested that there
be no in-lieu housing fee if an added two stories were built for affordable housing.
Mr. Rawson responded that they have given it much thought since there is a strong
desire to have housing in the downtown, but it comes back to the basic concern that
they would not have parking provided for these units. They would also have the
problem of trying to mix the type of retail environment that they are creating there with
housing, which is a difficult mix.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Jean Anderson, 544 Pacific Street, had concerns with access to the library, specifically
people with disabilities, the elderly, and volunteers with disabilities. She felt it would be
difficult for some people to get from the new parking structure to the library, and was
cocnerned with pedestrain safety at the entry to the garage. She asked where the
library employees would be parking, and noted that temporary employees would not be
able to afford the parking. She suggested that ther be smooth surfaces for people to
walk on, and enough parking provided for cyclists.
Linda Somers Smith, 979 Osos, Suite F, representing Vintage Properties, commented
that the property owners support the project as it is, but there are some details that
need to be worked out. She explained that emergency vehicle access, trash, deliveries,
and Bookmpbile parking all needed to be addressed with the development of the Plam-
Morro Structure.
George Moylan, 2684 Johnson Avenue, Housing Authority, mentioned that they are in
support of the plans, and felt this is a plus for the City of San Luis Obispo. He noted
that he concurs with the architect that Court Street is not a place for additional housing
because there is no on-site parking. He explained that sites on the periphery of the
downtown are preferred for creating more affordable housing because land costs are
more reasonable.
Brett Cross, 1217 Mariner's Cove, commented when the project was presented to the
community it was an ambitious goal and may have been more ambitious than what the
applicants realized. He noted the City has a parking-in-lieu program, and tries to locate
Attachment- 6
Draft Planning Commission M„tutes
August 14, 2002
Page 9
parking structures in the best possible locations. He felt that parking structures should
not be located where there is a tremendous amount of pedestrian activity.
Mike Spangler, 664 Marsh Street, complimented staff for getting the project this far. He
suggested that the Commission concur with staff's recommendation.
Paul Brown, 1214 Mariner's Cove, commented that the designers of this project have
put a lot of time and energy into making sure that this is a valuable addition to the
downtown. He stated that the project meets the needs of the City as far as addiing
retail uses to the core along with needed parking.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Caruso moved that they recommend the City Council certify the EIR per staff
recommendation. Seconded by Commr. Cooper.
Commr. Cooper requested an amendment to the motion to add that 4.2.1 Population
Housing Growth be reworded to include a statement that they could assume a small
percentage of households would come from outside the area.
The motion maker accepted the amendment.
Commr. Cooper expressed concern with the statement that retail restaurant jobs would
likely be filled by currently unemployed residents of the city.
The motion maker accepted this as an amendment to the motion.
Commr. Cooper felt there should be more specific, detailed implementation for the glare
mitigation for rooftop lighting for the parking garage in the EIR.
Planner Ricci asked for a clarification reagrding whether the EIR mitigation measures
along with the condition of the Use Permit are not adequate.
Commr. Cooper felt he was hearing a performance spec instead of an actual design
solution. He noted what he was describing is not in the EIR, and he liked what he
heard described and suggested it be in the EIR.
Planner Ricci suggested a more direct approach would be to modify Condition 3 of the
use permit, which is a second component of the project approval. Language could be
added to this condition to call out that specification.
Commr. Cooper rebutted as opposed to putting it in the EIR.
Planner Ricci responded that the EIR contains an adequate analysis of the concern.
�'LV 1
Attachment 6
Draft Planning commission lvm Utes
August 14, 2002
Page 10
Chairwoman Loh noted that this area is also the ARC's concern, and the City has rules
and regulations related to this.
Planner Ricci explained that she attached the schematic approval letters for both project
sites from the ARC, which both included conditions of lighting details returning to them
for review and approval.
Commr. Boswell felt there are a number of issues that the EIR still does not adequately
address. He mentioned first Land Use Policy 4.2.1, which states that large projects in
the downtown should include residential uses. He noted there should be a justification
on why housing is not included, and commented that he has not been convinced on the
arguments of why it is not. He then brought up Land Use Policy 4.10 that states the
parking garages should be at the edge of the periphery of the commercial core, which
he felt is a gray area on deciding what the edge would be. He stated that Land Use
Policy 4.10 is not being met with the location of the parking garage. He suggested that
the conflict of pedestrians and cars at the garage entrance should be addressed in the
EIR. He stated that the reduced residential project alternative did not have enough
detail. He suggested that some monitoring be done with the pedestrian/car conflict at
the ingress and egress of the garage.
Deputy Director Whisenand noted the five points from Commissioner Boswell, and
expressed concerns that the first two points, housing and the location of the parking
structure, were policy issues as stated and not EIR issues.
Commr. Boswell, in clarifying his comments as they relate to the EIR, stated that he
believed that the project's inconsistency with Land Use Policies 4.2.1 and 4.10 are
significant impacts, and felt they should be mitigated.
Commr. Caruso as the motion maker accepted the inconsistency with General Plan
Land Use Policy 4.2.1 as an amendment, but stated that he needs more convincing on
the issue with LUE Policy 4.10.
Commr. Cooper agreed as the second. He mentioned that what Commissioner Boswell
is recommending in terms of the General Plan consistency is under 3.7.3.1 on page 3/7-
4, which there is no mention of any housing.
Ms. Burns offered a suggestion that refers to page 3.7.15, under Impact, and suggested
this should be the section where it could be added.
Commr. Cooper concurred that this would be a better place.
Commr. Caruso noted that they would want the conclusion to say, "it is a significant
unavoidable impact, because they are not consistent with this policy".
Ms. Burns noted that it is a Land Use Policy conflict and not a significant environemntal
impact.
Assistant Attorney Trujillo agreed. Q�
Draft Planning Commission'.. .ates Attachment 6
August 14, 2002
Page 11
Commr. Caruso responded that this is a CEQA document, which makes it a significant
impact if it is inconsistent. If they are not going to mitigate it, then it must be significant
and unavoidable, which he indicted that he would like to add into his motion that it is a
Class 1 significant unavoidable impact..
Planner Ricci pointed out that there is a mitigation of paying in-lieu housing fees.
Commr. Cooper rebutted that this in-lieu fee of $250,000.00 would probably not even
buy one unit, and they are 37 units short, so he does not see this as mitigation.
Ms. Burns referred to table ES-2. She noted that there would need to be a change in
classification of impact if this motion is approved.
Commr. Boswell mentioned that all of the other items that he noted needed additional
analysis that should be incorporated into the EIR.
There was discussion on what the motion was.
Ms. Burns reiterated to strike the reference to the assumption that a small percentage of
household would come from outside the area, and to strike the wording that they
assume that these jobs would be held from local residents.
Assistant Attorney Trujillo commented on the form of the motion, which was not to
recommend to Council to certify the EIR, but to actually certify and take action tonight.
He pointed out that it has always been Council's expectation to review the EIR, and
have their comments incorporated into it. He explained that this is the reason why staff
is recommending that the Commission recommend certification to the Council, rather
than taking that action. He mentioned there are three options: 1) the motion that is on
the floor; 2) to adopt the resolution as it is drafted in the packet, which recommends that
the Council certify the EIR and recommends that the Council approve the Use Permit;
and 3) recommend that the Council certify the EIR, and approve the Use Permit, with
the additional language that staff has recommended that the use permit not take effect
until the EIR has been certified by the Council. He noted that it is staffs
recommendation that the Commission take one of the other two options rather than
pursue the motion that is on the floor.
Chairwoman Loh questioned whether or not the Commissioners felt there are certain
areas that are inadequate.
Deputy Director Whisenand responded that the Commission makes the
recommendation of any EIR inadequacies to the Council.
Commr. Caruso commented that they could make a recommendation to the City
Council that they not certify the EIR until some of CommissionerBoswell's concerns are
answered, specifically the pedestrian/vehicle conflict at the garage. He felt everything
else that was discussed could be turned into a recommendation. He asked if the
seconder was in favor of turning this into a recommendation.
41
Attachment 6
Draft Planning Commission 6r,utes
August 14, 2002
Page 12
Commr. Cooper, as the seconder, responded that he is still in favor of recommending
certification versus not recommending certification with a modification.
Commr. Caruso commented that they have had the amendments by Commissioner
Cooper, which were accepted by the motion maker and seconder, and they had the
change to the residual impacts on 5.2.1, that is now a significant unavoidable, and the
motion maker and seconder did not accept the 4.10. The other issue they may want to
add into the recommendation is the consultant be directed to show their work on the
pedestrian/car conflicts.
Planner Ricci noted that design changes have been made with the Palm-Morro
Structure to add pedestrian enhancements to address safety concerns. She asked the
Commission if they still felt that the EIR needed to include additional analysis.
Commr. Boswell responded that he was not questioning the conclusion, but felt that the
EIR assumptions and the analysis needed to be augmented to support the conclusions.
Chairwoman Loh stated that she would like to certify this EIR, but was concerned that
there are no design alternatives for the Palm-Morro Structure.
Deputy Director Whisenand asked if there was a question or specific alternative that
was not appropriately addressed.
Commr. Cooper commented that ithe EIR stated on Page 6-16, under Transportation
and Traffic, that the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to
traffic, parking, and safety, and asked if this were the area that would need more
expansion.
Deputy Whisenand asked if they were back on the auto/pedestrian issue.
Chairwoman Loh replied yes.
Ms. Bums felt that the problem was that the response to comment was conclusionary
and did not show the homework. She commented that they would expand the
discussion under the response to comment (PCM-25), rather than putting it in the text in
the section that Commissioner Cooper was suggesting. She explained the reason they
didn't go further with-the alternative is they did not see a significant impact. She added
that design refinements were being made after ARC input in terms of addressing some
of the concerns.
Chairwoman Loh responded that the ARC has a different role than the Planning
Commission, and in this particular case, the most desirable place to go in and out is
Morro Street.
Commr. Caruso added to his motion that there be further exploration of desired design
alternatives in-order to minimize the oedestrian/car conflict on Palm Street.
Commr. Cooper concurred as the Second.
4_4
Draft Planning Commission , sites
Attachment 6
August 14, 2002
Page 13
AYES: Commrs. Caruso, Cooper; Osborne, and Loh
NOES: Commr. Boswell
ABSENT: Commrs. Peterson and Aiken
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried 4-1.
b. 919 Palm Street. U and ER 193-01; Request to allow development of a parking
structure, ground floor office space, a floor area ratio of 5:1, a maximum building
height of 70-feet, and environmental review; C-C-H zone; Copeland's Properties,
LLC, applicant.
Associate Planner Pam Ricci explained some changes that staff suggested to the
Resolution. She stated that in Section 3 of the Resolution, the word "Recommendation"
would be crossed out and the word "Action" would replace it. She noted that staffs
recommendation would be that the Planning Commission does hereby approve
Application U 193-01; and modify Condition 1 that the Use Permit shall not take affect
Until the City Council certifies the Final EIR. She commented that staff suggested
adding a Condition 8 that addressed the concerns brought up about the conflicts
between pedestrians and vehicles using the library plaza and pedestrian street areas
related to deliveries by large trucks. She stated that they could add a condition
indicating that the details of the demarcation of the Bookmobile parking space would go
to ARC for final review and approval.
Commr. Cooper moved to recommend that the Council adopt the Resolution and added
conditions that the disabled access and bike.access be maintained to both the library
and the parking facility, and the trash pick up be maintained, that there be limited hours
for delivery and trash collection at the discretion of the Community Development
Director, and that County offices along Palm and Morro Streets include more openings
onto the sidewalks. Seconded by Vice-Chair Osborne.
Commr. Boswell commented that Court Street is private property and should be
developed in a manner that best serves the community. He expressed that he likes the
Court Street part of this project, which he felt is needed and 'is a great enhancement to
the downtown. He noted that this process has been very confusing and stated this is
the first and only opportunity that the Planning Commission has had to subsequently
comment on the project. He stated he would be voting against the Use Permit and
explained his reasons.
Chairwoman Loh asked if these two projects were linked, meaning that if one is
approved is the other approved, or if one fails does the other one fail also.
Economic Development Manager Stanwyck replied yes, and explained that the terms of
the Amended MOU directly link the two portions of the project.
Chairwoman Loh noted that the applicant would have to build the parking garage in
order to get approval for the Court Street component.
Attachment 6
Draft Planning Commission Aes
August 14, 2002
Page 14
Economic Development Manager Stanwyck responded that the project is not one
without the other.
Chairwoman Loh noted that the City Council wants a parking structure across the street
from City Hall.
Economic Manager Stanwyck responded that was correct.
Deputy Director Whisenand pointed out why staff concluded that the LUE policies were
being complied with.
Chairwoman Loh responded that she is not talking about violating the policy, but stated
the City Council knows that they need a specific approval in terms of the Use Permit.
Deputy Director Whisenand stated that the Council was aware that the development of
a parking structure would require a Use Permit, and that the Council's direction was to
process the permit through the Planning Commission.
Chairwoman Loh rebutted that the Council gave instruction to go ahead with the parking
structure.
Deputy Director Whisenand responded that the Council did not say to build it, but they
did say to go through the permit process. He noted that this permit process is the Use
Permit, which allows for exceptions and is before the Planning Commission.
Commr. Cooper stated if this motion fails, they could continue this item.
Commr. Caruso stated that he agrees with Commissioner Boswell on the Use Permit for
the parking garage, and his major issue is that there is no housing proposed for this
large commercial development. He felt that the parking garage is just an appendage to
Court Street. He stated he couldn't support the motion.
Vice-Chair Osborne asked if they deny the use permit, would the City Council then be
able to approve it.
Assistant Attorney Trujillo explained that the Use Permits will receive final action by the
Planning Commission, but can be appealed to the City Council.
Vice-Chair Osborne felt the EIR comments that they made awhile back were not taken
seriously. He felt that this is bad place for a large parking garage like this. He
commented that he would like to support the Court Street Project.
Commr. Cooper stated that he wanted emphasis on what all the Commissioners said,
and felt that this parking garage should be one level lower. However, he does not want
to jeopardize the Court Street Project, and felt there could be more impact by approving
this use permit with some conditions rather than sending a symbolic message to the
Council.
�-aa
Attachment 6
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 2002
Page 15
AYES: Commrs. Cooper and Osborne
NOES: Commrs. Boswell, Caruso, and Loh
ABSENT: Commrs. Peterson and Aiken
ABSTAIN: None
The motion failed 3-2.
Chairwoman Loh expressed that it is the principle whether this is the right location for
the project or not. She stated that she would like to support the Copelands Project and
parking garage, but not at this location. She felt that if it is in this location, there should
be less parking.
Commr. Boswell moved to deny the Use Permit subject to the finding that the project is
not in compliance with policy 4.16.4, the (1st) finding is the building is not located at the
mid-block the floors above the second or third level are not.set back to maintain a lower
street facade (2" ) is in violation of Land Use 4.10 regarding its location that it is not far
enough along the periphery. Seconded by Commr. Caruso.
Commr. Boswell noted that this is a tough decision, but stated that they were appointed
as a Planning Commission to provide the best planning advice. He felt this is what he is
doing regarding this parking garage. He stated that he likes the Court Street Project,
but expressed disappointment that it came attached to this garage in this particular
location.
Commr. Caruso expressed one of the main problems with the garage is that it is being
called a landmark building to allow it to go so high. He asked if it could be part of the
motion.
Commr. Boswell as the motion maker accepted that as part of the motion that they
make a finding that it is not a landmark building.
Chairwoman Loh commented three years ago there were more than 70 signatures
collected specifically against another large parking structure in the Historical China
Town District. She felt it would be a shame to have a parking garage right in the Civic
Center.
Commr. Caruso mentioned one of the difficulties they had is a memorandum of
understanding already signed by the City and the applicant, which puts everyone in a
very difficult situation.
AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Caruso, and Loh
NOES: Commrs. Cooper and Osborne
ABSENT: Commrs. Peterson and Aiken
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion carried 3-2.
Attachment 6
Draft Planning Commission Minutes -
August 14, 2002
Page 16
Commr. Boswell commented on concerns with the privatization of public space. He
expressed a concern that when they abandon public space to private ownership that it
has the potential of limiting free speech and the ability to congregate. He noted that his
preference is that the Court Street pedestrian path remains under the jurisdiction of the
City of San Luis Obispo. Secondly, he had issues with the way this was handled, noting
part of the problem is they still don't have a Downtown Specific Plan. He felt this project
has highlighted a deficiency in their planning program that needs to be addressed.
Chairwoman Loh stated that they should send a message to the Council that they really
want to support the Court Street project.
Vice-Chair Osborne made a motion that the Planning Commission supports the Court
Street component of this proiect. Seconded by Chairwoman Loh.
Chairwoman Loh commented that this lot had been vacant for over 28 years, then it
eventually became parking, which has always been a hole in the downtown area. The
City needs to fill the hole. She expressed her support for the Court Street Project.
Vice-Chair Osborne expressed his support of the Court Street development. He
concurred with Commissioner Boswell's points about the parking garage, but noted that
he supported it because it makes the Court Street component work.
AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Loh, Cooper, Boswell, Caruso
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Peterson and Aiken
ASTAIN: None.
The motion carried 5-0.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2. Staff:
Deputy Director Whisenand provided the Commission with an agenda forecast. He
noted the special meeting on August 21 st regarding the Bob Jones City to Sea Bike Trail
Feld Trip.
Transportation Planner Terry Sanville explained what time they would be leaving and
noted there is an itinerary in their packets to show the locations that they would be
stopping. Vice-Chair Osborne noted that he was under the impression that they were
going to ride their bikes. Planner Sanville explained that the trails have not been built
yet.
Attachment 6
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 2002
Page 17
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
to the special meeting scheduled for August 21, 2002, at 3:00 p.m. (assembling at City
Hall, 990 Palm Street) for the Bob Jones City to Sea Bike Trail field trip.
Respectfully submitted by
Irene E. Pierce
Recording Secretary
I \
Attachment 7
Dear Commissioners: L.... �� �w���Iniil_i
As you know, I am unable to attend this evening's hearing on the Copeland's project. I'd
like to very briefly share with you my thoughts on the project.
In a general sense I am very supportive of the project. Downtown, higher-density,
mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented development is the type of growth we like to encourage
as an alternative to sprawl.
In this case the project location (Court Street) is perhaps the most valuable, centrally-
located and important piece of property in the whole City... and we, the citizens of San
Luis Obispo, own it. We could use that location in a multitude of ways to benefit the
citizenry and/or spark/drive redevelopment in the downtown (park, plaza, affordable
housing, you name it). Therefore, if we're going to give all that up and sell it off to a
developer for a private project, it had better be one heck of a fantastic private project
that addresses the city's needs and priorities.
The project as proposed is decent, but I would want to see the following two issues
addressed before supporting it:
1) The project must include a housing component. Period.. We all know the gravity of the
city's housing crisis, the citizens' overwhelming support for including housing in the
Copeland's project (as resoundingly expressed in community workshops early in this
process) and the importance of demonstrating that downtown housing is viable,
desirable and achievable as we move into the Housing Element update process.
Housing could be provided by adding a fourth floor on the Court Street site, by replacing
one or more floors of the proposed parking garage with housing, or both.
2) The location of the proposed parking garage leaves a lot to be desired. The site is
inside the downtown pedestrian core, right across the street from another huge parking
garage and will generate a massive amount of traffic to the detriment of pedestrians in
the area. The location does not fit my definition of the "periphery" of downtown where
garages should be located. Ideally, I would prefer that the Copelands pay parking-in-lieu
fees and the City move forward with development of an appropriately located facility,
like the NARF. If we must put parking on the Palm/Morro site, I offer the following: The
garage as proposed will be massive and bulky, looming on the hilltop above Monterey
Street. In my mind, the visual impacts associated with a building of that height, bulk
and level of dominance over our skyline might be justified if it were a place for people,
but not for a car storage facility. I encourage the commission to push for replacement of
some of the parking in the garage with people space, preferably housing, or at a
minimum, to reduce the height, bulk and number of spaces in the garage.
Good luck with everything tonight. I'll look forward to hearing what you guys came up
with upon my return.
Sincerely,
Stephen Peterson
yo
Attachment 7
THOMAS M.D000AN DUGGAN SMITH &HUTKIN LLP CLIENT:0014/005
USDA SOMERS SMITH ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MARIA L HUn:IU
979 Osos Street,Suitc F
Post Office Box 15139
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93406
(605) 546-2060
Fax(805)546-8865
August 12, 2002
San Luis Obispo VIA HAND DELIVERY
Planning Commission
Chairwoman Alice Loh
Vice-Chair Orval Osborne
Commissioners Stephen Peterson,
Jim Aiken, Alan Cooper, James Caruso,
Michael Boswell
City Hall
990 Palm Street.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Comments to Final EIR/Case No. ER 192-01 and ER 193-01 Copeland Project
Commissioners:
I am writing to ask you to address the following matters when considering whether to
approve the Final Environmental Impact Reports for the Copelands Project ("Project") at your
August 14, 2002 meeting. I am writing on behalf of Vintage Properties, which owns the J.P.
Andrews Building and associated real estate, including an easement that must be acquired via a
proposed lot line adjustment if the Project is to move forward.
The draft and final EIR both were prepared based on the assumption that concerns between
property owners affected directly and indirectly by the lot line adjustment would be worked out prior
to the City's approval of the Project and EIR. In the spirit of cooperation, property owners in the
vicinity of the Project,including Vintage Properties,did not believe it necessaryto point out negative
environmental impacts of the Protect, believing their concerns would be addressed in private
negotiations and concessions concerning the Project. Unfortunately,despite assurances over the last
year that impacts to neighboring property owners would be addressed and mitigated, the Project is
all but approved and certain environmental and logistical impacts remain unresolved. Accordingly,
my clients believe it necessary to raise impact concerns not adequately addressed in the final EIR
before the Planning Commission at this late date.
I� 1
Attachment 7
August 12, 2002
Page 2
The concerns which need to be addressed in the EIR and/or by Project concessions are listed
below. These concerns are not new; they have been raised both in writing and through public
comment,however,the EIR does not address them on a conclusive basis. While the Project owners
appear willing to address the concerns through private concessions involving the Project,resolution
has not occurred. Our intent is not to delay or stop the Project, we merely seek clarification and
documentation of the follow Project environmental impacts.
1. Trash Pick-Up. The EIR does not definitively address the issue of trash pick-up. At
this time, trash pick-up for the J.P. Andrews Building is located in the interior portion of the
proposed Palm/Monro parking structure and pedestrian pathway site. The parking stricture access
is limited to vehicles under 9 feet; therefore, if trash pick-up remains behind the building, trash
trucks will have to access via the pedestrian pathway, and exit via the book mobile exit to Morro
street. From the schematics, it does appear that trash pick-up is proposed for the library in the
interior portion of the project, via access from Palm Street. If so, it appears trash pick-up will
continue; however, whether and where other trash receptacles will be located is not clear. In
addition,the following issues are not addressed: Will the Palm Street pedestrian pathway be closed
to traffic,and if so,how will the trash trucks access it? How will the trash trucks access the pathway
when the book mobile is parked by the library? Trash pick-up must be behind the building, as a
restaurant located on the premises generates a great deal of trash, including wet garbage and street
or off-site pick up is impossible. We would ask the Project plan include a definitive statement of
garbage pick-up, both as to location and process.
2. Deliveries to Interior Portions of Palm/Morro Site Once Project is Constructed. At
this time,the Project does not address deliveries to the J.P. Andrews Building. Deliveries currently
take place behind the building. The proposed Palm Street parking structure cannot accommodate
the height of most delivery trucks. It also does not appear delivery trucks will be allowed through
the pedestrian pathway, as trash trucks might. Delivery to the business located in the J.P.Andrew's
building apparently is to take place then on Osos and Monterey Streets. While an occasional UPS
truck would not appear to present a problem,some of the businesses have frequent,large deliveries,
such as the restaurant. How are Monterey and Osos to accommodate these deliveries? What impact
will such deliveries have on parking and traffic patterns? The EIR does not address these issues,
either because it contemplates continued deliveries in the back of the building, or the issue was
overlooked.
3. Additional Parking Impacts. The deficiency in parking in the downtown area has
been raised as an issue with the Project since its inception. The EIR outlines, in detail, the number
of parking spaces added, displaced and needed for the Project with on blatant exception. The
Palm/Morro parking structure will displace a private lot, however, it also will displace another 10
spaces currently used by tenants of the J.P. Andrews building. These 10 spaces are not accounted
for anywhere in the EIR. Since parking mitigation is of primary importance in this Project, the EIR
should accurately reflect the parking that will be displaced. At this time the EIR does not, and the
Attachment 7
August 12, 2002
Page 3
Project's proponents have not proposed a satisfactory substitute for the loss of these additional 10
spaces.
4. Emergency Vehicle Access when Book Mobile is Parked. As note above with regard
to trash pick-up, the EIR notes that emergency vehicles will have access to the interior portions of
the Palm/Morro site once the Project is constructed. Entry appears to be via Palm Street with exit
on Morro (with the exception of ambulances which are under 9 feet and can access via the garage).
However, if the pedestrian access is closed to through traffic, some device must be available which
allows emergency access. No provision is made at this time for such a devise. In addition, if the
book mobile is parked next to the walkway, it does not appear there will be sufficient room for
access for larger emergency vehicles. This issues need to be addressed and clarified.
Again, these four issues are not new to the Planning Commission or the City Counsel. We
believe that both bodies have been told that these and other issues remaining between properties
involved in the proposed lot line adjustment have been resolved privately;but they have not. As we
have been told, the City certainly has the right to initiate eminent domain proceedings to take the
property even if the remaining issues are not resolved between the parties. However, eminent
domain will not address these outstanding issues with regard to environmental impacts and we
believe that resolution should be reached before the EIR and Project are approved on a final basis.
I have been asked by my clients to represent their concerns at the Planning Commission
meeting on Wednesday, August 14th, and I will be there to do so. If any Cornnission Members
should have additional questions at that time regarding our position,I will be happy to answer them.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
DUGGAN SMITH &HUTKIN LLP
LINDA SOMu RS SMITH
LSS:tbd
S:\l Client rileswintageProperties\Palm Street Project\Commission-08-09-02.wpd
cc: clients
Robin Baggett
Attachment 7
LAW OFFICES
KENNETH C. BORNHOLOT SORNHOLOT, PERON & PRATT, LLP 330 E. CANON PER0100 ST.
GAYLE L. PERON SUITE F
1303 MIGUERA STREET
JOHN M. PRATT SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 TELEPHONE 1805) 966-6870
TELEPHONE (805) 541-2160 FACSIMILE (805) 966-4970
FACSIMILE (605) 541-3485
EMAIL bornlawyers®aol.com
August 13, 2002 I CITY OF SAN LUIS ECIBISPO
1 3 2001.7
HAND DELIVERED
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Copelands Project/Final EIR/EIR 192-01 and ER
193-01
Meeting Date: August 141 2002
Agenda Item No. : 1
Dear Honorable Commissioners:
We represent the owners of the property located at 968
Monterey Street in the City of San Luis Obispo (`Nelson
Property") . The Nelson Property is an improved property
located adjacent to and south of the proposed Palm/Morro
Site . The building on the subject property is identified
Figure 2 . 1-3 of the Final EIR as the "San Luis Garbage"
building. However, the legal boundary lines of the Nelson
Property extend north into the area that is proposed to be
improved for the Palm/Morro Site.
Our clients have been in negotiations with the Project
applicant for sometime regarding the possible sale of
certain portions of the Nelson Property that are needed for
the development of the Project . We met last Friday with
the project applicant and his representatives . However, to
date no agreement has been reached between the parties to
sell any portion of the Nelson Property to the Project
applicant. Both sides are working toward that goal in good
faith.
As the Final EIR discloses in Appendix C, ARC Minutes
of January 22, 2002, page 14, our clients' representative,
Ms . Tartaglia, advised the City then that no agreement had
�,�p0
Planning Commission Attachment 7
August 13, 2002
Page 2 of 3
been reached with our clients . Our clients wanted to
advise this Commission that this is still the current
situation.
Our clients only have a few comments regarding the
adequacy and completeness of the Final EIR.
As correctly noted in the Final EIR in Section
3 . 9 . 7 . 10, page 3 . 9-28, our clients, as an adjacent business
owner, expressed concerns about the continued historical
access for trash pick-up and delivery trucks to the rear of
our clients' building from Palm Street after the Project
was built . The same ARC Minutes referenced above at page
15 contain a statement by Ms . Ricci that access would be
limited to "library service vehicles and emergency
vehicles" from Palm Street through the new access way next
to the Library as shown in Figure 2 . 2-7 . However, we
confirmed in our meeting last Friday with the Project
applicant that garbage trucks would continue to have
unfettered access to the rear of our clients' building for
trash pick-up from Palm Street after the Project was built .
We would comment that the project description in the Final
EIR should make it clear that garbage trucks, along with
library vehicles and a bookmobile, would be able to use the
new access way in the Project next to the Library in the
future.
Our second comment is that we understand that delivery
trucks will no longer be allowed access to the rear of our
clients' building as they have done historically after the
Project is built . Therefore, the Project will result in
moving delivery trucks on to Monterey Street that
previously came to the rear of our client' s building from
Palm Street . Our clients are concerned that Monterey
Street is already crowded and that any adverse
environmental impacts caused by this change are adequately
assessed. The only reference we could find to possible air
quality and traffic impacts from delivery trucks having to
park on Monterey Street was in Section 3 . 9 . 7 . 10 on page
3 . 9-28 . Our clients have expressed these same concerns to
the City and the applicant separate from the questionnaire.
We could find no discussion under traffic circulation and
air quality impacts where this change in the environment
was considered. If there is an impact from this change
that needs to have mitigation, formulation of an
Attachment 7
Planning Commispon
August 13, 2002
Page 3 of 3
appropriate mitigation measure cannot be deferred. See:
CEQA Guideline 152126 . 4 (a) ( 1) (B) . The Section where this
subject is referenced seems to be deferring possible
mitigation measures for this potential impact . We believe
our clients' concerns about this change in the environment
need to be addressed in the Final EIR now.
Our clients are not opposed to this Project . However,
they want to be sure that all of the environmental impacts
caused by the Project are addressed. We sincerely
appreciate your Honorable Commission consideration of our
client' s comments regarding this Project .
Ver t my yours,
L
Kenneth C_ Bornhold
KCB/hhb
Cc: Ms . Tartaglia
Attachment $
lilllll II IIIIIIIIII�III����;����������Ilhl IIIIII�
cityo san tuffs OBISPO
a. amme�
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
August 6, 2002
Tom Copeland
P.O. Box 1348
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
SUBJECT: ARC 192-01: 999 Monterey Street
Review of development plans for a new mixed-use project
Dear Mr. Copeland:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of August 5, 2002, granted
schematic approval to the above project (which means the item will come back to the
ARC for final review), with the following direction:
1. Include some additional planters near the Monterey/Osos entry to the raised
diagonal pedestrian street, and some raised planters with seating features to the
upper terrace on the second level near the stairs going down to Higuera Street.
2. Provide details of benches, bike racks, pavers and other site furnishings with
revised plans submitted for final review.
3. Add Brisbane Box trees, or other open-canopy type trees, as new street trees along
Osos Street.
4. Provide specific proposals for public art in plans submitted for final review.
Consider using part of the public art funds to embellish details of the building such
as walls, windows and columns.
5. Consider an additional storefront space on Osos Street toward Higuera Street.
6. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down-lights that do not shine skyward, or spill
onto adjacent properties. Plans submitted for final review shall include details of wall-
mounted light fixtures with illumination levels and shielding mechanisms. This shall
include decorative wall lights, as well as any service area wall pack lights.
7. Consider adding decorative features closer to pedestrian eye level to create visual
cues and to encourage pedestrians to explore the street.
OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. I O!
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
Attachment 8
ARC 192-01
Page 2
If you have questions, please contact Pam Ricci at (805) 781-7168.
Sincerely,
G
Ro Id Whisena d
Deputy Community Development Director
Development Review
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
Mark Rawson
APS Architects
444 Higuera Street, Suite 201
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attachment 8
�Ill��ll 11111181111���;�I�IIIII�IIIIIIIIII IIII
cityO sAn suis oBispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
August 6, 2002
Tom Copeland
P.O. Box 1348
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
SUBJECT: ARC 193-01: 919 Palm Street
Review of development plans for a new parking structure including
office space
Dear Mr. Copeland:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of August 5, 2002, granted
schematic approval to the above project (which means the item will come back to the
ARC for final review), with the following direction:
1. Details of paver types and colors shall be included in plans submitted for final
review.
2. Select a tree from the approved Master Street Tree list for three of the proposed
street trees along Morro Street. The Bottle trees shown are not on the list.
3. Consider some upper level details to improve distant views of the building and
lower-level improvements for the pedestrian perspective.
4. Create a new planter near the southwestern corner of the building to add some
vertical height near the pedestrian walkway on Morro Street.
5. Consider a diagonal hip form for the roof of the entry to the offices near the
intersection of Palm and Morro Streets.
6. Provide more consistent window detailing.
7. Consider a hip or mansard style roof for the upper level portion of the structure near
the intersection of Palm and Morro Streets.
8. Consider active uses at the pedestrian level.
9. Refine the color scheme for the building to consider warmer colors.
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. �IDy
Attachment 8
ARC 193-01
Page 2
10. Consider the addition of a canopy or awning over the vehicle entry on Pam Street.
11 . Provide specific proposals for public art in plans submitted for final review.
Consider using part of the public art funds to embellish details of the building such
as walls, windows and columns.
12. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down-lights that do not shine skyward, or spill
onto adjacent properties. Plans submitted for final review shall include details of
wall-mounted light fixtures with illumination levels and shielding mechanisms. This
shall include decorative wall lights, as well as any service area wall pack lights.
If you have questions, please contact Pam Ricci at (805) 781-7168.
Sincerely,
Ronald Whisenan
Deputy Commup ty Development Director
Development Review
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
Mark Rawson
APS Architects
444 Higuera Street, Suite 201
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
• Attachment 9
RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(EIR)
FOR THE COPELANDS PROJECT LOCATED AT
999 MONTEREY STREET(APPLICATION#ER 192-01) AND
919 PALM STREET(APPLICATION#ER 193-01)AND
DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL
OF USE PERMIT#U 193-01 FOR A MULTI-LEVEL OFFICE AND
PARKING STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 919 PALM STREET
WHEREAS, public hearings on this EIR were held before the Planning Commission on
June 12,2002,and August 14,2002,and the City Council on September 17,2002; and
WHEREAS, the EIR was considered by the City Council after extensive review by City
staff and other agencies, and with the comments of the Planning Commission and concerned public;
and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the project have been evaluated in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council hereby certifies that the
Final Environmental Impact Report for the Copelands Project adequately identifies the project's
potentially significant impacts, alternatives to the proposed action, and recommended mitigation
measures.
SECTION 2. EIR Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following
findings in certifying the Final EIR:
I. The Final EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act(CEQA) and was considered by the City prior to any approvals of the project.
2. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City.
3. For each significant effect identified in the EIR under the categories of Aesthetics and
Visual Resources, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geologic.Resources, Hazards and
Attachment 9
Resolution No. (2002 Series)
Page 2
Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning Policies,
Noise, Transportation and Traffic, and Utilities and Public Services, the approved
mitigation measures contained in the EIR will avoid or substantially lessen the
identified adverse environmental impacts of the project to a level of insignificance
and have been incorporated into the project.
4. The significant effects identified in the Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Air Quality,
Land Use and Short-term Construction Noise sections of the EIR will not be fully
mitigated to a degree of insignificance with the incorporation of all of the identified
mitigation measures included in the EIR. However, the City Council finds that the
adverse environmental effects are acceptable and makes a statement of overriding
considerations for those significant and unavoidable environmental impacts because:
a. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) unanimously supported the scale
and height of the proposed structure as proposed with four levels of parking above
the offices and one below. The ARC asked that further refinements be made to
the design to further improve its appearance and pedestrian appeal. The ARC's
direction is consistent with Mitigation Measure VIS-2, which lists specific
recommendations to enhance the design of the structure. The proposed height and
scale is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 4.16.4, which encourages added
height for some downtown landmark buildings.
b. Mitigation strategies help to reduce project emissions and ultimately put the air
basin in closer compliance with established State and federal standards.
c. The unavoidable adverse impact of construction noise is temporary in nature and
can be substantially mitigated by implementation of a construction management
plan that regulates the hours of construction, noise reduction measures, and a
complaint resolution process, consistent with recommended mitigation measures.
d. The impacts to the City's housing supply will be partially mitigated by the
payment of the required in-lieu housing fee.
e. The Planning Commission has identified the following overriding public benefits
of the project, which are additional reasons that the significant and unavoidable
impacts identified in the Final EIR can be found acceptable:
• Urban design continuity — development of a parking lot site with an
attractive mixed-use project which would not be achievable without
private capital and investment;
• Improved pedestrian amenities — via the project's pedestrian streets or
paseos in both project components, and the possibility of future linkages
4.14
Attachment 9
Resolution No. (2002 Series)
Page 3
through other sites;
• More attractions for tourists — further tax dollars to keep the downtown
vital and the center of the community; and
• Improved business synergy — the idea of this project creating incentives
for other property owners to seek improvements to their own sites and
increased revenues and foot traffic.
The data to support these overriding factors are found in the following sections of
the record including:
1.) The Environmental Impact Report, specifically Sections 2.6, 3.7 3.9, &
6.0;
2.) Letters submitted by the public contained in the project files;
3.) Public testimony provided at this and previous project hearings; and
4.) The applicant's presentation.
f. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been reviewed and approved by the City
Council in conjunction with the certification of the Final EIR.
SECTION 3. EIR Conditions. Based upon all the evidence, the Council directs that all of
the changes identified in the Errata Sheet be included in the Final EIR.
SECTION 4. Use Permit Appeal. That this Council, after consideration of the appeal of
Use Permit U 193-01, a request to allow a multi-level parking structure in the C-C-H zone at 919
Palm Street, the appellant's statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the
following findings:
1. The development of the multi-level parking garage is inconsistent with Land Use
Element Policy 4.16.4, which indicates that a few, taller "landmark" buildings that
are up to 75 feet in height may be developed in the downtown. The proposed parking
structure with offices does not comply with this policy since it is not a landmark
building, is not stepped back on the upper floors, and is not located mid-block.
2. The development of the multi-level parking garage is inconsistent with Land Use
Element Policy 4.10 because the structure is not appropriately located on the
periphery of the commercial core.
C Attachment 9
Resolution No. (2002 Series)
Page 4
SECTION 4. Use Permit Action - Appeal Denied. The appeal of the Planning Commission is
hereby denied. Therefore,the Use permit for the multi-level parking structure 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 day of , 2002.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
19W/� .0-
�.�
City Atto e ff Jo gensen
LACopelands\CC EIR&Appeal Res.(PC)
Attachment 10
RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(EIR)
FOR THE COPELANDS PROJECT LOCATED AT
999 MONTEREY STREET (APPLICATION#ER 192-01)AND
919 PALM STREET (APPLICATION #ER 193-01)AND
UPHOLDING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL
OF USE PERMIT#U 193-01 FOR A MULTI-LEVEL OFFICE AND
PARKING STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 919 PALM STREET
WHEREAS, public hearings on this EIR were held before the Planning Commission on
June 12, 2002, and August 14,2002,and the City Council on September 17,2002; and
WHEREAS, the EIR was considered by the City Council after extensive review by City
staff and other agencies, and with the comments of the Planning Commission and concerned public;
and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the project have been evaluated in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council hereby certifies that the
Final Environmental Impact Report for the Copelands Project adequately identifies the project's
potentially significant impacts, alternatives to the proposed action, and recommended mitigation
measures.
SECTION 2. EIR Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following
findings in certifying the Final EIR:
1. The Final EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act(CEQA) and was considered by the City prior to any approvals of the project.
2. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City.
3. For each significant effect identified in the EIR under the categories of Aesthetics and
Visual Resources, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geologic Resources, Hazards and
q.III
Attachment 10
Resolution No. (2002 Series)
Page 2
Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning Policies,
Noise, Transportation and Traffic, and Utilities and Public Services, the approved
mitigation measures contained in the EIR will avoid or substantially lessen the
identified adverse environmental impacts of the project to a level of insignificance
and have been incorporated into the project.
4. The significant effects identified in the Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Air Quality,
and Short-term Construction Noise sections of the EIR will not be fully mitigated to a
degree of insignificance with the incorporation of all of the identified mitigation
measures included in the EIR. However, the City Council funds that the adverse
environmental effects are acceptable and makes a statement of overriding
considerations for those significant and unavoidable environmental impacts because:
a. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) unanimously supported the scale
and height of the proposed structure as proposed with four levels of parking above
the offices and one below. The ARC asked that further refinements be made to
the design to further improve its appearance and pedestrian appeal. The ARC's
direction is consistent with Mitigation Measure VIS-2, which lists specific
recommendations to enhance the design of the structure. The proposed height and
scale is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 4.16.4, which encourages added
height for some downtown landmark buildings.
b. Mitigation strategies help to reduce project emissions and ultimately put the air
basin in closer compliance with established State and federal standards.
c. The unavoidable adverse impact of construction noise is temporary in nature and
can be substantially mitigated by implementation of a construction management
plan that regulates the hours of construction, noise reduction measures, and a
complaint resolution process, consistent with recommended mitigation measures.
d. The City Council concurs with the following overriding public benefits of the
project that the Planning Commission has identified, which are additional reasons
that the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR can be
found acceptable:
• Urban design continuity — development of a parking lot site with an
attractive mixed-use project which would not be achievable without
private capital and investment;
• Improved pedestrian amenities — via the project's pedestrian streets or
paseos in both project components, and the possibility of future linkages
through other sites;
Attachment 10
Resolution No. (2002 Series)
Page 3
• More attractions for tourists — further tax dollars to keep the downtown
vital and the center of the community; and
• Improved business synergy —the idea of this project creating incentives
for other property owners to seek improvements to their own sites and
increased revenues and foot traffic.
The data to support these overriding factors are found in the following sections of
the record including:
1.) The Environmental Impact Report, specifically Sections 2.6, 3.7 3.9, &
6.0;
2.) Letters submitted by the public contained in the project files;
3.) Public testimony provided at this and previous project hearings; and
4.) The applicant's presentation.
e. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been reviewed and approved by the City
Council in conjunction with the certification of the Final EIR.
SECTION 3. EIR Conditions. Based upon all the evidence, the Council directs that the
following changes identified in the Errata Sheet be included in the Final EIR:
L -Modify Mitigation Measure VIS-3 to add specific performance criteria for any roof level
light standards.
2. Make the changes suggested by the consultant to Response to Comment PCM-25,
Impact 3.9-6,and Mitigation Measure TRA-5.
SECTION 4. Use Permit Appeal. That this Council, after consideration of the appeal of
Use Permit U 193-01, a request to allow a multi-level parking structure in the C-C-H zone at 919
Palm Street, the appellant's statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the
following findings:
1. The Final EIR adequately addresses the proposed changes resulting with project
development, and can be used in taking a final action on all aspects of the project,
including the use permit,and its various components.
4,,13
0 Attachment 10
Resolution No. (2002 Series)
Page 4
2. The development of the multi-level parking garage with ground-floor offices is
consistent with Land Use Element Policy 4.10, which supports the provision of
parking structures in the Downtown Core, and Policies 4.1 and 4.4 of the City's
Access and Parking Management Plan, which respectively call for "parking
structures and surface lots to be located along the periphery of the commercial core as
a means of eliminating traffic congestion and enhancing pedestrian activities", and
"parking provided in the commercial core for shoppers, tourists, employees and
patrons of government and private offices".
3. The proposed use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with
surrounding uses with implementation of the conditions of approval and the mitigation
measures contained in the Final EIR.
4. Given the scale of other nearby buildings, the provision in the Land Use Element for
taller, landmark buildings in the downtown, and the built-in provision of the zoning
regulations which enables the Council to approve certain property development
exceptions, such as height and floor area ratio (FAR), for multi-level parking
structures, the Council finds that the building height and FAR are compatible with
existing uses in the area and maintains the appropriate relationships with surrounding
buildings. A similar height exception was approved for the Marsh Street Parking
Structure.
5. The proposed offices are consistent with Land Use Element Policy 4.16.1 which
indicates that office with frequent client visits are an appropriate use in ground floor
spaces since they contribute to street level activity.
SECTION 4. Use Permit Action - Aopeal Upheld. The appeal of the Planning
Commission is hereby upheld. Therefore, the project is approved, subject to the following
conditions:
1. All City Council approved mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR shall be
included as conditions of approval, and are incorporated herein by reference.
2. The Planning Commission shall review annually the impacts of the parking structure
on the surrounding neighborhoods and its internal functioning to assure compliance
with the approved mitigation measures and conditions of approval. At such times, the
Commission may recommend additional mitigation measures and/or revise the use
permit conditions.
q,Jj'
Attachment 10
Resolution No. (2002 Series)
Page 5
3. Consistent with Mitigation Measure VIS-3, all exterior lighting shall be shielded down-
lights that do not shine skyward, or spill onto adjacent properties. Plans submitted for
final review before the Architectural Review Commission shall include details of wall-
mounted light fixtures with illumination levels and shielding mechanisms. This shall
include decorative wall lights, as well as any service area wall pack lights.
4. Plans submitted for final review by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC)
shall include a new planter near the southwestern corner of the building to add some
vertical height near the pedestrian walkway on Morro Street, which helps mitigate
concerns with the bulk and mass of the structure when viewed from the intersection
of Monterey and Morro Streets.
5. Plans submitted for final review by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC)
shall provide specific proposals for public art in plans submitted for final review. The
applicant may consider using part of the public art funds to embellish details of the
building such as walls, windows and columns.
6. The applicant shall provide extra insulation above and below the office floor for noise
attenuation due to the garage activities.
7. The parking structure has been designed so that floors above the proposed office
space might be converted to office spaces in the future. Conversion of any of the
floors to offices shall require the review and processing of a Planning Commission
Use Permit in order that the impacts on the overall downtown parking supply can be
properly evaluated.
8. In order to minimize conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles using the Library
plaza/pedestrian street areas of the project site, hours of delivery for large trucks shall be
limited to between 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
,�-115
r' Attachment 10
Resolution No. (2002 Series)
Page 6
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2002.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
AM
City Atto ey dgensen
LXopelands\CC EIR R Appeal Res.
' MEETING AGENDA
�����Illulllillllllll IIIIIU DATE a I—od ITEM ley
pllllll
_ - council mcmoRAnaum
OtOLINCIL 17-1 D DIR
ff`CG FIN DIR
September 16, 2002 BIACIAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
RNEY ❑ PW DIR
LERK1ORI® G POLICE CHF
To: Mayor Settle and City CouncilEARS Cl REC DIR
HCCS UTIL DIR
Via: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer C] HR DIR _
From: Wendy George, Assistant City Administrative Officer ;UI
Prepared By: Shelly Stanwyck, Economic Development Manager RECEIVED
Subject: Copelands Project Next Steps SEP 16 2002
SLO CITY CLERK
Introduction
As Council reviews the September 17'staff report for the Copelands Project Final EIR and
Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of a Use Permit for the Palm-Morro Parking/Office
Structure, some questions about next steps for the Project may arise. To answer questions of that
nature, staff thought a memorandum would be useful.
As Council is aware, the unique nature of this project has created a circumstance wherein the
City has two separate and distinct roles, regulatory and proprietary. Assuming Council grants
the applicant a Use Permit for the Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure,there will be several
more steps in each role.
Regulatory Role—Expected Next Steps in the Development Review Process
The next regulatory step for the Project is to undergo its final Architectural Review Committee
(ARC) review. That review is scheduled for Tuesday, September 24'. The project received
schematic approval by the ARC already and on September 24' the ARC will review refinements
requested. If it receives final approval then, and there are no appeals, the Project will then
transition to the Building Department for issuance of permits and the start of construction
(construction phasing is discussed later in this memo). There are other approvals that the Project
needs to attain from the City in its capacity as owner.
Proprietary—Council's Next Steps As Owner
The next step as owner will be for Council to review and execute various legal documents
necessary to finalize the terms of the transactions necessary to complete the various property
exchanges contemplated by the Amended MOU. Before reviewing final documents, staff hopes
to bring a"deal points"memo to Council in closed session on October 15`, outlining the
significant steps necessary for the transaction. Then, Council would review and consider at a
future council meeting (possibly as early as October 15) a Purchase and Sale Agreement and a
Guaranteed Maximum Price Contract. Additional legal documents, probably those that are
financial in nature, may also be presented to Council for review and consideration at that same
meeting. Also, staff has been working with the County to complete the steps necessary to
transfer the County's interest in property adjacent to the Library (necessary for the Palm-Morro
G:\Staff\Stanwyck\Copelands\Sept 171.doc
Council Memorandum
Page 2 of 2
Pedestrian Plaza) to the City. This transfer is expected to be considered by the Board of
Supervisors at its September 24"meeting.
Staff is being assisted in its preparation of these legal documents by a team of experts. Allan
Kotin, our economic consultant, continues to provide us with assistance on this project. Hams &
Associates, construction experts who were previously engaged by the City for quality control
review of the Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure, are reviewing various construction
agreement documents. Finally, Herb Weisaer, real property attorney,has been engaged to assist
us in the finalization of the complex real property transfers and his services are being paid for by
the Copelands as part of our existing third party reimbursement agreement.
Staff does anticipate that the original cost of the Guaranteed Maximum Price Contract(GMAX)
will have some financial revisions as a result of changes made to the Parking/Office Structure
during the development review process. Council is already aware of some of the additional
costs, such as the addition of an elevator. Other costs would include specific revisions in
response to advisory body reviews; such as additional design work and increased construction
costs arising from refinements to the Structure's exterior fagade. All of these will be accounted
for in the final contract presented to Council for its final consideration.
Expected Construction Schedule
Again, assuming the Copelands Project continues to receive its necessary regulatory and
proprietary approvals, construction of the Project could begin shortly. However,before
construction begins both properties must have some hazardous materials cleaned up and
archeological studies completed.
In analyzing the construction schedules for both sites, the resources at hand, and the parking
impacts that the project creates during construction,the Copelands have decided to phase the
construction. They hope to begin the clean up and archeological study at the Palm-Morro
Property sometime shortly after September 17'with construction to begin around November 15`.
The City would then close the Court Street Parking Lot on January 6,2003, to begin its clean up
and archeological study. The Copelands would begin construction as soon as that work is
complete, hopefully no later than March 1, 2003.
To prepare the public and businesses for the closure of the Court Street Parking Lot, staff will
begin a public relations campaign about the lot closure in mid October and end the campaign
before the Holiday Shopping Season. A final reminder about the closures will occur the week
between the Christmas and New Year's Holidays.
Council Memorandum
Page 3 of 3
Summary of Upcoming Public Meetings and Reviews
September 17 EIR Certification and appeal of Planning Commission's denial of a
use permit for the Palm-Morro Parking/Office Structure
September 24 ARC Review
September 24 Board of Supervisors Consideration of Quit Claim Deed Request
October 1 Palm-Morro Site Preparation Begins
October 1 Council Review of Deal Points Memo in Closed Session
October 15 Hoped for Council review of legal documents (if not, then goes to
Novemberl2)
November Begin Palm-Morro construction
January 6, 2003 Close Court Street
March 1, 2003 Begin Court Street Construction
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
DATE I�Qa1YEM #
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278
(805) 781-2777 9 FAX (805) 543-1255 9 TDD (805) 541-8416
David E. Garth, President/CEO
September 10, 2002 fX e°
G�10UNCIL ❑ CDD DIR
GYCAO ❑ FIN DIR
I
nO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
0 PW DIR
Mayor Allen Settle RK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CH"
Y RECEIVED ❑ PT HEADS EI REC DIR
Members of the City Council ❑.UTIL Dlr
City of San Luis Obispo SEP 11 2002 ❑ HR DIR
990 Palm Street SLO CITY COUNCIL
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: Sept. 17 Council agenda item re: Copeland's project final EIR and appeal
of the Planning Commission's denial of a use permit for the Palm/Morro
Parking/Office Structure.
Dear Mayor Settle and Council Members,
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce would like to reiterate our appreciation
for the steps that have been taken by you and by City staff in pursuing opportunities to
maintain and promote the economic vitality of our downtown.
Our Chamber does not endorse specific projects but we do support the protection and
enhancement of the downtown area as a multi-use restaurant, entertainment,
shopping, professional and government center. The synergy of these elements is
important and in the proposal you have before you tonight, you have the means to
serve the community with additional retail choices aligned with realistic and necessary
parking options.
The Chamber's Economic Vision Document highlights good urban planning with the
principle that existing surface parking in the downtown area can be put to better and
higher uses, with the lost surface parking being replaced by consolidated structures.
The current proposal for Court Street and the Palm/Morro Office and Parking Structure
certainly advances that premise.
The future economic strength and viability of our downtown will depend upon
attracting major destination retailers which have regional drawing power. Since it is
clear that most major developments do require some degree of City participation or
e-mail: slochamber@slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitsio.com
collaboration, we encourage you to provide staff with a firm commitment so that
redevelopment for this portion of the downtown can occur as expeditiously as
possible.Your support will go a long way toward achieving the community benefits
that are derived from businesses developing, growing and locating here.
Thank you for considering our views on this matter.
Sincerely,
I�Zxeanne Potter
Chairperson of the Board
cc: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer
Shelly Stanwyck, Economic Development Manager