The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/06/2004, PH1 - CONSIDERATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) AND COUNTY TAX SHARING AGREEMENT, AND APCouncil °" ac,Enba Repout i«n C I T Y OF S AN L U IS O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director By: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner TV/� SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) AND COUNTY TAX SHARING AGREEMENT, AND APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REJECTION OF AN ANNEXATION, PREZONING, INCLUDING PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RETAIL COMPONENT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, USE PERMIT, AND RELATED ACTIONS, FOR THE DALIDIO ANNEXATION/SAN LUIS MARKETPLACE DEVELOPMENT (ANNX/GP/R/PD/U/ER 108-02); 2005 DALIDIO DR. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION (Attachment M): 1. Adopt a Resolution that certifies the EIR, incorporating the Errata Report that modifies the text of the EIR to find the proposed project "potentially inconsistent" with two General Plan policies: LU 1.4, Jobs/Housing Relationship, and LU 1.13.5 E., Open Space. 2. Determine that a Statement of Overriding Considerations for identified Class 1 impacts is not appropriate because the economic, social, and other considerations of the project do not outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts. 3. Deny the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Prezoning, Use Permit, and Preliminary Development Plan because the scale of the proposed commercial project exceeds community needs and its development is premature. CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment G) that certifies the EIR, including the mitigation monitoring program, based on findings, including a finding of overriding considerations relative to traffic/circulation, air quality, noise, cultural resources, and loss of agricultural land, and endorses Alternative 7.3, which includes a housing component. 2. Uphold appeal and adopt a Resolution of Application (Attachment H) requesting that the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) take proceedings for the 131-acre Annexation, based on findings. 3. Uphold appeal and adopt a Resolution (Attachment I) amending the General Plan Land Use Element Map to reflect the applicant's current land use proposal, based on findings. 4. Uphold appeal and introduce Ordinance (Attachment J) prezoning sites within the annexation area to be consistent with the proposed Land Use Element map designations (C-R-PD, Retail Council Agenda Report.- EV NNX, GPA, R, U, PD108-02 (Dalidio Prc.,ty Annexation) Page 2 Commercial Planned Development; O-S, Office with the Special Consideration overlay; R-3- S, Medium -High Density Residential with the Special Consideration overlay; C/OS-40, Conservation/Open Space; and AG, Agriculture), and approving a Preliminary Development Plan for the C-R-PD component known as the San Luis Obispo Marketplace, based on findings, and subject to conditions. 5. Uphold appeal and approve a Use Permit (Attachment K) to allow retail stores with floor areas between 60,000 and 140,000 square feet, based on findings, and subject to conditions. 6. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment L) accepting the negotiated exchange of property tax revenues and annual tax increment that is required as a prerequisite of any jurisdictional change by the Revenue and Tax Code Section 99. REPORT IN BRIEF The project being considered at this time is the Dalidio Property Annexation, which consists of 131 acres, bounded on its east side by Highway US 101, and located immediately southwest of the SLO Promenade. This agenda item is both a hearing to consider the adequacy of the Administrative Final EIR in terms of its compliance.with the California -Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and a hearing to consider other project entitlements including annexation, general plan amendment, prezoning, a preliminary development plan for the retail component known as the San Luis Obispo Marketplace (hereinafter referred to as the "Marketplace"), and use permit. The Council will be considering whether the annexation process with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) should be initiated, what land use designations and zoning categories are appropriate for various areas of the site, and reviewing the more detailed development. plans that have been submitted for the Marketplace The Marketplace development, with about 615,000 square feet of enclosed floor area, is the single largest retail project ever proposed in the City of San Luis. Obispo. As a comparison, the Madonna Plaza Shopping Center includes about 300,000 square feet of floor area and the SLO Promenade has about 253,000 square feet of floor area. The project's scale and the associated highway interchange make it a prominent and important project for the City. The Marketplace is intended to be a regional shopping center and would be located to the southwest of the two existing shopping centers on Madonna Road. This consolidated approach to grouping major retail projects is consistent with General Plan policies for the General Retail land use designation. Since 1994, the City's Land Use Element map has shown 40 acres of the Dalidio Annexation property as being earmarked for General Retail Development. The history of the Dalidio property is a very long one, and over the past 12 years (or more) the matter has been before the Council and City commissions on innumerable occasions. This long history has been detailed in earlier reports and shall not be restated here. However, the most recent history began after February 2001, when the Council denied certification of an EIR for a different project on the site. Following the denial, the developer and property owner submitted an application to the County to enable development of the site. After this occurred, the City Council appointed a subcommittee to work with the County and the developer/property owner in i Council Agenda Report — EF._ .NNX, GPA, R, U, PD108-02 (Dalidio Prc Ay Annexation) Page 3 order to encourage the applicant to return to the City with a. development proposal. Following these discussions, the Council sent a letter (available in the Council Reading File) to the County indicating the City's commitment to work with the applicant in good faith to process another application. Based on this commitment, the County and the developer/property owner agreed to return to the City and submitted a new application on June 27, 2002. The project has been before the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and Planning Commission several times. Attachment E is the 5-26-04 Planning Commission agenda report, which provides a detailed overview of the project, the contents of the Final EIR, and analysis of the various project entitlements. Attachment 3 to the Planning Commission agenda report is the 5-17-04 ARC report; which was included because it provided more information on site development issues. Issue areas that came up through earlier advisory body reviews are covered by conditions of the proposed Planned Development (PD) overlay for the development. If requested entitlements are ultimately supported by.a majority of the Council, then the ARC would conduct a final architectural review of development plans, and the Community Development Director would approve a final development plan, to assure that all PD conditions, as well as EIR mitigation measures were fully complied with. The Zoning Regulations specify that the Community Development Director approve the final development plan within 6 months of Council action, unless an extension is requested and approved by. the Community Development Director. The Discussion portion of this report does not reiterate all of the project analysis provided in the attached Planning Commission and ARC agenda reports. Instead, it updates the Council on the key issues that were discussed at the Planning Commission meeting, and clarifies a few other topics. A majority of the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the Final EIR be certified, but did not support making a finding of overriding considerations for identified significant and unavoidable environmental impacts of the project and did not recommend approval of other project entitlements. Based on prior direction provided by the Council regarding the project, the CAO supports certification of the EIR and approval of project entitlements to allow annexation and development of the site as planned including the highway interchange. This is the reason that the Planning Commission's recommendation varies from the CAO's recommendation at the beginning of this report. On June 7, 2004, San Luis Obispo Marketplace Associates, LLC, the applicant, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of various project entitlements. If the Planning Commission had recommended that the Council approve the project entitlements, these entitlements would have automatically been forwarded to the Council as a recommendation from the Commission. However, Planning Commission actions to deny a rezoning, general plan amendment and use permit are considered final actions unless appealed. 5 Council Agenda Report — ER, ANNX, GPA, R, U, PD108-02 (Dalidio Property Annexation) Page 4 DISCUSSION I. Planning Commission's Action On May 26, 2004, the Planning Commission considered the same project entitlements that the Council is now considering (see Attachment C - Planning Commission follow-up letter dated June 9, 2004). After nearly five hours of questions, public testimony, and discussion, the Planning Commission made three separate motions, which received majority support and included: ■ Certification of the EIR — This included the recommendation on a 4 to 2 vote (Osborne and Miller) to modify the text of the EIR to find the proposed project "potentially inconsistent with two General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) policies: LU 1.4, Jobs/Housing Relationship, and LU 1.13.5 E., Open Space. A brief Errata Report (Exhibit B to Attachment M) was prepared to reflect the amendments to the Final EIR that the Commission recommended. Statement of Overriding Considerations — The Commission concluded on a vote of 4 to 2 (Aiken and Loh) that the economic, social, and other considerations of the project did not outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts. ■ Project Entitlements — The Commission was uncomfortable with the scale of the proposed project and felt that its development was premature. They voted 4 to 2 (Aiken and Loh) on a single motion to recommend denial of the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Prezoning, Use Permit, and Preliminary Development Plan. The applicant team, consisting of developer Bill Bird, Dalidio family representative Andrew Merriam, and architect Brian Wolfe, opened the public hearing with a presentation that highlighted the project history and its current components. Other speakers included Mila Vujovich-La Barre, Colin Leath, Mary Beth Schroeder, Michael Sullivan, Jerry Moore, Joe Gilpin, Bill Wilson and Brett Cross, all of who voiced their opposition to the project for a variety of reasons. Commission discussion focused on the following issues: ■ General Plan Consistency 1. Open Space — Is the proposal to include 24 acres of off -site open space consistent with the intent of LU 1.13.5, which calls for "approximately 50%" of the Dalidio site to be dedicated to open space? 2. Jobs/Housing Relationship — Are the project's impacts more significant than portrayed in the discussion in the EIR (LU 1.4)? 3. Annexation as a Growth Management Tool — Is this a situation where LU 1.13.2 should be applied to regulate development until a more appropriate time where there is a need for the regional -serving retail proposed? Council Agenda Report— Eh, NNX, GPA, R, U, PD108-02 (Dalidio Pm ty Annexation) Page 5 ■ Lowe's Outdoor Sales — Should covered outdoor sales count toward the 140,000 square -foot maximum limitation for large-scale retail uses included in the zoning regulations? ■ Traffic — Was the study area to evaluate traffic impacts of the project far-reaching enough? A. General Plan Consistency In order to approve a project, the City Council must find that it is consistent with the General Plan. Section 5.0 of the Final EIR provides a discussion of the project's conformance with relevant General Plan Policies. Table 5.1 on Page 5-2 of the EIR provides a summary of the evaluated policies and the conclusions regarding the project's consistency with them. Since 1994, the Land Use Element Map has designated 40 acres of the Dalidio Annexation site for Retail Commercial development. LUE Policy LU 3.1.2 designates the area around the intersection of Highway 101 and Madonna Road as one of the appropriate locations in the City for retailing with a regional draw. The development of the Marketplace at this location adjacent to the SLO Promenade and Madonna Plaza shopping centers is consistent with this policy. The project is also consistent with LUE Policy LU 3.1.3, which calls for an economic evaluation of the new project's impacts on existing City retailers prior to any further retail expansion in the Madonna Road area. In accordance with this policy, Council approved an agreement with Allan D. Kotin and Associates to perform and update an economic impact study of the proposed project (the "2002 Kotin Study"). The conclusions of this study were previously reviewed by the Council and found to be acceptable. As mentioned in the preceding section, the Planning Commission, with their recommendation for certification of the EIR, suggested modifications to the text of the EIR to find the proposed project "potentially inconsistent" with two General Plan policies: LU 1.13.5 E., Open Space, and LU 1.4, Jobs/Housing Relationship. They also discussed the appropriateness of using the annexation review process as a growth management tool (LU 1.13.2). These issues are discussed in the following sections of this report. LUE Policy LU 1.13.5 E., Open Space, states that approximately one half of the Dalidio annexation land area should be preserved as open space either through dedication of land or easements. It should be noted that the language in this policy specifically says "approximately one-half', rather than literally calling for exactly even acreage totals. With past discussions on proposals to develop the site, there has been debate as to whether the portion of the land area needed for roads and interchange improvements should be considered as developed land, rather than open space. The following Table A shows roads included with development areas. i-� Council Agenda Report— El., .NNX, GPA, R, U, PD108-02 (Dalidio Prc_ ,.ty Annexation) Page 6 Table A Summary of Proposed Land Uses (including off -.site open space) Acres % of Total 1. Commercial/Retail 48.7 2. Business Park 8.1 3. Affordable Housing 3.3 4. Roads & Interchange 16.2* Subtotal: 76.3 49% 5. Open Space: a. On -site 54.7 b. Off -site 24.0 Subtotal: 78.7 51% Total Land Included: 155.0 100% *When acreage for Roads & Interchange is excluded, the on -site open space is much closer to equal in size to the developed property. Based on the acreages included in Table A above, a total of 54:7 on -site acres is currently proposed as open space, while 76.3 acres is proposed for development, which includes areas needed for roads and the highway interchange. If the LUE open space requirement were strictly construed, the applicant would need to acquire an open space easement of a minimum of 21.6 acres of off -site agricultural land of similar soil type. The applicant has agreed to provide funds to protect 24 acres of off -site farmland to fulfill the project's open space requirements. Staff continues to maintain that this approach to meeting the project open space requirement, by off -site acquisition of agricultural land within the, urban reserve or City greenbelt with control by the City or other land conservation organization, is appropriate and consistent with the General Plan, specifically LUE Policy LU 1.8.2. However, a majority of the Planning Commission took a more literal interpretation of LUE Policy LU 1.13.5 E., finding the project "potentially inconsistent" with the General Plan because there was not an even match of the acreages slated for development and open space on the actual project site. Staff identified the following General Plan Policies that are applicable to this issue: LU 1.13.5 E., LU 1.8.2, LU 8.8 and OS 10.2.1(A). It is the Council's duty to resolve any potential conflicts/competing policies in order to achieve the intent and purpose of the above identified General Plan policies, which is to require open space protection for the development of prime agricultural lands. Staff believes that the Dalidio proposal is consistent with each of these policies. LU 1.13.5 (E) entitled Open Space provides that "Dalidio area properties shall dedicate land or easements for the approximately one-half of each ownership that is to be preserved as open space." (emphasis added.). LU 1.8.2 allows for off -site acquisition of open space. When LU 1.8.2 is applied in conjunction with LU 1.13.5 (E) and noting that tp Council Agenda Report— EF NNX, GPA, R, U, PD108-02 (Dalidio Pre-, Ay Annexation) Page 7 the term "approximately" is used, the project is not potentially inconsistent with LU 1.13,5 (E). LU 1.8.2 may also be interpreted as a competing policy since it authorizes off -site acquisition. LU 8.8 entitled Dalidio-Madonna-McBride Area provides that the "City intends to preserve significant parts of this signature working agricultural landscape at the southern gateway to San Luis Obispo." The proposal is also consistent with this policy. OS 10.2.1 (A) entitled Preserving Agricultural Land provides that the "southern portion of the Dalidio property, ... should be preserved as agriculture." The terms "should be" rather than "shall be" are used. Again, the proposal is consistent with this non -mandatory policy since it preserves a total of 54.7 acres of on -site open space, of which 45 acres would be continued to be used for agricultural production at the southerly end of the site that is highly visible from Highway 101. For all of the reasons discussed above, staff does not agree that the project's off -site acquisition of open space is potentially inconsistent with Land Use Policy 1.13.5 (E.). The State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) publish General Plan Guidelines that provides direction to cities and counties on the requirements for and interpretation of the General Plan. The OPR Guidelines refer to the Land Use Element Map as a "diagram". They note that the diagram must be consistent with the text, but do not require the diagram to be precise, like a subdivision map. This point is included here to further reinforce that the areas on a General Plan Map are not necessarily meant to be perfectly precise and allow for some interpretation, per State law and subsequent Court cases in the record. 2. LUE Policy LU 1.4, Jobs/Housing Relationship states that the gap between housing demand (due to more jobs and college enrollment) and supply should not increase. A majority of the Planning Commission directed that Table 5-1 of the EIR be modified to show the project as being "potentially inconsistent" with this policy. EIR Section 6.1, Growth -Inducing Impacts, provides an estimate of the number of jobs (1,666) that the project would generate and associated housing needs (734 units). The Errata Report (Exhibit B to Attachment M) reflecting the Commission's recommended changes to the Final EIR includes a restatement of the discussion in Section 6.1. This discussion indicates that although current residents of the City of San Luis Obispo would likely fill some jobs, people relocating to the area would likely fill many of the new job opportunities. It goes on to conclude that the number of people moving to this area specifically to take jobs in the project and the location in which they would reside cannot be predicted with any certainty. The City's General Plan has allocated land uses throughout the City to both address future commercial and residential growth needs and keep a more balanced jobs/housing relationship. In accordance with LUE Policy LU 3.1.2, which designates the area around the intersection of Highway 101 and Madonna Road as one of the appropriate locations in the City for regional -serving retailing, the project site has been earmarked for this type of commercial development since the adoption of the LUE in 1994. The City's LUE EIR prepared for the update acknowledged that there would be a jobs/housing imbalance and adopted overriding considerations for the impact based on the need for the City to have Council Agenda Report— EF . ,4NX, GPA, R, U, PD108-02 (Dalidio Prc, Jy Annexation) Page 8 regional retailing. The question the Planning Commission's interpretation of Policy LU 1.4 raises is — "The gap between housing demand and supply should not increase ... beyond what?" Previous implementation of Policy LU 1.4 has been that the demand/supply balance is what was established by the General Plan Land Use map in effect when the policy was adopted in 1994. To interpret the policy as suggested by the Planning Commission would require an application -by -application review of non-residential development to compare the number of potential employees to the increase in number of housing units in the City since the land use map and policy were adopted. This has never been how the policy is applied. A more consistent method of applying the policy would be comparing the potential number of housing units that could be developed by the current LUE Map (180 units on 10 acres) with the number in conjunction with the proposed land use changes (60 units on 3.3 acres and more demandgenerating uses). The Council would then need to determine whether the reduction in residential capacity in the annexation area is significant enough to -find the project inconsistent with this policy. The Council should also keep in mind the limitations of the site for added residential capacity because of airport safety issues. This is the motivation behind the land use designation change from Medium -High Density Residential to Office for the westerly area of the annexation area. General Plan policies encourage large commercial projects where feasible to incorporate a housing component. The applicant is nowproposing a 60-unit affordable .housing component. Based on the General Plan's balanced approach to accommodating a range of new land uses, consistent with growth control mechanisms currently in place, and past consideration of the jobs/housing balance with the 1994 LUE update that earmarked the site for retail development, it is staffs opinion that the project can be found to be consistent with this policy. 3. LUE Policy LU 1.13.2 states that Annexation should be used as a growth management tool, both to enable appropriate. urban development and to protect open space. The Planning Commission didnot specifically request any changes to the Final EIR related to this policy, but rather raised it as a policy interpretation vehicle that could be utilized in reviewing the appropriateness of the timing of the annexation. A majority of the Planning Commission interpreted this policy to not support annexation at this time as a means of growth management. The idea behind this policy interpretation is that if the site is not annexed to the City, then it cannot be developed with the full range of uses and intensity of development as reflected on submitted project plans. In denying the requested project entitlements, the Planning Commission cited a finding consistent with this policy interpretation that "the annexation and development of the site at this time is not appropriate since there is adequate land already developed or soon planned for development to serve the City's regional shopping needs." With respect to the appropriateness of timing, this is a judgment to be made by the Council. Previously, the Council has considered fiscal studies and agreed that such a US Council Agenda Report— EF. - .NNX, GPA, R, U, PD108-02,(Dalidio Prc AyAnnexation) Page 9 regional center would prevent current sales leakage to other cities and strengthen the City's position on the regional retail market — and without significantly harming other areas of the community (due to the "power center" orientation of the project). In addition, in asking the County to return the application to the City, the Council has indicated that the timing of such a project is appropriate. Direction provided to staff since that time, including a reference to the Marketplace in the Major City Goal related to sales tax enhancement, has reinforced the acceptability of project timing. For these reasons, staff believes that the Council has judged the timing of the project to be appropriate. B. Outdoor Sales Areas In the attached Planning Commission report, there is a detailed discussion of whether outdoor sales areas were intended. to be a part of the 140,000 square -foot floor area limitation for large retailers. The issue came up specifically with Plans for `-`Major J", Lowe's, which had 134,574 square feet in its main building area plus 27,099 square feet in the garden center. Because "building- area" as defined for a construction permit would include those areasin the garden center with a covering, either an extension of the main building's roof or a freestanding shade structure, staff concluded that covered areas of the, garden center would count toward•the gross floor area. Based on plans reviewed by the Planning Commission, there was a net covered area of 17,763 square feet in the garden area. With the addition of the net covered aced of the garden center to the main building area, a total gross floor area of 152,337 square feet results, which is 12,337.square feet above the maximum threshold. It was staff s recommendation to the Planning Commission that the combination of main retail building area and covered garden center area be reduced to comply with the 140,000 square -foot threshold. There was quite a bit _of discussion on this topic, but no formal recommendation was made since the Commission did not support project entitlements, which in this case directly relates to the use permit. From the discussion. at the hearing, it appeared that a majority of the Commission agreed with staff that the covered areas should count toward the 140,000 square - foot floor area limitation. Condition No. 1 is recommended in the resolution for the use permit, which restricts the total area of covered outdoor sales and conditioned interior floor space for "Major J" to 140,000 square feet. However, the Council could allow the mix of floor areas as proposed, by finding that the intent was not to limit outdoor sales associated with the major retailers. C. Traffic Study Area The concern has been raised at various meetings where the project and EIR have been discussed that the study area for the traffic analysis was inadequate. As stated in response PC-17 on Page CR-37 of the Final EIR, the consultants in consultation with City staff selected the study intersections evaluated in the document. The workscope for the project was also approved by the City Council in conjunction with their review of the EIR contract. Based on public input at the Council meeting on the workscope, additional intersections were added to the traffic analysis. Council Agenda Report— EF 4NX, GPA, R, U, PD108-02 (Dalid!o Prc ty Annexation) Page 10 The EIR consultant has explained at various hearings that trip distributions that are directly attributable to a project decrease the greater the distance from a project site. Also mentioned was the fact that most of the project trips will be on.major arterial streets and the highway.. Increases on neighborhood collector streets reflect more internal neighborhood traffic trips rather than cut - through traffic. Another point to keep in mind is that traffic studies focus on key intersections surrounding the project site, but utilize the City's traffic model, which is updated as properties develop and provides a consistent regional perspective. H. Other Proiect Information A. EIR Findings The Final EIR concludes that the project would result in significant and unavoidable Class I environmental impacts in the issue areas of air quality, noise, agricultural resources, cultural resources, and traffic/circulation. Therefore, the Council is required to adopt.a statement.of. overriding considerations if it approves the project as submitted. A detailed discussion of these. issues areas is 'included in the corresponding sections of the EIR and a summary is provided in the attached Planning Commission report. The format of the findings was developed based on past Council actions to adopt EIRs with overriding considerations for other. projects. B. Drainage . -The drainage impacts of this and past projects have been a topic of focus and scrutiny. Between the publication of the Draft EIR and Final EIR, the City's environmental consultants determined that there was a data input error into the existing San Luis Obispo Creek watershed hydrologic model. With the correct.100-year starting storage water surface elevation in Laguna Lake under existing conditions, the difference in predicted downstream discharge rates in Prefumo and San Luis Obispo Creeks becomes minor. As a result, Impact and Mitigation Measure DW-I were revised to state that according to the Waterways Management Plan thresholds of significance for increases in water surface elevation (i.e., 2.5 inches), the project would not result in a significant impact on floodwater surface elevations along San Luis Obispo Creek. This impact and the project's cumulative contribution to drainage impacts were re -designated from a Class I impact to a Class II, significant but mitigable, impact. City staff is continuing to work with the applicant's consulting team and Caltrans to refine drainage details, especially as they relate to the highway interchange. Caltrans will be requiring its own environmental document with review of the required Project Report for the interchange.. Staff envisions that this environmental document would be a Mitigated Negative Declaration that is tiered off the City's EIR and would look at various design details of the refined interchange plans along with specific drainage proposals. Council Agenda Report— EV. ,NNX, GPA, R, U, PD108-02 (Dalidio Prc_ ty Annexation) Page 11 C. Agricultural Buffer In order to minimize conflicts between continued agricultural operations on the open space portion of the property and new adjacent development, the City's Open Space Element requires that an agricultural buffer be maintained. The Open Space Element indicates that the buffer be included as part of the developed part of the site and not encroach into the adjacent open space, but does not specify a particular width. The Final EIR included Mitigation Measure AG-2(a), which states: A 100 foot buffer between urban and agricultural uses shall be incorporated into the design of the San Luis Marketplace, and other urban uses on the Dalidio property. Agricultural buffers can include non -habitable structures, roadways, parking, landscaped areas, and non -habitable buildings: The County Ag Commissioner's Office submitted a letter to the City which recommends a 200- foot buffer. Following discussion of this apparent discrepancy at the Planning Commission meeting, staff spoke with. Tamara Kleemann at the County Ag Commissioner's Office. regarding the adequacy of the Dalidio buffers. She clarified that the 200-foot buffer recommended by her office is only advisory, rather than regulatory. The City will maintain the authority to impose whatever buffers it sees fit following annexation. Buffer distance recommendations are made by the Ag Commissioner's Office on a case -by -case basis, based on the type of crop farmed by the agricultural use in question and the characteristics of the proposed urban use (parcel size, configuration, density of development, and type of land use). For irrigated vegetables such as those currently farmed on the Dalidio property, the recommended buffer distance range is 200 to 500 feet. According to Ms. Kleeman, the low end of this range was recommended for the Dalidio project because the proposed urban/agricultural interface would contain the rear portions of commercial buildings and parking, rather than areas with high levels of human activity. According to the County General Plan Agriculture and Open Space Element Agricultural Buffer Policies, "Significant overriding factors could justify buffers outside the indicated range". Recommended allowable uses within agricultural buffers include: landscaping, barns, storage buildings, orchards, and pastures. Parking is not specifically included in the recommended allowable uses. However, it could be argued that the rear portions of the proposed commercial uses are analogous to "storage buildings". In determining the City's position as to what would constitute an adequate buffer for the project, the types of land use compatibility issues that the Ag Commissioner's Office attempts to mitigate with their recommended buffers is a good starting point. These issues include: pesticide drift, noise, dust, trespass/vandalism/theft/litter, liability, rodent control, agricultural burn safety issues, and erosion impacts on agricultural uses. These issues relate much more directly to interfaces between agricultural and residential uses than interfaces between agricultural and commercial uses. The Housing Development Plan (Attachment F) indicates that the core [- H Council Agenda Report— EF., .NNX, GPA, R, U, PD108-02 (Dalidio Prc.__ .ty Annexation) Page 12 habitable area of the residential development will have a 100-foot buffer surrounding it consisting of extensive tree planting to both enhance the agricultural buffer effects and screen the project from the freeway. The proposed commercial uses at the Marketplace agricultural interface would not be expected to expose sensitive uses or areas of high levels of human activity to these issues. Noise and erosion impacts are described and mitigated elsewhere in the EIR. Rodent control is mainly a concern for agricultural uses near residences (due to the risk of exposure of people and pets to poisons). Agricultural burn hazards are also noted in the County's Policies to mainly be a hazard relative to adjacent residential uses. So, the City could conclude that within the Marketplace, given the type of development proposed and orientation of proposed buildings, a reduced buffer distance would be acceptable. The City's Open Space Element provides specific guidance on this issue by indicating that an agricultural buffer requirement can be eliminated or modified Where there is "a barrier of vegetation capable of eliminating potentially adverse impacts . associated with agriculture on adjacent development." This idea is echoed in. the County's . .Agricultural _Buffer Policies which state that buffersare the most effective mitigation measure for reducing urban/agricultural conflicts, but note that screening techniques such as solid walls or dense landscaping are also helpful. Landscaping of the buffer is required in Mitigation AG-2(b) in the Dalidio EIR; but .the City, could choose to strengthen the measure by requiring berming or specifying the- type and thickness of a vegetative screen, either along the entire interface or just at the portions of the interface that contain parking. The appropriate mechanism for this would be as a condition of the Preliminary Development. Plan for the Marketplace.: The following; Condition No.'17 is. included along -with the recommended conditions for the Preliminary Development Plan, which is part of the Prezoning Ordinance,. and was developed based on discussions of the project's 'perimeter -treatment at both the ARC and Planning.Commission hearings.. Current plans show a 10-foot buffer along the project's perimeter. The condition recommends that this be widened to 30 feet in width. In staff s opinion, this width is similar to the buffer provided with the SLO Promenade and also consistent with the spirit of the City's Open Space Element which includes in the definition of agricultural buffer that it be of "a sufficient width to protect agriculture from the impacts of adjacent development and to mitigate against the effects of agricultural operations on adjacent urban land uses." Condition No. 17: A landscaped buffer area of 30 feet in width shall be provided along the eastern and southern edges of the project between the parking lots and the adjacent agricultural land. Specific planting proposals shall be to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission. Consistent with ARC direction, a more naturalistic and tiered approach to the perimeter treatment on the east side of the project shall be provided with wider planters and varied plantings, including the idea of at adding "finger" planting islands on the edge of the parking lot areas to provide for clusters of tree plantings. Council Agenda Report— EV NNX, GPA, R, U, PD108-02 (Dalidio Prc, J ty Annexation) Page 13 With the proposed PD condition, the project should be able to both comply with EIR mitigation measures and be consistent with the requirements of the City's Open Space Element. A 100-foot buffer will protect the proposed affordable housing_ project, considered the more sensitive land use in terms of agricultural/urban boundary compatibility issues. The proposed 30-fot wide landscaped buffer for the commercial/agricultural interface should be adequate to address the compatibility issues with pesticide drift and dust from agricultural operations on the adjacent commercial development. D. Affordable Housing Component The applicant's project request has been modified to include a 3.3-acre on -site housing component to the south of the Marketplace which is described in the attached Housing Development Plan (Attachment E).. The housing .site would be designated as Medium -High -Density Residential on the Land Use Element map. (General Plan Amendment) for a 60-unit affordable housing project, and prezoned R-3-S, Medium -High Density with the Special Consideration overlay. The `.`S" overlay will assure that the site's special considerations are documented and establish the requirement for a . master. use permit approval. process. Special considerations identified in the EIR include airport safety, creek corridor preservation, flooding, and access. _This is consistent with Alternative 7.3 described in the EIR. The idea of developing housing on the site in its currently proposed location was conceptually endorsed' by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) with the requirement that actual housing be located outside of the airport hazard. zone boundary and beyond the 55-decibel contour. With the City's endorsement for the proposed housing land use, then review of the housing component would be formalized by the ALUC: E. Parking Requirements The ARC and Planning Commission with their review of project plans have voiced concerns about the prominence and extent of the shopping center's parking fields. As noted in the project description on plans dated 5-4-04 (the plans previously reviewed by the Planning Commission and ARC), the project contains a total of 2,743 parking spaces when the parking for the hotel is also included. Plans show that a total of 2,536 parking spaces are required by City ordinance for the retail and restaurant uses, and the hotel would require another 162 spaces, for a grand total of 2,698 spaces. Therefore, provided parking exceeds required parking by 45 spaces. With earlier project reviews, staff questioned the applicant's parking calculations finding them conservative because they did not take advantage of shared and mixed -use parking reductions, which are customary for shopping centers and can reduce the overall parking requirement up to 30%, and did not fully utilize other floor area deductions available in the zoning regulations for restaurants. Therefore, the applicant has the option of providing fewer parking spaces and still complying with City ordinance standards. Staffs understanding is that particular tenants in the project are insistent on providing parking in the project to meet their own company thresholds and that the applicant is responding to their desires with the submitted plans. Council Agenda Report — ER, ANNX, GPA, R, U, PD108-02 (Dalidio Property Annexation) Page 14 The applicant continues to refine their plans and parking calculations. For example, the most recent parking calculations show fewer spaces overall proposed and corrections made to include outdoor sales areas in parking calculations where they had previously not been considered. These changes are consistent with direction provided to the applicant from staff and the commissions. To provide flexibility and accommodate on -going refinements to the site plan, Conditions No. 5 & 6 of the Preliminary Development Plan Resolution address parking issues. Condition No. 5 acknowledges that the number of parking spaces may need to be reduced to accommodate landscaping and other site amenities and that accurate parking calculations will be essential with the review of the required final development plan. Condition No. 6 permits the project a 30% shared and mixed -use parking reduction. F. Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities The design of the Marketplace is a Power Center that caters more to large-scale retailers, rather than a Lifestyle Center, which the downtown is considered, and where smaller -scale retailers and specialty shops are more appropriate. Given the typical retailing format and merchandising style of a Power Center, they tend to be more auto -dominated. While the project has been designed to be more auto -oriented so that it does not compete with or replicate the downtown, pedestrian and bicycle facilities are still components of project plans. Dalidio Drive, as an arterial street, will have Class II bike lanes and sidewalks, including the Prado Road overpass, which will connect with other Class II facilities on South Higuera Street and Madonna Road. Conditions 8, 9 & 10 of the Preliminary Development Plan provide guidance on the number, type and locations of required short-term (racks) and long-term bicycle facilities (lockers or an approved designated area within a building). Also a segment of the Bob Jones Bike Trail is planned for the area of the site identified as an extension of Laguna Lake Park. While the currently submitted plans are not consistent with the alignment shown on the adopted Bob Jones City -to -Sea Trail — Preliminary Alignment Plan Project Description, September 2002, Condition No. 42 of the Preliminary Development Plan included in the Prezoning Ordinance (Attachment J) requires reconciliation of the development plans and the Preliminary Alignment Plan Project Description at the time of subdivision map or final development plan approval. Pedestrian circulation through the project site and its relationship to adjacent streets and other nearby shopping centers has been a focus of ARC review. Condition No. 13 of the Preliminary Development Plan highlights expected changes to plans to more fully provide safe and efficient pedestrian pathways through the site and accommodate connectivity in the vicinity. G. City -County Tax Exchange Negotiations Status On May 25, 2004, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors initiated a 60-day period (May 25 to July 23, 2004) for negotiation of property tax revenues and annual tax increment for the Dalidio Annexation (County Annexation No. 69). Prior to LAFCO action on the annexation, both the City Council and Board of Supervisors need to adopt similar resolutions acknowledging 1- < <---k Council Agenda Report — ER, ANNX, GPA, R, U, PD108-02 (Dalidio Property Annexation) Page 15 the negotiated agreements between the City and the County related to property tax revenues and annual tax increment. Based on the joint City/County Resolution No. 01-96, the terms of the proposed tax exchange incorporate the following: a. No base property tax revenue shall be transferred from the County to the City. b. Because the property contains 56.8 acres (94.51 %) of developable land to be pre - zoned Commercial/Retail and Business Park and 3.3 acres of developable land (5.49%) to be pre -zoned Residential, a blended rate of 1.867% (5.49% of the 34% normally allowed for property pre -zoned Residential) of the annual property tax increment that would otherwise be allocated to the County shall be transferred from the County of San Luis Obispo to the City of San Luis Obispo. c. Based on the County's current apportionment from the applicable Tax Rate Area of 37.62108% (before allocations to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund), this results in an apportionment to the City of 0.7023% of the incremental property tax r0ac;41nlA d If development of the open space areas of the site is ever pursued, then the County reserves the right to renegotiate with the City regarding a revised formula for the property tax increment. (This language is included at the request of the County. Given the protections that will be in place for the open space, staff does not envision this situation ever occurring.) e. The City will receive all sales and transient occupancy tax revenue resulting from the retail and hotel development. III. Summary The applicant is seeking Council certification of the Final EIR and approval of an Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Prezoning, including Preliminary Development Plan for the Marketplace component, and a Use Permit. The project was subject to detailed environmental analysis through the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process. Several actions by the Council are now required. The Council must determine whether the EIR adequately addresses potential environmental impacts and complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If the Council finds that the document has accurately evaluated potential project impacts, then the Council should certify the EIR. 2. The Council must decide whether the project site should be annexed and allowed to develop with the uses proposed. LAFCO will ultimately act on the annexation if the Council takes an action to support annexation. Council Agenda Report — ER, ANNX, GPA, R, U, PD108-02 (Dalidio Property Annexation) Page 16 3. The Council must determine the appropriate land use designations and zoning categories for the annexation area. A detailed discussion of this is provided in the attached Planning Commission report and is consistent with the CAO's recommendation. 4. The Council must decide whether a Use Permit to allow retail stores with floor areas between 60,000 and 140,000.square feet is appropriate at this location. 5. In conjunction with the proposed annexation, the Council needs to adopt a resolution regarding the exchange of property tax revenues and annual tax increment negotiated. with the County. IV. Next Steps Since the project review process is complex, this section of the report is intended to provide a summary of other required steps for the project, beyond the entitlements considered on July 6, 2004, which are evaluated in this Council agenda report. If the Council decides to certify the Final EIR and support other project entitlements, then the Council, as a separate action, would be asked to approve a Development Agreement. Separate public hearings are planned to review the specific terms of the Development Agreement as required by local ordinance and State law. Planning Commission review of the Development Agreement is scheduled for July 14, 2004, and City Council review ,on August 3, 2004. Following Council action on the development agreement, if approved the project would be next forwarded to LAFCO for review and approval. With approval of the annexation by LAFCO, the Marketplace component of.the project, if supported as recommended by the CAO with the "PD", Planned Development overlay zoning, would require final review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission of its site and building design, colors and materials, landscaping, lighting, signage and other details, and the final action by the Community Development Director. All project changes mandated in previous reviews and required by mitigation measures would need to be reflected in the final plan. The "S" overlay zonings for the business park and affordable housing components of the project would require that the Administrative Hearing Officer, or as an option, the Planning Commission, approve use permits when specific development pans are proposed for both the office/business park and residential components. FISCAL IMPACT The adoption of the recommendations will have no immediate fiscal impact. However, the sales and transient occupancy taxes, once the commercial project is developed, are expected to provide substantial added revenue to the City: about $1.4 million annually in "net" new revenues, after adjusting for transfer effects. As noted in prior studies, revenues from other sources (such as utility user taxes, business taxes, and franchise fees) will more than offset day-to-day services such as police, fire and street maintenance. I -- i LP Council Agenda Report — ER, ANNX, GPA, R, U, PD108-02 (Dalidio Property Annexation) Page 17 Added information related to revenues and reimbursement for freeway interchange costs will be included in the Draft Reimbursement Agreement, which is scheduled for Council review on August 3, 2004. ALTERNATIVES Consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation, adopt the Resolution, included as Attachment M, certifying the EIR, but denying the other project entitlements, based on findings citing implementation of Policy LUE 1.112 of the City's General Plan (annexation as a growth management tool). This would be the option for the Council to follow if they believed that the proposed timing for annexation and development is premature given market conditions and current development levels. 2. Continue the project with direction to the staff and applicant if the Council desires further information or analysis to render a decision, or if there is an interest in exploring other land use alternatives with the applicant. This would be the correct alternative if the Council is interested in pursuing one of the alternatives highlighted in the Final EIR, other than the CAO's recommended Alternative 7-3. Attachments: Attachment A: Vicinity map Attachment B: Applicant's appeal to the City Council Attachment C: Planning Commission follow-up letter & Resolution No. 5396-04 Attachment D: 5-26-04 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment E: 5-26-04 Planning Commission Agenda Report and attachments Attachment F: Affordable Housing Proposal Attachment G: Resolution certifying the Final EIR Attachment H: Resolution of Application to LAFCO (Annexation) Attachment I: Resolution approving the General Plan Amendment Attachment J: Ordinance approving the Prezoning including Preliminary Development Plan for the Marketplace Attachment K: Resolution approving the Use Permit Attachment L: Resolution regarding tax increment sharing Attachment M: Resolution denying the project (wrong timing) Council Reading File: Letter from Council Requesting Return of Project to City Previously Distributed: Final EIR, Letters from the Public L:Dalidio 2\StaffReports\108-02 (CC Report revised) I - I r ■- M �I' I File No. 108-a 1111611Ik1RiRi Filing Fee: $100.00' Attachment 23 �city of san Us 06ISp0 'REFER TO SECTION t Paid N/A IL_ APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL Date Received SECTION I. APPELLANT INFORMATION 510 S . Grand Ave. Ste. 300 Glendora -�� T• s �� MarkPrnl ce Assoc. LLC mauu,y ^uul ebb ano tup Code (626) 963-1505 (626) 963-5930 Phone Fax William Bird see above Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code 26) 965-1505 SECTION 2. 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: ( ame o tear, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 5 2 6 0 4 3. The application or project was entitled: S a n. T. „; a n h; a n n M a r k P r a rio` 4. ) Tiscussed the tter with the to l wi stall member. anning conomic' 8OOnPR0atdr Pam R.Jnri ghAl1 sr�ck on 6/3/04 (Staff Members Name and "rtment) (Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom: ,,. _ SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actioNs you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports yourappeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO IN T 2V COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page t of 3 LOIN` �- kq Attachment Reason for Appeal continued Planning Commission denied approval of cver_riding ardin the EIR annexation, General Plan amen- allow large stores and a Development Plan. The only reason for denial was personal preference fcr no growth but no factual reasons for denial The City Council requested we submit in the City rather than the County. This Item is hereby calendared for c: City Attorney City Administrative Officar DeparbnentHead : Advisory Body Chairperson City Clerk (original) 6/O3 Page 2 of 3 W� ent City of sAn leis oaspoic 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 June 9, 2004 SLO Marketplace Association, LLC 510 S. Grand Ave., #300 Glendora, Ca 91740 SUBJECT: ANNX/R, GP, PD, U and ER 108-02: 2005 Dalidio Drive Requests to annex approx. 131 acres; amend the General Plan Land Use Element map to General Retail, Office, Medium -High Density Residential and Conservation/Open Space; prezone the property to C-R-PD (Retail- Commerolal with a Planned Development overlay), O-PD (Office with a Planned Development overlay), R-3-S (Medium -High Density Residential with a Special Considerations overlay), and AG (Agriculture); a Planned Development for a proposed shopping center and business park; Use Permit for the general retail component to allow stores up to 140,000 sq. ft., and review of the Final Environmental Impact Report Dear Applicant: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of May 26, 2004, recommended that the City Council take the actions, as noted in the attached resolutions. The action of the Planning Commission 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 July 7, 2004. This date, however, should be verified with the City Clerk's office (ext. 102). - If there are any questions, please contact Pam Ricci at 781-7168. Sincerely, Ron d W hiseLityDevelopment Deputy CommDirector Development Review Attachments: Resolution 5396-04 Resolution 5397-04 cc: County Assessor's Office Andrew Merriam, Cannon Assoc., 364 Pacific St., San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. t Telecommunications Device for the Deaf 805 781-7410. d 1 Attachment PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5396-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT A FINAL EIR BE CERTIFIED FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2005 DALIDIO DRIVE APPLICATION # ER, GPA, R, PD, U 108-02 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 May 26, 2004, for the purpose of considering Application # ANNX, ER, GPA, R, PD, U 108-02, a proposal to annex the 131-acre Dalidio property to the City, consider the Final EIR, provide General Plan Land Use Map designations and prezonings for proposed land uses, and approve a Preliminary Development Plan and Use Permit for the retail component known as `The Marketplace"; 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 finds and determines that the project's Final Environmental Impact Report adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project entitlements, and reflects the independent judgment of the Commission. The Commission acknowledges that the Council through the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report will incorporate all of the mitigation measures listed in Exhibit A into the project (Mitigation Monitoring Program). 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. EIR Errata. Based upon all the evidence, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt a Final Environmental Impact Report which incorporates the following modifications to the text of the document: 1. Add Policy LU 1.4, Jobs/Housing Relationship, to Table 5.1 and classify it as "potentially inconsistent' with the General Plan. t ,-� Attachment C- Resolution No. 5396-04 Page 2 2. Modify the conclusion in Table 5.1 regarding LU 1.13.5, Open Space, from "consistent' to "potentially inconsistent" with the General Plan. Section 2. EIR Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt a Final Environmental Impact Report which incorporates the modifications identified above in Section 1. and the mitigation measures listed in Exhibit A into the project (Mitigation Monitoring Program), based on 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. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the recommendation for certification of the Final EIR. 4. For each significant effect identified in the EIR under the categories of Geology/Hazards, Drainage and Water Quality, Biological Resources, Aesthetics, and Land Use, 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.. 5. The significant effects identified in the Air Quality, Noise, Agricultural Resources, Cultural Resources, and Traffic/Circulation 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. On motion by Commr. Aiken, seconded by Commr Loh, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Loh, Boswell, Christianson NOES: Commrs. Miller, Osborne REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Chairperson Caruso The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 26th day of May, 2004. Section 3. EIR Statement of Overriding Considerations. Based upon all the evidence, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that a statement of overriding considerations not be adopted for those significant and unavoidable environmental impacts included in the Air Quality, Noise, Agricultural I Attachment C Resolution No. 5396-04 Page 3 Resources, Cultural Resources, and Traffic/Circulation sections of the Final Environmental Impact Report, based on the following findings: 1. The adverse environmental effects are unacceptable because the economic, social, and other considerations of the project do not outweigh the unavoidable impacts identified above in the findings. 2. The annexation as designed is "potentially inconsistent" with the City's General Plan. 3. The annexation creates concerns for a further jobs/housing imbalance. On motion by Commr. Osborne, seconded by Commr, Miller, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Christianson, Boswell, Christianson NOES: Commrs. Aiken, Loh REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Chairperson Caruso The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 26th day of May, 2004. ona Whisenand; ecretary Planning Commission L:Dalidio 2\PC Resolution EIR (5-26-04) Attachment C PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5397-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING DENIAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PREZONING, USE PERMIT, AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2005 DALIDIO DRIVE -APPLICATION # ER, GPA, R, PD, U 108-02 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 May 26, 2004, for the purpose of considering Application # ANNX, ER, GPA, R, PD, U 108-02, a proposal to annex the 131-acre Dalidio property to the City, provide General Plan Land Use Map designations and prezonings for proposed land uses, and approve a Preliminary Development Plan and Use Permit for the retail component known as "The Marketplace"; 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 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. Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Prezoning, Use Permit, & Preliminary Development Plan Action. Based upon all the evidence, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council deny the requested entitlements for the Dalidio Annexation and Marketplace Project. Section 2. Pursuant to San Luis Obispo Municipal Code section 17.70.030D., the Planning Commission recommended denial of the project for the following reasons: 1. The annexation and development of the site at this time is not appropriate since there is adequate land already developed or soon planned for development to serve the City's regional shopping needs; and I-�< Attachment C Resolution No. 5397-04 Page 2 2. The annexation and development of the site are potentially inconsistent with polices included in the City's General Plan including Policy LU 1.4, Jobs/Housing Relationship, and LU 1.13.5, Open Space. On motion by Commr. Osborne, seconded by Commr, Christianson, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Christianson, Boswell, Miller NOES: Commrs. Aiken, Loh REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Chairperson Caruso The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 26th day of May, 2004. z4a��,�04�� Aonaid'Whisenand, Secretary Planning Commission L:\Dalidio 2\Resolutions\PC resolution (revised 108-02) [ -Ilu Draft _' Attachment SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 26 2004 CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 26, 2004, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Carlyn Christianson Andrea Miller, Orval Osborne, Alice Loh, Jim Aiken, and Vice -Chair Michael Boswell Absent: Chairperson James Caruso Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand, Economic Development Director Shelly Stanwyck, Public Works Director Tim Bochum, Utilities Director John Moss, Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik, Community Development Director John Mandeville, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The Minutes of April 28, 2004, were accepted as amended, and the Minutes of May 12, 2004, were accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2005 Dalildio Drive. ANNX/R, GP, PD, U and ER 108-02; Requests to annex approx. 131 acres; amend the General Plan Land Use Element map to General Retail, Office, Medium -High Density Residential and Conservation/Open Space; prezone the property to C-R-PD (Retail -Commercial with a Planned Development overlay), O-PD (Office with a Planned Development overlay), R-3-S (Medium -High Density Residential with a Special Considerations overlay), and AG (Agriculture); a Planned Development for a proposed shopping center and business park; Use Permit for the general retail component to allow stores up to 140,000 sq. ft., and review of the Final Environmental Impact Report; SLO Marketplace Associates, LLC, applicant. (Pam Ricci) t- Planning Commission Minutes,Attachmentti May 26, 2004 i Page 2 Community Development Director John Mandeville explained why the City is reviewing this proposal and gave a PowerPoint presentation on the project. Senior Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending adoption of the draft resolution which recommends that the City Council: 1)Certify the EIR with a finding of overriding considerations relative to traffic/circulation, air quality, noise, cultural resources, and loss of agricultural land; 2) Adopt a Resolution of Intention to annex the property; 3) Approve the General Plan Amendment and Pre -zoning; 4) Approve a use permit to allow retail stores with floor areas between 60,000 and 140,000 square feet, based on findings, and subject to conditions; and 5) Approve a Preliminary Development Plan for the retail component known as the Marketplace, based on findings, and subject to conditions. Planner Ricci presented an overview of the project and offered information to the Commission. Richard Dalton, project environmental planner, gave a summary of the proposed project and explained the final EIR review process. Andrew Merriam, Cannon & Associates, Daldio Family representative, discussed how they decided on this plan and presented a brief overview of the project. He mentioned that flooding had been a concern, but the problems have since been resolved. He addressed the housing proposal for this project, the specific location for the housing development, and the reason the specific location was selected. He commented on the proposed open space, noting that this project conforms with the General Plan. Bryan Wolfe, Senior Architect, gave a description of SLO Marketplace and an explanation of the higher design standards. He presented an overhead view of the preliminary project plan and described where the tenants would be located and where the pedestrian's linkage is located. Roger Bernstein, Site Development Manager for Lowe's Department Store, discussed the building' s square footage and the City's requirement for commercial floor area. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, stated that she would like to save the water resources, and expressed opposition to all big box stores that will ruin the downtown. Brett Cross, 1217 Mariners Cove, explained that CEQA is just trying to avoid impacts and alternatives. He mentioned that the actual alignment of Madonna Road needs to be addressed in the EIR and that full disclosure should be in the report so the public and decision makers can understand what the impacts of this project are. He commented on the proposed tree removal and discussed the traffic impacts, noting the mitigation measures on trip programs are vague. Michael Sullivan, 1127 Seaward Street, presented a letter detailing the inadequacy of the EIR, and how the EIR has not met the requirements of CEQA. He pointed out 16 examples in his letter, which he read into the record. Planning Commission Minutes----,- Att3Ci1rT12rlt. May 26, 2004 Page 3 Community Development Director John Mandeville rebutted with a correction that he made no statements that there has never been a comprehensive review of the Prado Road alignment. Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, 650 Skyline Drive, voiced opposition to the EIR because of the financial impact on San Luis Obispo and how the downtown will suffer. She noted there needs to be careful planning and expressed the importance of funding the LOVR interchange and the widening of Tank Farm and Buckley Roads before the Prado Road extension goes in. Bill Wilson, 1690 Southwood Drive, noted that he had submitted a letter to the Planning Department expressing his concerns about the illegal segmentation of Prado Road, and that the Planning Department responded in a letter that stated no research or EIR on this specific Prado Road segment has been prepared. He expressed concerns on the impacts of Prado Road and where it comes out on Broad Street, and noting there are significant impacts that have not been addressed at the Damon -Garcia Sports Field. Director Mandeville responded that he had previously supplied Mr. Wilson with information on how the City has complied with CEQA in terms of Prado Road and stated that he would provide the Commission a copy of the letter that was sent to Mr. Wilson. Gerald Moore, 289 Via La Paz, asked if the EIR already states that the best use of the land is to leave it alone, and questioned the need for creating another lawn and garden store, another motel, and another series of retail outlets in San Luis Obispo. He asked who is going to pay for the Prado Road interchange and how that cost will be recovered. He stated that he opposes having more business parks. Collin Leath, 1617 Santa Rosa, Street, commented that the design of this project has been limited because of cars, and recommended a plan to reduce cars in the future. Joe Delpin, 1520 Del Mar Street, requested that they not certify the EIR and reject the finding of overriding considerations. He noted a few observations of negativity such as potential flooding, increased noise levels, increased immitigable traffic congestion, potential for a third lane on US Highway 101, and escalated housing costs for current city residents. He commented that 60% of the area that is SLO Marketplace is going to be dedicated to parking lots. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION. COMMENTS: Commr. Osborne opposed the motion because of the new information on hydrology and suggested the Commission exercise their due diligence and investigate it more thoroughly. He requested a response from the Army Corps of Engineer on this matter and expressed that the traffic and circulation section was inadequate. Chien Wang, Cuesta Engineering, responded to the concerns on hydrology. Qrq Planning Commission Minutes, May 26, 2004 Page 4 Attachment D Vice -Chair Boswell requested two amendments to the motion: (1) land use policy 1.4, which addresses jobs housing relationship and says, "the gap between housing demand due to mote jobs and college enrollment and supply should not increase and suggested this be included in the land use element section and would like it described as potentially inconsistent; (2) land use element 13.5 that addresses open spaces and states when the open spaces are to be preserved, and he reads that 1.13.5 is more specific direction on how this area is to be treated and noted that the current proposal is inconsistent with this policy and pointed out that he is interpreting this policy different from what has been suggested in the EIR and what staff has presented and requested that 1.13.5 also be listed as potentially inconsistent.. Commr. Aiken as the motion maker accepts the first amendment as long as it would be re -addressed when they get to the statement of overriding considerations motion. He does not accept the second amendment. Commr. Miller opposed the motion because she likes agricultural land and does not support the fact the City is taking prime agricultural soil and using it this way. She stated that she does not support the City's policy on open space. AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Loh, and Christianson NOES: Commrs. Miller, Osborne, and Boswell ABSENT: Commr. Caruso ABSTAIN: None The motion was a tie with a 3:3 vote. Assistant City Attorney Trujillo noted that there is no action or recommendation on the EIR with a tie vote. He recommended that if the Planning Commission is unsuccessful in coming up with an alternative motion, the individual comments made from the Commissioners will be forwarded onto Council.. Imbalance, and (2) LUE 1.13.5 dealing with location of Open Space relative to the proiect. Seconded by Commr. Loh. Commr. Osborne stated that another reason the EIR was inadequate is because the circulation section did not cover some of the significant traffic impacts. AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Loh, Christianson and Boswell NOES: Commrs. Miller and Osborne ABSENT: Chairperson Caruso ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 4:2 vote. M. I'-,Yb Planning Commission Minutes---. - Ma 2004 Pagee 5 Attachment 5 The motion carried on a 6:0 vote. Commr. Aiken moved they adopt a finding of overriding considerations relative to traffic, circulation, air quality, noise, cultural resources, and loss of agricultural. land and continue discussion on the iobs housing imbalance potential inconsistencv and the Commr. Osborne requested an amendment to the motion to add aesthetics to the items needing overriding, the unavoidable significant impacts. Commr. Aiken as fhe motion maker accepted the amendment. Commr. Christianson opposed the motion because even though the annexation itself will allow a lot of the City goals to be achieved, the project itself does not warrant a statement of overriding considerations. Commr. Osborne offered a statement of things for the staff to consider, which included his amendments. The motion maker did not accept the amendments made by Commr. Osborne. Vice -Chair Boswell opposed the motion because there is very little evidence that the benefits of the project will outweigh the unavoidable impacts that are identified in the EIR, that improved traffic circulation and creation of permanent open space are not clearly defendable, the annexation will not insure that property is developed in the City, and the project will provide high quality in new commercial uses that will compliment the commercial development already in the area. He felt this is not high -quality commercial development and does not meet the intention of the large-scale retail ordinance. Commr. Miller opposed the motion because of air quality and the loss of agricultural land. Commr. Osborne commented that this project would be good for the City, and felt this project could be approved in concept, but not start for five years. He felt that when the City reaches its build -out, it would be logical to make some type of development at this location. AYES: Commrs. Aiken and Loh NOES: Commrs. Miller, Osborne, Christianson, and Boswell ABSENT: Chairperson Caruso ABSTAIN: None The motion failed on a 2:4 vote. Commr. Osborne moved they do not adopt the statement of overriding considerations. Seconded by Commr. Miller. AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Miller, Christianson, and Boswell NOES: Commrs. Aiken and Loh ABSENT: Commr. Caruso Planning Commission Minutes - May 26, 2004 Page 6 0 Attachment 1D ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 4:2 vote. Commr. Aiken moved to recommend that the City Council to adopt Items B, C. D, and E (b) adopt a resolution of intention to annex the property; (c) approve the General Plan AmandnnPnt and nre-7onina- (d) annrove a use uermit to allow retail stores with floor R.17# Commr. Miller, expressed support for annexing this property to the City, but did not support the motion. Commr. Osborne commented that the buildings are not in compliance with the City's Design Guidelines for large scale retail projects, Section 5, pages 6 & 7 of the Resolution, #3 requested striking the word "superior" because it is an ordinary design; and on number 7 suggested adding on (the project property), and under conditions suggested they wait at least five years to gather more data because they have not seen the impact of Costco. He suggested there be structured parking and recommended that 80% of the parking shall not be free and that rate shall be comparable to that levee by the City. The motion maker did not accept the amendments. Commr. Christianson noted for the record that she supports development on this piece of property and the sooner the better because it is an important piece of property to the city. She also felt it should be annexed, but noted their rules in town say they have to have a specific project before they can annex and noted she does not like this project, but does not feel they should wait five years. She stated that she does not support the project, but does support development and annexation. Vice -Chair Boswell commented that it is irresponsible to add this amount of square footage to the City at one time and did not feel the economic report clearly assesses what the impacts would be; the downside is that they do something terrible to the downtown. He noted that this should have come in as a phased project so they could have monitored how it impacted the downtown. AYES: Commrs. Aiken and Loh NOES: Commrs. Miller, Osborne, Christianson, and Osborne ABSENT: Commr. Caruso ABSTAIN: None The motion failed on a 2:4 vote. Commr. Osborne recommended not approving Items B through E. Seconded by Commr. Christianson. 3 Planning Commission Minute May 26, 2004 1 Attachment 17 Page 7 Commr. Aiken suggested they break it up and say they support annexation rather than recommending denial of the annexation. AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Christianson, Miller, Boswell NOES: Commrs. Aiken and Loh ABSENT: Commr. Caruso ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 4:2 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 2. Staff: A. Agenda Forecast: Due to the lateness in the hour there was no agenda forecast given. 3. Commission: Commr. Miller noted she attended the EVC annual brunch, the speakers were great and how interesting it was to hear the economic impact of Cal Poly on the City, noting that she has a copy of what Cal Poly produced. She also congratulated members of the SLO Transit for their efforts. ADJOURMENT:. I With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for June 9, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chamber. Respectfully submitted by Irene Pierce Recording Secretary -3�) Attachment E- CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO , PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM # l BY: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner pR MEETING DATE: May 26, 2004 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director, Development Review CITY FILE NUMBER: ER, ANNX, GPA, R, U, PD 108-02 EIR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2003021089 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2005 Dalidio Drive SUBJECT: Consideration of a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and request to annex a 131-acre parcel into the City with development of an approximately 615,000 square -foot retail project known as the San Luis Marketplace. A General Plan Amendment is requested to amend the adopted Land Use Element map to match the applicant's current land use proposal. Prezoning will also be considered to provide zoning designations for sites within the annexation area which are consistent with the proposed Land Use Element map designations (C-R-PD, Retail Commercial Planned Development; O-S, Office with the Special Consideration overlay; R-3-S, Medium -High Density Residential with the Special Consideration overlay; C/OS-40, Conservation/Open Space; and AG, Agriculture). A Planning Commission Use Permit is also required to allow retail stores between 60,000 and 140,000 square feet. Consistent with the proposed C-R-PD zoning, a Preliminary Development Plan for the Marketplace component is recommended. Finally, the applicant has requested entering into a Development Agreement with the City that will allow the project and required construction of an interchange at Prado Road. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 5), which recommends that the City Council: A. Certify the EIR with a finding of overriding considerations relative to traffic/circulation, air quality, noise, cultural resources, and loss of agricultural land. B. Adopt a Resolution of Intention to annex the property. C. Approve the General Plan Amendment and Prezoning. D. Approve a Use Permit to allow retail stores with floor areas between 60,000 and 140,000 square feet, based on findings, and subject to conditions. E. Approve a Preliminary Development Plan for the retail component known as the Marketplace, based on findings, and subject to conditions. ER, ANNX, GPA, R, U, Pi A-02 (Dalidio Property Annexation) Attachment f Page 2 BACKGROUND Situation On February 25, 2004, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission to discuss the Draft EIR during the required public review period. At that meeting, testimony from both the Commission and public was taken. The Final EIR is a compilation of the Draft EIR and responses to comments. The Final EIR was distributed to the Commission on April 23, 2004. This agenda item is both a hearing to consider the adequacy of the Final EIR in terms of its compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and a hearing to consider the various project entitlements. The Planning Commission's action is a recommendation on the EIR and other requested entitlements to the City Council. Data Summary Address: 2005 Dalidio Drive Applicant: San Luis Marketplace Associates, LLC Representative: Canon & Associates; Perkowitz + Ruth architects, Inc. Environmental status: The Final EIR has been prepared and has been distributed to the Commission. Project action deadline: Legislative actions are not subject to processing deadlines. Project Location The project site consists of the 131-acre Dalidio property and the Prado Road Interchange area. The 131-acre annexation area is located within the Urban Reserve area of the City of San Luis Obispo, California. Known as the Dalidio property, it is sited contiguous and west of U.S. Highway 101 and southwest of Dalidio Drive, adjacent to the San Luis Obispo Promenade shopping mall. It lies southeast of Madonna Road and the United States Post Office, and northeasterly of Prefumo Creek. Though not as easily distinguished, an overhead power line and an agricultural access road separating the site from the property to the south delineate the southern property line. The site is comprised of assessor's parcel number (APN) 067-121-022. The Prado Road interchange would have a footprint ranging from about 60 meters (197 feet) from the centerline of U.S. Highway 101, at the intersection of U.S. Highway 101 and Prado Road, and to about 20 meters (66 feet) from the centerline of U.S. Highway 101 between Prado Road and Madonna Road and south of Prado Road. Requested Project Components On June 27, 2002, the Community Development Department received an application from San Luis Obispo Marketplace Associates to annex a 131-acre piece of property to the City of San Luis Obispo along with requests for Prezoning and a General Plan Amendment. William Bird is the representative for San Luis Obispo Marketplace Associates, who are proposing the retail (, 3<' Attachment £ ER, ANNX, GPA, R, U, Pi _ i8-02 (Dalidio Property Annexation) Page 3 component of the project, and Andrew Merriam is the representative for the Dalidio family who own the property. Specific components of the application evaluated in the EIR include: 1. Retail Component (San Luis Marketplace). Designate 48.7 acres of land adjacent to the SLO Promenade as General Retail on the Land Use Element map (General Plan Amendment), and prezone the same 48.7 acres to C-R-PD, Retail Commercial with the Planned Development overlay zoning. The property currently in agricultural production would be developed with new retail commercial uses and restaurants. This new retail center, referred_ to as San Luis Marketplace, will contain approximately 615,000 square feet of leasable space, with additional areas allocated to outdoor sales associated with major tenant spaces, including a mixture of larger and smaller retail uses and restaurants. The proposed project would include approximately 2,600 parking spaces in a series of landscaped parking fields mixed throughout the center. A Planning Commission Use Permit is required to allow retail stores with floor areas between 60,000 .and 140,000 square feet. 2. Open Space. Designate 54.7 acres of land as Open Space on the Land Use Element map (General Plan Amendment) for permanent open space protection, and prezone 45 acres as AG, Agriculture, and 9.7 acres as C/OS-40 for an extension to Laguna Lake Park. This area is located adjacent to the US 101 freeway and southeast of the Commercial Retail portion of the project. The applicant is also proposing to fund the perpetual preservation of 24 acres of off -site open space. 3. Business Park. Designate 8.1 acres of property, north of the San Luis Marketplace and adjacent to Madonna Road, as Office for a Business Park on the Land Use Element map (General Plan Amendment), and prezone the same 8.1 acres as O-S, Office with the Special Consideration overlay. Development evaluated in the EIR was very conceptual, but identifies building coverage of about 100,000 square feet with a total of 198,000 square feet of usable space. 4. Residential. Designate 3.3 acres of property; located to the south of the Marketplace, as Medium -High Density Residential on the Land Use Element map (General Plan Amendment) for a 60-unit affordable housing project, and prezone the same 3.3 acres as R-3-S, Medium -High Density with the Special Consideration overlay. 5. Roadway Dedication. The. Commercial Annexation includes 16.2 acres that would be dedicated for freeway and roadway construction throughout the site. 6. Prado Road Interchange. The project would also include the construction of a freeway interchange at Prado Road, the construction of a freeway auxiliary lane on the east side of the freeway, from Prado Road to Madonna Road, the realignment of Elks Lane, and the extension of Prado Road to Madonna Road. The proposed auxiliary lane would be constructed within the existing Caltrans right-of-way. 1 - 3"( ER, ANNX; GPA, R, U, P: J8-02 (Dalidio Property Annexation) Attachment S Page 4 Project History 1. 1977 Land Use Designation. The proposal to annex the Dalidio property to the City of San Luis Obispo has been envisoned by City plans for many years. The Land Use Element (LUE) map for the 1977 plan showed the site as major expansion area with the Interim Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) designation. The Interim C/OS designation implied that the site should be left open until urbanization was appropriate, and that a specific proposal for the area needed to be adopted along with the change to an urban land use designation. 2. 1994 Adoption of a New Land Use Designation. In 1994, the City Council adopted a new LUE. After much deliberation and debate, specific land use designations were applied to parts of the Dalidio property. This solidified a commitment by the City to eventually allow development of certain parts of the site and permanent open space preservation of others. 3. Original Proposal for San Luis Obispo Marketplace. In March of 1998 the San Luis Obispo Marketplace Development Team, led by developer Bill Bird, presented a project application for the development of San Luis Obispo Marketplace on a portion of the Dalidio Farm. The project proposed to develop 40 acres for regional retail uses. Essentially two stand alone "big box"stores would have anchored the site complemented by a small "main street" component. In all, 515,000 square feet of development was planned. Because of traffic demands, in order for significant retail square footage to be constructed on the Dalidio Property, a new freeway interchange at Prado Road was required. This interchange has long been part of the City's Circulation Element, but the City has not had the financial capability of building it. Accordingly, since 1994, new development has been assigned the responsibility for funding this improvement. The Developer proposed to construct the Prado Road interchange with the project. The intent was that the Developer would assume the up -front risk of financing the interchange, with fair share reimbursements from other benefiting properties as they developed. As is often the practice with major retail projects that involve achieving public and private goals, a performance based sales tax sharing (or reimbursement agreement) was proposed. Eventually the City and the Developer entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (Dalidio MOU) outlining the principles for a future development agreement. 4. 2001 Project Denial and Application for Development with the County of San Luis Obispo. In February 2001, the Council did not certify the San Luis Obispo Marketplace project EIR and the project was denied due to concerns about open space protection and drainage. After this denial, the San Luis Obispo Marketplace Development Team took a substantially changed development proposal to the County of San Luis Obispo for processing. The proposal had far less land designated for open space than did prior proposals. Because of concerns that the project might develop in the County (resulting in a loss of City control over the development, lost sales tax revenues, inability of the County to provide adequate urban services, and the City's greater ability to assure environmental impacts of the project are mitigated), the City opposed the development application in the County. In January 2002, based on a letter from the San Luis Obispo City Council asking that the project be returned to the City for further processing, the Board of Supervisors agreed that a Board Subcommittee (Supervisors Pinard and Achadjian), San Luis ER, ANNX, GPA, R, U, P,_ _J8-02 (Dalidio Property Annexation) Attachment £ Page 5 Obispo Marketplace representatives, and a City Subcommittee (Council members Ewan and Marx) should meet to explore further options for the Marketplace Project proceeding under the City's jurisdiction. S Subcommittee Process, Recommendation to Council and Council Direction. Several times during the period between February 2002 and May 2002, the parties met and eventually came to conceptual agreement on terms to continue project processing in the City. On May 21, 2002, the San Luis Obispo City Council approved the Subcommittee recommendations regarding the Dalidio Property/Marketplace Development Proposal and authorized the Vice -Mayor to send a letter requesting the Board of Supervisors refer the project back to the City for further work and processing. The principles set forth in the Subcommittee recommendations and letter were generally consistent with prior principles adopted by Council regarding the Dalidio Farm and established a basis for a new City project application for the Dalidio Farm to be processed in the City. As a result of this communication, on June 4, 2002, the Board of Supervisors put the proposed project application on hold and directed the applicant back to the City for further work and processing. In following up on this direction, the developer has submitted a project that is substantially consistent with previous Council direction found in the Dalidio MOU, as well as the principles arising out of the City -County Subcommittee discussions. 6. Project SubmittaL San Luis Obispo Marketplace and Associates submitted a new application for the development of parts of the Dalidio Farm on June 27, 2002. 7. Fiscal Analysis and Development Agreement Discussions. Since applying to the City for annexation, general plan amendment, prezoning, architectural review and environmental review, the project has been discussed by the City Council several times. In accordance with LUE Policy 3.1.3, Council approved an agreement with Allan D. Kotin and Associates to perform and update an economic impact study of the proposed project on downtown (the "2002 Kotin Study"). Also, on September 17, 2002, Council authorized further negotiations with SC Properties (Developer Bill Bird and other members of the Dalidio property team) to review and revise slightly the Dalidio MOU to reflect new sales tax and sales tax transfer effect information as they relate to the funding of the Prado Road interchange. The 2002 Kotin Study was published in October 2002 and concluded that the project would annually add about $1.5 million net new sales tax revenues to the City, which when adjusted for transfer effects became about $1.1 million annually, and new transient occupancy tax at $280,000 annually, for a total of net new revenues of about $1.4 million. On June 9, 2004, the City Council will have a study session regarding a review of the 2002 Kotin Study be Economist Jerry Keyser and the response to this review by Allan Kotin. Development Agreement On January 6, 2004, Council provided direction on several key terms that would be included in a development agreement so that a draft of such an agreement can be completed and presented to Council in conjunction with its review of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and final project. This direction provides a framework for the terms to be included in a final development Attachment £ ER, ANNX, GPA, R, U, PL-.;i8-02 (Dalidio Property Annexation) ' _- Page 6 agreement and does not preempt the prerogative for input and review by advisory bodies and their modification prior to a final action. The purpose of a development agreement for this project is to facilitate many City objectives including: ■ Providing funding for the completion of the Prado Road interchange from a portion of sales tax revenues that we do not presently have, and would not have, without the development -of the San Luis Marketplace. ■ Assist in accomplishing Council's major goals for 2003-05 to sales tax and transient occupancy tax (TOT) as a result of the new retail sales tax revenues and new hotel TOT and sales tax revenues generated by San Luis Obispo Marketplace. ■ Protecting the City's "investment" in the downtown by discouraging the developer from direct retail competition with the downtown. ■ Potentially providing onsite affordable housing. ■ Providing increased water supply to the City. ■ Contributing to offsite open space acquisitions. Because the proposed project is larger and has an improved financial impact to the City (than what was contemplated in the 1999 Dalidio MOU), and because the City's financial circumstances have changed significantly, in negotiations with the Developer, staff has sought to improve our financial position and address the issues that a larger project presents. A final version of the Development Agreement will be available for the Planning Commission to review and discuss on June 23, 2004. EVALUATION The Commission's actions on the various project entitlements and development agreement are advisory to the City Council. This meeting before the Planning Commission has been set -aside to discuss the legal adequacy of the EIR and to formulate a recommendation to the City Council on requested entitlements. This section of the report is intended to provide the Commission with direction on their role in the review of the project and approaches to making recommendations on the various entitlements. The following paragraphs serve as an outline to the Commission for the order of considering the six project components they will be formulating recommendations to the City Council on, which are: 1. Final EIR; 2. Annexation; 3. General Plan Amendment; 4. Prezoning of components to match the proposed Land Use designations; 5. Use Permit for Large -Scale Retailers; and 6. Preliminary Development for The Marketplace Component ER, ANNX, GPA, R, U. PL_J8-02 (Dalidio Property Annexation) Attachment Page 7 1. EIR Adequacy The Final EIR is a compilation of the Draft EIRand responses to comments. Responses to comments are a written evaluation of comments on the environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR. Copies of all the written comments received during the public review period have been incorporated into the Final EIR. The minutes of the February 25, 2004 Planning Commission are also included as comments in the Final EIR. The responses to comments were prepared by the consultant and reviewed by city staff. The Commission 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. The Commission makes a recommendation to the Council who takes a final action on certification of the EIR. If the document adequately evaluates environmental issues and appropriately responds to comments, then the Commission should recommend to the Council that the EIR be certified. The Final EIR must be certified prior to approval of the project analyzed in the EIR. Regardless of the Commission's recommendation on other project entitlements (even if it is to deny them), the Commission could support certification of the EIR. In other words, the Commission can recommend that the EIR be certified even if other project requests are not supported. As requested by the 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. The most significant changes to the EIR were made in the following sections: • 2.0, Project Description — The project description was revised to clarify that construction of the retail and hotel portion of the project cannot begin until the design has been approved for the Prado Road interchange, the contract for the construction of the facility has been awarded, and funding for the interchange has been secured. • 4.2, Drainage and Water Quality - A supplemental "San Luis Marketplace Hydrologic Analysis" was prepared by Questa Engineering Corporation (March 17, 2004) and attached to the Final EIR. As described therein, Questa completed a detailed review of the project hydrologic model incorporated into the Draft EIR as Appendix B and described in Section 4.2, Drainage and Water Quality. Questa determined that there was a data input error into the existing San Luis Obispo Creek watershed hydrologic model. With the correct 100-year starting storage water surface elevation in Laguna Lake under existing conditions, the difference in predicted downstream discharge rates in Prefumo and San Luis Obispo Creeks becomes minor. Water surface elevations downstream of the project site also would not increase significantly. Thus, even after accounting for increased impervious surface area and loss of floodplain storage, discharge rates and water surface elevations would not significantly increase downstream of the project site. 1 -40 Attachment £ ER, ANNX, GPA,-R, U, P. _J8-02 (Dalidio Property Annexation) Page 8 The low magnitude of the predicted increase in 100-year peak flow rate shows that buildout of the watershed would not substantially increase runoff rates in Prefumo Creek, primarily because the watershed above Laguna Lake contributes so much of the flow in Prefumo Creek (as compared to the lower Prefumo watershed below the Lake), and secondarily because the soils in the watershed are clayey. The soils have high runoff rates when fully saturated, such as during a 10-year or larger storm, and conversion to urban land use does not result in especially large increases in runoff rates. Impact and -Mitigation Measure DW-1 were revised to state that according to WMP thresholds of significance for increases in water surface elevation (i.e., 2.5 inches), the project would not result in a significant impact on floodwater surface elevations along San Luis Obispo Creek. This impact and the project's cumulative contribution to drainage impacts have been redesignated from a Class I impact to a Class II, significant but mitigable, impact. • 4.6, Agricultural Resources — This section was modified to add a mitigation measure that specifies the requirements for the agricultural characteristics of the off -site open space dedication, such that the 20 acres of off -site open space proposed to be funded by the applicant shall be characterized by similar overall agricultural suitability. as the on -site agricultural lands. • 6.1, Growth -Inducing Impacts — This section was modified to add further discussion of the project's growth -inducing impacts related to job creation. The proposed commercial and business park uses would generate approximately 1,666 new jobs. Using an average household size of 2.27 persons per household (U.S. Census 2000), this job creation would result in the need for 734 housing units. Although some jobs would likely be filled by current residents of the City of San Luis Obispo, many of the new job opportunities would likely be filled by people relocating to the area. In this way, the proposed project may indirectly generate population growth in the area. The number of relocatees and the location in which they would reside cannot be predicted with any certainty, but it is likely that the proposed project would contribute to housing demand in the City. This could increase pressure for additional housing development and/or tend to drive up housing prices. The City 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 despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted. An agency is not required to select the most environmentally superior alternative. The EIR concludes that the project will result in significant and unavoidable Class I environmental impacts in terms of air quality, noise, agricultural resources, cultural resources, and traffic/circulation. Therefore, the City would be required to adopt a statement ( - 4 � ER, ANNX, GPA, R, U, P.,J8-02 (Dalidio Property Annexation) Attachment Page 9 of overriding considerations if it were to accept the project as submitted. Air Quality. The County of San Luis Obispo is currently considered "non -attainment" by the State for PM,, (fine particulate matter, 10 microns or less in diameter) air quality standards, but has recently achieved attainment status regarding the State standard for ozone. Construction and increased traffic associated with the project will incrementally increase the pollutants in the air. Projects included in non -attainment areas should adopt all "reasonably available transportation control measures" to mitigate the impacts associated with new development. This situation is the case with all new projects within the City's urban reserve. Mitigation strategies help to reduce emissions and ultimately put the air basin in closer compliance with standards. However, proposed mitigation measures will not result in compliance with standards. Noise. Project -generated traffic would incrementally increase noise levels along roads in the project vicinity. Implementation of mitigation measures that require the applicant to contribute its fair share, as determined by the City, to the implementation of one or more of the mitigation approaches listed in policy N-1.2.16 of the Noise Element would reduce this impact to the extent feasible. However, implementation of these techniques would not necessarily ensure that cumulative noise experienced at sensitive receptors would be reduced to less than significant levels at all locations. No additional mitigation measures are feasible due to economic, political, and physical constraints. Therefore, impacts would remain Class I, Significant and Unavoidable. Agricultural Resources. Project implementation would irreversibly commit about 60 acres of open agricultural lands to urban -scaled commercial and office/business park development, with the resultant loss of agricultural row crop production. The EIR points out that this loss of agricultural land is significant and unavoidable, but also indicates that the loss of this resource was previously evaluated and documented in the EIR that was done for the LUE update. In its certification of the LUE EIR on August 23, 1994, the City Council previously adopted a statement of overriding considerations for the loss of prime agricultural soils. An important consideration is that the proposed project is part of that previously -identified impact and would not result in any additional significant impact beyond the earlier determination. In addition, it should be noted that the applicant would acquire an open space easement over 20 acres of off -site agricultural land of similar soil type, which would reduce overall regional impacts on prime soils areas. Cultural Resources. Project development could result in demolition of existing on -site historic structures, resulting in a significant impact to historic resources. Impacts are significant but mitigable, provided the significant structures are retained in accordance with the mitigation measures included in this analysis. If the mitigation were not implemented, impacts to historic resources would be significant and unavoidable. Traffic and Circulation. The proposed project would result in several traffic and circulation impacts that would be considered significant but mitigable with the implementation of identified circulation improvements that would be either directly provided by the applicant, or partially funded by the applicant through the payment of fair share traffic impact fees. Some of the mitigation measures identified for significant impacts would require the cooperation of Caltrans Attachment £ ER, ANNX, GPA, R, U. PL -,J8-02 (Dalidio Property Annexation) Page 10 and/or off -site property owners, which cannot be assured. In such cases, traffic impacts are assumed as a reasonable worst -case assessment to be Class 1, significant and unavoidable. 2. Annexation Annexation projects require the review and approval of the San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). The applicant has applied for LAFCO review. However, LAFCO proceedings would not take place until after the Planning Commission and City Council have indicated their intention to support annexation of the property to the City, and have determined the appropriate zoning for the site to be annexed. The applicant is proposing amendments to the existing Land Use Element (LUE) map to accommodate the currently proposed project that was evaluated in the EIR. As proposed, different parts of the project site are designated for General Retail, Medium -High Density Residential, Office, and Open Space. Zoning designations, consistent with the proposed amended LUE map, are discussed in the next section of this report. LAFCO review will resume once the Council acts on the prezoning and agrees to commence tax revenue negotiations. The Council Ordinance approving the prezoning would note that the designated zoning categories for different parts of the site would not go into effect until after LAFCO approval of the annexation. 3. General Plan Amendment An earlier version of the Dalidio Annexation project, which was denied by the City Council in February of 2002, proposed the following mix of land uses for the 131-acre property which were intended to match the designations included on the current Land Use Element map: • 40.0 acres of General Retail; • 60.0 acres as Conservation/Open Space; • 11.1 acres of Medium -High Density Residential; • 9.2 acres of Interim Conservation/Open Space; and • 10.2 acres for roads. To match the applicant's current land use proposal, the following land use designations are now proposed: • 48.7 acres of General Retail; • 54.7 acres of Conservation/Open Space; • 8.1 acres of Office; • 3.3 acres of Medium -High Density Residential; • 16.2 acres for interchange and other roadways The following Table A., Dalidio Annexation Land Uses, shows the proposed shifts in land use acreages since the EIR was prepared. As shown in Figure 2-8 from the EIR (Attachment 2), there was a detached 2-acre piece of office/business park to the south of the retail component. This area has now been added to the retail component because of added take to the retail site 1,43 ER, ANNX, GPA. R, U, Pi _d8-02 Dalidio Property Annexation Attachment £ Page 11 from the interchange hook ramp and to accommodate a larger footprint for Major A, which was modified to go from a two-story building to a single -story building. As is evident from reviewing the statistics in the Table A., the biggest change in acreage was to add 3.9 acres to accommodate right-of-way needs for the interchange, per Caltrans specifications, and the Prado Road extension, to show additional right-of-way for a fifth lane per EIR mitigation. Table A - Dalidio Annexation Land Uses _ -- 2003 Application (Acres) Current Requirements (Acres) Net Change (Acres) Notes 1. Commercial/Retail 47.0 48.7 +1.7 1 2. Business Park 13.0 8.1 <4.9> 2 Subtotal: 60.0 56.8 <3.2> 3. Affordable Housing -0- 3.3 +3.3 3 4. Road Right of Way: a. Interchange 9.5 11.7 +2.2 4a b. All other Public Road 2.8 4.5 +1.7 4b Subtotal: 12.3 16.2 +3.9 5. Park/Open Space 58.7 54.7 <4.0> 5 Total Acres: 131.0 131.0 1. Commercial/Retail expands at the expense of Business Park (one/one ratio). 2. Business Park decreases for Commercial and on -site roads (one/one ratio). 3. Housing - new acreage - offset with off -site purchase (4 acres). 4. a. Interchange enlarged with new Caltrans design (3/04). b. Dalidio Drive widened by one lane per EIR (5/04). 5. Park/Open Space loss relates to expanding roads and exchange of land for housing. The configuration has been changed to accept the affordable housing. The other major change to the acreage distribution is due to the applicant's request to add an on - site housing component. This is consistent with Alternative 7.3 described in the EIR. The site for the proposed housing is to the south of the retail component (see Fig. 7-1 on Page 7-7 of the EIR). The idea of developing housing on the site in its currently proposed location was conceptually endorsed by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) with the requirement that actual housing be located outside of the airport hazard zone boundary and beyond the 55-decibel contour. With the City's endorsement for the proposed housing land use, then review of the housing component would be formalized by the ALUC. The Land Use Element (LUE) prescribes appropriate open space dedications with proposals for t�44 ER, ANNX, GPA, R. U, P, _J8-02 (Dalidio Property Annexation) (1 Al`tachment Page 12 annexation (General Pan Digest LU 1.13.5). For the Dalidio area properties, the LUE says that approximately one-half of the sites should be preserved as open space either through dedication of land or easements. As discussed on Page 2-17 of the EIR, the open space requirement for this site would be 65.5 acres. Based on the acreages included in Table A. below, a total of 54.7 acres is currently proposed as open space. Technically to be consistent with the LUE open space requirement, the applicant would need to acquire an open space easement of a minimum of 10.8 acres of off -site agricultural land of similar soil type. As described in the EIR, the applicant plans to secure 20 acres of off -site farmland to meet this requirement. Since the housing component is now being proposed on -site, the applicant has agreed to increase the off -site farmland dedication to 24 acres. This approach to meeting the open space requirement through off -site acquisition of agricultural land within the urban reserve or City greenbelt with control by the City or other land conservation organization is consistent with LU Policy 1.8.2. The Community Development Director has determined that this approach to meeting the open space requirement for the Dalidio Annexation area is in substantial compliance with Policy LU 1.13.5 and does not require a Text Amendment to the Land Use Element. On January 6, 2004, Council provided direction on several key terms that would be included in a development agreement. At that meeting the development of an on -site residential component as well as the requirement to secure 24 acres of off -site open space were acknowledged. General Plan policies, including several in the recently adopted Housing Element, encourage the inclusion of a residential component in major commercial projects. Consistent with LUE Policy 1.13.5 directing that approximately one-half of the Dalidio property be preserved as open space either through dedication of land or easements. Table B below shows how this is achieved with the current mix of on -site land uses in addition to the off -site open space dedication. Table B Summary of Proposed Land Uses (including off -site open space) Acres % of Total 1. Commercial/Retail 48.7 2. Business Park 8.1 3. Affordable Housing 3.3 Subtotal: 60.1 39% 4. Open Space: a. On -site 54.7 b. Off -site 24.0 Subtotal: 78.7 51% 5. Roads & Interchange 16.2 10% Total Land Included: 155.0 100% 1' `Ic ER, ANNX, GPA, R, U, PL _J8-02 (Dalidio Property Annexation) Ailachment F- Page 13 4. Prezonin LUE Policy 1.13.3, Required Plans, calls for the master planning of proposed annexation areas so that the City has an adopted plan showing the project layout, required open space protection and provision of streets and utilities. To be consistent with this policy, the EIR indicates that it may be necessary to amend the proposal to include prezoning the various land uses within the property with the Planned Development (PD) overlay. In lieu of a PD overlay, the property could be prezoned to carry the "S", Special Considerations, overlay. The required use permit with an "S" overlay could be conditioned to require certain improvements and to include an adoption of a master development plan. City decision makers may also determine that the submitted architectural review application allows for adequate review of project master planning. As pointed out in the EIR, plans for the Marketplace development are fairly detailed, but plans for the affordable housing and office/business park components are still very conceptual. Given the variations in the specificity of plans for the various components, staff is recommending different overlay zonings accompany the proposed base zoning to meet the intent of LUE Policy 1.13.3 in terms of master planning. a. Marketplace (C-R-PD) Staff is recommending that the PD, Planned Development, overlay be utilized with the development of the Marketplace component. Chapter 17.50 states that the purpose of the PD overlay zone is to provide for flexibility in the application of zoning standards to proposed development. The regulations go on to elaborate that the desired end result of the PD would be a project of high design integrity that responds to unique site conditions and environmental constraints, and promotes energy efficiency and the efficient use of resources. With the PD zoning overlay, a preliminary plan is approved along with the prezoning. This preliminary plan can be conditioned to address required environmental mitigation measures, various City requirements, and design considerations recommended by staff and the decision makers. In staffs view, the PD overlay is tailor-made for the Marketplace because: • Plans are fairly well defined and therefore can be intelligently conditioned at this point to address various concerns. • A final development plan will need to be submitted which addresses all conditions and mitigation measures. Typically the Community Development Director, following final review by the Architectural Review Commission, approves this final plan. • The proposed hotel with a height of 51'would require an exception to the City's property development standards, which could be approved through the planned development. The ARC with its conceptual review of the hotel plans endorsed the proposed height because: 1. The building is located along a major arterial roadway. 2. The building is significantly separated from other buildings. ER, ANNX, GPA, R, U, P, _J8-02 (Dalidio Property Annexation) AtItaCil ii2^; Page 14 3. The proposed pitch of the roof is important to the Craftsman architectural style of the building. • The PD enables the City to modify the range of allowed uses in the project. This may be important in terms of identifying the types of retail uses consistent with the recommendations of "The 2002 Kotin Study" and eliminating those uses which are not. For example, the developer in the past has expressed a willingness to prohibit movie theatres. • The project can meet the requirement of Section 17.62.045A. of the Zoning Regulations for including features that present a substantial public benefit such as affordable housing, a substantial open space dedication, and an extension to a City park. The required findings and documentation of the mandatory project features in included in Section 5 of the attached Draft Planning Commission Resolution. Some of the development concerns with the retail site that staff has identified are: drainage, flooding protection, urban/agricultural buffers, roadway improvements and design, pedestrian linkages with other commercial developments and nearby residential areas, loading area design, compliance with energy conservation requirements, creek and open space protection, site lighting and preservation of scenic vistas. b. Office/Business Park (O-S) The business park component is proposed in the area to the west of the Marketplace that is currently shown on the LUE map as "Medium -High Density Residential". As the Commission may recall, plans for this site were changed because the ALUC had indicated that housing was not appropriate in this part of the property because of airport safety issues. The City has discussed the establishment of a Business Park zoning category in conjunction with the Airport Land Use Plan, but it is not yet an adopted City zoning. Therefore, references to the site call out both Office and Business Park, but the current option for the proposed type of development would be a prezoning to Office. Staff suggests that the "S" zoning is the most relevant overlay to this particular site, given the very conceptual nature of development plans at this time. The site has many development constraints that seem well suited for application of the "S" zoning. Through the adoption of the "S" zoning, the specific considerations to be addressed with review of a master use permit can be identified. The purpose of the "S" zone states that the use permit can be conditioned to assure neighborhood compatibility, look at project compliance with physical site constraints and protect scenic and sensitive site areas. Therefore; documenting now the reasons for the special considerations of the site and having a master use permit return at a later date seems to be a logical processing strategy.. The EIR provides sufficient detail regarding the potential environmental impacts of development of this portion of the site to establish special considerations which are: tree preservation; land use compatibility with the adjacent commercial development; pedestrian linkages to adjoining sites; historical preservation; airport safety zones; and protection of riparian habitat. ER, ANNX, GPA, R, U, P,_-38-02 (Dalidio Property Annexation)'' Attachment Page 15 The "S" zoning seems to have some advantages in terms of timing and project review. The applicant has submitted .a development plan booklet which calls out proposed land uses, elaborates on the scale of development envisioned in different areas, describes roadway improvements, and details needed utilities. The EIR also provides an extensive discussion and analysis of the project and its required improvements. However, as is the case with other annexations, the detail of submitted plans is not sufficient to determine precisely how the physical development of the site will address all of the required mitigation measures. Therefore, it is typical that after certification of the EIR and support for annexation by the City Council and LAFCO, that the applicant will develop more precise plans for further decision maker review. With staff s recommendation for the "S" zoning, those future decision makers would be the Administrative Hearing Officer who would review the use permit, and the Architectural Review Commission who would review plans as they do for all commercial projects within the City. As an alternative, the Commission could require that the future use permit be subject to review by the Planning Commission. c. Affordable Housing Component (R-3-S) The site for the proposed housing is to the south of the retail component (see Fig. 7-1 on Page 7-7 of the EIR). There are documented issues with airport safety, creek corridor preservation, flooding, and access that will need to be addressed when precise development plans are developed. For the reason elaborated on above for the office component, the "S" overlay will assure that the site's special consideration are documented and establishes the requirement for a master use permit approval process. d. Open Space (AG and C/OS) The proposed use of most of the on -site open space is for on -going agriculture. This 45 acres would most appropriately be zoned AG, Agriculture. The AG zoning category is a relatively new one and is intended for sites like this with prime agricultural soils to encourage continued cultivation. As an option, the land could be zoned C/OS-40, Conservation/Open Space with the 40-acre minimum. The 9.7-acre portion of the site, located along Prefumo Creek and commonly referred to as the extension of Laguna Lake Park, would best be zoned C/OS-40, Conservation/Open Space, because this is the zoning category used for a majority of the more undeveloped portions of Laguna Lake Park. The Commission, as an alternative, could recommend that the site be zoned PF, Public Facility, as is the case with the more improved areas of Laguna Lake Park. 5. Use Permit The Zoning Regulations require that a Planning Commission Use Permit be approved to allow retail stores with gross floor areas between 60,000 and 140,000 square feet. In the case of the Marketplace, the following stores as shown in Table C below included in the project fall within this range: ER, ANNX, GPA, R, U, P/ J8-02 (Dalidio Property Annexation)' Attachment £ Page 16 Table C Large -Scale retailers in the Marketplace Retailer Major A Floor,Area ,, ,' `. ' ` : {„ 96,000 square feet 'Garden$Centef:,'_ a j N/A mTOTAL 96,000 square feet Major G (Target) 123,735 square feet 10,800 square feet 134,535 square feet Major J (Lowe's) 134,574 square feet 27,099 square feet 161,673 square feet The regulations do not specify whether or not garden centers, which are beyond the conditioned space of the main store, and can be covered or uncovered, count toward gross floor area. The Zoning Regulations define gross floor area as follows: Gross floor area. "Gross floor area" means the total area enclosed within a building, including closets, stairways, and utility and mechanical rooms, measured from the exterior face of the walls. One interpretation would be that gross floor area means the conditioned main part of the retail store and does not include any of the garden center areas. Because "building area" as defined for a construction permit would include those areas in the garden center with a covering, either an extension of the main building's roof or a freestanding shade structure, staff has come to the conclusion that covered areas of the garden center would count to the gross floor area. This interpretation would put Major J (Lowe's) above the 140,000 square -foot threshold. Plans for Major J show that 9,336 square feet of the total 27,099 square feet of the garden center would be uncovered for a net covered area of 17,763 square feet. With the addition of the net covered area of the garden center to the main building area of 134,574 square feet, a total gross floor area of 152,337 square feet results, which is 12,337 square feet above the maximum threshold. Staff recommends that the combination of main retail building area and covered garden center area be reduced to comply with the 140,000 square -foot threshold. However, the Commission could allow the mix of floor areas as proposed by finding that the intent was not to limit outdoor sales associated with the major retailers. In order to approve the three retail establishments with floor areas between 60,000 square feet and 140,000 square feet of gross floor area, the Planning Commission must determine that the following standards are met: 1. The proposed use will serve the community, in whole or in significant part, and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function. 2. The building in which the use is to be located is designed in discrete -elements that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area. 3. The new building is designed in compliance with the City's Design Guidelines for Large - Scale Retail Projects. (Ord. 1405 — 2001 Series) 1-49 ER, ANNX, GPA, R, U, P(_ -,J8-02 (Dalidio Property Annexation) ".—," Attachment £ Page 17 Given community interest in a project of this size and the need for Council certification of the project EIR, staff is recommending that the Commission refer the use permit to the Council along with its recommendations on other land use entitlements. 6. Preliminary Development Plan As mentioned above, with the proposed C-R-PD zoning, a preliminary development plan would be adopted. Fairly detailed development plans for the Marketplace component have now been submitted. On May_ 17, 2004, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) discussed the site planning and building design of the" project. Some of the key direction provided by the ARC included: • Provide details on screening of loading and outdoor sales areas with final plans. • Look at a more naturalistic approach to perimeter landscaping. • Explore shared & mixed -use parking reductions. • Return with varied lighting heights at various locations in the project (20' high parking lot standards on edges of site; 30' high on interior; 14' along main boulevard through site; and bollard lights along pedestrian walkways. • Strengthen some proposed pedestrian connections and add another, west -east pathway through the center of the project. • Add taller tree planting along Dalidio Drive where it.is highly elevated above the site and use berming in more level areas. • Look at parking lot planters similar to those approved for the Costco project that allow for clusters of trees. • More articulation for some building elevations to assure consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. The above issue areas are covered by conditions of the proposed Planned. Development overlay for the development. A copy of the 5-17-04 ARC report is attached for more information on site development issues that were highlighted for their review (Attachment 3). As recommended by staff, the ARC would review a final development plan after formal review by the Planning Commission. The Zoning Regulations specify that the Community Development Director approve the final development plan within 6 months of Council action, unless an extension is requested and approved by the Community Development Director. 7. Next Steps Since the project review process is complicated and involves several different entitlements, this section of the report is intended to provide a summary of where the project goes after the Commission's review of it. This discussion also assumes that the project is supported at the various steps described in the process. As discussed in this report, the Commission's review of the Final EIR, Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Prezoning, Use Permit, and Preliminary Development Plan are recommendations to the City Council on the project. A separate public hearing to review the specific terms of the t ^,�_D ER, ANNX, GPA, R, U, P.__J8-02 (Dalidio Property Annexation) ! Attachment Page 18 Development Agreement will be scheduled before the Commission as required by local ordinance and State law. After the Commission has conducted its public hearing and come to a consensus on a recommendation, the project would be considered for City Council review. If the Council decides to certify the Final EIR, then it would also adopt a "Resolution of Application" to LAFCO regarding the annexation, a General Plan Amendment Resolution, a Use Permit Resolution, and a Prezoning Ordinance, which includes the Preliminary Development Plan approval and conditions. The intention is that after these entitlements are approved, then the Council as a separate action would approve a Development Agreement. Following Council action on the outlined_ entitlements and the development agreement, then the project would be next forwarded to LAFCO for review and approval. Prior to LAFCO's approval of the annexation, the City Council would adopt a resolution accepting the negotiated exchange of property tax revenues and annual tax increment. With approval of the annexation by LAFCO, the marketplace component of the project, if supported as recommended by staff with the "PD", Planned Development overlay zoning, would require final review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission of its site and building design, colors and materials, landscaping, lighting, signage and other details, and the final action by the Community Development Director. All project changes mandated in previous reviews and required by mitigation measures would need to be reflected in the final plan. The "S" overlay zonings would require that the Administrative Hearing Officer, or as an option, the Planning Commission, approve use permits when specific development pans are proposed for both the office/business park and residential components. ALTERNATIVES Section 7.0 of the Draft EIR examines seven alternatives to the proposed project. Alternatives analyzed include: (1) a no project alternative; (2) continuance of the site in agricultural use; (3) residential/ commercial retail mixed use alternative 1; (4) residential/commercial retail mixed use alternative 2; (5) a recreational use amenity alternative; (6) an alternate site project that incorporates the commercial component into a redeveloped San Luis Obispo Promenade shopping mall; and (7) an alternative that involves the same amount of development at the site, where the footprint of the commercial portion would be decreased. The project applicant has indicated a desire to pursue Alternative No. 3 which involves the development of about 3.3 acres of the site with approximately 60 units that would be affordable to low and moderate income households. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The comments and recommendations of various City departments are reflected in the discussion and the mitigation measures of the EIR and incorporated in conditions of the Preliminary Development Plan. Attached: Attachment 1: Vicinity map Attachment 2: Figure 2-8 from the EIR showing the proposed land use plan Attachment 3: 5-17-04 ARC staff report r Z; ' ER, ANNX, GPA, R, U, Pi- _J8-02 (Dalidio Property Annexation) _. Attachment 7F Page 19 Attachment 4: Letters from the public received on the project Attachment 5: Draft Planning Commission Resolution - exh;6;4- Q ,1A H ahon Moni+orin 9 � RePorf;n9 Proor6m is olfad%ed to Zf .0 "r-eJ* G, Enclosed: Dalidio Annexation Development Plan dated 5-5-04 -}he ElR Resolutror Previously distributed: Final EIR L\Dalidio 2\108-02 (PC report revised 2) Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Section 2.0 Project Description Source: Cannon Associates, March 3, 2003 Attachment 2 IF Proposed Land Use Plan Figure 2-8 rCity of San Luis Obispo I -<�A _ctachment 3 /E 'CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM a I BY: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner (781-7168) FR MEETING DATE: May 17, 2004 FROM: Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Director (Development Reviec:�, FILE NUMBER: ARC 108-02 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2005 Dalidio Drive SUBJECT: Conceptual review of plans for a new retail project known as The Marketplace, located on the west side of Highway 101, and to the immediate southwest of the SLO Promenade. RECOMMENDATION: Provide comments to the applicant and staff on overall site planning and revised building designs. BACKGROUND: Situation On September 3, 2002, the ARC preliminarily reviewed a site plan and conceptual elevations for the Marketplace Project. Since that time, the Commission has independently reviewed elevations for the proposed Macy's store, conceptual plans for a hotel, and the interchange improvements. The overall project is again before the Commission since there have been some fairly significant changes to plans since the ARC's last comprehensive review in September of 2002. The Final EIR for the project has been produced and the project is scheduled for Planning Commission review on May 26, 2004, and City Council review on July 6, 2004. In the past, the ARC has questioned reviewing project components before the EIR was published and other entitlements approved by the Council. As was pointed out .before, it was staff's opinion that, should the project ultimately be supported by the Council, the ARC's early review was valuable to give the applicant direction and the City Council input on site planning and building design before plans were too formalized. The applicant is now seeking the Commission's comments on their revised and more refined project plans. The project will need to return to the ARC for final review after the City Council has acted on the development agreement and needed project entitlements and certified the Final EIR. Data Summary Applicant: San Luis Obispo Marketplace Associates Representative: Bill Bird Project Architect: Perkowitz & Ruth ARC 108-02(Marketpl&,,,J Attachment E Page 2 Proposed Zoning: C-R-PD, Retail Commercial Planned Development Proposed General Plan Designation: General Retail Environmental Status: A Final EIR has been distributed to the Planning Commission and City Council, with Council action on the document scheduled for 7-6-04. Project Description The Marketplace is the retail component of the 131-acre Dalidio annexation area. The approximately 48-acre shopping center would contain about 615,000 square feet of retail and restaurant area as well as a 150-room hotel. Buildings are labeled on the site plan using the letters A-M and the numbers 1-10. The three largest buildings are: Major A at 96,000 square feet, the now one-story Macy's; Major G (Target) at 123,735 square feet plus a 10,800 square - foot garden center; and Major J at 134,574 square feet plus a 27,099 square -foot garden center (Lowe's). Plans indicate that 2,581 parking spaces will be developed for the retail and restaurant uses and 162 additional spaces for the hotel. Site access will be obtained from an extension of Prado Road (Dalidio Drive) and a new collector street on the north side of the site. A full interchange at Highway 101 and Prado Road is also a component of the project. Site Description The project site consists of the 131-acre Dalidio property and the Prado Road Interchange area. The 131-acre annexation area is located within the Urban Reserve area of the City of San Luis Obispo, California. Known as the Dalidio property, it is sited contiguous and west of U.S. Highway 101 and southwest of Dalidio Drive, adjacent to the San Luis Obispo Promenade shopping mall. It lies southeast of Madonna Road and the United States Post Office, and northeasterly of Prefumo Creek. Though not as easily distinguished, an overhead power line and an agricultural access road separating the site from the property to the south delineate the southern property line. The site is comprised of assessor's parcel number (APN) 067-121-022. The Prado Road interchange would have a footprint ranging from about 60 meters (197 feet) from the centerline of U.S. Highway 101, at the intersection of U.S. Highway 101 and Prado Road, and to about 20 meters (66 feet) from the centerline of U.S. Highway 101 between Prado Road and Madonna Road and south of Prado Road. DISCUSSION The Marketplace development, with about 615,000 square feet of enclosed floor area, is the single largest retail project ever proposed in the City of San Luis Obispo. As a comparison, the Madonna Plaza Shopping Center includes about 300,000 square feet of floor area and the SLO Promenade has about 253,000 square feet of floor area. The project's scale, visibility from Highway 101, and the associated highway interchange make it a prominent and important project for the City. Given all these factors, the ARC's input on the project's design is extremely important to the end goal of a superior quality project, as well as advice to both the Planning Commission and City Council who will be acting on other project entitlements. (,"S� 1 /2 ARC 108-02 (Marketplak ' Page 3 Attachment -E The Marketplace is intended to be a regional shopping center and would be located to the southwest of the two existing shopping centers on Madonna Road previously mentioned. This consolidated approach to grouping major retail projects is consistent with General Plan policies for the General Retail land use designation. Since 1994, the City's Land Use Element map has shown 40 acres of the Dalidio Annexation property as being earmarked for General Retail Development. 1. Site Planning The most significant change to the site plan is that the pad for the proposed Macy's store (labeled as Major A on plans) does not include a field of parking in between the northeast elevation and Dalidio Drive and is now a single -story, rather than two-story building. To accommodate this change, two acres of Business Park to the south of the retail development have been added to the Marketplace development to allow for the expanded footprint of Major A, as well as accommodate interchange improvements.. Other changes include the "U", rather than "L" shaped footprint for the hotel on the west side of Dalidio Drive.. Major K has been modified from a two-story to a single -story and has a 7,000 square -foot shops building along its northwest elevation. Retail L in the very center of the project is a new addition. The ARC's direction regarding the arrangement of footprints and other site features was termed "Configuration" in the 9-3-02 follow-up letter and included the following: • The major tenants should front Dalidio Drive. Generally the footprints for the majors are in the same locations as previously shown. • The buildings and pedestrian plazas should be oriented, taking into account the direction of the prevailing wind. Most of the shopping center seems pedestrian unfriendly with respect to this issue. The orientations ofproposed buildings have not been altered significantly. • Liked the "village" area in the center of the retail commercial component. Thought that that design concept could be expanded. This has been addressed somewhat by including more, smaller footprints for the restaurant spaces near Dalidio Drive in between Major A and Major K Also a liner shops building has been added on the northwest side of Major K. While reviewing the project, the ARC should keep in mind that the design of this center is a Power Center that caters more to large-scale retailers, rather than a Lifestyle Center, which the downtown is considered, and where smaller -scale retailers and specialty shops are more appropriate. 1 1/3 ARC 108-02 (Marketplac Attachment F_ Page 4 e Visibility from U.S. 101 is extremely important. Outdoor storage and loading areas should not be visible from 101. City staff has discussed with the applicant some concerns with the visibility of building loading areas. In particular, concerns were raised with the loading areas for the Major J space (Lowe 's) in the southwest corner of the project, and Major K in the southeast corner of the project near the southbound on -ramp, because of their visibilityfrom-the highway.. The garden center for Lowe's is an outdoor sales area that will be visible from the highway. Elevations indicate that this area will be fenced. Plans submitted for final architectural review will need to clarify howscreen walls, fencing, and landscaping will be used to properly screen the loading and outdoor sales areas mentioned. 2. Parking Much of the ARC's previous direction suggested that less parking or structured parking should be pursued as noted in the 9-3-02 follow-up letter. • Structured parking was encouraged. • Although, the parking lot was designed in a way to create "parking clusters," it still had the appearance of being a "sea of parking." • No more than 50% of the parking can be between the street and buildings per the Ordinance. • Concern expressed with over -parking. ARC wants to see a cumulative parking analysis. Overparked by 135 spaces as shown. This seems to encourage a parking structure. Parking fields continue to be a prominent site feature and in basically the same layouts as shown on earlier project plans. Structured parking has not been pursued. The applicant has indicated that parking structures are not a reasonable alternative to this type of retail development that is more auto- oriented. As noted in the project description the project contains a total of 2, 743 parking spaces when the parking for the hotel is also included. Plans show that a total of 2,536 parking spaces are required by City ordinance for the retail and restaurant uses, and the hotel would require another 162 spaces, for a grand total of 2,698 spaces. Therefore, provided parking exceeds required parking by 45 spaces. However, the applicant's parking calculations appear conservative. For example, the City's parking calculations allow for walls, halls, restrooms, and other dead storage areas to be deducted from the floor area which parking is calculated from. It does not appear that this was taken into account. Also, it is customary with shopping centers to have shared and mixed -use parking reductions approved, which can reduce the overall parking requirement up to 30%. ARC 108-02 (Marketplac Attachment -E Page 5 Therefore, the applicant has the option of providing fewer parking spaces and still complying with City ordinance standards. Staffs understanding is that particular tenants in the project are insistent on providing parking in the project to meet their own company thresholds and that the applicant is responding to their desires with the submitted plans. The requirement that no more than 50% of the required parking be provided between the street and project buildings is complied with in the larger portion of the project on the south side of Dalidio Drive. However, on the north side, this requirement is not met. In fact, earlier plans included much more significant planting areas near the street and the hotel building closer to the street without a parking field immediately in front of it. When the ARC reviewed the hotel conceptually on 11-17-03, the Commission did not have an overall site plan to thoroughly discuss the building context. The ARC should make a determination whether building placement and circulation on the north side of Dalidio Drive need to change to meet the intent of the cited maximum threshold of 50% of total parking between buildings and the street from the Community Design Guidelines. Superior fire access, relationship to the SLO Promenade, odd shape and smaller area may be reasons to accept the site plan as submitted. • Parking lot light fixtures should be "more and lower" than lighting typically found in SLO shopping centers. The City's Community Design Guidelines indicate that parking lot lighting shall be a maximum of 20 feet in height. Sheet SA-1 shows a detail for a 30 foot high light fixture. Normally, staff would recommend that this 20 foot high requirement be strictly enforced. However, given that the ARC allowed the SLO Promenade to be redeveloped with the reuse of 38 foot tall light standards and 30 foot high light standards were approved for Madonna Plaza, the applicant's proposal seems reasonable. Lighting details indicate that the fixtures will be full cutoff types to help minimize glare and light trespass. As is required with any requests to exceed the 20-foot maximum height limit, photmetrics are included. The plan shows that illumination levels do not exceed the maximum threshold of 10 footcandles under the fixture. 3. Pedestrian Component The ARC acknowledged that the applicant had made attempts to create a pedestrian -oriented shopping center. However, the Commission concluded that the project was still too auto - oriented. They offered the following suggestions and comments. • • The pedestrian plazas need a focal point (i.e. water features, art). • Are there ways to provide better pedestrian linkages with uses across Dalidio Drive? • Is there a better way to complement the destination aspect of the project with more pedestrian orientation? • Pedestrians need a destination every 100-150 feet to keep walking. The parking lot length/width far exceeds the 100-150 foot rule. ARC 108-02 (Marketplac Attachment FE Page 6 As noted by the ARC, the applicant has made attempts through site planning to better provide for pedestrian movement through the site than other similar centers with several big box tenants. At the middle driveway to the site from Dalidio Drive, which will be signalized, there would be the main pedestrian connection to the SLO Promenade. The pedestrian crossing here would be at grade, rather than a bridge or tunnel that have been discussed as possibilities in the past to provide added protection to pedestrians. Eventually details of enhanced pavers proposed at the intersection to further highlight the formal crosswalk at the stoplight needs to be a part of plans reviewed by the ARC. - From the signalized crosswalk there is a boulevard -type of treatment to the main project driveway. An enlargement of this area is shown as "D" on Sheet L-2. The detail shows walkways with landscaping on either side of the driveway with a landscaped median down the center of the driveway. Enhanced paving is shown at the terminus of this area where pedestrians would need to walk across portions of the parking lot area where on -site driveways intersect. Fairly good provisions for pedestrians are made directly in front of stores, such as along the west side of the site from Major A to Retail F, and from Major G to Major J on the south. Detail B on Sheet L-2 shows an enlargement of a pedestrian plaza area in from of Major G. Plans do not respond yet to the ARC's suggestions to incorporate focal points such as a fountain or a public art piece in these areas. Despite these good intentions, the project still contains a `bast sea of parking" and pedestrian movement across the long expanses of parking could still be challenging. Two main linkages, running perpendicular to the southern block of retailers, provide for pedestrian movement through the largest expanses of the parking lot. Detail E on Sheet L-2 shows how these would be developed. Staff offers the following suggestions to further enhance pedestrian movement through the site: • Provide another pathway that parallels the one provided from the main Dalidio driveway to Majors I & H. Currently the pathway is provided on the east side of the driveway after the terminus of the formal entry boulevard treatment. Staff suspects that this main driveway will ultimately carry considerable amounts of traffic and that crossing it could be dangerous. Having paralleling pathways would allow added protection for pedestrians seeking stores on the west side of the project site. • Shift the easternmost pedestrian linkage (Detail E) further to the east. A more direct pedestrian connection is needed between Major K and Major J. • Redesign the loading areas for Retail H & L. r - 4 D IAO ARC 108-02 (Marketplacj� Page 7 � Attachment S As shown, pedestrians would need to cross where trucks would be backing out. A consolidated loading area to serve the adjacent buildings between structures should be pursued. • Provide a north -south pedestrian pathway between the collector street on the west side of the project and the east side of the project beyond Retail L. There appears to be a need for a mid -site crossing that runs perpendicular to the other main pedestrian pathways. 4. Landscaping Landscaping plans are more detailed than when the ARC last reviewed the overall site plan. Comparing the earlier plan to the current one, there is more substantial tree planting at the main boulevard entry and a less regular tree -planting pattern in the "orchard" style parking lot areas. The ARC's earlier comments included: • The perimeter landscaping should be more substantial and natural; clustered, not linear, as shown in the PowerPoint presentation. The site plan shows narrow windrows, not matching the elevation shown in the presentation. Plans have been modified to show a more naturalistic planting layout along the perimeter. Detail C on Sheet L-2 shows a combination of evergreen trees Monterey cypress and California peppers interspersed along with pittosporum, cotoneaster, and melaleuca shrubs. • Provide berming and varying plant height for interest. The plant palette for the project provides the typical array of groundcovers, shrubs, and trees, which will allow for a variety of plant heights. Berming would be most appropriate along the portions of Dalidio Drive where the street level is closer to the site level. Detail A on Sheet L-2 shows an enlarged planting plan for the street yard area along Dalidio Drive. This enlarged detail does not indicate that berming is proposed. The proposed Dalidio Drive extension closest to the highway interchange will be a "superstructure " meaning that it will be substantially elevated above the adjacent site. In the far northeastern corner of the site near Major K, the elevation differential is at its worst case with the roadway elevated up to 20 feet above site improvements (see Exhibit A — Site Section Near Major K). The elevation change is necessary to transition between the highway over -crossing and the roadway and southbound on -ramp. Grades flatten out substantially by the first driveway to the site past the interchange. However, the submitted grading plan has not been updated to match the site plan, which shows the first driveway shifted substantially to the west to allow for a gentler transition grade -wise to the site. The above discussion was provided to alert the ARC to how significantly the height of the roadway differs across the site frontage on Dalidio Drive. Obviously planting proposals for ARC 108-02 (Marketpla( Attachment f Page 8 the street frontage, including retaining walls, berming, and fencing, need to relate to the adjacent roadway and site elevations. D Imrtw '41:'y'.I1:1' A T.LI N I46 I.'� Y l L 1 CONDITION _—_—_.—_._._...._......_. . .............. LL° .... ....._.._.—...__.._........._........_.._........ _... _.__..._._........__---..__:......_....._.._........_ San Luis Obispo Marketplace "°`it°witc+attm S_ l. D. C N I I I o r n I• .N..'^� w.u«o� Exhibit A — Site Section Near Major K • Incorporate orchard or other agricultural crop plantings into the project to relate the project to the land and historical use. If staff is clear on the ARC's direction here, it does not appear that the plant palette was modified to add orchard or other agricultural crop plantings. 5. Tree Wells A related issue to the landscaping discussion above, but not specifically addressed by the ARC with their previous review of the project is the use of tree wells, rather than "finger" type planters in the main parking lot areas. The applicant's landscaping significantly deviates from the typical City requirement included in the Parking & Driveway Standards, which says: In order to encourage the use of trees in parking lot areas, planters shall be placed after each six parking spaces in any row, and at the ends of each row of parking spaces. (Parking & Driveway Standards 1.1.) In the past, this requirement was most typically met with "finger" type planters a minimum of four feet wide. However, with some larger -scale parking lots, including the Marigold Shopping Center and the rear parking lot at French Hospital, smaller tree well planters have been approved. t - 6 �_ 1/8 ARC 108-02 (Marketpla: Page 9 Attachment £ There are advantages and disadvantages to the use of tree wells. The obvious disadvantages are that they are more limited in size and do not allow for the range of plant materials that larger finger planters can accommodate. On the positive side, it can be argued that the tree wells allow for a greater number of trees in parking areas with better canopy coverage. Because of their placement and confined size, the vegetation in tree wells is not as readily trampled by pedestrians using planters as short-cuts through parking lots. Staff recommends -that the applicant look at the possibility of alternating "finger" style planters with tree wells as a compromise. Recent ARC decisions on projects have required greater compliance with the cited standard. There seem to be .logical locations where light standards are proposed that could serve the dual purpose of a finger planter. The ARC should make a determination regarding the use of the diamond -shaped tree wells included in plans. 6. Building Design As mentioned upfront in the "Situation" section of this report, the ARC has discussed the specific Macy's and hotel designs more recently, but it has been since 9-3-02 that the architecture of other site buildings has been addressed. At that time, the ARC provided the following direction on the conceptual building designs: • .Attention should be paid to vertical articulation in the buildings, not just horizontal. • Most commissioners liked the agrarian style architecture proposed for the perimeter buildings and the more classic -style for the center "village." • Agrarian design should mimic San Luis Obispo or at least west coast styles. Some of the examples shown in the PowerPoint presentation were of east coast agrarian design. The agrarian vernacular design theme has been further refined in current plans and seems appropriate to its Central California setting. Staff has had some input on on -going updates to elevations to better comply with the Large -Scale Retail section. of the City's Community Design Guidelines. Staff direction has echoed the ARC's recommendation for additional vertical articulation to further minimize the scale of buildings and boxy look at some of the Very large buildings. As is typically the case, most of the design details are found in the most visible elevations containing customer entries. General Comments • Provide more variation in column styles. • Utilize some of the roof styles shown in early plans to keep project buildings looking distinctive and not so repetitive. • Use changes in colors and materials as a tool to articulate some tall wall surfaces. • The quality of the finish work will be critical to the overall integrity of the design. • Building walls shall not be created as billboards for signs. As a note to the ARC, signage I-�3 �9 ARC 108-02 (Marketplac Page 10 J Atta hment S will return to the Commission at a later date. Given the breadth of important, big picture issues with the project, staff determined that the specifics of signage would best be reviewed when the project design was more refined. Major J (Lowe's) • Extend the depth of the cornice element facing the highway. Note: With the -added covered areas in the garden center, the Lowe's store would exceed the 140,000 square foot threshold included in the zoning regulations. This issue will be addressed by the Planning Commission and City Council and could affect the overall size of the store and the development of the garden center. Major G (Target) • Look at a more distinctive entryfeature. • Raise the shed roofline on the right side of the elevation to a height in excess of the stucco wall behind it. • Color and quality of the stone veneer will be important to keep the material authentic - looking. Given the height of some of the walls, look at some variation in the material and/or color at the base. Major A (Macy's) The elevations reflect the change to have a larger one-story building footprint. While some of the ARC's previous concerns with bulk and mass may be addresses with the change, the new design also has lost some of its distinctiveness resulting in a more repetitive and boxy - looking building. Staff is seeking ideas form the ARC on ways to add interest and distinction to this major tenant and have the northeast elevation better address Dalidio Drive, which it parallels: RECOMMENDATION Provide comments to the applicant and staff, Planning Commission and City Council on overall site planning and revised building designs, including the following items discussed in the agenda report and other issues receiving ARC consensus at the meeting: 1. Clarify how screen walls, fencing, and landscaping will be used to properly screen the loading and outdoor sales areas for the Major J space (Lowe's) in the southwest comer of the project, and Major K in the southeast comer of the project near the southbound on -ramp, because of their visibility from the highway. 2. Provide accurate parking calculations for all restaurant spaces and consider utilizing shared and mixed use parking reductions to reduce the amount of overall parking. ARC 108-02 (Marketpla Page 11 Attachment 'E 3. Determine whether building placement and circulation on the north side of Dalidio Drive need to change to meet the intent of the cited maximum threshold of 50% of total parking between buildings and the street from the Community Design Guidelines. 4. Determine whether 30-foot high light standards as recently approved for Madonna Plaza are acceptable at this location. 5. In terms of pedestrian circulation, the following need to be addressed: a. Provide another pathway that parallels the one provided from the main Dalidio driveway to Majors I & H. b. Shift the easternmost pedestrian linkage (Detail E) further to the.east. c. Redesign the loading areas for Retail H & L. d. Provide a north -south pedestrian pathway between the collector street on the west side of the project and the east side of the project beyond Retail L. 6. Determine appropriate landscape treatments along Dalidio Drive in light of the significant grade differential between the site and the roadway at some locations. 7. Establish a performance standard for parking lot planters focusing on the extent to which diamond -shaped tree wells could be used. 8. Provide direction on building architecture, including: General Comments a. Provide more variation in column styles. b. Utilize some of the roof styles shown in early plans to keep project buildings looking distinctive and not so repetitive. c. Use changes in colors and materials as a tool to articulate some tall wall surfaces. d. The quality of the finish work will be critical to the overall integrity. of the design. e. Building walls shall not be created as billboards for signs. Maior J (Lowe's) f. Extend the depth of the cornice element facing the highway. Maior G (Target) g. Look at a more distinctive entry feature. h. Raise the shed roofline on the right side of the elevation to a height in excess of the stucco wall behind it. i. Color and quality of the stone veneer will be important to keep the material authentic - looking. Given the height of some of the walls, look at some variation in the material and/or color at the base. ARC 108-02 (Marketplat Page 12 Af achment f Major A (Macy's) j. Provide direction on ways to add interest and distinction to this major tenant and have the northeast elevation better address Dalidio Drive, which it parallels. Attached: Attachment 1: Vicinity map Attachment 2: Site plan Attachment 3: 9-3-03 ARC follow-up letter & minutes Attachment 4: 11-17-03 ARC follow-up letter & elevations considered at that -meeting Attachment 5: Excerpts from Community Design Guidelines (Large-scale Retail Projects) Enclosed: Ledger -size plans and colored elevations and large-scale plans LAARC 108-02 (Revised Marketplace 3) 1�ULP X/A 110 0111*729F.11GRi Attac :nt S Z v 99 3:16;7"'�c�R =rpm � 3 Q � � V14 Attachment l,lty Of sAn 61S, OBISPO 3 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Attachment �E September 4, 2002 SLO Marketplace Assoc. LLC 510 S. Grand Avenue #300 Glendora, CA 91740 SUBJECT: ARC 108-02: 2005 Dalidio Drive Preliminary review of plan revisions for a proposed shopping center development Dear Applicant: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of September 3, 2002, conducted a preliminary review on the above project. No formal action was taken, but the ARC provided comments on the proposed design, as follows. Configuration • The major tenants should front Dalidio Drive • The buildings and pedestrian plazas should be oriented, taking into account the direction of the prevailing wind. Most of the shopping center seems pedestrian unfriendly with respect to this issue. • Liked the `village" area in the center of the retail commercial component. Thought that that design concept could be expanded. • Visibility from U.S. 101 is extremely important. Outdoor storage and loading areas should not be visible from 101. Parking • Commissioners stated opposition to diamond -shaped planters within the parking lot; peninsular design preferred. • Structured parking was encouraged. • Although, the parking lot was designed in a way to create "parking clusters," it still had the appearance of being a "sea of parking." • No more than 50% of the parking can be between the street and buildings per the Ordinance. • Concern expressed with over -parking. ARC wants to see a cumulative parking analysis. Overparked by 135 spaces as shown. This seems to encourage a parking structure. • Parking lot light fixtures should be more and lower" than. lighting typically found in SLO shopping centers. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. O Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. Xs Attachment £ ARC 108-02 Page 2 Pedestrian Component • The ARC acknowledged the. applicant's attempt to create a pedestrian -oriented shopping center, however, had several suggestions and comments. Still too auto - oriented. • The pedestrian plazas need a focal point (i.e. water features, art).. • Are there ways to provide better pedestrian linkages with uses across Dalidio Drive? • Is there -a better way to compliment the destination aspect of the project with more pedestrian orientation? • Pedestrians need a destination every 100-150 feet to keep walking. The parking lot length/width far exceeds the 100-150 foot rule. Landscaping • The perimeter landscaping should be more substantial and natural; clustered, not linear, as shown in the PowerPoint presentation. The site plan shows narrow windrows, not matching the elevation shown in the presentation. • Provide berming and varying plant height for interest. • Incorporate orchard or other agricultural crop plantings into the project to relate the project to the land and historical use. Building Design • Attention should be paid to vertical articulation in the buildings, not just horizontal. • Most commissioners liked the agrarian style architecture proposed for the perimeter buildings and the more classic -style for the center "village." • Agrarian design should mimic San Luis Obispo or at least west coast styles. Some of the examples shown in the PowerPoint presentation were of east coast agrarian design. If you have questions, please contact me at (805) 781-7177. Sincerely, eonaldhisen d omm it Development. Director Development Review cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Cannon Associates Andrew Merriam 364 Pacific Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Shelly Stanwyck, Economic Dev. Mngr. Thelma. Perozzi, Tre Etal c/o Ernie Dalidio 2706 Rodman Drive Los Osos, CA 93402-4324 (- �0 V1 (0 ARC Minutes September 3, 2002 Page 4 AttaChm( -nnt S Commr. Root commented he would like to see the bulb -outs be smaller. He noted he could not support the Camphor tree because of the dropping leaves. AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Boudreau, Root, and Stevenson NOES: Commr. Smith ABSENT: Commrs. Schultz and Howard ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 4-1. 2. 2005 Dalidio Drive. ARC 108-02; Preliminary review of plan revisions for a proposed shopping center development; SLO Marketplace Assoc., applicant. Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand presented the staff report providing preliminary comments to the applicant and staff on overall site planning and conceptual building design. Bill Bird, property developer, presented a brief overview of the project, and explained the architectural theme has not been changed. Bryan Wolfe, Senior Architect, presented an overhead display of the project area and briefly explained what their proposal is for the design and land use plan. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, , expressed her disapproval on putting another shopping center in San Luis Obispo, and suggested they pay more attention to the downtown. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Smith asked if all issues have been resolved on Prado Road overpass, and questioned who is going to build the project. �- q I VJ'J ARC Minutes September 3, 2002 _ Attachment Page 5 Mr. Bird replied they have the responsibility for the design on Prado Road and this process is about 606/6 completed. Chairperson Stevenson noted a few significant conflicts in the guidelines with the direction that the City would like to see in terms of large-scale retail. He offered some site planning suggestions, noting he felt a focal point was needed, which should include a water feature. He felt the appearance from the freeway should be addressed and suggested a. very deep facade to eliminate a blank wall. He offered some options on the overflow parking. Mr. Wolfe commented on an issue for home improvement parking and questioned if the guidelines could be flexible. Chairperson Stevenson responded that the guidelines are flexible. Commr. Boudreau felt the graphic presentation had many good ideas, and the conceptual description was stronger than in the literal solutions. Chairperson Stevenson stated he does not support the diamond tree well and felt it would affect the parking count. He indicated he would support structured parking and suggested a total count of the parking be available for the ARC at the next review. Mr. Wolfe responded that the ratios would not change dramatically because they excluded both the area of the hotel from the square footage of the parking, and ratios are based on room count, not square footage. Chairperson Stevenson asked if a residential component would be proposed. Mr. Bird replied it has been removed because the .Airport Land Use Commission does not support a residential component. Commr. Root concurred with Chairperson Stevenson that the clustering needs to be addressed more so there is not a sea of parking. He suggested more berming in height changes in the landscaping, and that grapevines be incorporated into the back for screening. He felt public art should be incorporated into the project. Commr. Smith commented that new jobs would be created, but questioned where the employees will live. In defense of the project, Mr. Bird responded they had initially proposed affordable housing on the Dalidio Property and the City's view was they would prefer agriculture to housing. Commr. Smith questioned if they could get pedestrians across from the Promenade Project to the Dalidio Project without crossing the street. Mr. Bird replied this has been discussed in the past, but the cost and liability is an issue. I - ') "�- V/8 ARC Minutes September 3, 2002 Attachment S Page 6 `J Commr. Smith expressed support on the description and graphics of the agriculture style. Commr. Lopes asked why structured parking was not being considered. He suggested structured parking used on a one -level, if not a dual -level basis, to reduce the service parking as well as putting buildings closer to Prado Road with pedestrian circulation clearly shown. He stated he does not support the overall placements of the buildings and the parking. He commented that the wind factor for the pedestrians is not properly addressed, and suggested the buildings be designed as a buffer. Commr. Boudreau commented on the applicant's challenge as to the placement of these buildings. He felt that some variation and more articulation to this back area could address these concerns. He felt the wind problem should be addressed, and suggested that screening from the highway be encouraged. He suggested there be more amenities for the pedestrian circulation on the site and recommended the service area in the back be treated as a major feature from Highway 101. Commr. Root commented that the guidelines would address many of the issues, but suggested the landscaping be more of an organic line. Commr. Root noted there is not enough pedestrian -friendly circulation to link the Promenade to this project. Chairperson Stevenson noted there are 135 parking spaces more than what the ordinance requires and felt the discussion of structured parking is merited if the project goes over the required number of parking spaces. Commr. Smith expressed sympathy for the applicants because they are in the middle of merchants that want big buildings and the public that doesn't.. Chairperson Stevenson noted the City Council and Commission expressed concern that the levels of lighting be smaller lights rather than taller, larger lights. Ernie Dalidio, Dalidio landowner, offered some information about the wind issue concern. There were no motions made for this item. 3. 1473 Monterey Street. ARC 120-02; Review of an exterior remodel to the Adobe Inn; C-T zone; John Conner, applicant. Associate Planner Lynn Azevedo presented the staffreport, recommending final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements. She mentioned some changes to the patio area and noted the footprint would remain the same. There was discussion on the parking. I — le� Y, 3 U, CY of SAn OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 November 21, 2003 SLO Marketplace Association, LLC 510 S. Grand Avenue Suite #300 Glendora, CA 91740 Ytli �li�i�vl�L Attachment 4 SUBJECT: ARC PR 108-02: 2005 Dalidio Review of the proposed Macy's Department Store as a component of the new retail project known as the San Luis Obispo Marketplace Dear Applicant: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of November 17, 2003, conceptually reviewed the plans to develop a new department store and offered the staff and the applicant the following direction on the project without taking a formal action: 1. Provide more decorative features within the first 10 to 14 feet of the building elevations to address concerns with the human scale and pedestrian experience. 2. Look at using building colors with greater saturation and vibrancy. 3. Explore adding a second building entry paralleling Dalidio Drive. 4. Provide a stronger and more aggressive statement for the main building entry canopy. 5. Look at including a contrasting hardscape pattern at the entry that extends further out into the site. 6. Consider a more curvilinear driveway in front of the main entry to provide some additional relief to the facade. 7. Substantially increase the depth of the mansard over the entry canopy. 8. Utilize metal material, similar to that used on the roof of the corner tower, in other architectural features of the project. 9. The light penetrating upper windows should have a realistic look. (,,� The City of San Luis Device Obispo for the Deacommitted to Include 81 74th0. disabled in all of Its services, programs and activities. ARC PR 108-02, 2005 r Drive Page 2 Attachment F. _J If you have questions, please contact Pam Ricci at (805) 781-7168. Sincerely, fPamela Ricci, AIC Senior Planner Community Development cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Andrew Merriam, Cannon Associates, 364 Pacific Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 92401 Ernest F. Dalidio Jr., Tre Etal, 2706 Rodman Drive, Los Osos, CA 93402-4324 !ettachmtnt E K. 0. 0 8' ao t _ s 3n � t�q(o V2, w s y Attachment S Can Luis Obispo Community L Guidelines 3.2- Laree4cale Retail Prolects Attachment 5 3.2 - Large -Scale Retail Projects Attachment 7- The City welcomes retail commercial development projects that are pedestrian -oriented, of"human scale," and reflect the architectural styles and features common in the city's most attractive commercial areas. Large-scale, monolithic "big -box" structures surrounded by extensive parking lots are not considered acceptable. These guidelines describe the City's expectations for quality and excellence in the design of large-scale retail projects. Project designers must also comply with the standards for large scale retail projects in the City's Zoning Regulations, which limit the maximum floor area of these businesses, provide special parking requirements, and impose other requirements. For the purposes of these guidelines, a "large- scale retail project" is one with an individual building in excess of 40,000 square feet. Guidelines in other sections of this document may also apply to large-scale retail projects. See also the General Design Principles in Chapter 2, Chapter 6 for guidelines on site planning and other design details (for example, vehicle and bicycle parking, signs), and the Airport Area Specific Plan for design guidelines addressing that particular part of the community. A. Site planning. Project site planning should emphasize pedestrian -oriented features, even though most customer trips to these facilities may be by auto. The layout of buildings and parking on the site should emphasize a strong relationship to adjoining streets, and encourage pedestrian circulation and access between Figure 3-9 — Emphasize Relationship with Street, the buildings and the street. Buildings should * .Pcmyst Car Parking to Building Side or near the street frontage on streets with l slower traffic speeds and a pedestrian orientation, but may be located farther from a wide street with higher traffic speeds. The placement of buildings should also consider solar orientation, and the protection of outdoor pedestrian areas from the wind. See Figure 3-9. 2. Site planning should include an outdoor use area or focal point adjacent to major building entrance. The area should provide public amenities such as a water feature, benches, landscaped areas, public square, etc. Projects with two or more structures should group the buildings to define this space. See Figure 3- 10. Chapter 3 - Commercial & Industrial Project Design 26 Figure 3-10 — Create a Focal Point November 2002 I —elq Xv San Luis Obispo Community D ' Guidelines _ 3.2 - Large -Scale Rdail Projects r Lac ment 'E When the site is located on a street or road identified as scenic in the Circulation or Open Space Element, the building layout should also provide views through the property to the background hills and/or other natural features highlighted by the Circulation or Open Space Element. 4. Building walls visible from Highway 101 should be stepped instead of appearing as a single continuous plane, and allow for clusters of evergreen trees and other extensive plantings in the foreground. See Figure 3-14 (page 31). B. Parking areas. Parking lots should be designed to be equally pedestrian and vehicular oriented, as follows. See Figures 3-11 and 3-12, and the specific guidelines for vehicle and bicycle parking facilities in Chapter 6. 1. Location and design of parking. Parking should not be the dominant visual element of a site. Large, expansive paved areas between the building and the street are to be avoided in favor of smaller multiple lots separated by landscaping or buildings, or located to the sides and rear of buildings. No more than 50 percent of the parking required for a building may be located between the building and the street. 2. Landscaping. Parking areas should include substantial landscaping, including trees planted in an 'orchard" layout. See Figure 3-11. Extensive landscaping throughout parking areas and the project site is highly desirable because landscaping can soften the appearance of large structures, assist in energy conservation by reducing heat gain by buildings adjacent to large asphalt areas, and make walking around the site a more pleasant experience for pedestrians. 3. Pedestrian routes. Safe and direct pedestrian routes should be provided through parking areas to primary entrances, and designed as noted under "Pedestrian Circulation." 4. Overflow and employee parking. Where appropriate because of site characteristics, surrounding land uses, and project site planning, parking areas intended for employees and peak -season overflow may be allowed to have screening perimeter landscaping only, with no internal plantings, provided that these parking areas are located behind the main structures and not readily visible from streets or residential areas. 5. Shopping carts. Parking areas shall include shopping cart corrals where carts can be dropped - off without obstructing vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian traffic movement, or being left in landscape planter areas. Chapter 3 - Commercial & Industrial Project Design 27 November 2002 ( -,i9 YZ San Luis Obispo Community Y .iuidelines 3.2 - Large -Scale RetaU Projects Attachment S C. Pedestrian circulation and amenities. It is the nature of large retail uses that most customers arrive by car and make purchases that could not be carried home by foot or bike. Nevertheless, the large parking lots in these projects cause much of the customer's experience to be as a pedestrian, often walking long distances from car, to entrance and back. Safe accommodation for pedestrians is essential and must be an integral part of site design. Sidewalks at least eight feet in width shall be provided along all sides of the lot that abut a public street. 2. Sidewalks must be provided along the full length of the building along any facade with a customer entrance, and along any facade abutting a parking area. The sidewalks must be located at least six feet from the facade to provide area for landscaping, except where the facade incorporates pedestrian -oriented features such as pedestrian entrances or ground floor windows.. Sidewalks should be eight feet wide, exclusive of any area planned for outdoor display or storage. The sidewalks should have wells for canopy trees at 30-foot intervals along the sidewalk edge adjacent to parking areas or vehicle access ways, so that the combination of building wall, sidewalk, and trees provide an enhanced pedestrian experience. See Figures 3-12 and 3-13. 3. Pedestrian walkways within the site should be provided a weather protection feature such as an awning within 15 feet of all customer entrances, which should also cover nearby short-term bicycle parking. See Figure 3-13. 4. Pedestrian walkways within the site must be distinguished from driving surfaces through the use of special pavers, bricks, or colored/textured concrete to enhance pedestrian safety and the attractiveness of the walkways. Pedestrian circulation in parking areas should be parallel to traffic flow toward building entrances, and separated from drive aisles within 50 feet of entrances. Sidewalk landings should be provided and extended between parking spaces where needed to connect pedestrians to walkways. See Figures 3-11 and 3-12. 5. Clearly demarcated and direct pedestrian routes should extend from peripheral public sidewalks and transit stops to the sidewalks that front commercial outlets. These routes should be distinguished from driving surfaces by.using contrasting pavement materials. Chapter 3 - Commercial & Industrial Project Design 29 November 2002. -q I Yz I SanLuis Obispo Community,t Retailf0 z"A Attachment D. Building design. Building design shall be site -specific, and incorporate design themes and features reflecting San Luis Obispo's character and history. Building details should relate to the scale of pedestrians as well as passing motorists. The tendency of many "big -box" retail chains is to replicate a corporate or generic aesthetic, often treating the building elevations much like large, scale -less billboards. The lack of human scale and absence of architectural character or local connection serve to emphasize a disconnection between the chain store and the community. These conventional approaches to large-scale retail design are unacceptable in San Luis Obispo. �:`4`7• �y��'.�►�yJ�� Imo'•//iaa� Ad`j rI aiyJ Figure 3-13 — Examples of building design features 1. Entrances. Each side of a principal building facing a public street should feature at least one customer entrance. Where a principal building directly faces more than two abutting streets, this requirement should apply only to two sides of the building. The use of a corner entrance will satisfy the entrance requirement for only one side of the building. Customer entrances must be clearly defined and highly visible, with features such as canopies or porticos, arcades, arches, wing walls, and integral planters. See Figure 3-13. Chapter 3 - Commercial & Industrial Project Design November 2002 30 ( " d X 3.2 - LorreScale Retail hviects Attachment 'F_ 2. Exterior wall materials. Predominant exterior building materials must be of high quality. Examples of these materials include brick, wood, stone, tinted/textured stucco, and tile accents. Smooth or split -faced concrete masonry units, tilt -up concrete panels, or prefabricated steel panels should generally be avoided for expansive wall surfaces, but may be appropriate in limited areas as building accents. See Figure 3-13. a. Building walls should incorporate the same quality and level of detail of ornamentation on each elevation visible from a public right-of-way. b. Building facade details and materials should be authentic, and integrated into building design, and should not be or appear as artificial "glued/tacked-on" features, such as trellises that do not support plant materials, encouraging the perception of low quality. See also guidelines D.3.c below regarding wall design details. 3. Wall design. All building walls, especially those visible from public roadways or residential areas should be designed to break up the appearance of a box -like structure. See Figure 3-14. Figure 3-14 — Break-up the appearance of a box -like structure a. Facade articulation. Include extensive facade articulation in the form of horizontal and vertical design elements to provide variations in wall plane and surface relief, including providing a variety of surface textures, recesses and projections along wall planes. Facades greater than 100 feet in length should incorporate recesses or projections at least 20 feet deep along at least 30 percent of the length of the facade. Ideally, these recesses or projections should accommodate secondary uses/liner shops, and/or reflect the different internal functions of the store. See Guideline D.6 (page 34), and Figures 3-14 and 3-15. Chapter 3 - Commercial & Industrial Project Design November 2002 I �q_3 V.2 9 31 San Luis Obispo Community L i Guidelines 3.2 - Laree-Scale Retail Proieds Attachment f Figure 3-15 — Examples of wall features b. Ground floor windows. Ground floor windows are highly encouraged. These should ideally provide pedestrians with views into the building, but even display windows can improve the pedestrian experience of the building at the street or sidewalk level. See Figures 3-15 and 3-16. C. Design details. A variety of building and wall features should be used, in ways that avoid a cluttered appearance. These may include varying colors, reveals, an external wainscot or bulkhead at the building base to reduce apparent bulk, cornices and parapet details, and moldings. The features should employ a variety of materials as appropriate for the architectural style. See also guideline D.2 above regarding exterior materials. Bulkheads should be constructed of a durable material other than stucco, such as tile, brick, rock, or pre -cast concrete. Windows, awnings, and arcades must total at least 60 percent of the facade length abutting a street. See Figure 3-16. d. Corporate identification. Colors or logos identified with an individual company should be employed as building accent features, and not used as the main or dominant architectural feature of any wall. e. Colors. Large areas of bright, intense colors should generally be avoided. While more subdued colors usually work best for large facade areas, brighter accent colors may be appropriate for trim, windows, doors, and other key architectural elements. Bold stripes of color are not an adequate substitute for architectural detailing. Chapter 3 - Commercial & Industrial Project Design November 2002 32 1 � �5 `l beV31 San Luis Obispo Community I Guidelines 3.2 - Lame -Scale Retail AndeM Attachment £ �•�i ' it Lth , I�1� ��■� i i`� Mul ��' A I �J�� i�i:+�� Figure 3-16 — Fagade articulation, building and wall features, windows, vertical wall articulation 4. Vertical wall articulation. The height of building walls facing streets or on -site pedestrian areas should be varied so that the vertical mass is divided into distinct, human -scaled elements. See Figure 3-16. a. Except on a pedestrian -oriented public street where buildings are at the back of the sidewalk, structures over 20 feet in height (typical for structures of two stories or more) should step -back the building mass at least five feet for the portions of the structure above 14 feet (or the height where an actual second story begins) to provide visual variation. b. The facade of the areas stepped -back above the actual or apparent first floor should include detailed building articulation with windows, eaves, and decorative details such as tiles, wood trim, etc. as appropriate. It is also important that the facade below the step - back have a substantial structural appearance, and not simply appear as an awning "tacked -on" to the building. C. Building facades that are tall for no functional reason, have little surface articulation or relief, and are simply intended to provide high, visible surfaces for tenant signage are not appropriate. Chapter 3 - Commercial & Industrial Project Design 33 November 2002 1 ,� /31 San Luis Obispo Community .� in Guidelines 3.2 - Larne -Scale Retail Proieds Attachment 5. Roof lines. The roof lines should also be varied to break up the mass of the building. Pitched roofs with roof overhangs proportional to the scale of the adjoining building wall are encouraged. Major roof -mounted equipment should not be visible from off the site. Cornices and decorative parapets should be utilized to conceal flat roofs and to screen any roof -mounted mechanical equipment. The height of mechanical equipment shall not exceed that of the parapets or other roof features intended to screen the equipment. Enclosures, blinds, or other architectural treatment may be necessary to screen roof equipment visible from residences or public areas. 16 and 3-17. Figure 3-17 — Equipment screening See Figures 3- 6. Location of secondary uses. Secondary uses or departments including pharmacies, photo finishing/development, snack bars, dry cleaning, offices, storage, etc., should be oriented to the outside of the building by projecting them outward or recessing them inward. This includes providing the individual uses with separate entrances and windows facing the outside of the building. The intent is to break up the appearance of the large, primary building with more human -scale elements. Food courts/bars should provide indoor and sheltered outdoor eating areas with tables, chairs, umbrellas, etc. See Figure 3-18. MAJOR TENANT Figure 3-18 — Break-up facade with secondary uses 7. Design continuity. Large-scale retail projects shall incorporate elements to visually unify the buildings and signage without creating monotony. Buildings on separate pads should maintain the overall architectural character of the site; at the same time architectural variety is encouraged. E. Loading areas. Loading docks, trash collection areas, outdoor storage, and similar facilities should be incorporated into the overall design of the building and landscaped, so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained, and out of view from adjacent properties and streets. Chapter 3 - Commercial & Industrial Project Design 34 November 2002 -� V / 3 San Luis Obispo Community ;' %;uiddines 3.2 - Large�cale Retail Projects `J Attachment V Any screening materials must be of the same quality and appearance as those used on the building itself. F. Landscaping. Landscaping that complements and is in scale with the building should be provided adjacent to structures. Landscaping should include evergreen trees, shrubs and ornamental landscaping (and berms where appropriate) with all landscape areas having a minimum width of six feet. Landscaping should be used to create a focal point near front building entrances. Sidewalks and other walkways should also be integrated with landscape areas around building base and in parking lot areas. Trees should be planted in notable clusters within larger planting areas, and not exclusively in lines along building facades. See also the landscaping design guidelines in Chapter 6. G. Outdoor lighting. The design,.size, and placement of outdoor lighting fixtures on buildings and in parking lots should be in keeping with the architectural style of the buildings. More, smaller -scale parking lot lights instead of fewer, overly tall and large parking lot lights should be installed. Outdoor light fixtures mounted on building walls should relate to the height of pedestrians and not exceed eight to 10 feet. All light fixtures should be directed downward and shielded so that the light -source itself is not visible. H. Signs. The signs provided in conjunction with a large-scale retail project should comply with the following guidelines, and the sign guidelines in Chapter 6. Proposed large-scale retail projects shall include a comprehensive program that effectively integrates signage into the project design. 2. Signs for these projects, and the buildings themselves, should not be designed to be freeway - oriented. 3. Along with typical auto -oriented wall and freestanding signage, permanent, pedestrian -oriented window, awning, projecting, and suspended signs should also be provided. Chapter 3 - Commercial & Industrial Project Design 35 November 2002 t -T') A Pam Ricci - Dalidio project Attachment 4 l � From: "Karen" <klbeck@cox.net> To: <pricci@slocity.org> Date: 5/20/04 9:57 AM Subject: Dalidio project My husband and I own the property at 1716 Oceanaire Drive, SLO which borders on the property under discussion for rezoning/improvement. V* wish to register our opposition to development of the proposed annex of Dalidio. We think that it will change SLO to a more commercial city and loose its small town, close knit community appeal which so many of us enjoy. We both graduated together in 1973 from Cal Poly and other family members (brother, daughter) have also graduated from Cal Poly. It is like coming home everytime we come back to SLO anc we especially love the county atmosphere with the agricultural land surrounding the area. Too much agriculture is being developed, most recently with the Home Depot next to us. We want to keep SLO viable but without the strip malls and too much commercial develpment. Please register our opposition to the development of Dalidio. Thank you, Karen Beck Paul Beck Senn COMMERCIAL 8 INVESTMENT REAL ESTATE May 18, 2004 City Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Proposed Marketplace Project Dear Planning Commissioners: CITY Of SAN LUIS OBISnn MAY ; c, Att30,Iii?l ant T_ This letter is not intended to either be viewed in support or opposition of the Marketplace project. In my occupation as a Commercial Real Estate Broker, I remain aware of supply and demand of various types of property in the greater San Luis Obispo area. Excessive supply would normally reduce prices and a shortage will cause prices to increase. The sale and leasing of retail in Downtown properties is not a primary focus of my business. I have noticed however, there have been several attractive downtown retail facilities available and not leased over a period of several months. This tells me that there appears to be a more than adequate supply of suitable retail spaces in the Downtown area. I do not know if this is a result of the renovation of Madonna Plaza and the addition of the SLID Promenade. I caution the Planning Commission to be certain there is adequate demand to insure the success of both the Marketplace and Downtown. Unless you are certain that this demand exists, in the interest of the community all efforts should be made to not jeopardize the long-term vitality of Downtown San Luis Obispo. Otherwise, we will become one more City with multiple shopping centers and a non- viable Downtown. I hope for the economic vitality of the City and its tax base that both the Marketplace and Downtown area can co -exist with each being successful. If you are uncertain, it is recommended that you preserve the Downtown's integrity, rather than speculate and hope they can co -exist successfully. Respectfully submitted, L. Senn, 860 OSOS"STREET • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 • TEL (805) 781-6116 • FAX (805) 781-6099 • WWW.SENNREALTY.COM ,Member n/ the Sudety fit Industrial � ONve Realfars Attachment F_ To City of SLO and Architectu� .review Commission -Comments on Dalidio sketplace" from Michael Sullivan - for Arch. Rev. Comm. hearing of 5-17-2004 Page 1 of 4 5-17-2004 To: City of San Luis Obispo and Architectural Review Commission of City of San Luis Obispo From: Michael C. Sullivan 1127 Seaward Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805)545-9614 RE: Architectural Review Commission hearing of 5-17-2004 RE: Dalidio Marketplace project Abbreviations CEQA - Califomia Environmental Quality Act EIR - environmental impact report GL - CEQA Guidelines LOVR- Los Osos Valley Road PC -Planning Commission SLO - San Luis Obispo TIF - Transportation Improvement Fund 1. Architectural design is really premature at this time, as a final land use plan has not been decided. Several viable alternatives exist. For example, Alternative 6 (Dalidio final EIR) would put the commercial development (all or part) on the Promenade commercial site. As another example, the City is also considering the downtown site bounded by Monterey, Higuera, and Santa Rosa streets as a potential revitalization site for the same or similar kinds of commercial uses proposed for the Dalidio site. In addition, the Planning Commission and/or Council may require significant changes in the site plan. 2. Proposed project is inconsistent with the Open Space element of the General Plan. program could (A) form one viable shopping center versus three largely independent centers.. and (b) allow additional prime farmland to be preserved as agriculture." Project is inconsistent. Alternative 6 would facilitate implementation of this open space policy. However, the Dalidio project ignores this objective from the Open space element and instead rejects the concept of Alternative 6. Open space element (1/1994) page 65 - Policies within the urban.reserve line and the city limit line - When the remaining unincorporated area bounded by LOVR, Madonna Rd, and Highway 101 is annexed to the city: 1. Preserve as agriculture the southern portion of the Dalidio property, and the northern portions of the McBride and Madonna properties (all designated open space by the LUE map); Project is inconsistent. Only 44.8 % is proposed as open space rather than the required 50 %. Taking agricultural buffers into account, the net acreage of land remaining for agricultural use will be minimal, and would probably be too small for viable commercial agricultural use. t ^ —` D Attachment £ To City of SLO and Architecture .view Commission - Comments on Dalidio ". �.ietplace" from Michael Sullivan - for Arch. Rev. Comm. hearing of 5-17-2004 Page 2 of 4 2. Preserve as open space (A) Prefumo Creek and associated creek setback area, and (B) the portion of the Dalidio pronegy utilized by herons and other unique resources or sensitive habitat: Project is inconsistent. Some urban type uses (e.g. "race track", grandstand, parking lots, roadways (connection to LOVR), pavilion, Chinese Garden, etc.) may encroach close to these sensitive areas. Such urban uses are not permitted uses within open space. Also, the proposed buffer width is insufficient to protect the riparian areas. The city should "preserve creeks and their corridors as open space, and maintain creek corridors in essentially a natural state....." (Open space element 1994, p. 22, para. 1.A.) "Easements as a condition of discretionary and development approvals shall be required in creek corridors and creek setback areas. (Open space element 1994, p. 25, para. 3.A.). Project is potentially inconsistent. Has such an easement been required? Where is it specified and detailed? portions of such lands provided natural resources are protected (such as sensitive habitat, creeks, wetlands, and unique resources." Project is inconsistent. There is no adequate implementation scheme to ensure that this mandatory city policy can be realized at the Dalidio site. 3. Consider a transfer of commercial development potential from the Dalidio site's commercial area to the. Madonna and Central Coast Plaza sites. Such a program could (A) form one viable shoppingcenter enter versus three largely independent centers, and (bl allow additional prime farmland to be preserved as agriculture. Project is inconsistent. Such a program would have been feasible with Alternative 6 (of the Dalidio EIR). But if City abandons alternative 6, an inconsistency with General Plan policies exists. 3. Proposed project is inconsistent with Housing element of General Plan. The City's General Plan Housing element (adopted 3-30-2004) contains the following: Policy 6.2.3 - If City services must be rationed to new development, residential projects will be given priority over non-residential projects. Project is inconsistent. Residential projects are not given priority.. Policy 11.2.1 - Where property is equally suited for commercial or residential uses, give preference to residential use. Changes in land use designation from residential to non-residential should be discouraged. Project is inconsistent. Preference is given to commercial use, not residential use. The project as proposed is inconsistent with the above policies because no residential uses are proposed at the Dalidio site. The project would eliminate the housing component which had been in the earlier plan. The project provides no mixed use housing. As a result, the "housing crunch" will only get worse. The city's goal of jobslhousing balance will be defeated. 4. Proposed project is inconsistent with Land Use element of General Plan. Because of the lack or deficiency of housing as a component of the proposed project, certain other General Plan goals, policies and programs are ignored. For example: Attachment To City of SLO and Architectui ..eview Commission -Comments on Dalidio .ketplace" from Michael Sullivan - for Arch. Rev. Comm. hearing of 5-17-2004 Page 3 of 4 Land use element (7/2002), Policy 1.4 - Jobs / housing relationship: "The gap between housing demand (due to more jobs and college enrollment) and supply should not increase." Inconsistent: The gap in housing demand will increase, because jobs will be added at the Marketplace and hotel, causing increased demand for housing, yet no new housing will be built at the site to help ease the housing problem. Land use element (7/2002), Policy 8.8 - "Dalidio-Madonna-McBride area - This approximately 180 acre area of prime farm land bounded by Madonna Road, Highway 101, Central Coast Plaza, and Prefumo Creek is in three ownerships. The City intends to preserve significant parts of this signature working agricultural landscape at the southern gateway to San Luis Obispo." Inconsistent: The proposed project only provides about 44.8 % open space rather than the 50% envisioned by the General Plan. The proposed amount of open space (44.8%) is inconsistent with the General Plan requirement (about 50%). Project is inconsistent with various other parts of General Plan. "Dalidio area properties (generally bounded by Highway 101, Madonna Road, and Los Osos Valley Road) shall dedicate land or easements for the approximately one halJofeach ownership that is to be preserved as open space." Land use element of General Plan, Policy 1.13.5(E). This difference between 44.8% and 500% is significant, representing about 6.8 acres, which is a significant difference. Furthermore, some of the proposals for certain uses within the open space area (e.g. Asian gardens, pavilion, "race track" with viewing stands, etc.) are inconsistent with the definition of open space as preservation in a "predominantly natural or undeveloped state" (Open Space element, 1994) and "generally free of structures" and providing "visual relief from urban development" (Open Space / Conservation element hearing draft 2002). The concept of "open space for some development compromise" (Ref D-1 at p. 2-3) is also inconsistent with the General Plan. At PC hearing of 25 Feb 2004, discussion on this topic pointed to the precedent of the Irish Hills land use policies which require dedication of off -site open space. The situation at the Dalidio site, however, is different. Here, there is no General Plan policy that states that at the Dalidio site, the amount of open space (50%) may be reduced by a trade for offsite open space dedications. The city already has implementation schemes to procure open space lands at the city periphery or outside city limits. (See Open space element 1994, Chap. IV, Implementation mechanisms.). That program has been successful in procuring various lands nZar the city. There is no justification to allow a relaxation of normal land use policy (i.e. requirement for 50 % open space at Dalidio site) just because off -site open space lands are proposed as a trade. The city needs to look at the intent and purpose of the 50 % open space requirement. The purpose of this requirement is to provide the important "gateway" character of the Dalidio site which has traditionally been in agricultural use. The proposal for substantially less than 50 % open space at the Dalidio site defeats this purpose of the General Plan policies. Land use element (7/2002), definitions (at V. 99) - "Open space is land or water area which remains in a predominantly natural or undeveloped state, and is generally free of structures. Such lands protect and preserve the community's natural and historical resources, define the urban boundary, and provide visual and physical relief from urban development. Open spaces may consist of small portions of a parcel or large tracts of land. Such lands may include fanning and grazing, creeks, marshes, watershed and floodplains, scenic resources, plant and animal habitat, historic and archaeological resources, and passive recreation areas." l ^ t 5- Attachment £ To City of SLO and Architectures..<eview Commission - Comments on Dalidio ".._-cketplace" from Michael Sullivan - for Arch. Rev. Comm. hearing of 5-17-2004 Page 4 of 4 Inconsistent: Proposed structures in the open space area (e.g. new buildings for garden structures, pavilions, race track, etc.) do not fit the definition of open space. Land use element (7/2002) - Policy 6.4.7 - The city encourages the use of porous paving to facilitate rainwater percolation. Parking lots and paved outdoor storage areas shall, where practical, use one or more of the following measures to reduce surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge: porous paving; ample landscaped areas which receive surface drainage and which are maintained to facilitate percolation; drainage detention basins with soils that facilitate percolation. Project is inconsistent. No porous paving or other features are proposed. At PC hearing of 25 Feb 2004, commissioner Christianson was concerned with cumulative effect of additional runoff and flooding from paved areas at Dalidio site. 5. Proposed agricultural buffers are probably insufficient. Other jurisdictions (e.g. certain other California counties and cities) have required wider buffers (for example, 200 ft.) to adequately protect people from pesticides, dust, etc from farming operations. 6. Proposed architectural design and site design are inconsistent with general design guidelines for City of SLO. The project proposes "big box" stores and a huge hotel. In spite of some minor modifications proposed by Architectural Review Commission, this project would still resemble a 1960's style shopping center. Previous city hearings had presented design concept advocating a "new urbanism" approach. This concept has been abandoned for an outmoded big box concept. "Any permitted expansion should be aesthetically and functionally compatible with existing development in the area." (Land use element Policy 3.1.3, Madonna Road Area Retail Expansion). The proposed exception for size and bulk is not warranted. 7. This project is "over -parked." The excessive amount of parking is not warranted and interferes with other city goals such as preservation of on -site open space. Michael C. Sullivan Bibliography Books Bass, R. (1999). CEQA deskbook. 2nd ed. Remy, M. et al (1999). Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act. loth ed. Documents D-1: City of SLO (06 Jan 2004). Council agenda report. Discussion and direction regarding proposed terms of tentative development agreement for the San Luis Obispo Marketplace project. RICHARD SCHMIDT Attachment E 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 May 17, 2004 Planning Commission Re: Marketplace, May 26 Agenda City of San Luis Obispo EIR Comment. Dear Planning Commissioners: •' • 51 1• i7;• ( • 0si 1.•'• ..1• 1 =-M • I1• The process used for this EIR has been dismissive of thoughtful public innui offered at appropriate times. My own extensive comments at sc oping and at review of the DEIR are examples of this dismissiveness. This process, which was supposed to have been open to the public to help shape, has instead become.a closed process of consultant and city regime giving just as little analysis of issues of oommunity-wide concern as passible. The document is promotional of the project rather than analytical. For example, I would refer you to my own letter to your commission on the DEIR dated Feb. 23, 2004, which appears as Letter #9 in the back of the current EIR In this, I asked for analysis of several thinaq including: 1. The obvious traffic impacts to North Broad Street, a single family residential street. 2. Analysis of the potential for Ding the undeveloped Dalidio property for water production rather than the contemplated developed use. 3. Analysis of using the undeveloped Dalidio property for conversion of sewage effluent to potable water supply via natural means of spreading and percolation, an idea I owe to one Dave Romero floated in the 1970s fora similar operation on the other side of the freeway. 4. Analysis of the potential of transferring high intensity commercial development from the Dalidio farmland to the already urbanized but underutilized Mid-Higuera Corridor, thereby bringing this development closer to the center of town where it would synergize rather than compete with downtown — a Paseo Nuevo type solution. Each of these ideas is explained in that earlier communication, so I'll not repeat their details here. The consultant's uniform response has been to dismiss these concerns rather than deal with them. I think this is, on its face, a derrogat'ton of the cily's duly to do a property analytical EIR This project, after all. isal iusf any_ old p jesy; it is one that will radicaW transform the entire ci(y its image, its traffic tlmy Ns economic balance. arrd its fiscal base. It is large enough, relative to the community, that a thorough, comprehensive, community - wide examination of problems it presents and alternatives that might avoid or mitigate those problems MUST be conducted. That is the function of an EIR, not propagandizing a particular proposal. 1. North Broad Traffic Analysis. I am particularly angry -- no, not angry, furious! -- at the continuing refusal to include traffic analysis and mitigation of the North Broad Street problems and the impacts of this project upon them. asked for inclusion of this analysis three EIRs ago! That request was ignored at scoping, so 1 reiterated it at the DEIR stage. Then the project "changed" and the city undertook a second EIR. Again, I asked for this traffic analysis at sooping; again it was ignored. I asked again at the DEIR state. Now we are on the third EIR, and my requests have again been twice made and refused. This consultant, in concert with staff, has refused at every point to do what is required to study the obvious effects of the project on the North Broad traffic situation. But worse, in excusing themselves from doing the analysis, they have concocted a web of untruths masquerading as fact to prove there is, and will be, no problem on North Broad. This just isn't right. Marketplace EIR, Page 1 q4 nu•wv vvnn�„ �J�T�c�. vWWiw" VJ.ii rrvi LlpJ Attachment 'E - The project is designed for di freeway access, ergo it will draw vehicles; e freeway, and by exlension, to freeway on -ramps such as that on North Broad. This is undenfabro. A freeway -oriented 600,000 square foot regional shopping district cannot fail to attract freeway bound traffic to freeway on -ramps at some distance. There is direct nexus between the design of the project as freeway -oriented and the impact on North Broad traffic. - North Broad is increasingly used by locals frustrated with the slowness of Santa Rosa due to poor traffic management there that slows traffic flow. North Broad would thus become the °logical° alternative to Santa Rosa for the entire Foothill district to use to get to Dalidio. - However, it's not just local usage I'm concerned about. If this shopping center is the success it's touted to become, it will draw daily from Morro Bay, Cayucos, Cambria, etc., and that traffic will come in on Santa Rosa, but Santa Rosa will be gridlocked, so, guess what: Right at Highland, left at North Chorro, jog onto Broad. Our little neighborhood street will get the REGIONAL cut through traffic bound for the Marketplace as well as locally -generated cut through traffic. - My concern about regional cut through traffic using this little residential street is not hopothetical -- it's already starting to happen. We get cut through contractor traffic from the North Coast bound for Home Depot, with all the disruption those noisy diesel pickups create. Broad has become a commute path for getting from Atascadero to Cal Poly -- this is fact!! — avoids rush hour congestion on Grand, California and Santa Rosa, leads to Highland entry. The consolidation of K-6 schools north of Foothill has created a mini speed -jam on Broad in the morning as parents rush their kids to school via the freeway -- this is new in the last two years! Several years ago, the city did an origin -destination study by handing out mail -back questionnaires to every car at rush hour, and found substantial cut -through traffic in the Broad/Chorro/Murray/Meinecke areas was REGIONAL traffic between Los Osos and downtown SLO. Because of this regional cut -through, the famous DKS traffic study last time the Circulation Element was updated projected gridlock traffic -at General Plan buildout on both Chorro and Broad (freeway -Foothill segments) if the city and Carrrans do nothing to prevent it! - Substantial regionally -generated neighborhood cut -through traffic WILL be generated on this residential street by the Marketplace, and it needs to be accurately accounted for and mitigated through CEQA while we have a chance. - The Circulation Element promises residents the city will keep North Broad traffic down to no more than 3,000 vehicles per day, a figure that's already exceeded. Thus any obvious additional impact from the Marketplace will be a General Plan violation, and needs to be mitigated through CEQA. The EIR consultant has responded to my request for analysis of Marketplace traffic impacts on North Broad basically by claiming there will be none. To get to that dubious and unfounded conclusion, they spout the following: daily North Broad traffic counts considerably lower than those provided to residents by Public Works (and these are lower than counts done by residents themselves); claims of additional project -generated traffic so absurdly low as to be laughable (though previously they claimed less than 75 vehicles per day while now they admit to up to 388 per day, a number they dismiss as insignificant; I believe an accurate accounting would be at least 1,000 per day); and peak hour numbers that are beyond laughable ("110 vehicles or an average of less than two cars per minute," to quote their response). Anyone who's ever been on North Broad would scratch their head at this claim of less than two cars per minute at peak hour, but but the number is also mathematically absurd on its face. Peak p.m. hour is, by definition, a time of heavier traffic than at other hours. But what if it were so (implausibly, at that) by, say, only one car per hour? Then we can multiply 24 hours x 109 = 2616; and add the extra peak hour vehicle 2616 + 1 = 2617 vehicles per day. So, how does that compute against the acknowledged 5,000-6,000 vehicle per day counts Public Works agrees are the reality? fl this numerical fabrication on the part of the consultant were something new, that had not been previously pointed out 10 them, perhaps we could chalk it up to simple numerical illiteracy or some such. But this numerical fabrication Is not new, and I pointed it out to staff and the same consultant when they first sprung it several years ago, and they have the letter to prove ff. Still, they fall back on this patent nonsense to justify not doing CEQA analysis. So, what's the game here? Why this obdurate refusal to cite real facts, and engage in required analysis? They could have done the analysis I requested with little more effort than has gone into concocting rationalizations 10 avoid doing ft. Two other unrelated comments on the consultant's response to my other requests for analysis at the DEIR Marketplace EIR, Page 2 r 41<_ w0.17rm U3m3 stage. Attachment f 2. Dismissal of Mid-Higuera Alternative. Cutting to the quick of the argument the consultant uses to not do an alternatives analysis for mid-Higuera, it is this: the site is not under the control of the applicant! Hey, is the purpose of an EIR to analyze alternatives, or only aftematfves an applicant wants to pursue? Isn't it the former? If we only dealt with sites and project descriptions under the control of an applicant, there would never be any meaningful alternatives analysis. Doesn't an alternatives analysis look at what's good for the community as a whole, not just at what's good for an applicant? As 1 said before, this project is huge relative to the size of this community. It will dominate it. That makes it different from some podunk little. subdivision. We deserve a higher level of alternatives analysis than has been provided. I believe the logic displayed here is a perversion of the purpose of CEQA. 3. Dismissal of procurement of Dalidio property for Dedicated Water Production. The claim that the city could only use wells on the property to deliver water to that property is utter nonsense. The history of those wells shows that for years prior to development of our current reservoirs, the wells were in fact used for municipal purposes. This was true as recently as the early 1990s drought, when those wells got the city's water customers through some very dry times. Nobody at that time contested the city's delivery of water off -site. In fact, the city has asserted it owns "pueblo rights" to the water, meaning its claim dates to the Franciscan friars' settlement of the area The response also sates a well on Dalidio would "not be adequate to meet the City's adopted 2000 ally reliability reserve." Well, again, where does this "fact" come from? The Boyle Engineering study the city paid for to explore precisely the productivity of those wells said they could sustainably yield more than 2,000 afy ad infinitum because the aquifer refills locally even in low rain years. The response also engages in some interesting revisionist history on the Bear Valley Center lawsuit (building subsidence alleged to have been caused :by the city's well pumping, a charge the city inadequately refuted in court, thus producing a precedent that its pumping can be held accountable for damage to buildings, and leading to my claim it would only be feasilbe for a litigation -cautious city to engage in extensive pumping on Dalidio if the property remains undeveloped). It makes claims of non -culpability which, to my knowledge the city didn't assert in its court filings. The fact remains, the Bear Valley lawsuit loss should make the city very wary of pumping extensively in proximity to commercial development, and will act as a de facto constraint on water production from a developed site. My point: The EIR needs to honestly explore the obvious conflict between using Dalidio as a major water source (and a far cheaper one than Nacimiento, even it the property were to be condemned for that purpose), and development of the property. The two are incompatible, and the EIR tries to claim otherwise. Finally, the consultant sates: 'There is no evidence to support the contention that development of the Dalidio Property would result in the destruction of the groundwater resource." Really. Well, such categorical statements, unsupported by fact or commonsense (perhaps the consultant is unfamiliar with percolation through the soil surface), work both ways, so here's my rework: `There is no evidence to support the contention that development of the Dalidio property would NOT result in the destruction of the groundwater resource. " Frankly, I'd prefer good, truthful, comprehensive CEQA analysis rather than the defensive, propagandistic rhetoric we've been given by our consultant. IN CONCLUSION, PLEASE FIND THIS EIR INADEQUATE (as you did with the DEIR), AND REQUIRE IT TO UNDERGO IMPROVEMENT BEFORE YOU ACT UPON IT OR THE RELATED PROJECT. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt Marketplace EIR, Page 3 t�_11L a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A FINAL EIR, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PREZONING, USE PERMIT, AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2005 DALIDIO DRIVE APPLICATION # ER, GPA, R, PD, U 108-02 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 May 26, 2004, for the purpose of considering Application # ANNX, ER, GPA, R, PD, U 108-02, a proposal to annex the 131-acre Dalidio property to the City, provide General Plan Land Use Map designations and prezonings for proposed land uses, and approve a Preliminary Development Plan and Use Permit for the retail component known as "The Marketplace"; 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 finds and determines that the project's Final Environmental Impact Report adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project entitlements, and reflects the independent judgment of the Commission. The Commission acknowledges that the Council through the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report will incorporate all of the mitigation measures listed in Exhibit A into the project (Mitigation Monitoring Program). 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. EIR Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt a Final Environmental Impact Report which incorporates the mitigation measures listed in Exhibit A into the project (Mitigation Monitoring Program), based on 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. Attachment E Resolution No.[ I Page 2 3. For each significant effect identified in the EIR under the categories of Geology/Hazards, Drainage and Water Quality, Biological Resources, Aesthetics, and Land Use, 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 Air Quality, Noise, Agricultural Resources, Cultural Resources, and Traffic/Circulation 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. Mitigation strategies help to reduce project emissions to the degree feasible and ultimately put the air basin in closer compliance with established State and federal standards. b. Noise levels to some residents living in neighborhoods along Madonna Road, west of Los Osos Valley Road and between Los Osos Valley Road and Oceanaire Drive will increase above thresholds of significance, but will be partially mitigated by the applicant's contribution to pay for noise mitigation and trip reduction programs. c. The identified loss of agricultural land is significant and unavoidable, but the impact was previously evaluated and documented in the EIR that. was done for the LUE update. The City Council has previously adopted a statement of overriding considerations for this impact on August 23, 1994. To be consistent with that previously identified impact and also with General Plan Policy 1.13.5, 24 acres of off -site agricultural land of similar soil type that is currently not protected would be added to the City's greenbelt. d. There would only be a significant and unavoidable impact to Cultural Resources if any on -site structures, which are deemed by the City's Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) to be historically significant, are not retained with future development. With the review of a specific development proposal for the business park, it may be feasible to retain any significant structures or appropriately relocate them, consistent with the recommendations of the CHC, thus eliminating the potential significant an unavoidable impact. e. Traffic and circulation impacts could be reduced to less than significant under the Existing Baseline Plus Project Scenario with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the EIR. It is with cumulative development under 10 Year Plus Project Conditions and Buildout Plus M is 9 Resolution No.[ ]� At*achry7ent 'E � Page 3 Project Conditions that. the weaving sections of proposed auxiliary lanes, and the Los Osos Valley Road southbound onramp will experience Level of Service below established thresholds. f. For the reasons set forth below, the economic, social, and other considerations of the project outweigh the unavoidable impacts identified above in the findings. First, the annexation will enable the City to achieve its General Plan goals. Second, the annexation will allow for the future development of the site, which will enhance the City's tax base, create more jobs, provide for diverse shopping opportunities for residents of the City, improve City traffic circulation, and create permanent open space. Third, the annexation will ensure that the property is developed in the City. Fourth, the project will provide high quality new commercial uses that will complement the commercial development already in the area. g. The data to support these overriding factors are found in the following sections of the record including: 1.) the Environmental Impact Report, specifically Sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, 4.9 & 4.10; 2.) letters submitted by the public contained in the project files; 3.) public testimony provided at this and previous project hearings; and 4.) the staffs and applicant's presentations. h. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the certification of the Final EIR. Section 2. Annexation Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council make the following findings: 1. The annexation is appropriate since it is within the City's Urban Reserve Boundary, and the site is contiguous to the City. 2. The annexation of the site is a logical addition to the City due to its location in relation to existing urban development. 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment to modify the Land Use Element Map anticipates land use designations for the site which are consistent with project plans and proposed zoning categories. Section 3. General Plan Amendment & Prezoning Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council make the following findings: 1. The proposed General Retail Land Use Element Map designation for the 48.7- acre portion of the site planned for the shopping center development known as -�� A'i�&�il(ilcilt Resolution No.[ ] Page 4 "The Marketplace" is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, given that the current Land Use Map shows 40 acres of General Retail on the site and the City Council has supported deal points based on a project of the scale shown. The C-R-PD zoning, Retail Commercial with the Planned Development overlay, with the related adoption of a Preliminary Development Plan as recommended in Section 6 of this Resolution will address the specific development considerations for the. Commercial -Retail portion of the site (C-R- PD) which are: drainage, flooding protection, urban/agricultural buffers, roadway improvements and design, pedestrian linkages with other commercial developments and nearby residential areas, loading area design, compliance with energy conservation requirements, creek and open space protection, site lighting and preservation of scenic vistas. 2. The required Preliminary Development Plan for development of the commercial area of the site fulfills the intention of LUE Policy 1.13.3, Required Plans, which calls for the master planning of proposed annexation areas so that the City has an adopted plan showing the project layout, physical development plan, required open space protection, and provision of streets and utilities. 3. With the proposal for General Retail development of 48.7 acres of the site, 78.7 acres of on -site and off -site will be dedicated to the City for long-term protection of prime agricultural soils consistent with Land Use Element Policy 1.13.5. 4. The proposed Office Land Use Element Map designation for the 8.1-acre portion of the site planned for the business park is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, given that the area of the site is currently designated as Medium -High Density Residential and airport safety issues prevent it from being developed with dwellings. The proposed Office land use is an appropriate transition between the more intensive retail development along Madonna Road and the residential neighborhoods to the south and west. The proposed Office "S" overlay zoning will document the special considerations for the 8.1-acre Office portion of the site, (O-S) which are: tree preservation; land use compatibility with the adjacent commercial development; pedestrian linkages to adjoining sites; historical preservation; and protection of riparian habitat. 5. The proposed Medium -High Density Residential Land Use Element Map designation for the 3.3-acre portion of the site planned for affordable housing is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, given that the area of the site is outside of the airport safety zone of most severe concern crossing the site and beyond the 55-decibel noise contour, which are the criteria that the Airport Land Use Commission has identified with their preliminary review of the proposal as being acceptable for dwellings. The proposed "S" overlay zoning will document the special considerations for the 3.3-acre Medium -High Density Residential portion of the site (R-3-S), which are: airport safety, creek corridor preservation, flooding, and access. 6. The proposed Open Space Land Use Element Map designation, for both the 45 Attachment f Resolution No.[ ] Page 5 acres of farmland in the eastern and southern portions of the property and the 9.7 acre portion of the property identified as an extension of Laguna Lake Park, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan regarding preservation of sensitive habitat and prime agricultural soils. 7. The proposed AG, Agriculture, zoning for the 45 acres of farmland in the eastern and southern portions of the property will help preserve the prime agricultural soils and enable its long-term protection. 8. The proposed C/OS-40, Conservation Open Space with the 40-acre minimum for the 9.7 acre portion of the property identified as an extension of Laguna Lake Park is consistent with the zoning category applied to other less developed and more naturalistic areas of the park. Section 4. Use Permit Recommendation. Based upon all the evidence, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of application U 108-02, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. The EIR adequately addresses the proposed project, and can be used in taking a final action on all aspects of the project; including the use permit. 2. The use of the property for a large-scale, regional -serving shopping center is consistent with the. General Plan, which identifies this vicinity as appropriate for such development. 3. The proposed large-scale retail uses are 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 EIR. 4. The scales of the buildings are compatible with existing uses in the area and maintain the appropriate relationships with surrounding buildings and the adjacent residential area. 5. The proposed large-scale retail uses will serve the community, in whole or in significant part, and the nature of the uses requires a larger size in order to function. The proposed uses have the potential to attract a regional demand, therefore resulting in a potential increase of local restaurant, entertainment and even other retail uses elsewhere in the City. 6. The buildings in which the uses are to be located are designed in discrete - elements that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area. To assure that is adequately addressed; elevations of the buildings are subject to final architectural review by the City Architectural Review Commission. i`ll.c �il {i',�C�'nl Resolution No. [ ] Page 6 7. The new buildings are designed in compliance with the City's Design Guidelines for Large -Scale Retail Projects, subject to final architectural review by the City Architectural Review Commission. Conditions 1. The total area of covered outdoor sales and conditioned interior floor space for Major J shall not exceed 140, 000 square feet. 2. For the large-scale retailers, no more than one automobile parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area in the main sales areas shall be provided for in project parking calculations. 3. All mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR shall be included as conditions of approval, and are incorporated herein by reference. 4. The development of The .Marketplace component of the project shall be subject to review by the Architectural Review Commission for consistency with the City's Community Design Guidelines for Large -Scale Retail Projects including compliance with the City Sign Regulations. 5. The project applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto; including but not limited to environmental review. Section 5. Preliminary Development Plan Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of application U 108- 02, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and the proposed land use is allowed within the applicable primary zoning district. 2. The project complies with all applicable provisions of these Zoning Regulations other than those modified by the PD rezoning. 3. The approved modifications to the development standards of these Zoning Regulations are necessary and appropriate to accommodate the superior design of the proposed project, its compatibility with adjacent land uses, and its successful mitigation of environmental impacts. 4. The project complies with all applicable City Design Guidelines. ; ttachrnf3,nt Resolution No.[ Page 7 5. All affected public facilities, services, and utilities are adequate to serve the proposed project. 6. The location, size, site planning, building design features, and operating characteristics of the project are highly suited to the characteristics of the site and surrounding neighborhood, and will be compatible with the character of the site, and the Land uses and development intended for the surrounding neighborhood by the General Plan. 7. The site is adequate for the project in terms of size, configuration topography, and other applicable features, and has appropriate access to public streets with adequate capacity to accommodate the quantity and type of traffic expected to be generated by the use. 8. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed project will not, in the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed use, or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. 9. A height exception to allow a 51400t high building for the hotel issupported because: a,) The building is located along a major arterial roadway. b.) The building is significantly separated from other buildings. c.) The proposed pitch of the roof is important to the Craftsman architectural style of the building. 10.The project meets the requirement for mandatory project features contained in 17.62.045 A. by providing an affordable housing component and preserving 54.7 acres of on -site open space and dedicating an additional 24 acres of off -site farmland of a similar soil type. Conditions Planning Requirements 1. Within six months of approval of the preliminary development plan, the applicant shall file a final development plan, as required by the Zoning Regulations, for consideration by the Community Development Director. The final development plan shall include all items required for final architectural review and final architectural review shall have been conducted prior to Director consideration. The final development plan shall be effective only after approval by the Director. 2. The final development plan shall in general conform to the preliminary site plan dated May 4, 2004, and include a maximum of 615,000 square feet or retail and [—c03 Artachrnent £ Resolution No. [ ] J Page 8 restaurant uses plus a 150-room hotel. When actual tenants are secured and the project is built, there may be some variation in the sizes of proposed buildings from what is shown on current plans to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. However, the total gross building floor area shall not exceed 615,000 square feet without the processing of a planned Development Amendment to the approval of the Planning Commission. 3. For consistency with Land Use Element Policy 4.3, which seeks to maintain the downtown as the entertainment center of the community, theater uses are not allowed at the project site. .4. Consistent with the recommendation of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), a height exception, to allow a 51-foot high building where a 45-foot high building is typically allowed, is hereby approved for the proposed hotel. 5. Parking for about 2,743 cars is shown on plans dated 5-4-04 for the retail and restaurant, components and the hotel. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) in reviewing precise development plans may need to further reduce the number of parking spaces to provide landscaping, pedestrian pathways or other site amenities. In accordance with ARC direction, accurate parking calculations for all restaurant spaces need to accompany plans for final approval by the ARC and final development plan approval by the Community Development Director. 6. The applicant may utilize up to a 30% shared and mixed -use parking reduction to further reduce the amount of overall parking. 7. Motorcycle parking space consistent with City requirements shall be provided in the project and shown on plans submitted for final review by the ARC. 8. Project plans shall clearly show how bicycle parking will be provided, consistent with Table 6.5 of the Zoning Regulations. Project plans shall be amended to show the location, orientation, type, spacing and clearance from vertical site features of all short- and long-term bicycle parking facilities, consistent with guidance provided by the Community Design Guidelines and the Bicycle Transportation Plan (May 2002). 9. Precise locations of required short-term bicycle spaces in racks near the entries to buildings shall be to the approval of the Public Works Department (Transportation Division) and Community. Development Department (Planning) staffs, based on input from the Architectural Review Commission. Bicycle racks shall be of the inverted "U° design consistent with Engineering Standard 7930. 10. The project shall provide long-term bicycle spaces for all clusters of buildings, either in a designated storage area in the building or in fully -enclosed lockers, to the approval of the Public Works Department (Transportation Division) and Community Development Department (Planning) staffs, based on input from the Architectural Review Commission. (' I Oq Resolution No.[ ] Page 9 11. Parking lot lighting shall provide adequate illumination for safety (maximum of 10 footcandles directly below fixtures) and shall be designed to direct light downward to minimize sky glare and horizontal glare. Consistent with review by the ARC, a maximum of 20-foot high light standards shall be used along the perimeter of the project (defined as within 60 feet of site boundaries), and a maximum of 30-foot high light standards may be used for parking lot areas that are more interior to the project. The project shall utilize more pedestrian -scale (defined as about 14 feet in height) light standards along the entry boulevard, and low -scale bollard lighting along pedestrian pathways. 12. Plans submitted for final ARC review shall indicate how walls, fencing, and landscaping will be used to properly screen the loading and outdoor sales areas for the Major J space (Lowe's) in the southwest comer of the project, and Major K in the southeast comer of the project near the southbound on -ramp, because of their visibility from the highway. 13. In terms of pedestrian circulation, final plans submitted to the ARC shall: a. Provide enhancement to the central portion of the main pathway that extends from the main Dalidio driveway to Majors I & H. b. Strengthen the pedestrian connection between majors K & L. c. Redesign the loading areas for Retail L& M to consolidate them on the east side. d. Provide a west -east pedestrian pathway between the collector street on the west side of the project and Retail L. 14. When specific tenants are known, a comprehensive sign program, indicating location, size, materials, copy, and lighting of all proposed signs, shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission. Signing shall be compatible throughout the project. 15.In terms of Dalidio Drive landscaping treatments, final landscaping plans submitted to the ARC for final review shall include taller tree planting where there is the most dramatic grade differential between the site and the roadway, and utilize berming in more level areas. 16. Instead of the extensive use of diamond -shaped tree wells shown on current plan, parking lot planters, similar to those used in the Costco project that allow for clusters of trees, shall be incorporated into the project. Tree wells may be utilized to augment other planters proposed to meet the City's requirement of planter island after every six parking spaces in a row. Final parking lot plans shall be to the review and approval of the ARC. V;' Resolution No.[ Page 10 17. A landscaped buffer area shall be provided along the eastern and southern edges of the project between the parking lots and the adjacent agricultural land. Specific planting proposals shall be to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission. Consistent with ARC direction, a more naturalistic and tiered approach to the perimeter treatment on the east side of the project shall be provided with wider planters and varied plantings, including the idea of at adding "finger" planting islands on the edge of the parking lot areas to provide for clusters of tree plantings. 18. In conjunction with the widening of Madonna Road, certain tree removals will be necessary. Prior to the removal of any trees, the applicant shall submit adequate information for the City Arborist to evaluate proposed tree removals. This information shall consist of cross -sections, at those locations where plans indicate that the existing street trees cannot be saved, showing existing and finished grades, as well as accurate base elevations and locations of the existing trees. The ARC will review specific tree removal proposals with their review of project development plans. 19. Any applications for subdivisions which may be required as a result of proposed sale or lease of parts of the development shall indicate the relationship of proposed parcels .to the total site, access and utility easements, and parking sufficient for the uses on individual parcels. At the time of filing any required map, the applicant shall provide a draft reciprocal easement agreement for review and approval by the Community Development Department and the City Attorney. Public Right -of -Way 20. Complete street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the most current City regulations, City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and Standard Specifications. 21.A public improvement plan, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Director for review and approval. All grades, layout, staking and cut -sheets necessary for the construction of street paving and frontage improvements shall be the responsibility of the developer. 22. Access rights along Dalidio Drive and Access Road "A", except at approved driveway locations shown, shall be dedicated to the City. 23. The applicant shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement and a 3m wide street tree easement across all public street frontages. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 24. All proposed private streets shall comply with the City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and pavement design shall be based on a Traffic Index of 6.5. 1, Vp Resolution No.[ j Page 11 25. The developer shall install street lighting and all associated facilities (conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, luminaries, eta.) per City standards. 26. No private facilities shall be within the public right-of-way or public pedestrian easement. Water, Sewer & Utilities 27. Final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. The water mains entering the project shall be private if not within the public right-of-way. 28. The developer shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities along the public street frontage(s), to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies. 29. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable. TV shall be served to each parcel to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and serving utility companies. Utilities to new residences shall be underground. 30. The developer shall provide individual electrical, phone, television, natural gas, water service, and sewer connections to the approval of the affected utility companies and the Public Works Director.. Grading & Drainage 31. Prior to accepting the project as complete, the applicant shall provide a preliminary hydrologic/hydraulic and water quality analysis. The runoff from the site post development shall not exceed that of predevelopment for the 2, 10, 100 year 24-hour storm. Analysis and design of stormwater facilities shall be consistent with the City's Draft Watershed Management Plan. Water quality facilities shall be designed to treat the first 25 mm of runoff fro all improved surfaces, except rooftops. 32. A detailed hydrology report will be required prior to construction to ensure the development will comply with City grading, drainage, and flooding standards as well as address all mitigation contained in the project EIR. The scope of the study must include analysis of all existing public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities between this property and an adequate point of disposal. Detention facilities may be required. All "proposed drainage improvements, except those within a public street, shall be privately owned and maintained by the property owner. Any building pads, identified in the hydrology study to be subject to flooding during a 100-yr storm shall be constructed to conform with the City's flood damage prevention regulations. "`.rt` a t. .-lit Resolution No.[ ] Page 12 33. All modifications to the existing creek channels must be in compliance with city standards and policies, the City's Flood Management Policy Book (specifically regarding clear spanning of creeks, etc.) and be approved by the Public Works Director, Army Corp of Engineers, and Fish & Game. 34. Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including tree pruning or removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, the City's Natural Resources Manager and the Dept. of Fish & Game. 35. The site shall be graded to preclude cross -lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 36. General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land disturbance of one or more acre. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by. a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity .occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Resources Control Board. Mapping Requirements (for anticipated subdivision) 37. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval, and recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor in accordance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act, the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision City's Regulations. 38. The map shall be tied to at least two points of the City's horizontal control network, California State Plane Coordinate System, Zone 5 (1991.35 epoch adjustment of the North American Datum of 1983 also referred to as "NAD 83" meters) for direct import into the Geographic Information System (GIS) database. Submit this data either via email, CD or a 3-1/2" floppy disc containing the appropriate data for use with AutoCAD, version 2000 or earlier (model space in real world coordinates, MAD 83 - m). If you have any questions regarding format, please call prior to submitting electronic data. 39.The final map shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. 40. Electronic files and stamped and signed drawings shall be submitted for all public improvement plans prior to map recordation or commencing with improvements, whichever occurs first. Submittal documents shall include the AutoCAD f^ t o 2 Resolution No.[ Page 13 compatible drawing files and any associated plot files along with one original, stamped and signed, ink on mylar set of plans. 41. Prior to acceptance by the City of public improvements, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital version of all public improvement plans and record drawings, compatible with AutoCAD for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, in accordance with the City's Engineering Standards, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 42.The map shall be recorded prior to occupancy of any of the units. Otherwise, the map shall be processed as a condo conversion per Municipal Code Chapter 17.82. Transportation Related 43. Prado Road Interchange. Prior to issuance of building permits the project shall complete the following: design for the Prado Road Interchange subject to approval of the City Director of Public Works, an approved Encroachment Permit has been received from State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and a construction contract for the Interchange has been has been awarded pursuant to City and Caltrans' requirements. 44.Infrastructure Improvements. Prior to occupancy the project shall complete necessary infrastructure improvements, as determined in the DEIR, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. At a minimum, these improvements shall consist of- Complete Mitigation Measures; T-1(a), T-1(b). T-1(c), T-3(a), T- 3(b), T4(a), T-6(a), T-7(a), T-7(b), T-9(a), T-10(a), T-12(a), T-13(a), T-13(b), T- 13(c), T-13(d) or T13(e), T-14(a). 41.Turning Radius. Project plans shall show all truck access routes, turning radii and staging areas for deliveries. 42.Transit Turnout and Shelter. The applicant shall work with the City Transit Manager to establish a transit turnout and shelter. The design of the transit shelter and the design and provision of any ancillary facilities (trash container, night lighting, benches, and signs) shall be consistent with standards contained in the City's Engineering Standards and the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) 43.Signal, Striping and Signage. The developer shall provide a traffic signal, signing and delineation plan showing changes as a result of this project, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director: Said plans shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and shall include the existing and any required traffic signals, signal interconnect, existing street and required street lighting, and the existing roadways fronting this site, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 1, t09 Resolution No.[ Page 14 44. Transportation Impact Fees (TIF). Transportation impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 45. Utilities. The irrigation systems for common areas, parks, detention basins, and other large landscape areas shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards for reclaimed water use. Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be constructed from the City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If reclaimed water is not yet available, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system. Appropriate backflow protection shall be installed with this connection to the satisfaction of the County Cross Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz, who can be reached at 781-5567. On motion by Commr. [NAME], seconded by Commr [NAME], and on the following roll call vote: . AYES: Commrs. NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this [ ] day of [MONTH], 2004 Ronald Whisenand, Secretary Planning Commission by: L M)alidio 21Resolutions%PC resolution (revised 108-02) t,((D Eamon ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS 364 PACIFIC STREET SAN Luis Oalsvo, CA 93401 805 544-7407 FAX 805 544-3863 5001 CALIFORNIA AVENUE SUITE 120 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93309 661 328-6280 FAX 661 328-6284 www.cannonassoc.com V11 I Vj' • ,. LLJUN22,I_k";.4 I VELOPP lfvT June 22, 2004 Attachment f: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Building City of San Luis Obispo RE: Dalidio/Marketplace Housing Development Plan Dear Ms. Ricci: The Dalidio/Marketplace project has a requirement for one unit of housing for each acre of commercial development. The plan before the City of San Luis Obispo includes 49 acres of commercial retail and 8 acres of Business Park. We wish to provide up to 60 units of affordable housing. The current EIR included this housing as an alternative. We are supplying the following application in fulfillment of the development plan requirements at a conceptual level. At this time there is no developer and we recognize that the housing project will require more detailed planning and architectural review when an actual design is prepared. Our response to City requirements of section 17.91.100 of the General Plan Housing Element is as follows: HousingDescription. escription. The project proposes to meet the affordable housing requirement of one unit per acre of commercial development (the ordinance in effect at the time of application) with the construction of 60 units on site. No in -lieu fees or additional offer of land dedication is required. The units will be located within the Dalidio/Marketplace project as shown on the attached exhibits. The requested zoning is R-3 or 18 units per acres. The land required is therefore 3.33 acres for 60 units. The project site is very constrained between the 100 year flood level of the Prefumo Creek/Laguna Lake outlet, the 55 dBL zone line established by the Airport Land Use Plan and the airport safety zones. Thus the actual habitable structures are limited to the small triangle of land shown on the site plan. Parking, buffer zones and supporting areas are not so confined and are shown around the perimeter of the habitable area. General Plan Policies. At the time of application, the general plan required one unit (defined as two bedrooms) for each acre of commercial development. This application includes 48 acres of commercial and 8 acres of Business Park. Therefore a minimum of 58 units (116 bedrooms) would be required. The applicant is proposing 60 equivalent units (120 bedrooms). While the project has not been architecturally defined, the intent is for the Dalidio team to hire a housing developer to build the project. Then either the developer would rent per City General Plan Requirements or sell the project to the Housing Authority or similar approved agency to administer the affordable program. In any case, at the time of architectural approval, the management plan will also be presented to the City for approval. I- W PROVIDING SERVICE SINCE 1976 �(..111 On Project orPro� al J Attachment A S S O C I A T E S Plans: At this point only a conceptual site plan has been developed to prove feasibility of the project within the site constraints mentioned above. The design shown calls for 120 bedrooms (60 equivalent units) in two blocks of buildings located within the core habitable area. The western facing block would be three stories high (35 feet maximum) with a series of two and possible four bedroom units. The average size of the two bedroom units is around 1000 square feet. A second block facing south is shown as two stories and would contain up to 14 units of three bedroom configuration with around 1200 square feet each. Thus the lower structural mass will be facing U.S. 101. The wind protected core will provide for the children's recreation area, management, laundry (if required) and common meeting rooms. Surrounding the core habitable site is a 100 foot buffer area with a perimeter of trees to both enhance the agricultural buffer effects and screen the project from the freeway. Within this area will be parking (estimated to be 90 to 100 spaces, private yards for ground floor units, and project open space. Access will be from the cul-de-sac at the end of the collector street along the main drainage channel dividing the office park from the commercial retail area. It is recognized that there will have to be a full architectural and use permit submittal in substantial conformance as to unit count and location when designs are finalized and a residential developer is on board. 4. Exceptions Requested: At this point, no incentives or special waivers are requested. The project will be built to City Standards for the number of bedrooms required under the General Plan. It may be that some minor site exceptions will be requested when the designs are completed. The Development Agreement being prepared with the Dalidio Land Annexation will govern many of the processing and impact fee issues. Sincerely, Andrew Merriam Senior Consultant [lnsen File Path] a Attachment Attachment G RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE DALIDIO/SAN LUIS MARKETPLACE ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT 2005 DALIDIO DRIVE (ER 108-02) WHEREAS, public hearings on this EIR for the Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project were held before the Planning Commission on February 25, 2004, and May 26, 2004, and the City Council on July 6, 2004 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 City Council finds and determines that the project's Final Environmental Impact Report adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project entitlements, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines, and reflects the independent judgment of the Council. The Council acknowledges through the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report that it will incorporate all of the mitigation measures listed in Exhibit A into the project (Mitigation Monitoring Program). 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 Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and I -iK Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 2 Attachment G Development Project adequately identifies the projects potentially significant impacts, alternatives to the proposed action, and recommended mitigation measures. SECTION 2. Findin s. 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. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been reviewed and approved by the City Council in conjunction with the certification of the Final EIR. 4. For each significant effect identified in the EIR under the categories of Geology/Hazards, Drainage and Water Quality, Biological Resources, Aesthetics, and Land Use, 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. 5. The significant effects identified in the Air Quality, Noise, Agricultural Resources, Cultural Resources, and Traffic/Circulation 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. Mitigation strategies help to reduce project emissions to the degree feasible and ultimately put the air basin in closer compliance with established State and federal standards. b. Noise levels to some residents living in neighborhoods along Madonna Road, west of Los Osos Valley Road and between Los Osos Valley Road and Oceanaire Drive will increase above thresholds of significance, but will be partially mitigated by the applicant's contribution to pay for noise mitigation and trip reduction programs. c. The identified loss of agricultural land is significant and unavoidable, but the impact was previously evaluated and documented in the EIR that was done for the LUE update. The City Council has previously adopted a statement of overriding considerations for this impact on August 23, 1994. To be consistent with that previously identified impact and also with General Plan Policy 1.13.5, 24 acres of off -site agricultural land of similar soil type that is currently not protected will be i I Resolution No. (2004 Series) Attachment G Page 3 added to the City's greenbelt. d. There will only be a significant and unavoidable impact to Cultural Resources if any on -site structures, which are deemed by the City's Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) to be historically significant, are not retained with, future development. With the review of a specific development proposal for the business park, it may be feasible to retain any significant structures or appropriately relocate them, consistent with the recommendations of the CHC, thus eliminating the potential significant and unavoidable impact. e. Traffic and circulation impacts may be reduced to less than significant under the Existing Baseline Plus Project Scenario with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the EIR. It is with cumulative development under 10 Year Plus Project Conditions and Buildout Plus Project Conditions that the weaving sections of proposed auxiliary lanes, and the Los Osos Valley Road southbound onramp will experience Level of Service below established thresholds. SECTION 3. Statement of Overriding Considerations. 1. For the reasons set forth below, the economic, social, and other considerations of the project outweigh the unavoidable impacts identified in the findings in Section 2 above. a. First, the annexation will enable the City to achieve its General Plan goals, including: i). Consistency with LUE .Policy LU 3.1.2 through the development of a regional -serving shopping center in the area around the intersection of Highway 101 and Madonna Road. ii). Consistency with LUE Policy LU 8.8 & Open Space Policy OS 0.2.1 (A) by preserving significant parts of the Dalidio property as a signature working agricultural landscape at the southern gateway to the City iii). Consistency with Circulation Element policies (8.10 & 8.15) by creating a new highway interchange at Prado Road and improving Citywide circulation by having another east -west arterial street that crosses Highway 101. b. Second, the annexation will allow for the future development of the site, which will enhance the City's tax base, create more jobs, provide for diverse shopping opportunities for residents of the City, improve City traffic circulation, and create permanent open space c. Third, the annexation will ensure that the property is developed in the City. d. Fourth, the project will provide high quality new commercial uses that will complement the commercial development already in the area. 2. The data to support these overriding factors are found in the following sections of the Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 4 record including: Attachment G a. The Environmental Impact Report, specifically Sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, 4.9 & 4.10; b. Letters submitted by the public contained in the project files; c. Public testimony provided at this and previous project hearings; d. The staffs and applicant's presentations; e. The 5-26-04 Planning Commission & 7-6-04 City Council agenda reports and f. The City's adopted General Plan, and particularly the following policies: i). LUE Policy LU 3.1.2 - the development of a regional -serving shopping center in the area around the intersection of Highway 101 and Madonna Road. ii). LUE Policy LU 8.8 & Open Space Policy OS 0.2.1 (A) — preservation of significant parts of the Dalidio property as a signature working agricultural landscape at the southern gateway to the City iii). Circulation Element policies (8.10 & 8.15) - creating a new highway interchange at Prado Road and improving Citywide circulation by having another east -west arterial street that crosses Highway 101. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: U*Wo g the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 12004. V- (9 Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 5 ATTEST: Acting City Clerk Diane Reynolds APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ci Att ey Jonathan P. Lowell LADalidio 21CC E[R Res. (108-02) Attachment G Mayor Dave Romero Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program AttaChtl�E3f1t MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code.21081.6). The mitigation monitoring and reporting program is designed to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during project implementation. For each mitigation measure recommended in the Environmental Impact Report, specifications are made herein that identify the action required and the monitoring that must occur. In addition, a responsible agency is identified for verifying compliance with individual conditions of approval contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). In order to implement this MMRP, the City of San Luis Obispo shall designate a Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Coordinator ("Coordinator"). The coordinator shall be responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measures incorporated into the project are complied with during project implementation. Further, the coordinator will distribute copies of the MMRP to those responsible agencies identified in the MMRP, which have partial or full responsibility for implementing certain measures. Failure of a responsible agency to implement a mitigation measure shall not in any way prevent the lead agency from implementing the proposed project. The following table shall be used as the coordinator's checklist to determine compliance with required mitigation measures. City of San Cult Ob/spo 1 Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and i Reporting i Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments GEOLOGY/HAZARDS GEO-1(a) Design and,construction of Building plans Review designs Review plans SLOCDD, the buildings, roadway infrastructure that demonstrate prior to approval once. Site SLOPWD, and all subgrades•shall be engineered design to of Building inspecfas Caltrans to withstand the expected ground withstand ground Permit. Building necessary acceleration.that may occur at this site. acceleration, and inspectors shall during The desigmshould take into meet compliance conduct site construction. consideration the soilitype, potentia6for with the most inspections to liquefaction, and the most current and recent adopted assure that applicable seismic attenuation methods State and City construction that are available. All on -site structures Building Codes occurs consistent shall comply with applicable provisions shall be, provided with approved of the Uniform Building Code and the to the SLOCDD plans. most recent California Department of prior to issuance Transportation seismic design of Building standards. Permits: GEO-1(b) For retaiC stores � included in Stack retail goods Site inspect prior Site inspect SLOCDD the Sam Luis Obispo Marketplace, no more than 8 to approval of once prior to goods for sale may be stacked no feet high or occupancy approval of higher than 8 feet from the floor in any restrain such permits and occupancy area,where customers are present, goods. periodically during permits and unless provisions are made to prevent operations. as necessary the goods•from failing during!an during earthquake of up to 7.5 magnitude. The operations. stacking�orrestraint methods shaft be reviewed and approved by the City before approval of occupancy permits, andishall be -a standing condition of occupancy. GEO-2(a) A geotechnical study shall be The applicant SLOPWD staff Review plans SLOPWD prepared for the project site prior to site shall,submit the shall review and. once. Site development. This report.shall include geotechnical approve the inspect as Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department Caltrans — California Department of Transportation RWQCB- Regional Water Quality Control Board DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control CDFG— California Department of Fish and Game APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo �J L DalidiolSan Luis Marketplaoe Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting; Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required When Monitoring to Occur Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency or Party Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments an analysis of the liquefaction potential study for methods to avoid necessary of the underlying materials according to SLOPWD review. or reduce during the most current liquefaction analysis The applicant geotechnical and construction. procedures. If the site is confirmed to shall implement soils related be in an area prone•to seismically- all applicable hazards prior to induced liquefaction, appropriate measures,to issuance of the techniques to minimize liquefaction reduce Building Permit. potential shall be prescribed and geotechnical and Building implemented. All on -site structures, soils hazards. inspectors shall transportation infrastructure and make site subgrades shall comply with applicable inspections to methods of the Uniform Building Code assure and all,transportation infrastructure shall implementation of comply with the most current California approved plans. Department of Transportation design Grading standards. inspectors shall monitor technical Suitable measures to reduce aspects of the liquefaction impacts could include one grading activities. or more of the following techniques, as determined by a registered geotechnical engineer: specialized design: of foundations by a structural engineer, removal or treatment of liquefiable soils to reduce the potential for liquefaction; drainage to lower the groundwater table to below the level of liquefiable sole in -situ densfiication of soils or other alterations to the ground characteristics; or Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department Caltrans — California Department of Transportation SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air.Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game APCD — Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo 0 Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting i Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments other alterations to the ground Characteristics. GEO-3(a) Measure GEO-2 (Site The applicant SLOPWD staff Review plans SLOPWD Geotechnical Investigation) shall include shall submit the shall review and once. Site an evaluation of the potential for soil geotechnical approve the inspect as settlement beneath the project site. study for methods to avoid necessary SLOPWD review. or reduce during The applicant geotechnical and construction. shall implement soils related all applicable hazards prior to measures to issuance of the reduce Building Permit. geotechnical and Building soils hazards. inspectors shall make site inspections to assure implementation of approved plans. Grading inspectors shall monitor technical aspects of the grading activities. GEO-3(b) If the projectsite is identified The applicant SLOPWD staff Review plans . SLOPWD to bean a'high potential -for settlement shall submit the shall review.and once. Site zone based on the Site Geotechnical geotechnical approve the inspect as Investigation, the building foundations, study for methods to avoid necessary transportation infrastructure and SLOPWD review. orreduce during subgrades shall be designed by a The applicant geotechnical and construction. structural engineer to withstand the shall implement soils related existing conditions, or the site shall be all applicable hazards prior to Key. SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD- San Luis Obispo`Fire Department Caltrans — CaliforniaDepartment of Transportation SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG - California Department of Fhb and Game APCD — Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo C� D N 0 _T 3 .'D 7 L Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and!Repo►ting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments graded in such a manner as to address measures to issuance of the the condition. reduce Building Permit. Suitable measures to reduce settlement geotechnical and Building impacts could Include one or more of soils hazards. inspectors shall the following techniques, as determined make site by a qualified geotechnical engineer: inspections to assure a excavation. and recompaction of on- implementation of site or imported soils; approved plans. a treatmentof existing soils by mixing Grading a chemical grout into the soils prior inspectors shall to recompaction, or monitor technical a foundation designthat can aspects of the accommodate certain amounts of grading activities. differential settlement such as post tensional slab and/or ribbed foundations designed in accordance with Chapter 18, Division 111 of the Uniform► Building Code(UBC). GEO-6(a) Measure GEO-2 (Site The applicant SLOPWD staff Review plans SLOPWD Geotechnical Investigation) shalliinclude shall submit the shall review and once. Site soil parameter analyses3o determine geotechnical approve the inspect as the potential for subsidence at the study for methods to.avoid necessary project site. If the potential for SLOPWD review. orreduce during subsidence Is found,to be -significant, The applicant geotechnical and construction. then structural and grading engineering shall implement soils related measures shall be implementedito all applicable hazards prior to incorporate the results of the measures to issuance of the geotechnical study. These measures reduce Building Permit. would be similar to those recommended geotechnical and Building to mitigate impacts to soil settlement. soils hazards. inspectors shall make site inspections to Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department Caltrans — California Department of Transportation SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB — Regional Water Quality Control Board DISC — Department of Toxic Substances Control SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG— California Department of Fish and Game APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San'Luis Obispo D w n -T 3 .v An Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and, Reporting i Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments assure implementation of approved,plans. Grading inspectors shall monitor technical aspects of the grading activities. GEO-6(b) Duringfuture droughts, Assess and SLOPWD staff During the SLOPWD groundwater pumping limitations for the potentially limit shall review beginning of unconsolidated aquifer underlying the groundwater assessments of each project site shall be assessed and pumping at the groundwater designated implemented to prevent soil subsidence. site duringifuture pumping provided drought droughts. by aiqualified condition. engineer and limit pumping as necessary during drought conditions. GEO-6(a) Prior to:grading activities, a Assess soil and Prior to issuance Review soil SLOPWD, soil•and groundwaterassessment shall groundwater at of grading and SLOCDD be completed by a registered soils the project site. permits, groundwater engineer orremediatiorrspecialist to Coordinate with SLOPWD staff assessment determine the on -site presence or applicable shall review the once. absence of regulated contaminants•that 1 regulatory soil and Review may have migrated from off -site properties, or that occuron off -site agencies regarding any groundwater assessment. remediation certification properties that would be acquired for identified Prior to issuance or written. proposed improvements. This contamination. of grading confirmation assessment. shall target agricultural permits, SLOCDD once. chemicals throughout the historically shall review a farmed portions of the site, TPH copy of applicable 1 Key; SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District SLOFD- San Lots Obispo•'FireDepartment Caltrans— California Depanment of Transportation RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control CDFG — California Department offish and Game APCD — Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo 141 Dalidlo/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation! Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required When Monitoring to Occur Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency or Party Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments contamination associated with off -site remediation LUST sites along Madonna Road north certification from of the Dalidio, property, boundary, and RWQCB,and/or on -site PCE associated with off -site dry DTSC, or written cleaning operations. If soil or confirmation that groundwater sampling indicates the a certification is presenceof any contaminant in not required. hazardous quantities, the Regional Water QualityControl Board (RWQCB) and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) shallibe contactediby the project applicant or authorized agent thereof to determinethe levelcof any necessary remediation efforts, and these soils and/or groundwater shall be remediatediin compliance:with applicable' laws. Site assessments that result imthe need for soilexcavation are required to include: anassessment of air impacts and health impacts associated with excavation•activities; identification of any applicable local standards that may be,exceeded by the excavation activities„Includingidust levels and noise; transportation impacts from"the removal or remedial activities; and risk of upset practices should an accident occur at the site: A copy of applicable remediation certification from RWQCB and/or DTSC, or written confirmation that:a certification is not required'shaii be submitted to the Community Development Department. Key: SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department Callrans— California'Department o6Transportation SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality. Control Board DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game APCD — Air Pollution Control District carry or san curs D W n M D .-+ rd Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments GEO-6(b) In the event that hazardous Halt work, During As necessary SLOPWD, waste,and/or materials, Including evacuate area, construction. during DTSC chemical odors or stained soils, are secure site, and construction. encountered during construction, the contact following actions shall be taken by the hazardous applicant or authorized agent thereof: waste/materials (1) all work in the vicinity of the coordinator if suspected contaminant will+be halted; hazardous (2) all persons shall be removed from materials are the area; (3) the site shall be secured encountered under the direction of the City Fire during Department; and (4) the City of San Luis construction. Obispo Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator shall bemotified. Work shall not recommence until such time as the find is evaluatediand appropriate measures are implemented as necessary to the satisfaction of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control: GEO-6(c) In the event that groundwater Halt work, test, During As necessary SLOPWD, is encountered during construction, all and remediate, as construction. during RWQCB construction work in the vicinity of the applicable if construction. groundwater willibe halted. RWQCB groundwater is shall be contacted to determine encountered appropriate remediation actions. This during could Involve testing groundwater for construction. TPH and PCE, treatment of:affected groundwater to a concentration below RWQCB standards, by a City approved registered environmental assessor or environmental engineer in consultation with RWQCB before the water can be Key: SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOPWD- San Luis Obispo Public Works Department ^ , SLOAPCD - San LuisObispo County Air Pollution Control District SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department Caltrans— California Department of Transporlation RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game APCD — Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis, Obispo O N 0 T 3 (D 7 r1- a 0 Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation andDevelopment Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments released into the watershed, and/or other remediation actions required by RWQCB: GEO-6(d) Prior to issuance of Building Prepare and Prior to issuance Review study SLOPWD Permits, a soils engineering study and submit to City of Building and analysis hazardous materials screening analysis Engineer soils Permits. once. Site of all!imported fillmaterials shall be engineering study inspect as prepared by a qualified professional and and hazardous necessary submitted to the City Engineer for materials during review. The soils engineer study and screening construction. hazardous materials screening analysis analysis. shall demonstrate that all imported fill materials maintain engineering properties that are suitable for site development, and are -free from contaminants that exceed threshold health and public safety levels. GEO-7(a) Prior to issuance of grading Prepare and Prior to issuance Review PSI SLOPWD, permits for the proposed Prado submit to of Building once. Site Caltrans Road/U.S. Highway 101 interchange SLOPWD and Permits for the inspect as and associated improvements, a Caltrans,a interchange. necessary Preliminary Site Investigation:shallibe Preliminary Site during performed within the areas of site Investigation of construction. disturbance proposed within 40 feet of the Prado Road the edge of'U.S. Highway 101, in interchange area. compliance with Caltrans ADL Testing Implement the Guidance,(March 16, 2001). The applicable Preliminary Site Investigation shall requirements of include soil borings to a minimum depth the PSI. of 2.5 below ground surface (bgs) using hand auger sampling methods. All soil samples from the ADL Investigation Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department Caltrans— California Department of Transportation SLOPWD - Sao Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB — Regional Water Quality Control Board DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game APCD — Air Pollution Control District C/ry of San Luis Obispo D N 0 3 iD 7 .-r VA IN Dalidio/San Luisi Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required When Monitoring to Occur Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency or Party Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments shall be,analyzed for the;presence of total lead following EPA Test Method 6010. The regulatory criteria for determining whether soils are to be classified as "hazardous waste" for materials handling and disposal purposes based on metal content are contained in the California Code of Regulations Title 22, Section 66261.24. The Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC) for ADL is 1,000 milligrams per kilogram (mgfkg) and the,Soluble Threshold1imit Concentration (STCL) for lead is 5.0 milligrams per liter(mg/l). The results of the Preliminary Site Investigation shall be summarized and submitted to the Community Development Department for review. In the event that ADL is discovered in excess of regulatory standards, the following measures shall be implemented: a The construction contractor shall prepare and implement a Lead Compliance Plan to prevent or minimize worker exposure to lead during the handling and4reatment of ADL. Handling material containing ADL shallibe in conformance with rules and regulations including, but not limited to, those of the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration Cal -OSHA Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department Caltrans — California Department of Transportation SLOAWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCa— Regional.Water Quality Control Board DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game APCD — Air Pollution Control District 10 City of San Luis Obispo D N 0 T 3 4'D r+ Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required When Monitoring to Occur Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency or Party Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments and4he Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Lead Compliance Plan shall contain the elements listed in Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1(e)(2)(B). The Lead Compliance Plan shall be reviewed and approved by an Industrial Hygienist certified in Comprehensive Practice by the American Board of Industrial Hygiene. The Lead Compliance Plan shall!be submitted to the City Fire Department at least 7 days prior to:beginning work in areas containing aerially deposited lead. Prior to performing work in areas containing ;lead, personnel who have no prior training, including Caltrans personnel, shall complete a safety training program provided by the contractor, that meets the requirements of Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, "Lead," and the Contractor's Lead Compliance Program. Personal protective equipment, training, and washing facilities, required by the Lead Compliance Plan shall be supplied to all -applicable construction workers. a Handling of materials containing �I Key: r SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD- San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD - San Lots Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game 11 Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD — Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo 0 Dalidio/San LuisMarketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mltigatlon Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required When Monitoring to Occur Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency or Party Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments ADL shall result in no visible dust migration. The contractor shall have a means of dust control available at all times while handling material in work areas containing ADL. a Project construction activities shall be conducted in compliance with Caltrans Guidelines associated with aerially deposited lead. This requirement shallibe included in construction contracts. The project applicant shall contact Caltrans, the RWQCB, and San Luis Obispo Fire Department, to investigate the feasibility of capping materials containing, hazardous levels of lead within the project limits in the existing State right-of- way under the pavement,or contained by a clean fill cap. If this optiomis determined to be feasible by the applicable reviewing agencies, then the applicant shall furnish to the Community Development. Departmentwritten statements of concurrence by these agencies. The project applicant shall comply with all requirements:of the reviewing,agencies. If on -site capping of contaminated soils is determined to be infeasible, then iKey: SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of Sam Luis Obispo N n T %'D 7 r- J r 1 12 Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development' Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments the contaminated soils shall be transported,and disposed of in a Class I landfill in conformance with Federal and State laws and regulations, as -amended, and county and municipal ordinances and regulations, as,amended. a Surplus materialtexcavated from areas containing aerially deposited lead shalliremain in the area of soil disturbance. The surplus soil shall not be disposed of outside the highway right of way. DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY DW-1(a) Reduce Impervious Implement SLOPWD staff to Review plans SLOPWD Surfaces. Consistent with Land Use pervious paving review project once. Site Element Policy 6.4.7 (General -Plan and landscape final designiplans inspect as Digest), the applicant shall be swales where prior to issuance necessary encouraged to use pervious paving feasible. of Building during and material to facilitate rainwater Permits. following percolation. Parking lots and paved construction. outdoor storage areas shall, where feasible, use pervious paving to reduce surface water runoff and aid In groundwater recharge. The applicant shall'implement landscape sweles as feasible and appropriate to allow for increased percolation of water on -the project site. DW-2(a) Notice of Intent. Prior to File a,N01mith SLOPWD and Once. SLOPWD, beginning construction the,applicant RWQCB and RWQCB staff to RWQCB Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOPWD- San Luis Obispo Public Works Department SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DISC— Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air PollutionControfDistrict City of San Luis Obispo 13 Dalidio/San Luis Marketplaoe Annexation and Development Project EiR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) for SLOPWD. review NOI prior discharge from the proposed to issuance of development site. grading permits. DW-2(b) Stolen Water Pollution The applicant SLOPWD and Once. SLOPWD Prevention Plan. The applicant shall shall submit a RWQCB shall RWQCB require the building contractor to SWPPP to review the prepare and submit a SWPPP to the SLOPWD and SWPPP and City forty-five (45) days prior to the start RWQCB. NPDES permit of work for approval. The contractor is documentation responsible for understanding the State prior to issuance General Permit and instituting the of grading SWPPP during construction. A SWPPP permits. for site construction shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading -and implemented for all construction activity on the i project site in excess of one acre. The SWPPP shall include specific BMPs to control the discharge of material from the site. BMP methods may include, but would not be limited to, the use of temporary detention basins, straw bales, sand bagging, mulching, erosion control blankets, sift fencing, and soil stabilizers. AdditionaliBMPs should be implemented for any fuel storage or fuel handling that could occur on -site during construction. The SWPPP must be prepared in accordance with the guidelines adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The SWPPP shall be also submitted to the City along with grading/development tans for review and, approval. Key: SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOPWD- San Luis Obispo Public Works Department SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District W SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board CDFG— California Department of Fish and Game Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department orToxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo G 14 Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments DW-2(c) Notice of Completion of File a Notice of SLOPWD and Once. SLOPWD, Construction. The applicant shall file a Completion of RWQCB staff to RWQCB notice of completion of construction of Construction with review notice of the development, identifying ,that RWQCB and completion prior pollution, sources, were controlled during SLOPWD. to occupancy the construction of the project, including clearance. the Prado Road Interchange, and implementing a closure SWPPP for the site. DW-3(a) Storm Water Quality Basins. Plan SLOPWD shall Review plans SLOPWD A Best Management Practice (BMP) requirements review plans prior once. Site device shall;be installed to intercept shall be submitted to issuance of inspect as water flowing off of proposed parking lot by the applicant grading permits necessary and roadway surfaces for each sub- for review and andimonitor during and basin of the Dalidio property. Whenever approval by compliance following feasible, the preferred approach to SLOPWD. during construction. treating surface runoff willibe the use of construction. drainage swales rather than mechanical devices. The chosen method for treating runoff shall be a proven and documented pollution prevention technology device that removes oil and sediment from stormwater runoff, and retains the contaminants for safe and easy removal. The chosen device shall possess design1eatures to,prevent resuspension of previously collected contaminants and -materials, and contain a built-in diversion structure to divert intense runoff events and prevent scouring of the previously collected sediments. The filter devices shall be sized to capture all dry weather surface Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo. Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department Caltrans - California Department of Transportation SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB- Regional Water Quality Control Board DTSC- Department of Toxic Substances Control (j S y - SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG - California Department of Fish and Game APCD - Air Pollution Control Distrito ?• City of San Luis Obispo —k'� 15 DalidiolSan Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development.Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring.and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments runoff and accommodate the first flush (one inch) during storm events. The storm water quality system must be reviewed and approved by the City. BMP's=shall also be incorporated! into the drainage plamfor the Prado Road Interchange. The devices shall besited and sizedito intercept and1treat all dry weather surface runoff and accommodate the first flush (one inch) during;storm events. The storm water quality system must be reviewed and approved by the City. DW-3(b) Stormwater BMP Stormwater BMP SLOPWD shall As necessary SLOPWD Maintenance Plan. The stormwater devices shallibe review devices prior to the BMP devices shall'be inspected, maintained by the and/or inspection rainy season cleaned and maintained in -accordance applicant or and!maintenance and after with the manufacturer's maintenance authorized agent reports annually major storm specifications. The devices shall be thereof: The prior to the onset events. cleaned prior to the onset of the rainy results of of the rainy season•(i.e. November 1st) and inspection and season, and!after Immediately after the end of the rainy maintenance major storm season (i.e. May 1 st). All devices will be reports shall be events. checked!after major storm events. The submitted by the results of the Inspection and applicant for maintenance report shall be submitted review and to the City of San Luis Obispo Public approval by Works Department. SLOPWD. DW-3(c) NPDES Permit. The The applicant SLOPWD shall Once. SLOPWD applicant shall procure a National shall obtain an IN review the RWQCB Pollution Discharge Elimination System --ES ermit. NPDES permit Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obtspo Community Development -Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo. County Air Pollution Control District SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board CDFG— California Department of Fish and Game Callrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo 16 Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitlgation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments permit that adheres with,all documentation requirements of the Federal Clean prior to issuance Water Act. Additionally, certain of grading occupants of the General Retail permits. component may require individual NPDES permits due to the processes or materials they use. AIR QUALITY AQ-1(a) The applicant shalb.implement The -project SLOCDD shall As SLOCDD the following Best Available Control applicant shall perform periodic necessary, Technology (CBACT) for diesel -fueled identify for review site inspections during construction equipment, where feasible: by SLOCDD and during construction APCD staff the construction. • Maintain all construction equipment CBACT measures in proper tune according to that would be manufacturer's specifications; implemented: • Fuel all off -road and portable diesel Upon powered equipment, including but confifmatiomby not limited to bulldozers, graders, SLOCDD and cranes, loaders, scrapers, APCD, CBACT backhoes, generator sets, features shallibe compressors, auxiliary power units, applied. The with ARB certified motor vehicle application of diesel fuel (non -taxed version these features suitable for use off -road); shall occur prior • Maximize to the extent feasible, the to project use of diesel construction equipment construction. meeting the ARB's 1996 or newer certification standard for off -road heavy-duty diesel engines; • Install diesel oxidation catalysts (DOC), catalyzed diesel particulate filters. CDPF or other District r Key: SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development,Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD- San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB- Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG - California Department of Fish and Game 17 Callrans- California Department orTransportatioo DTSC - Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD - Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo N n 3 (D 7 PE Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required When Monitoring to Occur Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency or Party Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments approved emission reduction retrofit devices (the number of catalysts or filters required and the equipment on which they should.be installed shall be determined in consultation with APCD); • Electrify equipment where feasible; • Develop and Implement a Diesel Emission Control Plan (DECP) that describes the diesel emission controls to be used during construction and species the use of DOCs and•CDPFs, in consultation with APCD prior to the start of construction; • Substitute gasoline powered for diesel powered equipment, where feasible; • Use altematively fueled construction equipment on -site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CN% liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane, or biodiesel; and • Use equipment that has Caterpillar pre -chamber diesel engines; If any of the above CBACT's is considered infeasible, the applicant shall notify the Community Development Department, by letter, and clearly state why any of the measures of are considered infeasible. The Community Development Department, in consultation With the SamLuis Obispo Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department i SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District SLOFD- San Luis Obispo Fire Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD — Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo D n 3 (D 7 h � d 18 Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments County APCD would then;make a final determination as to whether the measure is;infeasible. AQ-1(b) The applicant shall design a Submit for Review plans Review plans SLOCDD, comprehensive construction activity SLOCDD and prior to issuance once. Site SLOPWD management plan designeddo minimize SLOPWD review of grading inspect as the amount of large construction a construction permits. Site necessary vehicles operating: during any given time activity inspect during during period. management construction. construction. plan. ,AQ-1(c) Construction truck trips shall Prior to Conditions shall As SLOCDD, be scheduled, to the extent feasible, to occupancy be•adhered to necessary, SLOPWD, occur during non -peak hours. clearance, the throughout all during APCD applicant shall grading•and construction. ,AQ-1(d) The amount of disturbed area include, as a note construction shall be minimized and on -site vehicle on a separate periods for all speeds shall be reduced to 15 mph or informational project less. sheet to be components. recorded with any SLOCDD and /or AQ-1(e) Water trucks or sprinkler map, the dust SLOPWD systems shall be used in sufficient control inspectors shall quantities during construction.to prevent requirements. All perform periodic airborne dust from leaving the site. requirements spot checks Increased watering frequency would be shall!be shown on during grading required whenever wind speeds exceed grading and and construction. 15 mph. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water building plans. APCD inspectors should b&usedi shallirespond to nuisance AQ-1(f) If stockpiling of fill material is complaints. Involved, soil that is stockpiled for more than two days shall!be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders daily to prevent dust generation. Key: SLOCDD- San Lute Obispo Community Development Department SLOPWD - Son Luis Obispo Public Works Department 1 SLOAPCD - SonLuis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District SLOFD- San Luis ObispoFire Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board CDFG — California Department offish and Game Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD — Air Pollution Control District Citymf San Luis Obispo C01z" 19 C Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required When Monitoring to Occur Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency or Party Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments AQ-1(g) Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction�site. AQ-1(h) All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at, least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer). AQ-1(I) Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. AQ-10) Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. AQ-1(k) Exposed ground areas that are planned to be; reworked at dates.greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with.a fast -germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. AQ-1(1) Mitigation MeasuresAQ-1(a) through AQ-1(k) shall be included on all Grading and Construction Plan notes, as well as on all bid requests. A contact Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB- Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG - California Department of Fish and Game 20 Caltrans- California Department of Transportation DISC- Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD- Air Pollution Control District City of San 'Luls Obispo .n Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation -and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments name and phone number at the San Luis Obispo APCD shall also be provided on these documents so that contractors may consult with APCD staff on the type of construction equipment and:emissions controls to be used. AQ-1(m) The project contractor/builder The name and During As SLOCDD, shall designate a person or persomto telephone number construction, necessary, SLOPWD, monitor the dust control program and to of such persons SLOPDD and/or during APCD order increased watering, as necessary, shall be provided SLOPWD shall construction. to prevent transport of dust off -site. to the APCD. contact the Their duties shall include holidays and The dust monitor designated weekend periods when work may not be shall be monitor as in progress. The name.and telephone designated prior necessary for number of such persons shalltbe to issuance of compliance With provided to the Community grading 1permits. dust control Development Department and APCD measures. prior to land use clearance for map recordation and land use clearance for finish grading of structures. AQ-1(n) A geological:analysis shall be Submit for Prior to issuance Review SLOPWD, conducted prior to construction to SLOPWD review of grading geological APCD determine the presence of serp tine a geological permits. analysis rock. If naturally occurring as estos is analysis of once. found on the project site, the applicant potential Review shall prepare an Asbestos, ust Control serpentine rock. Asbestos Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Prepare Asbestos programs, if Program, which shall be approvediby programs as necessary, the APCD prior to commencement of necessary. once. construction, activities. Monitor Asbestos program Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department 4-'s SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District r 1 �st SLOFD - Son. Luis Obispo Fire Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Contra] Board CDFG— California Department of Fish and Game 21 Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD — Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo W 0 =T 3 .v Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments compliance as necessary during construction. AQ-1(o) Prior to demolition work, areas Conduct asbestos The APCD will Review SLOPWD, of the on -site structures shall be sampling and review the notification ACPD sample6as part of an asbestos survey notify APCD-as demolition once. Field in compliance with the National necessary. ACM notification and verify as Emission Standards for Hazardous Air supervision, if SLOPWD shall necessary Pollutants (NESHAP). If asbestos is necessary, shall review the during found in any building; asbestos -related be undertaken by asbestos demolition. Work, including demolition, involving 100 a licensed samplingiprior to square feet or more of asbestos asbestos initiation of containing materials (ACMs) shall be consultant demolition. performed by a'licensed asbestos approved by activities. abatement contractor under the SLOPWD. SLOPWD shall supervision of a certified asbestos field verify ACM consultant, and�asbestos shall be supervision removed and disposed of in compliance during demolition with,applicable State laws. activities. AQ-1(p) If during idemolition of an on- Evaluation and SLOPWD shall As necessary SLOPWD sitelbuilding; paint`is separated from the management of field verify proper during building material (e.g. chemically or LBP materials LBP management demolition. physically), the paint waste will be shall be during demolition evaluated independently from the undertaken'by a activities ,building material by a qualified qualified hazardous materials inspector to hazardous determine its proper management. All materials hazardous materials shall be handled inspector during and disposed in accordance with local, demolition state and federal regulations. According activities. All to the Department of Toxic Substances identified LBP y Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department SLOAPCD - San'Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board CDFG— Callfornla Department of Fish and Game Caltrans— California Department orTronsportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD — Air Pollution Control District City ofSan Luis Obispo 22 N n T 3 .'D 7 A 61 Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments Control (DTSC), if.paint is not removed materials shall be from the building material during disposed of prior demolition (and is not chipping or to issuance of peeling), the material can be disposed occupancy of as construction debris (a non- clearance. hazardous waste). The landfill operator will be contacted prior to disposal of building material debris to determine any specific requirements the landfill may have regarding the disposaliof lead -based paint materials. The disposal ofdemolition debris shall comply with any such requirements. AQ-2(a) Increase building energy The applicant SLOCDD and/or Once. SLOCDD, efficiency ratings by at least 10% above shall incorporate SLOPWD shall SLOPWD what is required by Title 24 the listed site inspect to requirements. Potential energy provisions into ensure consumption reduction measures building and development is in include, but are not limited to, increasing improvement accordance with attic, wall, or floor insulation, the use of plans and shall approved plans photovoltaic roof tiles; installation of submit proof of prior to energy efficient windows, installation of unfeasibility prior occupancy energy efficient interior lighting, use of to issuance of clearance. high efficiency heating and cooling, use Building Permits. roofing material witha solar reference value that meets the EPA/DOE Energy Star rating, Installation of low energy parking,lot lights, and the use of R-45 insulation in the roof/attic space of all on -site structures. AQ-2(b) Shade trees shall be planted to The applicant SLOCDD shall Once. I SLOCDD, I shade on -site structures to the cireatect shall incorporate site ins e APCD �. Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB- Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG - California Department of. Fish and Game 23 Callrans- California Department of Transportation DISC- Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD- Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo C Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments extent possible in summer, decreasing the listed ensure indoor temperatures, and+reducing provisions into development is in energy demand for air conditioning. landscape plans accordance with Shade trees shall,also be planted and shall submit approved plans throughout the parking lots to reduce plans to SLOCDD prior to evaporative emissions from,parked and APCD,pdor occupancy vehicles. The landscape plan -shall be to occupancy clearance. submitted to the San -Luis Obispo APCD clearance. SLOCDD shall for review and comment. The City's verify landscape Architectural Review Commission (ARC) installationin shall review project landscaping plans accordance with for consistency vvith this mitigation approved measure. landscape plans. AQ-2(c) The applicant shalfimplement The applicant Prior to Once. SLOCDD, all of the following mitigation measures shall provide to occupancy APCD in consultation with SLOAPCD: SLOCDD a clearance. certification from • Financial contribution and/or an APCD that the agreement between the applicant financial and'SLO APCD to provide a park- measures have and -ride lot that could serve the been project area. Implemented to • Financial contribution to a bus pass the satisfaction of subsidy program as a means of APCD. reducing vehicle trips elsewhere in the community; a Financial contribution to a vehicle- purchase/pollution offset program designed to remove vehicle that do not meet state emission requirements from area roadways; a Financial contribution to a bus retrofit program designed, to convert Key: 1 W SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD- San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game 24 Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo IN Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project!EIR Mitigation Monitoring:and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments area buses to operation by natural gas; • Financial contribution to a bus purchase program designed to increase availability of alternative transportation modes to area residents; • Financial contribution to a low - emission vehicle purchase subsidy program; and • Participate in the Flash Pass Program established by APCD-and SLO Transit for all. employers of the project: Refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-4(a) and (b) for a discussion of transportation demand management mitigation measures applied to the proposed project. AQ-4(a) The applicant shall develop Develop and SLOCDD and Review plans SLOCDD, and operate an employer -based operate a APCD to review once. Site APCD Transportation i Management Program Transportation Transportation inspect as per Clean Air Plan TCM T-1C, which Management Management necessary incorporates the4ollowing provisions: Program. Program, during project including,designs operations. a. Bicycle racks and/or bicycle, lockers for bicycle racks at a ratio of 1 bicycle, parking 1 space and/or bicycle for every 10 car parking spaces lockers, prior to shall be installed for customers and occupancy employees, or at a ratio.otherwise clearance. acceptable the SLOAPCD to be determined prior to occupancy Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis ObispwFire Department Caltrans — California Department of Transportation SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG- California Department orFish and Game APCD— Air Pollution Control District tarry or san'Luis uorspo 25 P Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments clearance; and b. Carpool, vanpool and transit Information shall be posted in employee break/lunch areas. AQ-4(b) To reduce overall project trip Implement SLOCDD and Review plans SLOCDD, generation and associated air employee trip APCD to review once. Site APCD contaminant emissions, project tenants reduction trip reduction inspect as wilUbe required to establish and programs. programs prior to necessary maintain employee trip reduction occupancy during project programs that williinclude; but are not clearance and as operations. limited to, the following elements: necessary during project Freeor subsidized, employee operations. passes for SLO Transit; • Vanpool services provided,by Ride - On Transit; • Cash incentives for using alternative travel modes; • On -site rideshare matching services; • On -site shower facilities for bicycle users; Encourage Guaranteed Ride.Home' services for employees who use alternative transportation; • A minimum!of 25 parking spaces to be shared use as,a public Park and Ride lot; • Posted information on alternative travel modes; and a Preferential parking,for employee ca ols/van ools where feasible Key: 1 V, SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB — Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - Son Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control Disstrict CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game 26 Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis :Obispo W 0 _T 3 .v 7 ff Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments AQ-4(c) The applicant shall,prepare a Prepare SLOCDD to Review plan SLOCDD Pedestrian Circulation Plan for review Pedestrian review plan prior once. Site and approval by the City. The plan Circulation Plan. to occupancy inspect as shall include,methods to improve safe clearance and as necessary pedestrian circulation patterns withimthe necessary during during project commercial portion of the project, and project operations. between the commercial portion of the operations. project and other nearby commercial uses; as well,as other adjacent land uses. This mitigatiom measure is intended to complement and coordinate with Mitigation Measure LU-1(b). NOISE N-1(a) Stationary construction The applicant SLOCDD shall Periodically SLOCDD equipment that generates noise that shall designate on spot check to during exceeds.65 dBA at the project building and ensure project boundaries: shall be shielded with a grading plans an compliance. construction. barrier that meets a sound transmission equipment area class (STC):rating of 25. with acoustical shielding. Equipment and shielding shall remain throughout construction. N-I(b) All diesel equipment shall be The applicant SLOCDD shall Periodically SLOCDD operated with closed engine doors and shall comply with spot check to during shall be equipped with factory- the required ensure project recommended, mufflers. equipment compliance. construction. specifications. N-1 c Whenever feasible, electrical The applicant SLOCDD shall Periodically SLOCDD Key, SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department or Fish and Game 27 Caltrons— California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and ReporUng Program MitigationiMeasure/Conditiomof Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring:to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments power shall be used to run air shall comply with spot check to during compressors and similar power tools. the required ensure project equipment compliance. construction. specifications. N-1(d) Construction activity for site The applicant SLOCDD shall Periodically SLOCDD preparation and for future development shalliprovide and spot check and during shall be limited to the hours between post signs stating respond -to project 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through construction complaints. construction Friday and Saturday 8:00 AM to 6:00 activity and'in PM. No construction -shall occur on restrictions prior response.to Sundays or State holidays (i.e. to andthroughout complaints: Thanksgiving, Labor,Day). Construction grading and equipment maintenance shall be limited construction to the same hours. activities. N-1(e) For all construction activity on The applicant SLOCDD shall Periodically SLOCDD the;project site, additional noise shall implement spot check and during attenuation techniques shall be noise reduction respond'to project employed as needed to ensure that techniques as complaints. construction noise remains within levels allowed by necessary during and in the City of San Luis Obispo noise construction. response:to standards. Such.techniques may complaints. include, but are not limited to, the use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment and the construction of temporary sound barriers, between construction sites and :affected, uses. N-1(f) The movement of construction- The:applicant SLOCDD shall Periodically SLOCDD related vehicles, with the exception of shall provide and spot check and during passenger vehicles, along roadways post signs stating respond to project adjacentto sensitive receptors shall be construction complaints. construction limited to the hours between 7:00 AM activity and in Key: 1 Y SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District CDFG— California Department of Fish and Game 28 Caltrans — California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San Luls Obispo W DalidioiSan Luis Marketplace Annexation and DevelopmenbProject EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments and 7'00 PM, Monday through!Friday restrictions prior response to and Saturday8:00 AM:to 6:00 PM. No to and throughout complaints. movement of heavy, equipment shall grading and occur on Sundays or State holidays (i.e. construction Thanksgiving, Labor Day). This activities. measure does not apply to roadways where sound wails are currently in place. N-2(a) The applicant must contribute its The applicant SLOCDUshall Once. SLOCDD fair share, as determined by the City, to shall provide receive funds the implementation of one or more of the applicable funds prior to mitigation approaches listed in policyN- to SLOCDD. occupancy 1.2.16 of the Noise Element (refer to clearance. Appendix G of this EIR). Implementation of the measures must occur prior to project occupancy. These measures may include rerouting traffic onto streets that do not adjoin sensifive receptors; construction of noise barriers, retrofittingtbuildings with noise -reducing features, and the establishment of financial programs to pay for noise mitigation and trip reduction programs: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1(a) Prior to development of fallow The applicant Prior to Review of SLOCDD, agriculturatfields, surveysfor shall submit a commencement special- CDFG Congdon's tarplant should be performed Congdon's of construction, status:plant during the blooming period,of this aster tarplanfisurvey SLOCDD shall species (June- November). If the species is consistent with verify that,the survey,.and found, avoidance Is theipreferred option. the above survey survey hasbeen preparation If avoidance is noffeasible on -site criteria. The conductediby a of plant Key: SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department SLOAPCD - Son Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District ar SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Contiol,Board CDFG— California Department of Fish and Game Caltrans— California Department o(Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD — Air Pollution ControbDistrict City of San Luis Obispo 29 Dalidio/San Luis.Morketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting: Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments mitigation is preferred,if suitable habitat survey shall be City approved mitigation is present. A restoration, plan shall be conductedby a biologist. If monitoring prepared by a qualified plant ecologist. City approved special -status plan, if The restoration plan shall identify the biologist. If species -are needed, number of plants to be replanted and special -status found, the City would occur the methods that will be used to plants are shall verify that once. preserve -this species in this location. identified, the DFG has been The plan shall also:include a monitoring applicant shall notified, and that program so that the success of the effort submit written a mitigation can be measured. If off -site mitigation proof that the monitoring plan must,be performed, Laguna1ake Park DFGhas been hasibeen may contaim appropriate habitat and contacted. If prepared by a would be a preferred site. Restoration special -status City -approved efforts shall'be coordinated with plants are found, biologist. applicable federal; state, and,local a mitigation agencies. monitoring plan whichiincludes the above requirements shall!be prepared by a City approved biologist. BIO-1(b) All proposed site disturbance The applicant SLOCDD shall Review plans SLOCDD, shall be setback at least 200-feet shall design review final once. Site CDFG (radius) from great blue heron active improvements to design plans for inspect as nest sites. The perimeter of the setback be setback at compliance with necessary area shalbinclude a buffer and signage least 200 feet setback during regarding the sensitivity of the great from active nest requirements construction. blue heron rookery. The buffer shall be sites and at least prior to issuance of split rail fencing to discourage random 50feet from of grading human entry but to allow the passage of roosting sites. permits. wildlife. The setback around Areat blue n T M 7 Key: SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department Caltrans— California Departmeat of Transportation SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB — Regional Water Quality Control Board DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control �►-, SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG— California. Department of.Fisb and Game APCD— Air Pollution Control District —� City of San Luis Obispo 30 Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments heron roosting -sites shall be 50 feet. Eucalyptus or nesting trees within -the nestingzrea shall not be removed unless they are a•threat to humamhealth or safety: BIO-1(c) Prior to construction during The applicant Review survey Review SLOCDD the migratory bird/heron/raptor nesting shall submit the results prior to survey results season, a survey for active nests shall results of the issuance of the once. Site be conducted by a qualified biologist at above surveys, as grading permits. inspect as the site no more than two weeks prior to applicable, for Site inspect -as necessary any scheduled development. If active approval iby the necessary during during nests are located, construction within SLOCDD. construction. construction. 500-feet of Migratory Bird Treaty Act- SLOCDD to bird, heron, or raptor nest trees (e.g., check plans for stands of Monterey pines, cypress; and compliance with eucalyptus, and the riparian corridors any mitigation along San Luis Obispo Creek and measures Prefumo Creek) shall be limited to the recommended by timeperiod after young have fledged the surveys and andiprior to next season's breeding: siteinspect during This is:generally September 1 to construction. February 1, although a qualified biologist shall confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and young have fledged the nest prior to the start, of construction. Nest trees shall only be removed outside thenesting season, or after a qualified wildlife biologist verifies that the nest is empty andithe nest tree is no longer used by a raptor. BI0-1 d During both the winterinq and I The applicant Prior to Review of SLOCDD Key: SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department y SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District NW SLOFD - SonLuis Obispo Fire Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board CDFG — Calilbrnia Department of Fish and Game Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo D n T 3 (D 7 r► fk*') 31 Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring10 Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments nesting seasons (unless the species is shall submit a commencement burrowing CDFG detected orrthe first survey), a qualified burrowing owl of construction, owl•survey, biologist shall conduct surveys for survey consistent SLOCDD-shall and burrowing owlsin potential habitat areas with the above verify that the preparation prior to construction in accordance with survey criteria. survey has been of mitigation the guidelines described in the CDFG The survey shall conducted by monitoring Staff Report on Burrowing Owl be conducted by City approved plan, if Mitigation, 1995. Winter surveys shall a City approved biologist. If needed, be conducted between December 1 and biologist. If burrowing owls would occur January 31,.andthe nesting season burrowing;owis are found, the once. survey shall be conducted between April are identified, the City shall verify 15 and July 15. If burrowing owls are applicant shall that DFG has detected within -the proposed submit written been notified, and disturbance area, CDFG shallibe proof that the that a mitigation contacted immediately to develop and DFG has been monitoringiplan implement a mitigation plan to protect contacted. If has been owls and their nest sites. burrowing owls prepared by a are found, a City -approved mitigation biologist. monitoringiplan which includes the above requirements shall be prepared by a City approved biologist. BIO-1(e) The setback around Monarch The applicant SLOCDD shall Review plans SLOCDD, butterfly wintering sitel habitat shall be shall design review final and survey CDFG 50 feet from the perimeter of the habitat. improvements to design plans for results once. A survey to determine the extent of the be setback at compliance with Site inspect Monarch butterfly habitat shall be least 50 feet from setback as necessary conducted between,the months of wintering site requirements Burin 1 Key: SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department --� SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department /1. SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board CDFG — California Department or Fish and Game 32 Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of SamLuls Obispo ..SDI Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting, Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments January and March within 1 year prior to habitat. A prior to issuance construction. construction by a qualified'biologist or Monarch butterfly of grading lepidopterist. survey shall be permits. conducted. SLOCDD shall verify completion of Monarch butterfly survey. BIO-1(f) Trees removed for project The applicant SLOCDD shall Once prior to SLOCDD, development shall be replaced at a ratio shall prepare a review the plan occupancy CDFG of at least 1 A and of a height to shield tree replacement and tree clearance. on -site Monarch butterfly wintering sites plan and,replace replacement prior Review the and sensitive avian nesting habitat. In trees in the to occupancy establishment addition to:review by the City Arborist, a vicinity of clearance. of replaced qualified biologist shall review the identified trees annually replacement plan. Evergreen trees shall Monarch butterfly for the first be selected that reach a height capable wintering sites. five years of forming a suitable windbreak, as following determined by a qualified biologist. planting. BIO-1(g) The proposed permanent Prohibit active SLOCDD shall Once prior to SLOCDD Open Space area along Prefumo Creek uses within the review plans prior occupancy shall preserve the habitat and allow only proposed to occupancy clearance those passive recreational uses that will permanent open clearance and and as not significantly disturb sensitive wildlife space area along site inspect as necessary species. Prefumo Creek. necessary during during project project construction and construction operations. and operations. BI0-1(h) Prior to recordationof the final The applicant Review -plans Review plans SLOCDD map or issuance of building permits, the shall submit a prior to final map once. Site applicant shall prepare a detailed lighting Ian for clearance. Site inspect once. i Key: SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department V—) SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District r SLOFD - Sam Luis Obispo Fire Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board CDFG— California Department of Fish and Game 33 Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo Il Dalidio/San Luis Marketplaoe.Annexation and'Deveiopment Project,EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments lighting plamfor review and approval by approval by the inspect one year City staff, a qualified biologist, and the SLOCDD. after completion Architectural Review Board to ensure SLOCDD shall of development the size and brightnessof fixtures is check plans and for compliance. minimized and that lights are hooded site inspect for and directed toward,the ground. compliance. 8I0-1(I) If riparian vegetatiomis The applicant Review plans Review plans SLOCDD, removed for construction of the shall•submit to prior to issuance once. CDFG secondary road connecting to Los Osos SLOCDD written of grading Valley Road or the Prado Road confirmation of permits. interchange, it shall be replaced with compliance with locally occurring native species applicable CDFG according,to a restoration plan prepared permitting by a qualified plant ecologist (See programs or Mitigation Measure BIO-3(d) below). written This plan shall be;subjectdo the confirmation from approvallby the City of San Luis Obispo, CDFG that such specifically by the City's Natural permitting is not Resources Manager andthe City required. Arborist. Construction for the portion of the road through Prefumo Creek and any riparian habitat shall not be conducted until all required federal, state and local permitting is approved and issued by those agencies with jurisdiction, (e.g: USACE, CDFG, NMFS, and USFWS). Best Management Practices shall be employed to reduce impacts to water quality (see Section 4.2 of this EIR). BIO-10) Prior to development of the A eucalyptus tree Prior to Once. SLOCDD, office/business park or park com onents survey shall be occupancy SLOPWD Key: W SLOCDD- San Lub Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD - San Lub Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG— California Department of.Fish and Game 34 Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo W 0 T (D 1 Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments of the proposed project or any roadway conducted and clearance. modifications, including but not limited to the results modifications to Madonna Road, or the submitted to site's internal roadway system, a SLOCDD and qualified arborist, selected by the City, SLOPWD. Upon shall survey the eucalyptus grove on the SLOCDD:and Dalidio Property. The purpose of the SLOPWD survey shall;be to identify trees whose verification, the health status would pose a risk to the eucalyptus tree health and safety of residents, thinning program employees, or people present within the shall be park or open space areas. Based on implemented. the results of this survey a tree -thinning program shall be created, which provide rfor the thinning or maintenance of the unhealthy trees only. The thinning program shall be reviewed and approved by the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development and Public Works Departments. No thinning activities shall occur that conflict with the previous or following mitigation measures in this document, regarding time constraints on construction activities and/or sensitive species utilizing these trees. BI0-2(a) With the submittal of a precise Submit tree Prior to issuance Once. SLOCDD development plan for the project, the information with of grading developer shall submit plans for review precise permits. by the City Arborist and for eventual development review and approval by the Architectural plan. Review Commission, which show the following information: Key: SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game Caltrans— CallforninDepartment ofTransportation DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of son Luis Obispo 35 KIP Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and'Development Project,EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments 1. The. locations of all existing trees, noting location, species, diameter, and condition; 2. Note whether existing trees will be retained, removed or relocated, and 3. The location of proposed utilities, driveways, street tree locations, and the size and species of proposed street trees. 4. A landscaping plan which shows the size and species of all trees proposed to be planted in the project. 8I0-2(b) The developer shall abide by Implement the During As necessary SLOCDD the requirements of the City Arborist for recommendations construction. during construction. Requirements shall of the City construction. include but not be limited to: the Arborist during protection of trees with construction construction. setbacks from,trees; construction fencing around trees; grading limits around the base of trees as required; and a Replacement Plan for trees removed Including replacement at a minimum 1*1 ratio. 13I0-3(a) Proposed site disturbances shall be set back at least 35 feet from The applicant shall design SLOCDD shall review final Review plans and survey SLOCDD Prefumo Creek and 20 feet from the improvements to design, plans for results once. drainage channeUon the Dalidio be setback at compliance with Site inspect property as measured from the -top of least 35 feet from setback as.necessary bank or from the edge of the Prefumo Creek requirements during Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department ..� SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District �r SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department RWQCB- Regional Water Quality Control Board CDFG— California Department of Fish and Game 36 Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD — Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo jo Dalidlo/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development, Project EIR Midgation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments predominant patter of riparian and 20 feet from prior to issuance construction. vegetation, whichever is farther from the the drainage of grading creek's flowline. channel. permits. BIO-3(b) The locatiomof top of bank Depict the top of SLOCDD shall Review plans SLOCDD and of,riparian vegetation shall be bank and riparian review plans for once. shown on all project plans, subject to vegetation on compliance. the review and approval of the City's project,plans. Natural Resources Manager. BIO-3(c) If wetlands and/or riparian The applicant Review plans Review plans SLOCDD, habitat are subject to permitdng:or shall submit to prior to issuance once. CDFG, consultation with public agencies, such SLOCDD written of grading USFWS, NMFS as USFWS, CDFG, or NMFS, required confirmation of permits. setbacks or conditions regarding compliance with wetlands and riparian habitat shall be applicable observed. permitting programs or written confirmation -from permitting agencies that permitting is not required. BIO-3(d) If wetlands and/or riparian The applicant Evidence of Plan check SLOCDD, habitat are removed for project shall submit the permits or shall occur CDFG, development, the following shall apply: habitat Mitigation confirmation that once. Site RWQCB, Plan and,a copy permits are not inspections USACE The applicant shall submit a Mitigation of the Corps required to be shall'be Plan for areas of disturbance to permit, RWQCB submitted -prior to conducted wetlands and/or riparian habitat. The 401 water quality issuance of throughout plan shallibe designed by a biologist certification, and grading permits. all phases of familiar with restoration and mitigation CDFG Streambed development. 1 Key: SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District rr SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board CDFG— California Department of Fish and Game 37 Caltrans— California Department ofTransportation DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District of San Luis Obispo y Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring, and Reporting Program MitigationNeasure/Condition of Approval Action Required When Monitoring to Occur Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency or Party Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments techniques. Restoration and mitigation Alteration Monitoring of shall be with locally occurring native Agreement or grading and species:at a ratio of 1:1 for riparian written construction habitat and 2:1 for delineated wetland confirmation that activities shall habitat. The plan shall include,but not all sensitive occur throughout be limited to the following components: biological construction. resources on the 1. Performance criteria (i.e.: what is an site have been acceptable success level of avoided -and a revegetation to mitigate past permit is,not impacts); required to 2. Monitoring effort (who is to check on SLOCDD for the success of the revegetation review and plan, how frequently); approval. All 3. Contingency planning (if the effort aspects of the fails to reach the performance plan shall,be criteria, what remediation steps implemented as need to be taken); approved. 4. Irrigation method /schedule for A qualified wetland elements (how much water biologist/ is needed where and for how long); wetland scientist and knowledgeable 5. Provisions for the removal of non- about wetland native invasive species (including permit details regarding the type and use of requirements, and herbicides in and near aquatic approved by habitat and sensitive species). SLOPBD shall oversee In addition to the above mitigation monitoring of all measures, measures included in grading activities Section 4.2, Drainage and Water within 100 feet of Quality, would also serve to reduce any jurisdictional potentially significant long and short- Waters of the term Impacts to wetlands rand biological I U.S., including Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board CDFG— California Department of Fish and Game Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD — Air Pollution Control District City of Sam Luis Obispo 7> 0 7 38 Dalidio/Sen Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments resources to less than significant. wetlands, to These mitigation measures include DW- ensure 1(a); DW 2(a) through (c); and DW-3(a) compliance with through (c). permit conditions. The monitor shall prepare Inspection reports and submit them to SLOCDD on a quarterly basis. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES AG-1(a) Access for agricultural All applicable Prior to Review plans SLOCDD equipment shall be provided to the project plans shall occupancy once. remaining agricultural land from the identify the clearance. proposed collector street and from provision of Dalidio Road and Elks Lane. Curbing agricultural shall be designed or cut to provide wide access. "driveway - like" access to the cropland for all farm equipment. AG-1(b) Irrigation water sources and infrastructure shall beprovided to the Provide irrigation water sources During project operations. As necessary during project SLOPWD remaining 58.8 acres of prime farmland and infrastructure operations. ' on.the Dalidio property. Water cost to the remaining shall be at current rates. on -site farmland at current rates. Theproposed project's development plan states that water for continuing agricultural operations shall be supplied through existing wells from the underlying aquifer. This is consistent with how water is currently provided for on -site agricultural operations and would Key: SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District 00 SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board CDFG— California Department of Fish and Game 39 Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo KL Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Conditiomof Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments fulfill the! requirements of the above measure: AG-I(c) Agricultural Easement. The Provide an Prior to issuance Review SLOCDD remaininglapproximately 58.8 acres of agricultural of grading easement prime agricultural land on the Dalidio easement over permits. once. Site Property shallfemain as,a single parcel the remaining on- inspect as andibe placed under a permanent site agricultural necessary agricultural easement held by the Land parcel. during project Conservancy of San Luis Obispo operations. County, Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation. District, or other qualified conservation organization. Fee title to the property may continuedo be held by a private party or may be transferred to the City of San Luis Obispo. Cropland production shall have preference over all other open space uses and.shall be encouraged through competitive lease rates and protection through the San Luis Obispo County Right to Farm Ordinance. The current farmer would consider the 52 acres!as an agriculturally viable unit for row crop production andihas expressed interest in continuing4o farm on -site. AG-1(d) Off -Site Open Space Dedicate off -site Prior to Once. SLOCDD Dedication Agricultural open space with occupancy Characteristics: The 20 acres of off- similar overall clearance. site open space proposed to be funded agricultural by the applicant shall be characterized suitability as the by similar overall agricultural suitability on -site as the on -site agricultural lands. agricultural lands. Key: 1 v SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game 40 Caltrons- California Department of Transportation DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Conditiomof Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring,to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments AG-2(a) A 100-foot buffer between Depict 100-foot Prior to issuance Once. SLOCDD urban and agricultural uses�shall be buffer between of building Incorporated into the desggnahe San on -site urban and permits. Luis Marketplace, and other urban uses agricultural uses on the Dalidio property. Agricultural on all site plans. buffers can include non -habitable structures, roadways, parking, landscaped; areas, and non -habitable buildings. AG-2(b) All -future uses on the Depict 100-foot Prior to issuance Once. SLOCDD designated open.space areas shall be buffer between of building compatible,with,continued farming of the on -site urban.and permits. remaining cropland. Adequate buffer agricultural uses zones of at least 100 feet between on all site plans. human occupied structures, or other areas as required by the Agricultural Commissioners Office, andithe remaining cropland shall be provided and landscaping along the west side of the:potential collector road shalbbe part of the project approval requirements. These buffer zones shall beiprovided within the designated open space areas, and shall not diminish the. amount of farmland available for use. AG-2(c) For the construction activities Confine During Review SLOCDD, on4he Dalidio property as well as for the construction construction construction SLOPWD Prado Road interchange, construction staging to non- plans once. equipment storage and i construction open space or Site inspect staging shallibe confined to the areas agricultural areas. as necessary planned•forconversion from agricultural during to�urban uses. All construction construction. Key: 1 O T SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD- San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD - SonLuis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game 41 Caltrans— California. Department of Transportation DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD — Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo A W n T 3 (U 7 1- Dalidlo/San Luis Marketplaoe Annexation and Development ProjectiEIR Mitigafion!Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments equipment maintenance shallibe confined to these areas. No construction equipment staging or storage,shall occur on areas designated as Open Space or in agricultural production. In addition, Section 4.3, Air Quality, specifies dust control measures during project construction. These measures wouldi incrementally reduce potential impacts to4he productivity of neighboring agricultural uses. AESTHETICS AES-1(a) Foreground Views of Plant. replacement Prior to Review SLOCDD Madonna Road. Asdhinning of the treesto provide occupancy annually for eucalyptus groves occurs for every tree visual screening. clearance. the removed the applicant shallireplace the establishment tree on a 1:1 basis with aitree of of trees for minimum 36-inch box size. As feasible, each of the the replacement trees:shall be placed in first five years an area where they will continue to following screen.the proposed development from replanting. existing views. AES-1(b) Foreground,Views from Plant landscaping, Prior to Review SLOCDD U.S. Highway 101. At the time of to: provide �visual occupancy annually for occupancy planted landscaping shall screening. clearance. the screen views of structures at 30% of establishment their designed intent. Withinifive years of landscape of planting, landscaping shalliscreen screening4or 75%.of the commercial structures of the each of the project. All flailed specimens shall be first five years Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG - California Department of Fish and Game Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD — Air Pollution Control District City. of San Luis Obispo Z 42 Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and i Reporting; Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring. Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments replaced within one month: Screening following ratio and landscape vegetation health planting. shall be achieved under the supervision of.a qualified arborist, which shalllbe approved by the Community :Development Director in consultation with -the City Arborist. AES-3(a) The applicant shall submit Submit for Prior to issuance Once. SLOCDD plans to the Architectural Review SLOCDD and of building Committee (ARC) for review prior to ARC review the permits. applying for construction permits. Plans designs of retail shall ispecifically be evaluatedfor structures. consistency with Chapter 12, Large - Scale Retail Projects; of the City's Community Design,Guidelines. AES-3(b) The applicant shall submit Submit for Prior to issuance Once. SLOCDD plans With design measures to -conceal SLOCDD and of building rooftop equipment, before issuance of ARC review the permits: construction permits: The plans shall designs.of retail depict precise cross -sections and structures. sightline indicators to assure that the rooftop equipment will not be visible from surrounding locations. AES-3(c) Areas within commercial Submit for Prior to issuance Once. SLOCDD development for outdoor storage, truck SLOCDD and of building parking, trash collection, or loading shall ARC review the permits. not be visible from abutting streets: designs of retail Such.facilities shall be thematically structures. incorporated into the overall site design, and non -enclosed areas shall be permanently defined and screened With key: 1 T SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - SonLuis Obispo County Air Pollution ControlDistrict CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game 43 Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air,Pollution Control District City of. San Luis Obispo W 0 t'D 7 r- _1D 1 UJ Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR MlUgatlon Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments wallssand/or fences. Materials, colors and design of screening walls•shall conform todhose used�as predominant materials and colors on the building, subject to Architectural i Review Commission approval. AES-4(a) All lighting fixtures in The applicant SLOCDD shall Once. SLOCDD customer parking and; rear loading areas shall submit site inspect prior that are visible from surrounding lighting plan to occupancy residences shall'be designed to fully subject to the clearance contain glare on -site. All lighting poles review of shall be hooded, shielded, and located SLOCDD. to direct light pools downward and prevent glare on the nearby residential lots. Non -glare lighting shall,be used throughout the proposed project. Searchlights and strobe lights shall be prohibited. AES-4(b) All windows shall!be of low- Submit for Prior to Issuance Once. SLOCDD glare specification. Paint used -for SLOCDD and of building exterior fagades,shall be of low- ARC: review the permits. reflectivity. Metal surfaces shall be designs of brush -polished, and not highly reflective. structures. AES4(c) The Architectural, Review Submit for Prior to issuance Once. SLOCDD Committee shall review all proposed SLOCDD and of building buffering methods, including exterior ARC review the permits. wall and landscape treatments, along designs of the western edge of the site to ensure structures, that all automobile andiparking lot lights including all are prevented from s illin ,over the I buffering Key: SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department Callrans— California Department of Transportation SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game APCD — Air Pollution Control District 44 or san LUIS vn►spo Im Dalldio/San Luis Marketplaos Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments property line. This may include, but is methods. not limited to, the use of mature trees throughout the site. All ARC recommendations shall be implemented. It should be noted that mature trees often grow more slowly than smaller more vigorous trees, and that the younger trees often overtake the: larger trees within a matter of years: Therefore, it is recommended that a mix of mature an61mmature trees be planted as part of the buffering methods. AES-4(d) The Architectural i Review Submit for Prior to issuance Once. SLOCDD Committee shalLreview proposed SLOCDD and of building material and color pians4o be submitted ARC review the permits. by the project applicant prior to issuance designs of of building permits. These plans shall structures. indicate that proposed exterior wall surfaces that face public viewing corridors, such as,U:S. Highway 101, Los Osos Valley Road, and'Madonna Road, would be of materials and colors that would not produce substantial -glare, as determined by the ARC. AES-6(a) Prior to approval by Caltrans Submit for Prior to issuance Once. SLOCDD, of final design documentsfor the SLOCDD and of building Caltrans interchange, plans for the proposed ARC review the permits. overpass and retaining walls!shall be designs of the reviewed by the City's Architectural Prado Road Review Commission. The ARC shall interchange. make recommendations to Caltrans on the design of the overpass and retaining I Key: SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department Caltrans— California Department of Transportation SLOAWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game APCD — Air Pollution ControUDistrict 45 City of San Luis. Obispo N 0 T 3 M 7 Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments walls. Caltrans shall consider and implement all feasible design recommendations from the ARC. The bridge and retaining wall design should incorporate features that reflect the general character of the area. In its review of the bridge and retaining wall design, the ARC should focus on, but not be limited.to, the following elements: massing, decorative treatments, landscaping, lighting, color and texture. PUBLIC UTILITIES PU-1(a) The applicant shall prepare Submit to Prior to Once. SLOPWD plans to use reclaimed wastewater for SLOPWD plans occupancy on -site landscaping, when such supplies for the use of clearance. become available. By establishing an reclaimed irrigation system which uses reclaimed wastewater for on - wastewater, water supply impacts from site landscaping. the proposed project, and other cumulative development, would be reduced. PU-3(a) A Utility Relocation Plan shall be prepared by the applicant and Submit for SLOPWD a Utility Prior to the issuance of Review plans once. Site SLOPWD submitted with final construction Relocation Plan. grading permits. inspect as drawings for the review and approval of Coordinate with necessary the City Utilities Department. The Utility affected utility during Relocation Plan shall identify all existing agencies. construction. and proposed waterlines, sewer lines, telephone, cable, gas, electric or other services located on the project site. The applicant shall coordinate with any affected agencies as part of the design Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department Callrans— California Department of Transportation SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB — Regional Water Quality Control Board DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game APCD — Air Pollution Control District 46 f:tfy or aian LUIS vorspo 51 Wlidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation. and i Development Project EIR Mitigation, Monitoring ;and Reporting program MitigationiMeasure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments process. The Utility Relocation Plan shall specify thephasing andlscheduling of utility relocations to ensure minimal disruption between removal/relocation of existing utility lines and the installation of new lines. PU-3(b) During construction, The applicant Prior to issuance Verify SLOPWD underground utility alert services shall shalliprovide of grading contract with be used tolidentify the location of"all verification to permits. utility alert underground services andto avoidthe SLOPWDdhat services unplanned disruption of pipes or service utility alert once. Site lines. services will be inspect as used during necessary construction. during construction. PU-3(c) A construction period public Submit to Prior to issuance Review plan SLOPWD outreach: and 1communicationsiplan and SLOPWD'a draft of grading once. Site program shall be developed iby the construction permits. inspect as applicant for all phases of -the project. period public necessary Weekly assessments of upcoming. utility outreach and during andiservice disruptions shall be communications construction. undertaken by the applicant or plan. Upon authorized agents thereof. These receipt of assessments and an identification of the T SLOPWD affected service areas shallbe verification of the coordinated with the public outreach plan, the program. The public outreach, program shall ensure4hat'advance notice for any applicant shall implement the utility or service disruptions is extended plan throughout to affected! businesses and residents. the construction period. Key: �r D SLOCDD San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo'Fire Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG— California Department of Fish and Game 47 Caltrans- California'Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required When Monitoring to Occur Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency or Party Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments PU-4(a) Construction Solid Waste The applicant Review plans Review plans SLOCDD, Minimization. During the construction shall submit a prior to issuance once, site SLOPWD phases of the project, the following Construction of a building inspect mitigation measures will be Solid Waste permit. periodically implemented,to reduce solid waste Minimization Plan during generatiomto the maximum extent to SLOCDD and construction. feasible: SLOPWD for review. • Prior to construction, the contractor will arrange for construction recycling service with a waste collection provider. Roll -off bins for the collection of recoverable construction materials Will be located onsite. The applicant, or authorized agent thereof, shall arrange for pick-up of recycled materials with a waste collection provider or shall transport recycled materials to the appropriate service center. Wood; concrete, drywall, metal, cardboard, asphalt, soil, and land Gearing debris,may all be recycled. The contractor will designate a person to monitor recycling efforts and collect receipts for roll -off bins and/or construction waste recycling. All subcontractors will be informed of the,recycling plan, including which materials are to be source - separated and placed improper bins. Key: 4-- O SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD - San Lots Obispo Public Worm Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toile Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San Lurs Obispo 48 Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments The contractor will use recycled materials in construction wherever feasible. The above construction waste recycling measures will be incorporated into the construction specifications for the contractor. PU-4(b) Operational Solid Waste The applicant Review plans Review plans SLOCDD, Minimization: The•project applicant or shall submit a prior to map once. Site SLOPWD authorized agent thereof -shall provide Solid Waste recordation. inspect as commercial and office/business park Management necessary. tenants with educational material on the Program to City's waste management efforts upon SLOCDD and occupancy and transfer of ownership. SLOPWD for The design of the proposed buildings review. and,facilities shall include provision of adequate: space and capacity for recycling 1 containers. CULTURAL RESOURCES CR-1(a) As part of, the annexation The Cultural Prior to demolition Review SLOCDD process for the property, the Cultural Heritage ofanypotentially Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Committee of the historic on -site Heritage Luis Obispo shall determine if the two City of San Luis structures. Committee buildings of significance should be Obispo shall findings once. added to the Master List of Historic determine if the Properties. As described above, these two buildings of buildings fit the criteria in the City significance Historical Preservation Program should be added Guidelines. to the Master Ust of Historic Properties. I Key: SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department ^� SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department �M SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District Vy SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board CDFG— California Department of Fish and Game Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DISC— Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo P 49 Dalidlo/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments CR-1(b) Future development plans for Design all project Prior to demolition Review SLOCDD the property should be designed to features to of any potentially building plans preserve and interpret the important preserve and historic on -site once. historical buildings and structures interpret the on- structures. Review identified in this report. If preservation site important preservation and interpretation are not feasible, then historical buildings or relocation other mitigation measures (e.g., video and structures. If measures documentation, relocation of structures, necessary, video once. etc.) may be necessary. document and/or relocate these structures. CR-2(a) A qualified historical The applicant Prior to. issuance Review SLOCDD archaeologist shall survey the portions shall submit to of grading survey report of the Dalidio property proposed for SLOCDD a report permits. once. development notcovered by4he May of -the required 1999 report to search for surface survey. evidence of historical archaeological remains. This shalliinclude the area along the US. Highway 101 frontage, if development is proposed in this:area. CR-2(b) Prior to development of the A qualified Prior to. issuance Once. SLOCDD property, test excavation within the archaeologist of grading presumed original track location and shall test excavate permits. other archaeologically sensitive areas as,noted and shall be conducted to determine if evaluate the buried archaeologicaliremains exist. if importance of any such:remains are discovered, their identified importance should be evaluated and resources. impacts to,significant resources mitigated. CR-2 c At the commencement of A qualified Prior to issuance Once. ISLOCDD Key: SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community, Development Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department 47 SLOAPCD - Sam Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District .-b or SLOFD - Son'Luis Obispo Fire Department RWQCB- Regional. Water Quality Control Board CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game 60 Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD — Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo D 0 T 3 �V 7 0 Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments project construction, all workers archaeologist of grading associated with earth disturbing shall provide permits. procedures shall be given an orientation cultural resources regarding the possibility of exposing orientation to unexpected cultural remains by an construction archaeologist and directed as to what workers. steps are to be taken if such a find is encountered. CR-2(d) A qualified archaeologist and Native American representative shall A qualified archaeologist and SLOCDD shall spot check in the Spot.check periodically SLOCDD monitor initial earth moving activities Native American field. during within,native soil. In -the event that representative construction. archaeological and historic artifacts are shall monitor encountered during project construction, initial earth all work in the vicinity of the find will be moving activities halted until such time as the find is within native soil. evaluated by a qualified archaeologist The applicant shall and appropriate mitigation (e.g., haft construction if curation, preservation implace, etc.), if human remains necessary, is implemented. After the are unearthed. find has beenappropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, in any location other thano dedicated cemetery, the following steps will be taken: I: There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until: � Key: SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District G SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game 51 Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DISC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis,Obispo 4-1 Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and:Reporting!Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required When Monitoring to Occur Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency or Party Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments A. The coroner of the county in which the remainsare discovered must be contacted to determine that; no investigation of the cause of death is required, and B. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American: 1. The coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission. 2. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. 3. The most likely descendent may make recommendations. to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated. grave goods as provided in Public resources Code Section 5097.98. Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department •�17 SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District J SLOFD- San Luis Obispo Fire Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality ControUBoard CDFG— California Department or Fish and Game Caltrans— California Department orTransportation DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD — Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo 0 5 Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation.Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required When Monitoring to Occur Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency or Party Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments II. Where the following conditions occur, thelandowner or his authorized! representatives shall repatriate the Native American human remains -and iassociated grave items with,appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. However, any such activity will be pursuant to the discretion of a Chumash representative 1 if,a descendent iseither not identified'or fails to respond to notification. A. The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make.a recommendation within 24 hours after being notifiediby the commission. B. The descendent identified fails to make,a recommendation; or C. The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the;Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. j Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department Caltrans— California Department of Tronsporlation SLOPWD- San'. Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control,Board DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control SLOAPCD - SamLuis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — Catirornia Department of Fish and Game APCD— Air. Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo y1J 53 Dalidio/San!Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and'Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments Ifhuman remains are,unearthed, State Health and Safety Code Section 70%5 requires that no further disturbance of the site or any,nearby area reasonably suspectedito overlie adjacent!human remains shall occur until the County Coroner has made theinecessary findings as:to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section•5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify theiNative American, Heritage Commission. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION T-1(a) To mitigate significant impacts to The applicant Priorto Once. SLOPWD the,Madonna Road/LOVR intersection shall construct the occupancy resulting iniimproved'LOS F operation required clearance. (wifta delay of 46 seconds/vehicle), the improvements to project shailtconstruct the following the Madonna improvements: Road/LOVR Intersection • Provide a westbound right -turn overlap traffic signal phase • Prohibit southbound and westbound U-tum movements; • Make appropriate: modifications to signaliheads,.poles, controller settings, signing and striping, and bike lanes as necessary to implement mitigation. T-1 b To mitigate significant queuing The applicant Prior to Once. SLOPWD Key: W SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD - Sam Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game 54 Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo D Ay n =T 3 ro Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation.Measure/Condition-of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments on the northbound approach (Dalidio shall construct the occupancy Drive) at the Madonna Road/Dalidio required clearance. Drive Intersection resulting! in, LOS C improvements to operatiom(with a delay of 34 the Madonna seconds/vehicle), the project shall Road/Dalidio construct the following improvements: Drive intersection o Install right -turn overlap phasing on the northbound Dalidio Drive approach (which would prohibit westbound'U-tums); • Add a second northbound left -turn lane on Dalidio Drive; • Change the permitted phasing on Dalidio Drive to split phasing northbound and souhbound • Construct second souhbound lane on Dalidio Drive between,Madonna Road and'project boundary which would eliminate on -street parking. Establish bicycle lanes on Dalidio Drive which would require up to an additional 10 feet of right-of-way to accommodate five -travel lane section (2 southbound receiving lanes; one northbound left-tum, one northbound shared left-tum4hrough, and one northbound right -turn lane) and bicycle lanes in both directions. T-1(c) To mitigate significant impacts:to The applicant Prior to final map Once. SLOPWD the Prado'Road/Higuera Street shall provide recordation. intersection resulting in LOS.0 operation funding for the 30 seconds of delay/vehicle), the required Key: SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department SLOAPCD- San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District —� SLOFD- San Luis Obispo Fire Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board CDFG— California Department of Fish and Game 55 Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo D n 3 (D 7%] Dalidio/San Luis Marketplaoe AnnexationandiDevelopment, ProjectiEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required When Monitoring to Occur Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency or Party Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments project shall•fundithe following improvements to improvement prior to 50% occupancy of the Prado the total project: Road/Higuera Street intersection Reconstruct curb gutter and sidewalk (including utility undegrounding) in order to add a second.northboundleft-turn lane on Higuera Street, which may require lead/lag phasing with,the southbound left-tum movement. Implementation of this measure will require right-of-way acquisition on the northwest comer of the intersection. A review of the volumes under Baseline No Project Conditions indicate,that the San Lui&Obispo Creek bridge would not need10 be widened to accommodate the projected volumes. The proposed project wouldfincrease the number of northbound left -turn vehicles4o approximately 700 vehicles. Due to the wide receiving lane on,Prado Road between the San Luis:Obispo Creek bridge. and IHiguera Street, it is possible to construct two receiving lanes,to accommodate the: proposed! dual northbound left -turn lanes. However, due to the relatively shortdistance (approximately 200 to 250 feet) between the bridge and Higuera Street, vehicles will have to.mer a into one lane, which Key: SLOCDD - San'Lub Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD - SamLuts Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - SanLuis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — Californin Department of Fish and Game Caltrans- California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of.Toxic Substances Control APCD — Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development ProjectUR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments would limit the effectiveness of the two receiving lanes. Therefore, it is also recommended that the San Luis Obispo Creek bridge be widened to accommodate four lanes.in conjunction with the dual northbound left -turn lanes at the Prado Road/Higuera Street intersection. T4(a) To mitigate the projected'impact The applicant Prior to Once. SLOPWD to the Madonna Road/Dalidio Drive shall construct the occupancy intersection (i.e., to maintain LOS D required clearance. operations with 36 seconds of -delay), improvements to the project shall construct the following the Madonna intersection improvements in addition to Road/Dalidio Mitigation Measure T-1(b): Drive intersection a widen the eastbound approach (Madonna Road) to provide one.left- tufn lane, two through lanes, and one right -turn lane with overlap phasing (this would require prohibition of northbound U-tums from Dalidio Drive) T-3(b) To mitigate the projected impact The applicant Prior to finalimap Once. SLOPWD, to the:MadonnalRoad/US 101 shall provide recordation, Caltrans Southbound Ramps intersection the funding for the compliance shall project should -contribute it's fair share required be monitored by as calculated by the City to: improvements to SLOPWD, in the Madonna consultation with 1. Install an additional third Road/US 101 Caltrans. northbound! left -turn lane on the off- Southbound ramp which will:result in LOS D Ramps Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department Caltrans— California Department of Transportation SLOPWD - San Lois Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFC — California Department of Fish and Game APCD — Air Pollution Control District 57 City of San LUIS OAISpo L k Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring andReporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments operation (with 43 seconds of Intersection. delay). This improvement would require coordination with Caltrans and would require widening of the intersection. Design issues, such as horizontal curve alignment and encroachment into the drainage culvert, would need to be addressed with the Widening: or, 2. Install an exclusive eastbound right - turn lane pocket which would reduce the delay to 51.3 seconds (LOS D). However, this alternative improvement would also encroach into the drainage culvert and impact the adjacent bicycle lane and sidewalk. T-4(a) Coordinate with Caltrans to includethe pedestrian crossing The applicant shall coordinate Prior to occupancy Once. SLOPWD, Caltrans movement with the northbound off -ramp with Caltrans to clearance, phase in addition to the protected north- provide the compliance shall south pedestrianiphase during the required be monitored by eastboundileft-tum movement at the US pedestrian SLOPWD, in 101/Madonna Road Northbound Ramps crossing consultation with In order to improve operations for improvements. Caltrans. vehicles. This would require pedestrians to cross during the northbound off -ramp phase when pedestrian movement would not be protected (i.e., right -turning vehicles from the off -ramp would,have to yield to pedestrians). However, this modification Key: 1 SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department Caltrans— California Department of Transportation SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game APCD — Air Pollution Control District uny or ban Luis uofspo o 58 Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development' Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring.and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments may include more pedestrian crossing time than is currently given to pedestrians. This phasing modification would result in LOS D operations (37 seconds of delay). T-5(a) To mitigate impacts at the LOVR The applicant Prior to final map Once. SLOPWD, southbound on -ramp to US 101, the shall provide recordation, Caltrans project applicant will ipay Transportation funding for the compliance shall Impact Fees (TIF), some of which will be required be monitored by applied to reconstruction. of the,LOVR improvements to SLOPWD, in interchange. The city will incorporate, the LOVR consultation with via the City's TIF program, for the southbound on- Caltrans. lengthening of the merging area for a ramp to US 101. total distance of.700 feet.(measured from4he gore point (i.e., the point where the right edge of the,freeway shoulder and left edge of the merge lane meet) to the end of the merge area] in the ongoing rdesign, of the interchange. T-6(a) To mitigate significant impacts to Th&applicant Prior to Once. SLOPWD the Madonna Road/Dalidio:Drive shall construct the occupancy intersection resulting in LOS D operation required clearance. (delay 32 seconds/vehicie), the project . improvements4o shall construct the following the Madonna improvement in addition to Mitigation Road/Dalidio Measures T-1(b) and T-3(a): Drive intersection Add asecond westbound1eR-tum lane on Madonna Road. T-7(a) To mitigate significant impacts The applicant Prior to:final map Once. I SLOPWD, to the ramp junctions on southbound shall provide record Caltrans Key: 1 F SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development. Department SLOFD- San Luis Obispo Fire Department Caltrans— California Department of Transportation SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board DTSC - Department of Toxic Substances Control SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game APCD — Air Pollution Control District 59 City of San Luis Obispo DalidiolSen Lulsl Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Conditionlof Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoringto Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments U.S. 101, the project.shall contribute its funding for the compliance shall fair share, as determined by the City, to required be monitored by the construction of.a southbound improvements. SLOPWD, in auxiliary lane between Prado Road and consultation with LOVR. Caltrans. T-7(b) To mitigate significant impacts to The applicant Prior to final map Once. SLOPWD, the northbound off -ramp from US 101 to shall provide recordation, Caltrans LOVR, the project willipay fair share funding for the compliance shall traffic mitigation fees to the City, some required be monitored by of which will be applied to,the improvements to SLOPWD, in reconstruction of the LOVR interchange, the LOVR consultation with including the lengthening of the interchange. Caltrans. deceleration area to City -and Caltrans standards in the on -going design of the Interchange. T-g(a) To mitigate significant'impacts to The applicant Prior to Once. SLOPWD pedestrian and bicycle safety and shall construct the occupancy facilities, the,project should Implement required clearance. the following measures: improvements bicycle and • Construct sidewalks along.the pedestrian project's frontage on Madonna Road facilities. to close existing gaps; • Provide public pedestrian access to the proposed open space areas and trail easement along the Laguna Lake Park Extension southwest of the project site. T-10(a) To mitigate potential transit The applicant Prior to Once. SLOPWD, SLO impacts, the project shall construct shall construct the occupancy Transit appropriate transit stops, including required clearance. Key: SLOCDD - San Lub Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - Sin Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD - Ban Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG— California Department or Fish and Game 60 Caltrans— CaiiforniaDepartmentofTransportation DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San uls Obispo n Dalldio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and, Development Project El Mitigation Monitoring•and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments turnouts;in and around the project site. improvements to Potential locations for transit stops transit facilities. include the: intersection of Madonna/Dalidio, Prado Road at the main project driveway and an internal project transit stop. Locations for the shelters/turnouts shall be developed;in consultation with SLO Transit and City of San Luis Obispo staff. Potential locations include northbound i Madonna Road adjacent to the multi -family residential parcel, both sides of Dalidio Drive near the planned signalized intersections serving the site, the intersection of Madonna/Dalidio and an internal [project transit stop. T-12(a)'The proposed project shall fund The applicant Prior to final map Once. SLOPWD a monitoring studyW the segment of shall provide recordation, Oceanaire Drive between Madonna funding for the compliance shall Road and LOVR to assess the effect of required be monitored by traffic from the retail portion of the monitoring study SLOPWD. proposed project. The study,shall and associated monitor both traffic volumes and travel traffic calming speeds using traffic.counts:and/or measures. origin -destination surveys,to determine if traffic -is diverting to Oceanaire Drive from;the adjacent arterial streets. Surveys should be conducted Just, prior to the issuance of occupancy:! permits ,and after one year of full project occupancy. If the surveys show evidence of an increase in volume (with the threshold to -be determined by the Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and'Game st Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San LUJSr Obispo C) 3 CD 0 r- 0 Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation! Monitoring iand Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments City), the project should pay for appropriate mitigation measures. To mitigate potentially significant impacts of excessive speed, traffic calming measures such as curb extensions, traffic circles, speed humps, raised crosswalks or intersections, or street narrowing could be installed. Horizontal displacement measures;should be favored over vertical displacement measuresdo minimize impacts to emergency vehicles, and all measures would have to be acceptable to the City's.Public Works. Department. More drastic measures such as.diverters and street closures could be implemented if the volume of cut -through traffic becomes excessive. Implementation of traffic calming measures should only occur after a comprehensive neighborhood participation process. The City's NTM Guidelines details the process for citizen participation and development of neighborhood traffic improvements. T-73(a) Install traffic signals at The applicant Prior to Once. SLOPWD intersections A and C which provide full shall construct the occupancy access including signal interconnect and required traffic clearance. communications from Madonna Road to signals and Higuera Street, and install raised associated medians at the intersections B and D to improvements. restrict turning movements at those locations to right turns in and out. No Key: SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD- Sao Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game 62 Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC— Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo n Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments left-tumdn access should be permitted at intersections B and D. Provide an additional exit lane and a second westbound,left-turn lane on Dalidio Drive at intersection C. Required lane configurations at each 1 intersection are illustrated on Figure 4-10-22. All traffic signals on Dalidio Drive should be interconnected between Madonna Road and the U.S. 101 northbound ramps. T-13(b) Coordinate With the SLO The applicant Prior to Once. SLOPWD Promenade to realign the'north shall coordinate occupancy approach of intersection A to provide with the SLO clearance, signalized ingress and egress and to Promenade to compliance shall provide a more direct travel path across realign.the north be monitored by Dalidio.Drive. Obtain reciprocal access approach of SLOPWD. agreements for use of,parking drive intersection A and aisles. obtain, reciprocal access agreements. T-13(c) Coordinate with the Post Office The applicant Prior to Once. SLOPWD to reverse vehicle flow through its lot shall coordinate occupancy (i.e., require vehicles to enter at the east with the post office clearance, end of the property and exit at the west to revise post compliance shall end). In addition, delivery vehicles must office access. be monitored by be required to use the same driveways SLOPWD. as customers, or provide a new connection through the project office property or construct a new driveway over the adjacent drainage channel to intersect with the collector street at least 250 feet south of Dalidio Drive. Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 1 SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District SLOFD - San Luis ObispoTire Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board CDFG— California Department of Fish and Game Caltrans — California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD — Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo 63 Sri Dalidio/Sen Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting! Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required When Monitoring to Occur Monitoring Frequency Responsible Agency or Party Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments In addition to the measures listed above, The applicant Prior to Once. SLOPWD the project will modify its,proposed site shall preserve the occupancy plan and construct one of the following required right -of- clearance. improvements in order to mitigate way or implement impacts,to Dalidio Drive under buildout Mitigation conditions: Measure T-13(e). T-13(d) To mitigate long-term (Buildout Plus Project) impacts, the applicant shall preserve right-of-way to construct Dalidio Drive from the U.S. 101 southbound ramp intersection to Madonna Road as a five- to six —lane Parkway Arterial including appropriate building setbacks pursuant to City code. The third westbound travel lane should begin at the southbound ramps intersection, and terminate into the westboundiright-turn lane at the Dalidio Drive/CollectorStreet.intersection. The third eastbound through lane should begin immediately east of the signalized main driveway (intersection C) and extend to the southbound ramps intersection. The cross-section should contain 12-foot wide travel lanes, 10- foot minimum width left turn bays, and a 6-foot wide Class II bike lane in each direction separatediby a raised median. Ornboth,sides of the street, a 6-foot wide sidewalk separated from the traveled -way by an 8-foot wide landscaped parkway should also be provided. Initial roadway improvements SLOCDD - San Lots Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - Son Luis Obispo County. Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game 64 Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo, F, Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments should.be constructed with sidewalks curb and gutter in their ultimate location, with a wider than necessary landscaped median where future widening,for the additional lanes will take place; or, T-13(e) To mitigate long-term,(Buildout The applicant Prior to Once. SLOPWD Plus Project)iimpacts, the applicantshall shall redesign the occupancy redesign the project site so that the new site or implement clearance. collector street will access-Dalidio Drive Mitigation at the main signalized project driveway Measure T-13(d). (C) and construct Dalidio Drive.as a five - to six --lane Parkway Arterial including appropriate building setbacks pursuant to City code from the U.S. 101 southbound ramp intersection to Driveway C. Construct a raisedfnedian island at the existing i Promenade Center private road/driveway so as to preclude left turns out (to eastbound Dalidio)ibut still maintain left turns onto the private road from Dalidio Drive. This realignment is illustrated.on Figure 4.10- 23. T-14(a) Construct the rproposed The applicant Prior to Once. SLOPWD collector street from,Dalidio Drive to the shall construct the occupancy south edge of the property as a two-lane required collector clearance. roadway with sidewalks. Preserve right- street and provide of -way and setbacks on -site to funding for accommodate a three -lane roadway associated. with a center two-way left -turn lane, sidewalks andbicycle lanes in both directions.from.the south edge of the Key: 101 SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB — Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG— California Department of Fish and Game 65 Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo D n 3 ro Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and!Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments property to LOVR. The project will be responsible for bonding or providing another appropriate• security for roadway improvements not constructed as part of initial project development. T-16(a) The office portion of the site Design the office Prior to Once. SLOPWD should be designed to provide at least portion of the occupancy two vehicular access driveway on the project to provide clearance. proposed collector street and/or at least two Madonna Road. Additional driveways vehicular access could be.gated with keys provided to fire driveways on the department staff for emergency use proposed only. collector street and/or Madonna Road. LAND USE LU-1(a) Pedestrian Access to Identify Prior to Once. SLOPWD Commercial Center. All commercial pedestrian occupancy buildings that abut a public street should circulation and clearance. have an entrance onto the:street or improvements on provide a continuous sidewalk from the project access street to the main entrance of the plans. Upon building. The project shall -provide SLOPWD review explicit and clear pedestrian of pedestrian connections from its commercial retail plans, implement component to the commercial retail required development immediately north across pedestrian the Prado Road extension, with safe improvements. and visually prominent street crossings in accordance with the City's Policy on Pedestrian Crosswalks, adopted January 2000. Key: SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD- San Luis Obispo Fire Department Celtrans— California Department of Transportation SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game APCD — Air Pollution Control District 66 uny of Jan LUIS VDISPO s N Q- P Dalldio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition,of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments LU-2(a) Avigatiomeasements, which The avigation SLOCDD staff Once. SLOCDD provide Important disclosure information ; easement and shall review the to prospective buyers and lessees, shall disclosure shall disclosure be required. Easements shall be in the be provided by statement at the form approved by the County of San the property time of project Luis Obispo, (per Part _150, Airport transferor to completion. Compatibility Planning, of the Federal prospective Aviation Regulations) which stipulates property owners that commerciatand office property on or lessees upon the.site wouldibe exposed to aircraft the transferrof noise; andiprovides legal protection to real property or the airport, City and County against rental agreements noise lawsuits. These easements shall on the project also grant the airport the right to site. maintain the safety of airspace, including the, right to clear any obstructions into that airspace. LU-2(b) In accordance with state law, The disclosure SLOCDD staff Once. SLOCDD the seller or lessor of property within the shall be provided shall review the project site shall disclose to potential by the property disclosure buyers or lessees that aircraft overflights transferor to statement at the occur, and that such flights may result in prospective time of project periodic increases in noise levels within property owners completion. the area. or lessees upon the transfer of real property or rental agreements on the project site. LU-2(c) Buildings withirrdhe project Building design SLOCDD staff Once. SLOCDD area shall incorporate non -reflective materials shall be shalPreview I roofing material and roof -mounted submitted for building materials Key: SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD- San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - Son Luis Obispo County. Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game 67 Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD — Air Pollution Control District City of SamLuis Obispo Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments equipment in,order to minimize glare SLOCDD review: prior to issuance impacts to passing aircraft. of building permits. LU-3(a) All real property transactions The applicant SLOCDD staff Once. SLOCDD shall comply with the property shall provide to shall review acquisition and relocation standards of SLOCDD compensation the State of California, the Caltrans evidence of prior to Relocation Assistance Program, and the compensation of displacement. federal Uniform Relocation Assistance affected and RealiProperty Acquisition i Policies businesses. Act of 1970, as.amended. Property owners shall be.compensated in accordance with fair market values based on appraisals. Business owners shall be compensated based on an assessment of the value of the business and any loss of goodwill: All efforts shall be made to identify relocation opportunities for affected businesses that would reduce,the loss of goodwill and historic patronage. Wherever feasible, assistance shall be made available,in identifying suitable relocation sites within the service area of existing businesses. LU-4(a) Provisions for future access to The applicant Prior to issuance Review plans SLOPWD undeveloped parcels located at the shall design the of grading permits once. Site northeastern quadrant of the interchange and for the inspect as interchange (APN 053-04-034) shall be associated interchange. necessary incorporated into the design of the improvements to during interchange and associated maintain future construction. improvements. access. Key: SLOCDD- San Lulu Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department Caltrans— California Department of Transportation SLOPWD- Son Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— RegionalUater Quality Control,Board DISC— Department of Toxic Substances Control SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game APCD — Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo W 3 CD n 68 y' nIk Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments LU-4(b) Prior to the initiation of The applicant Prior to issuance Review SLOPWD construction of the proposed shall provide a of grading permits program interchange and associated public for the once. Site improvements, the applicant shall outreach/commun interchange. inspect as coordinate with the City to establish a ity liaison necessary public outreach/community liaison program to during program to provide a point of contact provide a point of construction. with businesses that will be affected by contact with construction. The program shall businesses that maintain a hotline to take messages and will be affected by to provide updates in construction construction. scheduling and road closures, detours, and alternative access points. LU-4(c) As feasible and appropriate, The project Prior to issuance Review SLOPWD temporary signage-shall be installed by applicant shall of;grading signage the project applicant in consultation with install temporary permits. once. Site the City Public Works Department signage. inspect as notifying the public of road closures or necessary detours and the expected duration of the during closure. construction. LU-4(d) The applicant shall minimize The applicant During As necessary SLOPWD temporary disruptions of access to shall coordinate construction. during businesses in the area of the proposed construction to construction. interchange and associated provide,altemate improvements by coordinating access poinWand construction to provide alternate access ensuredhat all points and by ensuring that all businesses have businesses have at least one open at least one open driveway during construction. driveway during construction. Key: SLOCDD - San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department Caltrans— California Department of Transportation SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game APCD— Alr.Pollutlon Control District 69 City of San Luis Obispo D w n Zr 3 (D P Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting. Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required When Monitoring to Occur Monitoring Frequency . Responsible Agency or Party Compliance Verification Initial Date Comments LU-4(e) Provisions for emergency The applicant Review,plan prior Review plan SLOPWD, access to the area located;south of San shall prepare a to issuance of once. Site SLOFD Luis Obispo Creek along Elks Lane shall Construction grading permits. inspect as be made by the project applicant Period Emergency Site inspect as necessary throughout the construction pedod!and Access Plan and necessary during during following completion of construction. provide construction. construction. Plans for interim•access shall be emergency provided by the applicant to the City of access to the San Luis Obispo Fire, Police, and Public area located Works Departments. Prior to.the south of San Luis initiation of construction, the,applicant Obispo Creek shall coordinate with the California along Elks Lane Highway Patrol, San Luis Obispo City PoliceDepartment, San Luis Obispo City. Fire Department, San Luis -Obispo City Public Works Department, County Sheriffs Department, County Fire Districts, and local public and private ambulance and paramedic providers -in the area!to prepare a Construction Period Emergency Access Plan. The Emergency Access Plan shall identify phases of the project and construction scheduling, and shall identify appropriate alternative emergency access routes. During construction, the applicant shall review and update the Emergency Access Plan7as necessary based on the work scheduling. The public outreach program shallibe responsible for notifying emergency services of any changes in emergency access and providing details regarding alternative access routes. In addition; Key: 61 SLOCDD- San Luis Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB— Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG — California Department of Fish and Game 70 Caltrans— California Department of Transportation DTSC — Department of Toxic Substances Control' APCD— Air Pollution Control District City of San Luis Obispo D to 0 3 CD i7 Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or Occur Party Initial Date Comments the Emergency Access Plan shall specify alternative access routes in the event of flooding to this area during and following construction. Key: SLOCDD - San Lute Obispo Community Development Department SLOFD - San Luis Obispo Fire Department SLOPWD - San Luis Obispo Public Works Department RWQCB- Regional Water Quality Control Board SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CDFG - California Department of Fish and Game 71 0 n Caltrans- California Department of Transportation -� DISC- Department of Toxic Substances Control APCD - Air Pollution Control District fi) J Gary of San LIDS VDISf10 `-E J f i Attachment H RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REQUESTING THAT THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION APPROVE THE DALIDIO/SAN LUIS MARKETPLACE ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT 2005 DALIDIO DRIVE (ER, ANNX, GPA, R. U. PD108-02) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on May 26, 2004, and the City Council on July 6, 2004, have held public hearings on the proposed Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council on July 6, 2004, by Resolution No. (2004 Series), certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed annexation, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15090; and WHEREAS, the Council has approved the amendment of the Land Use Element Map for the annexation known as the Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation by designating: 48.7 acres of the property to General Retail; 8.1 acres as Office; 3.3 acres as Medium -High Density Residential; 54.7 acres as Open Space; with the remainder 16.2 acres allocated toward roads and interchange right-of-way, as shown on the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Council has approved the amendment of the Zoning Map for the annexation known as the Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation by prezoning: 48.7 acres of the property to C-R-PD, Retail -Commercial with the Planned Development overlay zoning; 8.1 acres as O-S, Office with the Special Consideration overlay zoning; 3.3 acres as R-3-S, Medium -High Density Residential with the Special Consideration overlay zoning; 45 acres as AG, Agriculture; 9.7 acres as C/OS-40, Conservation/Open Space with a 40-acre minimum parcel size; with the Resolution No. (2004 Series) Attachment H Page 2 remainder 16.2 acres allocated toward roads and interchange right-of-way, to be consistent with the amended LUE map designations already described and as shown on the attached Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, City Council approval is a prerequisite for the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission to initiate formal annexation proceedings; WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is uninhabited, and a description of the boundaries of the territory is set forth in Section 2; and WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence of the affected city. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the San Luis Obispo City Council as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The annexation is appropriate since it is within the City's Urban Reserve Boundary, and the site is contiguous to the City. 2. The annexation of the site is a logical addition to the City due to its location in relation to existing urban development. 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment to modify the Land Use Element Map anticipates land use designations for the site which are consistent with project plans and proposed zoning categories. 4. The annexation will enable the City to achieve its General Plan goals, including: a). Consistency with LUE Policy LU 3.1.2 through the development of a regional -serving shopping center in the area around the intersection of Highway 101 and Madonna Road. b). Consistency with LUE Policy LU 8.8 & Open Space Policy OS 0.2.1 (A) by preserving significant parts of the Dalidio property as a signature working agricultural landscape at the southern gateway to the City c). Consistency with Circulation Element policies (8.10 & 8.15) by creating a new highway interchange at Prado Road and improving Citywide circulation by having another east -west arterial street that crosses Highway 101. Resolution No. (2004 Series) Attachment H Page 3 SECTION 2. Annexation Area Described. The annexation consists of approximately 131 acres of the Dalidio property, bounded on its east side by Highway US 101, and located immediately southwest of the SLO Promenade, in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, Assessor's Parcel Number 067-121-022, as shown on the attached map, Exhibit C, and legally described in the attached Exhibit D. SECTION 3.'Council Recommendation. The City Council recommends that the Local Agency Formation Commission of San Luis Obispo County approve the proposed annexation subject to property owner compliance with city requirements regarding environmental mitigation and public improvements as described in the project's EIR, in accordance with California Government Code Section 56844 et SeMc . SECTION 4. Implementation. The City Clerk shall forward a copy of this resolution, general plan resolution and prezoning ordinance, Final EIR, and all pertinent supporting documents to the Local Agency Formation Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, this Resolution of Application is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo. 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 , 2004. 1 -1':t 3 Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 4 ATTEST: Acting City Clerk Diane Reynolds APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jonathan.P. Lowell L:\Dandio\CC Annex Res. (108-02) Attachment. H Mayor Dave Romero ROAD RIG (74 0 500 1000 1 INCH = 500 FEET EXHIBIT A: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT MAP 111:1ci 4 N 1C ® GENERAL RETAIL ® OFFICE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE ® MEDIUM • HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ® ROAD RIGHT OF WAY SOURCE: CANNON ASSOCIATES, JUNE 29, 2004 ;l.TT_ -IftKel LEGEND EXHIBIT B PREZONING ® C-R-PD, RETAIL -COMMERCIAL WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ® O-S, OFFICE WITH SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OVERLAY ©. CIOS-40, CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE, WITH A 40 - ACRE MINIMUM PARCEL SRE AG, AGRICULTURAL AL ®RSS, MEDIUM - HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH THE SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OVERLAY (74 ® ROAD RIGHT OF WAY 0 500 1000 -- - — — - — - SOURCE: CANNON ASSOCIATES, JUNE 28, 2004 1 INCH = 500 FEET I !(31,,, u 11116729E1RiRi Exhibit D DALIDIO/SAN LUIS MARKETPLACE ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in the Unincorporated area of San Luis Obispo said County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, described as follows: Parcel 1: That portion of Lot 64 of the Subdivisions of the Ranchos Canada de Los Osos and La Laguna, in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map filed for record in Book A, Page 83 and 84 of Maps, In the office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast comer of said Lot 64; thence North 55 1/20 West, 10.10 chains to post marked M. R. No. 3; thence South 41°24' West, 19.96 chains to post marked M. R. No. 4; thence South 55 1/20 East, 15.25 chains to the Southeast comer of said Lot 64; thence North 26 1/20. East, 20.00 chains to the point of beginning. 'E)CCEPTING therefrom that portion conveyed to the State of California by deed dated October 15, 1947 and recorded December 18, 1947 In Book 464, Page 87 of Official Records. PARCEL 2: That portion of Lot 65 of the Subdivisions of the Ranchos Canada de Los Osos and La Laguna, in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map filed for record in Book A, Page 83 and 84 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast comer of said Lot 65; thence North 55 1/20 West, 12.19 chains; thence South 50 1/2° West, 19.42 chains to a point in the line of fence; thence along said fence South 55 1/20 East, 20.15 chains to post on the Southeast line of said Lot; thence Northerly 18.90 chains to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING therefrom that portion conveyed to the State of California by deed dated October 15, 7 947 and recorded December 18, 1947 In Book 464, Page 87 of Official Records. PARCEL 3. All of Lot "I(" of the ResubdivWon of Lots 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, and 65 as per J. T. Stratton's Survey and map of the Subdivisions of the Ranchos Canada de Los Osos and La Laguna, Id the County of San Luis Obispo, State of Califomla, according to map filed for record January 30, 1875 1n Book A, Page 161 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. EXCEPTING therefrom that portion conveyed to United States PostalService by deed dated August 5, 1980 and recorded September's, 1980 In Book 2266, Page 904 through 906 of Official Records as subsequently corrected by a Grant Deed dated May 7, 1981 and recorded June 10, 1981.in Book 2332, Page 318 through 326 of Official Records. PARCEL 4: That portion of Lots L, M and N of the Resubdivislons of Lots 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, and 65 as per J. T. Stratton's Survey and Map of the Subdivisions of the Ranchos Canada de Los Osos and La Laguna, in the County of San LUIS Obispo, State of California, according to map filed for record January 30, 1875 in Book A, Page 161 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: Beginning at stake marked "N.N." at the most Southerly corner of said Lot "L" thence South 55 1/2" East along the Northeasterly line of said Lot "M", 3.06 chains to the most Easterly corner of said Lot "M", thence South 50 1/20 West along the Southeasterly fine of said Lots "M" and "N", 19.44 chains to the Southerly corner of said Lot "N"; thence North 551/20 West along the Southwesterly line of said Lot "N", 11.12 chains to post marked "A.E" at the Easterly comer of Lot "0" of said subdivisions; thence North 370 West along the Northeast line of said Lot "0", 1.Q chains to the center of Foreman Creek and the most Southerly corner of the lands of Rosa Machado; thence along the center of said creek and along the Easterly line of the lands of Rosa Machado on the following courses and distances: North 181/40 East,1.17 chains; North 61/4" West,.2.62 chains; North 13 3/4" East, 2.50 chains; North 18 1/20 East, 2.50 chains; North 13" East, 2.50 chains, North 31/20 East, 2.25 chains, North 180 East, 4 chains to the top of the bank as the Easterly side of.a ditch carrying the water out of the Laguna Into Foreman Creek; thence along the Easterly bank of said ditch and the Easterly Line of the lands of said Rosa Machado, North 1114* East, 2.25 chains; North 21 1/20 West, 2.79 chains; North 9" West, 4.21 chains to the Southerly One of the Los Osos Road; thence North 621/2" East, along the Southerly line of the said Road 9.83 chains to a stake, marked "M.M." at the most Northerly comer of said Lot "L'; thence South 46" East along the lines between Lots "K" and "L" of said subdivision; 24.72 chains to post marked "A.L." at the most Easterly corner of said Lot "L"; thence South 413/40 West along the Southeasterly line of said Lot "L", 8.90 chains to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING from said Parcel 4 that portion thereof conveyed to Ray C. Skinner, et ux., by deed dated January 12, 1960 and recorded January 29,1960 in Book 1045, Page 234 of Official Records. ALSO EXCEPTING from said Parcel 4 that portion described in the Final Judgment of Condemnation recorded June 26,1975 in Book 1840, Page 217 of Official Records. Said portion is more particularly described as follows: A portion of Lots M and N of. the R. R. Harris Resubdivision of Lots 58 and 61 of the Ranchos Canada de Los Osos and La Laguna as filed in Book A, Page 161 of Maps, In the office of the Recorder of the County. of San Luis Obispo, California, described as follows: Beginning at the most Northerly point of Tract 169, as recorded in Book 6, Page 45 of Maps as filed in the office of the Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo, California, said point being on the Southerly fine of Madonna Road; thence along said Southerly line of Madonna Road which bears North 62030' East a distance of 54.90 feet; thence South 5048'47" East a distance of 246.80 feet; thence South 19057'37" East a distance of 24439 feet; thence South 002653" West a distance of 182.46 feet thence South 20033'06" West a distance of 235.26 feet; thence South 3656'57' West a distance of 252.36 feet; thence South 14021'20" West a distance of 373.89 feet; thence South 1000'32" East, a distance of 322.13 feet; thence North 5503V West a distance of 63.90 feet; thence along the Easterly line of Tract 169 to the true point of beginning through the following courses: North 702516" East, a distance of 116.08 feet; thence North 1000'32" West, a distance of 154.16 feet; thence North 9039'39" East, a distance of 1A27 feet; thence North 14"21'20" East, a distance of 20.10 feet; thence North 30SV57" East, a distance of 228.68 few thence North 11"14'33' East, a distance of 101.44 feet; thence North 1604213' East, a distance ol107.16 feet; thence North 0026'S3' East, a distance of 100.02 feet; thence North 19057137" West, a distance of 215.04 feet; thence North V48'4' West, a distance of 201.68 feet; thence North 14039'55" West, a distance of 71.55 feet to the point of beginning. I- c9g Attachment I RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT AND AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP BY DESIGNATING 48.7 ACRES OF THE PROPERTY AS GENERAL RETAIL, 8.1 ACRES AS OFFICE, 3.3 ACRES AS MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 54.7 ACRES AS OPEN SPACE, WITH THE REMAINDER 16.2 ACRES ALLOCATED TOWARD ROADS AND INTERCHANGE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONSIDERATION OF THE DALIDIO/SAN LUIS MARKETPLACE ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT 2005 DALIDIO DRIVE (GPA 108-02) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 26, 2004, and considered the proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) Map; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2004, the Planning Commission denied the application; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Municipal Code Section 17.80.060 D., a Planning Commission action to deny a General Plan Amendment is final unless appealed and WHEREAS, on June 7, 2004, the applicant filed with the City Clerk a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 6, 2004, and considered testimony of other interested parties, the record of the Planning Commission hearing and action, the submitted appeal of the applicant, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has certified the Final Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15090, and has City Council Resolution No. (2004 Series) Attachment I Page 2 determined that 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 Council of the'City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. EIR Findings. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Final Environmental Impact Report adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed Use Permit, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council through the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report incorporates the mitigation measures listed in Exhibit A into the project (see Exhibit A of Attachment G — Mitigation Monitoring Program). SECTION 2. General Plan Amendment Approval &.Findings. The appeal is upheld, and the General Plan Amendment included as part of City Application No. GPA 108-02, which amends the Land Use Element Map for the annexation known as the Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation by designating: 48.7 acres of the property to General Retail; 8.1 acres as Office; 3.3 acres as Medium -High Density Residential; 54.7 acres as Open Space; with the remainder 16.2. acres allocated toward roads and interchange right-of-way, as shown on the attached Exhibit A, is hereby approved, based on the following findings: The proposed General Retail Land Use Element Map designation for the 48.7-acre portion of the site planned for the shopping center development known as "The Marketplace" is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, given that the current Land Use Map shows 40 acres of General Retail on the site, and the City Council has provided direction on key points to be included in a Development Agreement, based on preliminary plans consistent with the current project proposal. 2. The required Preliminary Development Plan for development of the commercial area of the site fulfills the intention of LUE Policy 1.13.3, Required Plans, which calls for the master planning of proposed annexation areas so that the City has an adopted plan showing the project layout, physical development plan, required open space protection, and provision of streets and utilities. 3. With the proposal for General Retail development of 48.7 acres of the site, 78.7 acres of on -site and off -site open space will be dedicated to the City for long-term protection of prime agricultural soils consistent with Land Use Element Policy 1.13.5. 4. The proposed Office Land Use Element Map designation for the 8.1-acre portion of the site planned for the business park is consistent with the goals and policies of the General [,�,_D i City Council Resolution No. (2004 Series) Attachment I Page 3 Plan, given that the area of the site is currently designated as Medium -High Density Residential and airport safety issues prevent it from being developed for residential purposes. The proposed Office land use is an appropriate transition between the more intensive retail development along Madonna Road and the residential neighborhoods to the south and west. 5. The proposed Medium -High Density Residential Land Use Element Map designation for the 3.3-acre portion of the site planned for affordable housing is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, given that the area of the site is outside of the airport safety zone of most severe concern crossing the site and beyond the 55-decibel noise contour, which are the criteria that the Airport Land Use Commission has identified in its preliminary review of the proposal as being acceptable for residential development. 6. The proposed Open Space Land Use Element Map designation, for both the 45 acres of farmland in the eastern and southern portions of the property and the 9.7 acre portion of the property identified as an extension of Laguna Lake Park, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan regarding preservation of sensitive habitat and prime agricultural soils. SECTION 4. Adoption. 1. The Land Use Element Map is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit B. 2. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in documents, which are on display in City Hall and are available for public viewing and use. On motion of the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: seconded by the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of and on 2004. City Council Resolution No. Page 4 ATTEST`. Acting City Clerk Diane Reynolds APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jonathan P. Lowell LADalidio\CCGPA Res. (108-02)June 28 (2004 Series) Attachment I Mayor Dave Romero f-203 T�VI C4L rIIf iu 11 J.- Exhibit B ROAD RIG (74 0 500 1000 1 INCH = 500 FEET GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT MAP LEGEND GENERAL RETAIL M OFFICE KA OPEN SPACE. OPEN SPACE ® MEDIUM- NIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ® ROAD RIGHT OF WAY SOURCE: CANNON ASSOCIATES, JUNE 28, 20" QV 1 Attachment J ORDINANCE NO. (2004 SERIES) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED PREZONING TO ACCOMMODATE THE DALIDIO/MARKETPLACE ANNEXATION AND AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP TO DESIGNATE: 48.7 ACRES AS C-R-PD, RETAIL -COMMERCIAL WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (AND APPROVING A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RETAIL PROJECT KNOWN AS THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MARKETPLACE); 8.1 ACRES AS O-S, OFFICE WITH THE SPECIAL CONIDERATION OVERLAY; 3.3 ACRES AS R-3-11, MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH THE SPECIAL CONIDERATION OVERLAY; 45 ACRES AS AG, AGRICULTURE; 9.7 ACRES AS C/OS-40, CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE WITH A 40-ACRE MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE; AND 16.2 ACRES SET ASIDE FOR ROADS AND INTERCHANGE RIGHT-OF- WAY, CONTINGENT UPON FINAL APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION OF THE SITE AT 2005 DALIDIO DR. (R 108-02) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 26, 2004, and considered the proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations Map; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2004, the Planning Commission denied the application; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Municipal Code Section 17.70.030 D., a Planning Commission action to deny a rezoning is final unless appealed; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 2004, the applicant filed with the City Clerk a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 6, 2004, and considered testimony of other interested parties, the record of the Planning Commission hearing and action, the submitted appeal of the applicant, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff-, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Zoning Regulations Map amendments are consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map designations and the existing text, and the City Council further finds that the Zoning Regulations Map amendments are consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has certified the Final Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15090. BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: 1 - go!�, Ordinance No. (�,.,v4 Series) Attachment J Page 2 SECTION 1. EIR Findings. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Final Environmental Impact Report adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed Zoning Map amendments, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council through the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report incorporates the mitigation measures listed in Exhibit A into the project (see Exhibit A of Attachment G — Mitigation Monitoring Program). SECTION 2. Prezoning Approval & Findings. The appeal is upheld and the Zoning map amendments included as part of City Application No. R 108-02, prezoning: 48.7 acres of the property to C-R-PD, Retail -Commercial with the Planned Development overlay zoning; 8.1 acres as O-S, Office with the Special Consideration overlay zoning; 3.3 acres as R-3-S, Medium -High Density Residential with the Special Consideration overlay zoning; 45 acres as AG, Agriculture; 9.7 acres as C/OS-40, Conservation/Open Space with a 40-acre minimum parcel size; with the remainder 16.2 acres allocated toward roads and interchange right-of-way, to be consistent with the amended LUE map designations and as shown on the attached Exhibit B, are hereby approved, based on the following findings: Findings The C-R-PD zoning, Retail -Commercial with the Planned Development overlay, with the related adoption of a Preliminary Development Plan, will address the specific development considerations for this 48.7-acre portion of the site which are: drainage, flooding protection, urban/agricultural buffers, roadway improvements and design, pedestrian linkages with other commercial developments and nearby residential areas, loading area design, compliance with energy conservation requirements, creek and open space protection, site lighting and preservation of scenic vistas. 2. The submitted development information for the entire annexation area and the required Preliminary Development Plan for development of the commercial area of the site fulfills the intention of LUE Policy 1.13.3, Required Plans, which calls for the master planning of proposed annexation areas so that the City has an adopted plan showing the project layout, physical development plan, required open space protection, and provision of streets and utilities. 3. With the proposal for General Retail development of 48.7 acres of the site (C-R- PD zoning), 78.7 acres of on -site and off -site will be dedicated to the City for long-term protection of prime agricultural soils consistent with Land Use Element Policy 1.13.5. 4. The proposed Office with the "S" overlay zoning will document the special considerations for the 8.1-acre Office portion of the site, (O-S) which are: tree preservation; land use compatibility with the adjacent commercial development; f -)-oto i Ordinance No. (.,J4 Series) Attachment J Page 3 pedestrian linkages to adjoining sites; historical preservation; and protection of riparian habitat. 5. The proposed Medium -High Density Residential zoning and Land Use Element Map designation for the 33-acre portion of the site planned for affordable housing is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, given that the area of the site is outside of the airport safety zone of most severe concern crossing the site and beyond the 55-decibel noise contour, which are the criteria that the Airport Land Use Commission has identified in its preliminary review of the proposal as being acceptable for dwellings. The proposed "S" overlay zoning will document the special considerations for the 3.3-acre Medium -High Density Residential portion of the site (R-3-S), which are: airport safety, creek corridor preservation, flooding, and access. 6. The proposed AG, Agriculture, zoning for the 45 acres of farmland in the eastern and southern portions of the property will help preserve the prime agricultural soils and enable its long-term protection. 7. The proposed C/OS-40, Conservation Open Space with the 40-acre minimum for the 9.7 acre portion of the property identified as an extension of Laguna Lake Park is consistent with the zoning category applied to other less developed and more naturalistic areas of the park. SECTION 3. Preliminary Development Plan Approval. Consistent with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 17.62, Planned Development, a Preliminary Development Plan for the 48.7-acre portion of the site prezoned C-R-PD, Retail - Commercial with the Planned Development overlay zoning is hereby approved, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions: Findings The project is consistent with the General Plan and the proposed land use is allowed within the applicable primary zoning district. 2. The project complies with all applicable provisions of these Zoning Regulations other than those modified by the PD rezoning. 3. The approved modifications to the development standards of these Zoning Regulations are necessary and appropriate to accommodate the superior design of the proposed project, its compatibility with adjacent land uses, and its successful mitigation of environmental impacts. 4. The project complies with all applicable City Design Guidelines. Ordinance No. (i 14 Series) Page 4 Attachment J 5. All affected public facilities, services, and utilities are adequate to serve the proposed project. 6. The location, size, site planning, building design features, and operating characteristics of the project are highly suited to the characteristics of the site and surrounding neighborhood, and will be compatible with the character of the site, and the land uses and development intended for the surrounding neighborhood by the General Plan. 7. The site is adequate for the project in terms of size, configuration topography, and other applicable features, and has appropriate access to public streets with adequate capacity to accommodate the quantity and type of traffic expected to be generated by the use. 8. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed project will not, in the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed use, or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. 9. A height exception to allow a 51-foot high building for the hotel is supported because: a.) The building is located along a major arterial roadway. b.) The building is significantly separated from other buildings. c.) The proposed pitch of the roof is important to the Craftsman architectural style of the building. 10. The project meets the requirement for mandatory project features contained in 17.62.045 A. by providing an affordable housing component and preserving 54.7 acres of on -site open space and providing funds to protect an additional 24 acres of off -site farmland of a similar soil type. Conditions Planning Requirements Within six months of approval of the preliminary development plan, the applicant shall file a final development plan, as required by the Zoning Regulations, for consideration by the Community Development Director. The final development plan shall include all items required for final architectural review and final architectural review shall have been conducted prior to the Director's consideration. The final development plan shall be effective only after approval by the Director. Ordinance No. (..oJ4 Series) J Attachment J Page 5 2. The final development plan shall in general conform to the preliminary site plan dated May 4, 2004, and include a maximum of 615,000 square feet or retail and restaurant uses plus a 150-room hotel. When actual tenants are secured and the project is built, there may be some variation in the sizes of proposed buildings from what is shown on current plans, and such minor variation shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. However, the total gross building floor area shall not exceed 615,000 square feet without the processing of a planned Development Amendment to the approval of the Planning Commission. , 3. To ensure consistency with Land Use Element Policy 4.3, which seeks to maintain the downtown as the entertainment center of the community, theater uses are not allowed at the project site. 4. Consistent with the recommendation of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), a height exception, to allow a 51-foot high building where a 45-foot high building is typically allowed, is hereby approved for the proposed hotel. 5. Parking for about 2,743 cars is shown on plans dated May 4, 2004, for the retail and restaurant components and the hotel. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC), in reviewing precise development plans, may need to further reduce the number of parking spaces to provide landscaping, pedestrian pathways or other site amenities. In accordance with ARC direction, accurate parking calculations for all restaurant spaces need to accompany plans for final approval by the ARC and final development plan approval by the Community Development Director. 6. The applicant may utilize up to a 30% shared and mixed -use parking reduction to further reduce the amount of overall parking. 7. Motorcycle parking space consistent with City requirements shall be provided in the project and shown on plans submitted for final review by the ARC. 8. Project plans shall clearly show how bicycle parking will be provided, consistent with Table 6.5 of the Zoning Regulations. Project plans shall be amended to show the location, orientation, type, spacing and clearance from vertical site features of all short- and long-term bicycle parking facilities, consistent with guidance provided by the Community Design Guidelines and the Bicycle Transportation Plan (May 2002). 9. Precise locations of required short-term bicycle spaces in racks near the entries to buildings shall be to the approval of the Public Works Department (Transportation Division) and Community Development Department (Planning) staffs, based on input from the Architectural Review Commission. Bicycle racks shall be of the inverted "U" design consistent with Engineering Standard 7930 or equal as approved by the Public Works Director. NEW Ordinance No. (i _,4 Series) Attachment J Page 6 10. The project shall provide long-term bicycle spaces for all clusters of buildings,. either in a designated storage area in the building or in fully -enclosed lockers, to the approval of the Public Works Department (Transportation Division) and Community Development Department (Planning) staffs, based on input from the Architectural Review Commission. 11. Parking lot lighting shall provide adequate illumination for safety (maximum of 10 footcandles directly below fixtures) and shall be designed to direct light downward to minimize sky glare and horizontal glare. Consistent with review by the ARC, a maximum of 20-foot high light standards shall be used along the perimeter of the project (defined as within 60 feet of site boundaries), and a maximum of 30-foot high light standards may be used for parking lot areas that are more interior to the project. The project shall utilize more pedestrian -scale (defined as about 14 feet in height) light standards along the entry boulevard, and low -scale bollard lighting along pedestrian pathways. 12. Plans submitted for final ARC review shall indicate how walls, fencing, and landscaping will be used to properly screen the loading and outdoor sales areas for the Major J space (Lowe's) in the southwest corner of the project, and the Major K space in the southeast corner of the project near the southbound on -ramp, because of their visibility from the highway. 13. With regard to pedestrian circulation, final plans submitted to the ARC shall: a. Provide enhancement to the central portion of the main pathway that extends from the main Dalidio driveway to Major spaces I & H. b. Strengthen the pedestrian connection between Major spaces K & L. c. Redesign the loading areas for Retail spaces L& M to consolidate them on the east side. d. Provide a west -east pedestrian pathway between the collector street on the west side of the project and Retail space L. 14. When specific tenants are known, a comprehensive sign program, indicating location, size, materials, copy, and lighting of all proposed signs, shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission. Signing shall be compatible throughout the project. 15.In terms of Dalidio Road landscaping treatments, final landscaping plans submitted to the ARC for final review shall include taller tree planting where there is the most dramatic grade differential between the site and the roadway, and utilize berming in more level areas. 16. Instead of the extensive use of diamond -shaped tree wells shown on current plan, parking lot planters, similar to those used in the Costco project that allow for clusters of trees, shall be incorporated into the project. Tree wells may be utilized I^D1D I I I Ordinance No. (2004 Series) Attachment J Page 7 to augment other planters proposed to meet the City's requirement of planter islands after every six parking spaces in a row. Final parking lot plans shall be to the review and approval of the ARC. 17. A landscaped buffer area of 30 feet in width shall be provided along the eastern and southern edges of the project between the parking lots and the adjacent agricultural land. Specific planting proposals shall be to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Consistent with ARC direction, a more naturalistic and tiered approach to the perimeter treatment on the east side of the project shall be provided with wider planters and varied plantings, including the idea of at adding "finger" planting islands on the edge of the parking lot areas to provide for clusters of tree plantings. 18. In conjunction with the widening of Madonna Road, certain tree removals will be necessary. Prior to the removal of any trees, the applicant shall submit adequate information for the City Arborist to evaluate proposed tree removals. This information shall consist of cross -sections, at those locations where plans indicate that the existing street trees cannot be saved, showing existing and finished grades, as well as accurate base elevations and locations of the existing trees. The ARC will review specific tree removal proposals with their review of project development plans. 19. Any applications for subdivisions which may be required as a result of proposed sale or lease of parts of the development shall indicate the relationship of proposed parcels to the total site, access and utility easements, and parking sufficient for the uses on individual parcels. At the time of filing any required map, the applicant shall provide a draft reciprocal easement agreement for review and approval by the Community Development Department and the City Attorney. 20. The applicant shall provide funds as directed by the City to protect 24 acres of off -site farmland to fulfill the project's open space requirements. Public Rights -of -Way 21. Complete street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the most current City regulations, City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and Standard Specifications. 22. A public improvement plan, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Director for review and approval. All grades, layout, staking and cut -sheets necessary for the construction of street paving and frontage improvements shall be the responsibility of the developer. 23. Right -of -Way for Dalidio Road and Access Road "A" (from Dalidio Road to the southern property line of the Open Space parcel) shall be dedicated to the City of San Luis Obispo. Access rights along Dalidio Road and Access Road "A", except -at r Ordinance No. -J4 Series) J Attachment J Page 8 at approved driveway locations shown, shall be dedicated to the City. 24. The applicant shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement and a 3m wide street tree easement across all public street frontages. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 25. All proposed private streets shall comply with the City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and pavement design shall be based on a Traffic Index of 6.5. 26. The developer shall install street lighting and all associated facilities (conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, luminaries, etc.) per City standards. 27. No private facilities shall be within the public right-of-way or public pedestrian easement. Water, Sewer & Utilities 28. Final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. The water mains entering the project shall be private if not within the public right-of-way. 29. The developer shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities along the public street frontage(s), to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies. 30. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall be served to each parcel to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and serving utility companies. Utilities to new residences shall be underground. 31. The developer shall provide individual electrical, phone, television, natural gas, water service, and sewer connections to the approval of the affected utility companies and the Public Works Director. 32. The irrigation systems for common areas, parks, detention basins, and other large landscape areas shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards for reclaimed water use. Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be constructed from the City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If reclaimed water is not yet available, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system. Appropriate backflow protection shall be installed with this connection to the satisfaction of the County Cross Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz, who can be reached at 781-5567. l r r Ordinance No. 1. .i4 Series) / ` AttachmentJ Page 9 Grading & Drainage 33. The project shall comply with all hydrologic and hydraulic mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR along with the City's the City's Waterways Management Plan - Drainage Design Manual including but not limited to the following provisions: a) Post construction stormwater runoff rates shall not exceed the predevelopment runoff rates for the 2-, 10- and 100- year, 24=hour storm events. b) All proposed detention basin and drainage improvements, except those within a public street, shall be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and homeowners' association. c) All construction within the 100- year FEMA floodplain shall meet the . following requirements per the Waterways Management Plan: i) There shall be no significant net increase in up -stream or downstream floodwater surface elevations for the 100-year flood at General Plan build -out as a result of changes in floodplain configuration and building construction. A significant threshold of a 64 min (2.5 in) increase in floodwater surface elevations or 0.1 m/s (0.3 Vs) increase in stream velocities shall be used. This shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and based on a final hydraulic analysis pursuant to the Drainage Design Manual. ii) There shall be no significant net decrease in floodplain storage volume as a result of a new development or redevelopment projects. This can be achieved by a Zero -net fill grading plan, balancing all fill placed on the 100-year floodplain with cut taken from other portions of the floodplain within the project area of the application, or with cut exported off site. Specifically, all fill placed in a floodplain shall be balanced with an equal amount of soil material removal (cut) and shall not decrease floodplain storage capacity at any stage of a flood (2, 10, 50, or 100-year event). d) All bridging, culverting and modifications to the existing creek channels must be in compliance with the City's Waterways Management — Drainage Design Manual (specifically regarding clear spanning of creeks, etc.) and be approved by the Public Works Director, Army Corp of Engineers, and Fish & Game. e) Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including tree pruning or removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, the City's Natural Resources �-2�3 Ordinance No. A Series) _ Attachment J Page 10 Manager and the Dept. of Fish & Game. f) All lots shall be graded to preclude cross -lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 34. General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land disturbance of one or more acre. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 35. A copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the SWRCB shall be included in the PIP set. The WDID Number issued by the SWRCB shall be noted on all plans that involve land -disturbing activities. Transportation Related 36. Prado Road Interchange. Prior to issuance of building permits the project shall complete the following: design for the Prado Road Interchange subject to approval of the City Director of Public Works, an approved Encroachment Permit has been received from State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and a construction contract for the Interchange has been awarded pursuant to City and Caltrans' requirements. 37. Infrastructure Improvements. Prior to occupancy the project shall complete necessary infrastructure improvements, as determined in the DEIR, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. At a minimum, these improvements shall consist of: Complete Mitigation Measures; T-1(a), T-1(b). T-1(c), T-3(a), T- 3(b), T-4(a), T-6(a), T-7(a), T-7(b), T-9(a), T-10(a), T-12(a), T-13(a), T-13(b), T- 13(c), T-13(d) or T13(e), T-14(a). 38.Turning Radius. Project plans shall show all truck access routes, turning radii and staging areas for deliveries. 39.Transit Turnout and Shelter. The applicant shall work with the City Transit Manager to establish a transit turnout and shelter. The design of the transit shelter and the design and provision of any ancillary facilities (trash container, night lighting, benches, and signs) shall be consistent with standards contained in the City's Engineering Standards and the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) 40.Signal, Striping and Signage. The developer shall provide a traffic signal, signing and delineation plan showing changes, as a result of this project, including signal interconnect conduit from Madonna Road to the southbound off -ramp Ordinance No. (2004 Series) Attachment J Page 11 signal at the Prado Road interchange, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Said plans shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and shall include the existing and any required traffic signals, signal interconnect, existing street and required street lighting, and the existing roadways fronting this site, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 41. Transportation Impact Fees (TIF). Transportation impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 42. Bob Jones City -to -Sea Bicycle Trail. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way to accommodate the extension of the Bob Jones City -to -Sea Bicycle Trail through the site. The developer may request that the City modify the Bob Jones City -to - Sea Bicycle Trail — Preliminary Alignment Plan Project Description, September 2002, in order to accommodate the bicycle trail easement through the site. The Preliminary Alignment Plan Project Description and the development plans shall be reconciled prior to subdivision map or final development plan approval. SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of the Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram -Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect upon final approval of annexation of the site by the Local Agency Formation Commission. INTRODUCED on the day of , 2004, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of , 2004, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor Dave Romero ATTEST: Acting City Clerk Diane Reynolds Ordinance No. (2- A Series) Attachment J Page 12 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Cit Att ey Jonathan P. Lowell L:\Dalidio 2\CC Prezoning Ord(1). (108-02) June 27 i -akLo \'XHIBIT B: PREZONING ROAD LEGEND ® CR-PO, RETAIL • COMMERCIAL WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY OS, OFFICE WITH SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OVERLAY C/OS-40, CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE, WITH A 40 - ACRE MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE AG, AGRICULTURAL 0�4, RJ-8, MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH THE SPECIALCONSIDERATION OVERLAY ® ROAD RIGHT OF WAY 0 500 1000 SOURCE: CANNON ASSOCIATES, JUNE 28, 2004 1 INCH = 500 FEET Attachment K RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED USE PERMIT TO ALLOW LARGE-SCALE RETAIL STORES AND APPROVING THE USE PERMIT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONSII)ERATION OF THE DALIDIO/SAN LUIS MARKETPLACE ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT 2005 DALIDIO DRIVE (U 108-02) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 26, 2004, and considered the proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) Map; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2004, the Planning Commission denied the applications and WHEREAS, in accordance with Municipal Code Section 17.58.030 B.2., a Planning Commission action to deny a Use Permit is final unless appealed; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 2004, the applicant filed with the City Clerk a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 6, 2004, and considered testimony of other interested parties, the record of the Planning Commission hearing and action, the submitted appeal of the applicant, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed Use Permit is consistent with the City's General Plan as conditioned;. and WHEREAS, the City Council has certified the Final Environmental Impact. Report, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15090. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. EIR Findings. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Final Environmental Impact Report adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed Use Permit, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council through the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report incorporates the i'.rovig City Council Resolution No. (2004 Series) Attachment K Page 2 mitigation measures listed in Exhibit A into the project (see Exhibit A of Attachment G — Mitigation Monitoring Program). SECTION 2. Use Permit Approval & Findings. The appeal is upheld, and the Use Permit included as part of City Application No. U 108-02 for the Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace is hereby approved, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. The EIR adequately addresses the proposed project, and can be used in taking a final action on all aspects of the project, including the use permit. 2. The use of the property for a large-scale, regional -serving shopping center is consistent with the General Plan, which identifies this vicinity as appropriate for such development.' 3. The proposed large-scale retail uses are 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 EIR. 4. The scales of the buildings are compatible with existing uses in the area and maintain the appropriate relationships with surrounding buildings and the adjacent residential area. 5. The proposed large-scale retail uses will serve the community, in whole or in significant part, and the nature of the uses requires a larger size in order to function. The proposed uses have the potential to attract a regional demand, therefore resulting in a potential increase of local restaurant, entertainment and even other retail uses elsewhere in the City. 6. The buildings in which the large-scale retail uses are to be located are designed in discrete -elements that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area. Elevations of the buildings are subject to final architectural review by the City's Architectural Review Commission. 7. The proposed buildings are designed in compliance with the City's Design Guidelines for Large -Scale Retail Projects, subject to final architectural review by the City Architectural Review Commission. Conditions 1. The total area of covered outdoor sales and conditioned interior floor space for Major J shall not exceed 140, 000 square feet. I -,'l9 City Council Resolution No. (2004 Series) J Attachment K Page 3 2. For the large-scale retailers, no more than one automobile parking space for each 2.00 square feet of floor area in the main sales areas shall be provided for in project parking calculations. 3. All mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR shall be included as conditions of approval, and are incorporated herein by reference. 4. The development of The Marketplace component of the project shall be subject to review by the Architectural Review Commission for consistency with the City's Community Design Guidelines for Large -Scale Retail Projects including compliance with the City Sign Regulations. 5. The project applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. On motion of AYES: NOES: ABSENT: , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of , 2004. City Council Resolution No. (2004 Series) Attachment K Page 4 Mayor Dave Romero ATTEST: Acting City Clerk Diane Reynolds APPROVED AS TO FORM: City A or Jonathan P. Lowell I- Dalidio 2kDalidio Use Permit Res. (108-02) June 28 I,- �-3-I Attachment L RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ACCEPTING A NEGOTIATED EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE AND ANNUAL TAX INCREMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FOR THE DALIDIO ANNEXATION AT 2005 DALIDIO DRIVE; SLO COUNTY ANNEXATION #69 (CITY FILE # ANNEX 108-02) WHEREAS, in the case of a jurisdictional change which will alter the service area or responsibility of a local agency, Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b) requires that the amount of property tax revenue to be exchanged, if any, and the amount of annual tax increment to be exchanged among the affected local agencies shall be determined by negotiation; and . WHEREAS, when a city is involved, the negotiations are conducted between the City Council and the Board of Supervisors of the County; and WHEREAS, Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b) requires that each local agency, upon completion of negotiations, adopt resolutions whereby said local agencies agree to accept the negotiated exchange of property tax revenues, if any, and annual tax increment and requires that each local agency transmit a copy of each such resolution to the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission; and WHEREAS, no later than the date on which the certificate of completion of the jurisdictional change is recorded with the. County Recorder, the Executive Officer shall notify the County Auditor of the exchange of property tax revenues by transmitting a copy of said resolution to him and the County Auditor shall therefore make the appropriate adjustments as required by law; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo (City) and the County of San Luis Obispo (County) have previously agreed to a property tax exchange methodology pursuant to Joint Resolution No. 01-96 which provides that in the case of undeveloped property, all of the "base" property tax revenues will be retained by the County, with incremental property tax revenues to be apportioned between the County and City as follows: in the case of land pre -zoned for non- residential uses (such as retail, offices or manufacturing), the County will receive all of the incremental property tax revenues; and in the case of land pre -zoned for residential uses, the County will receive 66% of the incremental property tax revenues it would otherwise have received from the Tax Rate Area, and the City will receive the remaining 34%. WHEREAS, the negotiations have taken place concerning the transfer of property tax revenues and annual tax increment between the County and the City pursuant to Section 99(b) for the jurisdictional change designated as Annexation No. 69 to the City (Dalidio Annexation); and � �- a�D- Resolution No. (2004i ies) Page 2 lachment L WHEREAS, the representatives of the negotiating parties have negotiated the exchange of property tax revenue and annual tax increment between such entities as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest that such negotiated exchange of property tax revenues and annual tax increment be consummated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, as follows: 1. The recitals set forth above are true, correct, and valid. 2., The City agrees to accept the following negotiated exchange of base property tax revenues and annual tax increment: (a) No base property tax revenue shall be transferred from the County to the City. (b) Because the property contains 56.8 acres (94.51%) of developable land to be pre -zoned Commercial/Retail and Business Park and 3.3 acres of developable land (5.49%) to be pre -zoned Residential, a blended rate of 1.87% (5:5% of the 34% normally allowed for property pre -zoned Residential) of the annual property tax increment that would otherwise be allocated to the County shall be transferred from the County of San Luis Obispo to the City of San Luis Obispo. (c) Based on the County's current apportionment from the applicable Tax Rate Area of 37.62108% (before allocations to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund), this results in an apportionment to the City of 0.7023% of the incremental property tax revenues. (d) If development of the open space area of the site is ever pursued, then the County reserves the right to renegotiate with the City regarding a revised formula for the property tax increment. 3. Upon receipt of a certified copy of this resolution and a copy of the recorded certificate of completion, the County Auditor shall make the appropriate adjustments to property tax revenues and annual tax increments asset forth above. 4. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of the resolution to the Executive Officer of the San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission, who shall then distribute copies in the manner prescribed by law. � ��::\2 3 Resolution No. (2004 ,---,.es) Page 3 1 achment L On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on July 6, 2004. ATTEST: Acting City Clerk Diane Reynolds APPROVED AS TO FORM: City kWnCey Jonathan P. Lowell L:Dalidio 2\Rcsolutions\DalidioCCTaxlncrement Res. (108-02) Mayor David F. Romero I ^aG i0 Attachment M RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE DALIDIO/SAN LUIS MARKETPLACE ANNEXATION AND DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ANNEXATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PREZONING, INCLUDING A PRELIMNARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE PERMIT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONSIDERATION OF THE DALIDIO/SAN LUIS MARKETPLACE ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT 2005 DALIDIO DRIVE (U 108-02) WHEREAS, the Planning; Commission conducted a public hearing on May 26, 2004, and considered the Final EIR, Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Prezoning, including Preliminary Development Plan for the retail component known as The Marketplace, and Use Permit to allow large-scale retail uses; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2004, the Planning Commission supported certification of the Final EIR, but recommended that the City Council deny the other project entitlements; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 2004, the applicant filed with the City Clerk a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 6, 2004, and considered testimony of other interested parties, the record of the Planning Commission hearing and action, the submitted appeal of the applicant, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15090.. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: i City Council Resolution No. (2004 Series) Attachment M Page 2 SECTION 1. Certification of EIR & EIR Errata Report. Based upon all the evidence, the. City Council certifies a Final Environmental Impact Report which incorporates the following modifications to the text of the document as an EIR Errata Report (Exhibit B): 1. Add Policy LU 1.4, Jobs/Housing Relationship, to Table 5.1 and classify it as "potentially inconsistent" with the General Plan. 2. Modify the conclusion in Table 5.1 regarding LU 1.13.5, Open Space, from "consistent" to "potentially inconsistent" with the General Plan. SECTION 2. EIR Findings. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Final Environmental Impact Report adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. Therefore, the Council certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report, incorporating the modifications identified above in Section L, and including the mitigation measures listed in Exhibit A into the project (see Exhibit A of Attachment G — Mitigation Monitoring Program), based on 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. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the recommendation for certification of the Final EIR. 4. For each significant effect identified in the EIR under the categories of Geology/Hazards, Drainage and Water Quality, Biological Resources, Aesthetics, and Land Use, 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. 5. The significant effects identified in the Air Quality, Noise, Agricultural Resources, Cultural Resources, and Traffic/Circulation 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. SECTION 3. EIR Statement of Overriding Considerations. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council determines that a statement of overriding considerations shall not be adopted for those significant and unavoidable environmental impacts included in the Air Quality, Noise, Agricultural Resources, Cultural Resources, and 'Traffic/Circulation sections of the Final Environmental Impact Report, based on the following findings: I--23-1.00 City Council Resolution No. Page 3 (2004 Series) Attachment M 1. The adverse environmental effects are unacceptable because the economic, social, and other considerations of the project do not outweigh the unavoidable impacts identified above in the findings. 2. The annexation as designed is "potentially inconsistent" with the City's General Plan. 3. The annexation creates concerns for a further jobs/housing imbalance. SECTION 4. Denial of Proiect Entitlements & Findings. The appeal is denied, and the entitlements for Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Prezoning, including Preliminary Development Plan for the retail component known as The Marketplace, and Use Permit to allow large-scale retail uses included as part of City Application No. 108-02 for the Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace are hereby denied, based on the following findings Findings 1. The annexation and development of the site at this time is not appropriate since there is adequate land already developed or soon planned for development to serve the City's regional shopping needs; and 2. The annexation and development of the site are potentially inconsistent with polices included in the City's General Plan including Policy LU 1.4, Jobs/Housing Relationship, and LU 1.13.5, Open Space. On motion of AYES: NOES: ABSENT: , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of 2004. �1\ City Council Resolution No. Page 4 ATTEST: Acting City Clerk Diane Reynolds APPROVED AS TO FORM: City A ey Jonathan P. Lowell L:Dalidio 2\Dalidio Res. Deny Project (108-02) June 28 (2004 Series) Attachment M Mayor Dave Romero r ,:N, 2q EMIDIr D Rincon Consultants, Inc. Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers ❑ Ventura 790 East Santa Clara Street Ventura, California 93001 8o5 641 1000 FAx 641 1072 info@rinconconsultants.com www.rinconconsuItants.com Date: June 2, 2004 To: Project File Organization: City of San Luis Obispo From: Richard Daulton ■ San Luis Obispo 1530 Monterey Street, Suite D San Luis Obispo, California 93401 805 547 0900 FAx 547 0901 info@rinconconsultants.com www.rinconconsultants.com Email: rdaulton@rinconconsultants.com ❑ Carlsbad 3081 Madison Street, Suite B Carlsbad, California 92008 76o 729 6700 FAX 729 6780 ilw@rinconconsultants.com www.rinconconsultants.com cc: Re: Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project EIR Planning Commission Errata This memorandum presents clarifications and modifications to information contained in the Land Use/Section (Section 5.0) of the Final EIR for the Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace Annexation and Development Project, based on comments stated by the Planning Commission at the May 26, 2004 public hearing on the project. Additions are in bold and deletions are printed in strike -through type. No significant new information, including significant changes to the project or environmental setting, is available. No new environmental impacts or increases in the magnitude of previously disclosed impacts have been identified. Table 5-1, General Plan Policy Consistency Summary, on page 5-2 of the Final EIR has been revised as indicated on the following page. The Policy Consistency discussion on pages 5-6 and 5-6 of the Final EIR has been revised as follows: "Policy:1.13.5 Open Space Each annexation shall help secure permanent protection for areas designated Open Space, and for the habitat types and wildlife corridors within the annexation area that are -identified in policy 6.1.1. Policies concerning prime agricultural land shall apply when appropriate. The following standards shall apply. Exhibit B Table 5-1. General Plan Policy Consistency Summary LUE Policy Policy Issue Potential Consistency Finding Further Evaluation in EIR Land Use Element 1.3 Urban Edges Character Consistent - 1.4 Jobs/Housing Relationship Potentially Inconsistent Section 6.1, Growth - Inducing Impacts 1.8.1 Agricultural Protection Consistent Section 4.6, Agricultural Resources 1.8.2 Prime Agricultural Land Consistent Section 4.6, Agricultural Resources 1.13.2 Annexation Purpose and Timing Consistent - 1.13.3 Required Plans Consistent - 1..13.4 Development and Services Consistent Section 4.8, Utilities_ 1.13.5 Open Space Gensistent Potentially Inconsistent. Section 4.6, Agricultural Resources 3.1.3 Madonna Road Center Expansion Consistent_ 3.1.6 Building Intensity Consistent - - 3.7.10 Madonna Road Center Consistent Section 5.0, Land Use, Impact LU-1 below 6.1 Interim Open Space Policies Consistent Section 5.0, Land Use, Impact LU-1 below 8.8 Dalidio-Madonna-McBride Area Consistent Open S ace Element 1 Dalidio Area Annexation Consistent Section 4.5, Biological Resources, Section 4.6, Agricultural Resources, Section 7.0, Alternatives 2 Agricultural Buffers Consistent Section 4.6, Agriculture 11 Scenic Resources Consistent Section 4.7, Aesthetics Circulation Element 8.10 Prado Road Extension Consistent Sect. 4.10, Trans ohation 8.15 Prado Road Extension Consistent I Sect. 4.10, Trans ortation 14.3 Scenic Roadways Consistent Section 4.7, Aesthetics Housing Element 1.22.5 Major Annexation Areas Consistent - 1.22.10 Affordable Housing Consistent - Water and Wastewater Element 12.1E Wastewater Requirement for Annexation Areas Consistent Section 4.8, Utilities E. Dalidio area properties (generally bounded Inj Highway 101, Madonna Road, and Los Osos Valley Road) shall dedicate land or easements for the approximately one-half of each Ownership that is to be preserved as open space. Planning Commission Conclusion: Potentially Consistent Inconsistent.. I .-a 5D Exhibit B With development of the project, the. City will obtain an open space easement over 58.67 acres of the Dalidio property. About 50 acres of that open space includes prime agricultural soils. In addition, the project applicant proposes to fund off -site conservation easement of 20 acres of prime agricultural soils. However, a majority of the Planning Commission concluded that the proposed on -site dedication would nevertheless fail to satisfy the requirement at one-half of the Dalidio area properties be preserved as open space on -site." The Policy Consistency discussion on page 5-3 of the Final EIR has been revised to include the following: "Land Use Element Policy: LU 1.4 Tobs/Housing Relationship The gap between housing demand (due to more jobs and college enrollment) and supply should not increase. "Planning Commission Conclusion: Potentially Inconsistent. A majority of the Planning Commission concluded that the proposed project would increase the existingjobsihousing imbalance in the City. The proposed commercial and business park uses would generate approximately 1,666 new jobs. Using an average household size of 2.27 persons per household (U.S. Census 2000), this job creation would result in the need for 734 housing units. Although some jobs would likely be filled by current residents of the City of San Luis Obispo, many of the new job opportunities would likely be filled by people relocating to the area. In this way, the proposed project may indirectly generate population growth in the area. The number of relocatees and the location in which they would reside cannot be predicted with any certainty, but it is likely that the proposed project would contribute to housing demand in the City, and would worsen the existing jobs/housing imbalance in the City." r D SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA San Luis is home to two notable institutions, California Polytechnic State University, (known as Cal Poly) and the world famous Madonna Inn. Photo by ®Dana Johansen SPACE RESERVED FOR U.5. POSTAL SERVICE 2USCA 1&'2 Designed & Printed in the U.S.A. John Hind. Cvn.l'h 11111111111111111p`b�lp POST CARD u 04 woo �,m . jQ m E m o a n o u m ,city of san Luis owspo, aammistnation s,pautment DATE: June 1, 2004 TO: Council members FROM: Wendy George, Assistant City Administrative Officer u SUBJECT: Letters Concerning the Marketplace Project We are starting to receive letters from the public concerning the Marketplace Project. We will be copying these letters out to the Council and appropriate staff as soon as they are received. However, we will also retain copies of all the letters in order to include them as part of the agenda material when this project comes before the Council on July 6. C`. Hampian Lowell Stanwyck Mandeville Ricci Statler McCluskey Bochum Reynolds Memo Template . ,.ol -, U' I RECEIVED JUN 0 1 2004 CITY CLERK_ _SLO _ So 7 ,. Ji 4 vw.- 1. do 1._-G1 I 1 l � /.,;1 /T7'1.�. /� --" "� "—'-[�I7�iE.4��SuL7-�`c• .u�J �fiaJ po - -- .4001, t I I Page 1 of 1 SLO Citycouncil - Marketplace From: "Donna Godfrey" <dhgodfrey@charter.net> To: <slocitycouncil @ slocity.org> Date: 5/31 /2004 6:14 PM Subject: Marketplace Please approve the Marketplace project. The project will have stores that provide services that do not exist in San Luis (i.e. Target) much less downtown. The downtown is strong and the Copeland project will increase that strength. Not everyone wants or can afford to shop at the specialty stores that are downtown, even if they offered the everyday items that most people and families need. There was little opposition to the Copeland project, but anything out of the downtown core faces heavy opposition, why is that? Thank you for listening. Donna Godfrey, San Luis Obispo file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW100001.HTM 6/1/2004 Page 1 of 1 SLO Citycouncil - the Marketplace From: 11rhonda mayeda" <rmayeda @charter. net> To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org> Date: 5/27/2004 7:49 PM Subject: the Marketplace Hello, The recent article in the local paper (5-27-04) with regard to the Planning Commission vote makes no common sense. The agricultural land is surrounded by city, thus impractical to farm with current ag regulations. Usually, I shop downtown when I need a specialty item or when my daughter wants to find something at Express or the Gap. Anything special, e.g. prom dresses, etc. we have made the trip to the S.F. Macy's or the Fresno Macy's. Most of my neighbors and friends make plans to go to Paso or Santa Maria on the weekends to shop at Target or Costco and then stop at Trader Joe's on the way home. Often, the question is, "We're going to Target, is there anything you want us to get for you there?" It makes better sense that the city allow the Marketplace to go through and provide needed tax revenue to the city, shopping options for a wider range of consumers, and a Prado Road interchange to relieve the congestion we currently experience on Tank Farm Rd. and Madonna Rd. We believe the Marketplace project will not impact Downtown SLO with their mix of retail; if anything, we think each will complement the other. After all, one of the best things about America is the opportunity for free enterprise. Let the Marketplace begin ... the community at large wants it! Ben and Rhonda Mayeda file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW }00001.HTM 6/1/2004 - Page 1 of 1 SLO Citycouncil - Dalidio property development I RECEIVED From: "Wren Mead" <k-wren @charter. net> SLO CITY To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org> Date: 6/1/2004 2:08 PM Subject: Dalidio property development Dear Council Member, I am opposed to the proposed project by Bill Byrd on the Dalidio property. He had his chance in SLO many years ago when he built the Central Coast Mall and in the end, he went bankrupt. We should remember that what he planned and built did not succeed and has all been torn down and replaced with the exception of the two anchor projects. I don't know why he feels he must come back to our area to build ... he needs to stay in S. California and blight his own backyard. Ernie Dalidio deserves to be able to sell his land, certainly, but please don't let it be built with more chain stores, making us like Everytown, USA. San Luis doesn't have the road infrastucture to support them and the when and how they would be built and financed is questionable. I hope that you will decide that Mr. Byrd needs to take his building elsewhere and rethink how that space could be developed in a more responsible way. Thank you for your consideration. Karen Wren Mead 805.544.3063 Retain this document tot WWre Cooufncil mowing ld U `t' e, a®er► ized JW�I mjj l 1 `mlll-� XJI�F L,( N�nd� fileJ/C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GWIOOOO1.HTM 6/1/2004 Page 1 of 1 SLO Citycouncil - Marketplace From: Missy <slomissy@charter.net> To: <siocitycouncil@slocity.org> Date: 6/1/2004 7:50 PM Subject: Marketplace I am writing in support of the San Luis Marketplace project. We are residents of SLO since 1994 and both my husband and I are Cal Poly grads (and we hope our son will be also). We are lucky enough to own a home in the Laguna Lake area. I feel compelled to write to say that we fully support this project - it will bring a new dimension of shopping to SLO and keep our tax dollars where they belong...HERE! l! appreciate the downtown and feel that this new project will in no way change the way I patronize downtown merchants. I think San Luis has room for this project and it will enhance the experience of living here. PLEASE vote for this project! I thank you for the opportunity to express my view. Regards, Melissa Swanson Retain this document for heure Council meeting file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GWIOOOO1.HTM 6/2/2004 � 4a.� le :::.t>.i :r�� t. :�� %J Jf� i 1 S i ' i � __._,_. ��.__ �_ -- _ _ f `M" t,� {2vrn bra San Luis Obispo Downtown Association P.O. Box 1402 San Luis Obispo California 93406 Phone. 805.541.0286 FAX.- 805-781.2647 www.do,Nntownslo.com 23 June 2004 Memorandum 'To: Mayor Dave Romero and City Council members From: Brad Bilsten, President �V SLO Downtown Association Re: Position Statement on Marketplace Dalidio Project Position The San Luis Obispo Downtown Association Board of Directors on 8 June 2004 voted to oppose development of the Marketplace (Dalidio) Project in its entirety. Rationale The Board of Directors, expressing concerns similar to those of the Planning Commission which rejected the project in May, believes the anticipated economic impact of the Marketplace —which includes a significant amount of retail square footage —combined with the impact of 77 buildings undergoing retrofit in the Downtown over the next eight years is likely to disrupt the delicate balance of Downtown's economy to a point where recovery would take many years. Historically, in other communities where peripheral development projects like this have occurred, the result has been a predictable pattern where there is first, a downward spiral of low rents in the affected area as landlords scramble to fill vacancies; then, new, less desirable tenants who can afford the low rents occupy the spaces and•like a ripple effect, current, desirable tenants move out. In addition, if the Marketplace is approved and built, the developer may be able to sell entitlements to tenants unknown at this time but most likely would be those whose businesses would directly compete with Downtown's niche. Further, by having access to amenities not available in Downtown —acres of parking, restrooms, later store hours, a high level of daily maintenance —customers are likely to choose the Marketplace over Downtown as a shopping choice, not in addition to it. While the Downtown Association is not opposed to development as a rule, this particular project has too many implications for impacting Downtown in a heavily negative way. Downtown is not a bulwark against all outside influences that could impact economics and ambiance, it is the product of many years of carving away its niche, developing its identity and (finally) securing a place in the City's commercial success. The Downtown Association is charged with upholding its mission statement that says: "The San Luis Obispo Downtown Association is a partnership of members working, through programs and services, for the economic, social, cultural and environmental vitality and beautification of Downtown. Finally, two factors revealed in recent discussions have influenced this position: It's necessary to understand the concept of "transfer" v. "leakage" as it applies to Downtown. While the City itself may benefit from keeping shoppers in town who currently leave to shop outside of the City (leakage), this is not the same as the transfer of dollars from the Downtown to the Marketplace by those who currently shop in Downtown. This amount, while currently under debate, is critical in understanding and preparing for the type of "hit" Downtown would take. Lastly, It's also important to note that the argument that twice in the past, peripheral developments have not impacted the Downtown. In fact, when Madonna Plaza and the Central Coast Mall were built, both had very real and huge impacts on the Downtown and it has taken the better part of the last decade to recover from those. This position has been adopted by the Board of Directors after research, analysis, consultation and study and is forwarded to the Council for its consideration. Cc: Downtown_ Association Board of Directors Ken Hampian Shelly Stanwyck _i Page 1 of 1 SLO Citycouncil - Dalidio Project From: Helene Finger <hfmger@calpoly.edu> To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org> Date: 6/7/2004 5:38 AM Subject: Dalidio Project Dear Mayor Romero and City Council Members, U..-I I am writing today to encourage you to heed the advice of the Planning Commission and vote no on the development of the Dalidio property. Most of the people that I talk to agree with the Planning Commission and are against this development because the cost to the city in lost agricultural land and businesses in town will be too large. One of the main tenants in this project is a large home improvement store. With the recent addition of Home Depot, the city does not have enough home improvement shoppers to support the stores that we already have (this is one of the reasons for True Value going out of business). The addition of Lowe's will not bring in additional dollars of city taxes it will just shift them from existing city businesses and most likely cause one or more to close. The other proposed tenants will have similar negative impacts on existing businesses without increasing the city's tax revenue. I do not currently drive out of the city to do my shopping. Addition of new stores will simply shift revenue from existing city businesses to new city businesses at the cost of productive agricultural land and sprawl. The city has built many new shopping centers in the last few years. I ask that you wait on adding more until the need grows to a level that warrants and will support the new businesses. Sincerely, Helene Finger file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00004.HTM 6n12004 JAMES T. FIC-ES A.I.A. e/ner' ARCHITECT PLANNER 934 VISTA DEL GOLLADOS SAN LUIS OBISPO CALIFORNU 805.783.2600 ■ mayor pave Rcntem 9.34C TO 4an Lur 5 obi sp C i tycounci (, 6/1 d./o¢ Th o ujculd lae t0a straw.) -fit hvo>Ye - 4 gwffwjS back 7fce crnarVizi-PIam should rxvt- be mrv. a. re a t" on -1 4:{'irilZ IPAlid#o gricu4ural prgzerty • -me ear6dr r-eV� 04 thy. anlyze*%3 -fir c;ty a�cl developer maybe haves lookod cb5ely a r at itV t�ecr uperrt tht downtown sh d�s.-tr'tc�t3wy1en outl i-nsn �' rmatt5 are or f�aue"1onstnxted in abund akcd ad' °IMP � -V tt�e umal city . X nrlarny cases 3vk ob�ad . floe¢ �vtvIm re tai 1 a t*-&s C'dwA dei�ertbraie as `a ccnSedue nm . the louw�ln'�cf 4aw-nftun safes reuenve is wha+thts abovt1 .�hrch �dnn )7 X'ihie$ecHg�g. = %svc obseruei a Cher tvwrn th I+w1000 PoR,l��+6" � �hsue ?�6t�ed ', mP+Y stores. ja C o.E'a� 5e YC a f �'dalh � and dianea&n o f tka luali-ty of Ow shoppri &bdce5 &n& a� on�aE' should be able iv u isuaWpe or Fictum tin¢ ineuit-a6dtty without hwntw tiv pnxt% corm -to reai4y . when sal" kruenut Vicar rmercr?&4ry Is hi aquelity -&rd q;xmn+lty of cho4bes are irxrteas� euentuaamd e�t Spe owe smvty ce to needed: ?he city ptann�� C,Q►ytrmiSSi6ri.'s av jcrity opinion ig O, t40& 420 It$ not tr4'avor of `the M1av%�Place w1*1 candt4inrts 4cAown Tn talici -too at {byt% norm bey' o� � rrnertlr&i mac �Ve -v � i+ If",*w ave not o&vi 1+vis rmall dmuetaprnzvt- '; te5 taX In -{ervm 'HAP Krt a l l 15 br' 1 n same f Nit rM,hd5. -WiS Sales +8V increaye -Ga►n ha , wtLt'f"r canoendrai eE�&43 of 4v c(fy to ewhy mf )wvj .4+4. inner . And we rmust cartsidaa uFft rmzr0t sfi., Lowen i4ttoeKx. OF-W ?Wffrf+eVQy •Si:, gore ,� c.est••f'vatfinll OI,o, part• � s OMOL �o r osn•► avnd vpd&chl J und&tytW4 A ark a A a. rtjc7x-t- ,Qcohomt'c - orcw# Tewnd doasrttocs�� _nr i r�ch"s ftpresse d 4PL mselves eso9 ct "041 n of b� tr? a* +hQ r zrWx+p(acta- ARCIIITECTU[IF, INTERIOR DESIGN 2. the OQM'on �°`'"�ri& fin+fie he►��- o�eir►�j" cct ,Meff. r� Should Tha. vown-�+�rn o�'s2m Lv� s 4b� of Str�n C'if�f ajt�e�vt+fa),t, to tl�xs pl�rinln� v� rash$,exparrlcoron ; 1 �f� rT'►_'�t- Q -th . - un plac .. to sped lots tf nna . fer .�o(aaP►^^� �r (more sc dR� uwaQK all awed- re ► s , ►a .t,OW446 aviCAZ. ant (mgybe a nnutl-� sr+�y 5ta. TFF�S (bet reve Now in re ra t VauA�vr8lpImd.IFhitSa,�o (S .gxm of nest- c sow o�u . ou�it-true '1a�- �o `ts lv� n t�n�n4c a crops a.�n w tu Sclm s veeetable9 ppp�p.'n up. �. nrr►��s�� s �(n a. lefferr to tk¢ 4Ai�r- � u� ttntt aL C8 n(wr� (YI'laMr-t be co".!E heyM t. (:F,,Cem . To carry a. Step �7ur�t-hdr, Maybe a,w n �I W,%I& S Cyu LA be 4VW W0+i a, tQ�. (r4a i t gibre Sa b&rrr,,i►fcnove �P�sN,�ore�fe, w('th �(-per�hoc�scs, �d exgergmwvft( W-rb en chid Cal No(y , Ld�d. would be �k a�i�-for saZw total arfrners rmsAk4-R=kZe Tkii latmov- info-73rl-y tr is F ,(Oably wOutk- rg t- r%trA -ttv over roQa5 loui l4: wt sv?OL;j� s'l G'ir' L urxt3a�cL�, LaJat(�. ► rma tie eveln 'Mendaccno Ae I ?ft t'3e"h 4 -=r i dam . lV7(ok ,Jwies T. F(cw�5 p�rchitQl`t�Pt�� P.S. rM a'Y iae -th fe doum n nri ' eo-n 5►d� h r c�mrm te!9 ou�n aa►ntbe cam' c San Luis Obispo County Bicycle San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 June 24, 2004 Dear Council Members, PO Box 14860 • San Luis Obispo, CA JUN 2 5 2004 I SLO CITY CLERK Joseph Gilpin, Executive Director Phone: 805-541-4076 Email: jgilpin@slobikelane.org rye I am writing you today to raise some concerns I have about future development on the Dalido property known as the SLO Marketplace. I realize this is very late in the game, and that ample opportunity has been given for public comment on the matter, however I like to think that good ideas are never too late. You should know that the Bicycle Coalition is not inherently anti- growth, rather we like to see development that can accommodate and provide incentive for residents to use alternative modes of transportation. Bicyclists and pedestrians currently have a tough time of it getting from the east side of San Luis Obispo over the freeway. We have two choices, the. Madonna interchange, and the Los Osos Valley Road Interchange. To a bicyclist a freeway interchange can be very intimidating. Successfully negotiating one requires a cyclist to merge into traffic while avoiding vehicles entering and exiting the freeway ramps. This is sometimes very scary and even I, after 14 years of riding nearly every day, am reluctant to ride my bicycle to the west side of town. The SLO Marketplace, as exhibited in the draft EIR and the preliminary site plan shown to the Planning Commission, contains a new freeway interchange at Prado Road to facilitate access to the site. This overpass, from the perspective of a pedestrian or bicyclist will only be another unfriendly option. As you may be aware the Bob Jones City -to -the -Sea trail will someday follow the San Luis Obispo Creek paralleling the freeway on the east side. I see this as a terrific opportunity to provide a new and separate connection joining the west side of San Luis Obispo with the east and tie it in with our other future bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure. I envision this connection continuing possibly along the south side of the SLO marketplace and connecting with the extension of Laguna Lake Park. Neither the current Bicycle Transportation Plan, nor the current draft of the 2004 updated plan shows a connection here, however it was discussed at length at the last Bicycle Advisory Committee and may be included in the final version of the new Bicycle Transportation Plan. Sadly, I fear by the time the new Bicycle Transportation Plan has passed through your hands for approval the door may have already been closed by the SLO Marketplace for this new bicycle/pedestrian connection. V; This grade separated east/west connector would have wonderful implications for recreation, transportation, shopping access and even provide a safe route to Laguna Middle School, which currently has abysmal access by bicycle. Like any project, this idea is bound to meet some friction, however I hope you can see the benefits to the community and the flexibility of transportation choice such a connection would provide. Moreover, as we look ahead it is evident that transportation costs will continue to increase. Gasoline will get more expensive, and we need to act now to provide alternatives for the future. I thank you for your dedication to the city, for the work you have done:and the hard decisions you have made. Please keep this east -west connection in mind along with alternative transportation when considering the development of the Dalidio property; please find that I am available and happy to discuss these ideas further. Sincerely; Joseph Gilpin Executive Director San Luis Obispo County Bicycle Coalition CC: SLO Public Works SLOCOG Council Agenda Tuesday, July 6, 2004 Action Update Statement of Overriding Considerations for identified Class 1 impacts is not appropriate because the economic, social, and other considerations of the project do not outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts. 3) Deny the Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Prezoning, Use Permit, and Preliminary Development Plan because the scale of the proposed commercial project exceeds community needs and its development is premature. CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1) Adopt a resolution that certifies the EIR, including the mitigation monitoring program, based on findings, including a finding of overriding considerations relative to traffic/circulation, air quality, noise, cultural resources, and loss of agricultural Land, and endorses Alternative 7.3, which includes a housing component. 2) Uphold appeal and adopt a Resolution of Application requesting that the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) take proceedings for the 131-acre annexation, based on findings. 3) Uphold appeal and adopt a resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Element Map to reflect the applicant's current land use proposal, based on findings. 4) Uphold appeal and introduce ordinance prezoning sites within the annexation area to be consistent with the proposed Land Use Element map designations (C-R-PD, Retail Commercial Planned Development; O-S, Office with the Special Consideration overlay; R-3-S Medium -High Density Residential with the Special Consideration overlay; C/OS-40, Conservation/Open Space; and AG, Agriculture), and approving a Preliminary Development Plan for the C-R-PD component known as the San Luis Obispo Marketplace, based on findings, and subject to conditions. 5) Uphold appeal and approve a Use Permit to allow retail stores with floor areas between 60,000 and 140,000 square feet, based on findings, and subject to conditions. 6) Adopt a resolution accepting the negotiated exchange of property tax revenues and annual tax increment that is required as a prerequisite of any jurisdictional change by the Revenue and Tax Code Section 99. ACTION: 1) Resolution No. 9588 (2004 Series) adopted as amended. 2) Resolution No. 9589 (2004 Series) adopted. 3) Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series) adopted. 4) Ordinance No.1449 (2004 Series) introduced as amended. 5) Resolution No. 9591(2004 Series) adopted. 6) Resolution No. 9592 (2004 Series) adopted. (3:1, Mulholland). 2. 1 MINUTES) (MANDEVILLE/WHISENAND — 5 RECOMMENDATION: As recommended by the Planning Commission and previously approved in concept by the City Council: 1) Adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declarations of Environmental Impact and amending both text and map of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan; 2) Introduce an ordinance to print rezoning 4 I � I Council Agenda Tuetiday, July 6, 2004 Action Update property at 1231 Laurel Lane and 1661 Mill Street; and 3) Introduce an ordinance to print amending the text of the Zoning Regulations related to medical office uses. ACTION. 1) Resolution No. 959312004 Series) adopted. 2) Ordinance No. 1450 (2004 Series) introduced. 3) Ordinance No. 1451_ (2004 Series) introduced. (4`0) COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS (not to exceed 15 minutes) Council Members report on conferences or other City activities. Time limit-3 minutes. Vice Mayor Schwartz reported on the June 24'1' Performing Arts Center Commission (PAC) meeting (see memo on file in the City Clerk's Office). Council Member Mulholland reported on the June 23rd Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC) Board meeting. COMMUNICATIONS (not to exceed 15 minutes) At this time, any Council Member or the City Administrative Officer may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In addition, subject to Council Policies and Procedures, they may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2). Mayor Romero requested that the proposed Prado Road alignment be staked out for the benefit of citizens who would like to see how Prado Road will connect to Broad Street. CAO Harman did not advise staking out raw land as relationships and distances may be distorted and misleading to the public. In addition, the City is trying to keep people out of the area to protect the fields. He suggested, instead, that the Council may want to authorize a computer simulation of the alignment. No action taken. A. ADJOURN. RECEIVED Mayor and City Council City of San Luis Obispo 900 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93405 Re: Dear Mayor and City Council: RED FILE I�N ME �G AGENDA DATE. = ' ITEM #RJL June 26, 2004 JUN 3 0 2004 I,CCUNae ICAO ZACAO ef ATTORNEY � CLERK/ORIG D�PT HEADS ;� Marketplace and Prado Road Project CLERK ADD DIR N DIR ,`wFIRE CHIEF �_'-Pw DIR ,2 POLICE CHF (lREC DIR UK DIR HR DIR I am writing on behalf of the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club to urge you to reject the Marketplace project. The project's significant and unavoidable impacts to our quality of life are unacceptable. The supposed benefits of this project are far outweighed by the environmental and economic harm to the City. The project violates the General Plan, and the EIR is not adequate under CEQA. The decisions of the Planning Commission should be upheld, except their certification of the EIR. This project would destroy much of what residents love about San Luis Obispo. At this time, the City needs to expand affordable housing and support existing small businesses and our historic downtown, not add another outdated, L.A. style "Big Box" mall requiring an.increasingly expensive, poorly spaced freeway overpass. The controversy surrounding mall development of the Dalidio property should be put to bed once and for all: the General Plan should be amended to redesignate the property Agriculture/Open Space with Special Flood Plain Management Zone overlay. THE EIR ADMITS THE PROJECT WOULD DEGRADE QUALITY OF LIFE. The developers are asking you to harm residents' quality of life and then to make numerous findings of"Overriding Considerations" to justify this harm. The hypothetical gain of sales tax revenue and the questionable gain of a poorly placed freeway overpass are nowhere near worth the damage the project would do. The EIR admits that this project would have at least the following severe "significant and unavoidable" impacts on our quality of life: -AQ-2 BAD AIR: emissions well above the Air Pollution Control District standards; -N-2 and N-3 NOISY NEIGHBORHOODS: excessive noise levels from traffic; -AG-1 LOSS OF PRIME AG_LAND: conversion of 60 actively farmed acres; -CR-1 LOSS OF HISTORIC FARM STRUCTURES: destruction of unique buildings -T-1; T-79 T-8 and T13 GRIDLOCK TRAFFIC: creation of gridlock at Madonna/LOVR and freeway ramps, overload of traffic between Madonna Overpass and Prado Road Overpass from the project, and traffic snarls and excessive delays on site. The EIR should catagorize the following impacts as significant and unavoidable, as well, because the mitigation measures offered are ineffectual: -DW-1 INCREASED FLOOD DAMAGE: increased danger of flood damage including the Mid-Higuera and Elks Lane areas; -AES-1 and AES-2 UGLY VISTAS: negative visual impact of the project and freeway overpass. All of the impacts listed in the EIR would be avoided by simply rejecting the project. THE SIERRA CLUB URGES THE COUNCIL TO: 1. Reject the Project and Choose A2, the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Rejecting the project is the best alternative if you care about the quality of life of City residents. The Dalidio property is prime ag land, and it is a flood plain. The EIR rightly points out that keeping the property in agriculture and unimpeded flood plain is the environmentally superior alternative. The City's General Plan should be amended to change the land use of the property to match that of the County, that is, Agriculture/Open Space and Special Flood Hazard Zone. The project should also be rejected because it violates the General Plan. A. Off -Site Open Space Is Not Appropriate. Allowing off -site open space to substitute for on -site open space is not consistent with the General Plan, L.U. 1.13.5E. Off -site open space does not protect the site -specific floodplain, aesthetics, air quality or historical qualities of the land. This sets a dangerous precedent. B. The Jobs/Housing Imbalance Would be Worsened. As pointed out by the planning Commission; this project creates far more jobs than it provides housing. It would only exacerbate the already severe jobs/housing imbalance, thus violating the General Plan, L.U. 1.4. C. The Project Would Not Pay For Itself. The General Plan states that development must pay for itself. The developers have stated repeatedly that they will not, and cannot pay for the increasingly expensive Prado Road Overpass, so City staff has created the proposed arrangement to use sales tax to pay for the Overpass. This misuse of sales tax means that residents, not developers pay for this project. This arrangement also places the City at financial risk and may impose an enormous burden on residents if the project fails financially, as did some of Mr. Bird's other projects. If there are certain stores the City wishes to attract, it should appoint a. public/private task force to identify areas for commercial infill which would not require new infrastructure so as to allow 100% of the sales tax to go to the City. 2 2. Not Certify the EIR because it Does Not Comply with CEQA. A. Hydrology 1) Cumulative Impacts. The EIR does not meet the requirements of CEQA because it does not deal adequately with the cumulative effects of building this huge project in the middle of the unique flood plain on the Dalidio property. 14 Cal.Code Regs 15126(a). Citizens to Preserve Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985) 176 CA 3d 421. The Dalidio property is the heart of the existing flood management system of San Luis Creek. Its prime alluvial soil is there because the site is a floodplain at the confluence of SanLuis, Prefumo and Froom Creeks. The LOVR overpass has an inadequate culvert which can only handle 25-year floods. Any greater volumes cannot "get away" and instead back upstream over the floodplain, toward the City. This backwater flooding has worsened devastating floods, south, north and east of Highway 101. The EIR does not adequately examine off -site flood damage which would result from loss of floodplain storage, increase of impervious surface area and construction of the Prado Road Interchange.. 2) Impact DW-1 Should Be a Class I Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Hydrological impact DW-I was mysteriously changed in the last minute by Questa Engineering (Letter dated March 17, 2004, final document in Volume I of the EIR) from a Class I to a Class II impact. Questa claimed that the data in their 2003 report, on which the EIR relied, was not accurate, despite the fact that the Army Corps of Engineers found that 2003 data to be valid in their data check for Zone 9. This confusion calls into question the validity of all of Questa's data. CEQA indicates that when in doubt, the "reasonable worst -case scenario" should be applied. The City Council has the discretion to do this by changing the downwardly revised Class U impact back to a Class 1 impact, which cannot be adequately mitigated. Cal Code 15088.5. All of the Class I language in the EIR which has been stricken through should be reinstated. Either that or Council should recirculate the EIR after further studies. All hydrology data should be verified by the Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, the Regional Water Quality Board, Cal Trans and/or other regulatingagencies before, not after the project is approved. The Council must be sure that the project would not increase flood damage to the rest of the City, especially the Downtown east of 101, and to our downstream neighbors. 3) Mitigation Measure DWI(a) is not adequate. The EIR's proposed flood danger n- tgation is to "encourage" the applicant to use pervious paving material "where feasible." (ES-9) Merely encouraging extra expense for the developer is unrealistic, and neither buildings nor roadways can be made of such materials. Such proposed mitigation would do little to offset the loss of usable floodplain storage volume by 25% (page 3 Questa letter of March 17, 2004). The mitigation measure cannot be effective and the EIR does not evaluate its supposed effectiveness. Therefore, the EIR is inadequate. Laurel Heights v. Regents of Univ. Of Cal (1988) 47 C3d 376. 4) Prado Road Interchange Impacts and Mitigations are Missing. The EIR does riot adequately analyze flooding impacts of construction of the Prado Road Interchange. At page ES-8 the EIR indicates that the project plans to deliberately direct flood water across Highway 101. It goes on to state that "If the (Prado Road) interchange viaduct drainage system were to be constructed, flooding impacts east of Highway 101 would be Class II, significant but mitigable." East of 101 impacts, however are not listed, and no mitigations are offered. The analysis cannot stop here, under CEQA. 5) Crucial Flood Analysis is Deferred. The hydrologic studies which would tell us what impacts would result from building the project and overpass are also missing. The EIR is not certain if detention systems within the project site would increase or decrease the confluence of peak flows of San Luis and Prefumo Creeks, or how much more floodwater would overflow 101 due to the project. The proposed solution calls for a "detailed hydrology report" after the project is approved. That detailed hydrology report should be included in the EIR. The EIR states that the project engineer will "analyze the effect on adjacent and downstream properties ...considering the project's proximity to ocean discharge of San Luis Obispo Creek and Prefumo Creek culvert limitations of Highway 101." (Pages 4.2-16 and 17) This analysis needs to be included in the EIR. The submitted grading plan is admittedly substandard; the building layout admittedly does not allow escape routes for storm sheet flow. What would be the actual effect of this project during flood time? How much more floodwater would flow over Highway 101? How much would back up toward the Downtown and Elk's Lane? Nobody knows. "Let's build it and find out" is not good enough under CEQA. Analysis may not deferred to future studies. Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 CA3d 296. The EIR should not be certified until these crucial studies are completed. B. Aesthetics The EIR should not be certified because it miscatagorizes impacts AES-1 and AES-5, the negative effect of the project on Aesthetics. As the Planning Commission recommended, those impacts should be reclassified from Class II to Class I, significant and unavoidable. Another generic mall and freeway overpass will be significantly and unavoidably uglier than the present state of the land. C. Growth Inducing Impacts The EIR does not analyze Growth Inducing impacts. This is another gaping hole in the EIR and violation of CEQA. Thank you for considering this testimony. Yours truly, 1/`J0 J Howell Marx, chair Sierra Club Dalidio project Task Force 17 RED FILE RECEIVED = MEETING AGENDA JUN 3 0 2004 DAT ITEM SLLLO CITY CLERK _ I!'COIJelcw NCtL CAO 2,�" FIN DIR r ACAO _ -2"FIRE:CHIEF__ ----- - ATTORNEY rmbiR -,2 CLERK/ORIG— POLICE.CHF- L)F,PT HEADS 7 REC DIR -r'- - �'—.P-UTIL--DIR— 7 Vel --- ir a I i !� f' V T � � _ _ _ � . He claims about $20 million in sales a year could be drained from downtown merchants. "You have a do t is tr y unique, Keyser said. m myself a question you should be asking. Have you reached far enough in the exploration of alternative strategies?" If approved next Tuesday, the 650,000-square-foot center would include a Target, Circuit City, Lowe's Home Improve- ment, Old Navy, Larkspur Ho- tel and Tilly s, a youth -oriented retailer. A Whole Foods Mar— ket also has been proposed. Macy's department store re- cently pulled out of the project, but developer Bill Bird is talk- ing with- similar retailers and expects to announce a replace- ment soon. Councilwoman Christine Mulholland questioned the idea that sales tax revenue or business would be lost to near- by communities given that San Luis Obispo already has a Home Depot and will soon have a Costco warehouse. "If we don't do this project, will there continue to be leak- age to big boxes out of town?" she asked. , Vice Mayor Ken Schwartz asked if the city could control what types of stores the center would have. The review session was prompted by a May report from Keyser, which found that the amount of retail space in the proposed Marketplace would adversely affect all or most downtown merchants. That report suggests. if the shopping center is built next to Madonna Plaza and the $LO Promenade that the distribu- tion of retail space in the city Wh: nex •Aot ' the San Luis MarkApiace The City Council will review the environmental impact re- port and use permit for the San Luis Marketplace propos- al at 7 p.m. July 6 in the Council Chambers, 990 Palm St. If approved, the project moves back to the city Plan- ning Commission, which will review its development agree- ment on July 14. That agree- ment could go to the council for review in August. would shift from a near 50-50 split between downtown and the Madonna Road shopping area to a 37-63 ratio favoring the latter. While Kotin acknowledged that not every downtown retail store would survive the open- ing of the Marketplace, he said San Luis Obispo's downtown was strong enough to weather any effects. Kotin's 2002 study said the types of stores in the Market- place would not provide signif- icant downtown competition because the design of the pro- ject encourages smaller retail- ers, similar to the Promenade and Madonna Plaza retailers. And the project's develop- ment agreement offers finan- cial disincentives to'discourage competition with downtown businesses. Plus, more shop- pers at the Marketplace would benefit the city and downtown, Kotin's study said. Deborah Cash, administr& for of the Downtown t>,gsoci4-r tion, said that dov4towu merchants are worried about their ability to survive. "If you've been in business and you've been hurt," Cash said, `you know what that feels like." " _ m m n Z a m A O Z f ti o n o O a°=ai=.oIRL ro aCr00 C� "� f who ao �.. m m �o �g�JxEQbc�'o c 0P3 R rn3cpp'�� ^.• n N f"D L7 y` -r vov`rL aw rL �n o0 O C iL rt N S O rc.Z c�(D e-h °'o0 v 3ofD M o� H 3 0 n 13 M, 3 ° d y c� Cr o0 ^co ? ru I =T 0 Cr 0) CNIPL Cr 00 CL Richard Schmidt 4 544-4247 M06/30/4 09:49 AM h, RICFiARD SCHMIDT -- ' RECEIVED IAI o n 7ML 1 t �Rn Luis Obispo, CA 34 DATE' Qt� ITEM # I_ `C 0A S5 June 30, 2004 'e COU-- NCI® L 1 CAO City Council Re: Marketplace, July 6 Agenda ACAO City of San Luis Obispo EIR Comment ,ZATTORNEY j�CLERK/ORIG Dear Council Members: , I amuiv I urge you to find the EIR for this project inadequate and in need of fixing,—=�I --- 7 ;?,CDD DIR ,2 FIN DIR ,,ZFIRE CHIEF -0 PW DIR erPOLICE CHF 2-REC DIR Z UTIL DIR -2"'HR DIR The process used for this EIR has been dismissive of thoughtful public offered at appropriate times. My own extensive comments at scoping and at review of the DEIR are examples of this dismissiveness. This process, which was supposed to have been open to the public, has instead become a closed process of consultant and city regime giving just as little analysis of issues of community -wide concern as possible. The document is promotional of the project rather than analytical. For example, I would refer you to my own letter to your planning commission on the DEIR dated Feb. 23, 2004, which appearsasLetter #9 in the back of the current EIR. In this, I asked for analysis of several things, including: 1. The obvious traffic impacts to North Broad Street, a single family residential street. 2. Analysis of the potential for using the undeveloped Dal!dio property for water production rather than the contemplated developed use. 3. Analysis of using the undeveloped Dalidio property for conversion of sewage effluent to potable water supply via natural means of spreading and percolation, an idea I owe to one Dave Romero floated in the 1970s for a similar operation on the other side of the freeway. 4. Analysis of the potential of transferring high intensity commercial development from the Dalidio farmland to the already urbanized but underutilized Mid-Higuera Corridor, thereby bringing this development closer to the center of town where it would synergize rather than compete with downtown -- a Paseo Nuevo type solution. Each of these ideas is explained in that earlier communication to the planning commission, so I'll not repeat their details here. Please refer to tht letter for a detailed listing of items that should have been covered by the EIR, but which the consultant in conjunction with staff kissed off. The result is a very incomplete EIR -- an outcome that stems from certain staff persons feeling it is their job to toe the line of the city's economic development department rather than to protect the best interests of the citizens and their environment. This is a verysad devolution of city attention to quality of fife issues, and indicative of the decline in the quality of our planning program.. The consultant's uniform response has been to dismiss these concerns rather than deal with them. I think this is, on its face, a derrogation of the city's duty to do a properly analytical EIR. This P ject. affer all. isnY ustany old pro ec r it is one that will radfcalty transtorm the entire city its image ifs traffic flow its economic balance, and its fiscal base. It is large enough, relative to the community, that a thorough, comprehensive, community -wide examination of problems it presents and alternatives that might avoid or mitigate those problems MUST be conducted. That is the function of an EIR, not propagandizing a particular proposal. WITHOUT INCLUDING ANALYSIS OF THESE SUBJECTS, THE EIR FOR THE MARKETPLACE IS DEFICIENT. PLEASE REQUIRE ANALYSIS OF EACH OF THESE ISSUES PRIOR TO ACTING UPON THE EIR AND ITS RELATED PROJECT. 1. North Broad Traffic Analysis. I am particularly angry -- no, not angry, furious! -- at the continuing refusal to include traffic analysis and mitigation of the North Broad Street problems and the impacts of this project upon them. Marketplace EIR, Page 1 Richard Schmidt 4544-4247 M06130/4 09:36AM p219 ' f I asked for inclusion of this analysis three EIRs ago! That request was ignored at scoping, so I reiterated it at the DEIR stage. Then the project "changed" and the city undertook a second EIR. Again, I asked for this traffic analysis at scoping; again it was ignored. I asked again at the DEIR state. Now we are on the third EIR, and my requests have again been twice made and refused. This consultant, in concert with staff, has refused at every point to do what is required to study the obvious effects of the project on the North Broad traffic situation. But worse, in excusing themselves from doing the analysis, they have concocted a web of untruths masquerading as fact to prove there is, and will be, no problem on North Broad. This just isn't right. - The project is designed for direct freeway access, ergo it will draw vehicles to the freeway, and by extension, to freeway on -ramps such as that on North Broad. This is undeniable. A freeway -oriented 600,000 square foot regional shopping district cannot fail to attract freeway bound traffic to freeway on -ramps at some distance from the project site itself. There is direct nexus between the design of the project as freeway - oriented and the impact on North Broad traffic. • North Broad is Increasingly used by locals frustrated with the slowness of Santa Rosa due to poor traffic management there that slows traffic flow. North Broad would thus become the "logical" alternative to Santa Rosa for the entire Foothill district to use to get to Dalidio. • However, it's not just local usage I'm concerned about. If this shop g enter is the success it's touted to become. it will draw daily from Morro Bay, Cayucos Cambria. etc., and that traffic will come in on Santa Rosa, but Santa Rosa will be gridlocked, so, guess what: Right at Highland, left at North Chorro, jog onto Broad. Our little neighborhood street will pet the NORTH COASTAL REGIONAL cut through traffic bound for the Marketplace as well as locally -generated cut through traffic. • My concern about regional cut through traffic using this little residential street is not hopothetical -- it's already starting to happen. We get cut through contractor traffic from the North Coast bound for Home Depot, with all the disruption those noisy diesel pickups and their jouncing cargo create. Broad has become a commute path for getting from Atascadero to Cal Poly -- this is fact!! -- avoids rush hour congestion on Grand, California and Santa Rosa, leads to Highland entry. The consolidation of K-6 schools north of Foothill has created a mini speed -jam on Broad in the morning as parents rush their kids to school via the freeway -- this is new in the last two years! Some years ago, the city did an origin -destination study by handing out mail - back questionnaires to every car at rush hour, and found substantial cut -through traffic in the Broad/Chorro/Murray/Meinecke area was REGIONAL traffic between Los Osos and downtown SLO. Because of this regional cut -through, the famous DKS traffic study last time the Circulation Element was .updated projectedgridlock traffic at General Plan buildout on both Chorro and Broad (freeway -Foothill aegments) if the city and CalTrans do nothing to prevent it! • Substantial regionally -generated neighborhood cut -through traffic WILL be generated on this residential street by the Marketplace, and it needs to be accurately accounted for and mitigated through CEQA while we have a chance. - The Circulation Element promises residents the city will keep North Broad traffic down to no more than 3,000 vehicles per day, a figure that's already exceeded. Thus any obvious additional impact from the Marketplace will be a General Plan violation, and needs to be mitigated through CEQA. The EIR consultant has responded to my request for analysis of Marketplace traffic impacts on North Broad basically by claiming there will be none. To get to that dubious and unfounded conclusion, they spout the following: daily North Broad traffic counts considerably lower than those provided to residents by Public Works (and these are lower than counts done by residents themselves); claims of additional project -generated traffic so absurdly low as to be laughable (though previously they claimed less than 75 vehicles per day while now they admit to up to 388 per day, a number they dismiss as insignificant; I believe an accurate accounting would be at least 1,000 per day); and peak hour numbers that are beyond laughable ("l 10 vehicles or an average of less than two cars per minute," to quote their response). Anyone who's ever been on North Broad would scratch their head at this claim of less than two cars per minute at peak hour, but but the number is also mathematically absurd on its face. Peak p.m. hour is, by definition, a time of heavier traffic than at other hours. But what if it were so (implausibly, at that) by, say, only one car per hour? Then we can multiply 24 hours x 109 = 2616; and add the extra peak hour vehicle 2616 + 1 = 2617 vehicles per day. So, how does that compute against the acknowledged 5,000-6,000 vehicle per day counts Marketplace EIR, Page 2 Richard Schmidt V544-4247 CN6/30/4 09:37AM D3/9 Public Works agrees are the reality: . ne consultant spouts nonsense. fabrics Jn's. and lies to fend off mv_ ___.._.a a__�r�• ___,.._:_ ate___,_ __ _ate__... _.. a_ �____:�_ a�_:___a:_� If this numerical fabrication on the part of the consultant were something new, that had not been previously pointed out to them, perhaps we could chalk It up to simple numerical illiteracy or some such. But this numerical fabrication is not new, and I pointed it out to staff and the same consultant when they first sprung it several years ago during an earlier EIR cycle on this project, and they have the letter to prove it. Still, they fall back on this patent nonsense to justify not doing CEQA analysis. So, what's the game here? Why this obdurate refusal to cite real facts, and engage in required analysis? They could have done the analysis I requested with little more effort than has gone into concocting rationalizations to avoid doing it. Two other unrelated comments on the consultant's response to my other requests for analysis at the DEIR stage. 2. Dismissal of Mid-Higuera Alternative. Cutting to the quick of the argument the consultant uses to not do an alternatives analysis for mid-Higuera, it is this: the site is not under the control of the applicant! Hey, is the purpose of an EIR to analyze alternatives, or only alternatives an applicant wants to pursue? Isn't it the former? If we only dealt with sites and project descriptions under the control of an applicant, there would never be any meaningful alternatives analysis. Doesn't an alternatives analysis look at what's good for the community as a whole, not just at what's good for an applicant? As I said before, this project is huge relative to the size of this community. It will dominate it. That makes it different from some podunk little subdivision. We deserve a higher level of alternatives analysis than has been provided. I believe the logic displayed here is a perversion of the purpose of CEQA. 3. Dismissal of procurement of Dalidio property for Dedicated Water Production. The consultant's claim that the city could only use wells on the Dalidio property to deliver water to that property is utter nonsense. The history of those wells shows that for years prior to development of our current reservoirs, the wells were In fact used for municipal purposes. This was true as recently as the early 1990s drought, when those wells got the city's water customers through some very dry times. Nobody at that time contested the city's delivery of water off -site. In fact, the city has asserted in court (during pleadings in the infamous Bear Valley Shopping Center suit) that it owns "pueblo rights" to the water, meaning its claim to municipal use dates to the Franciscan friars' settlement of the area The consultant response also states a well on Dalidio would "not be adequate to meet the City's adopted 2000 afy reliability reserve." Well, again, where does this "fact" come from? The Boyle Engineering study the city paid for to explore precisely the productivity of those wells said they could sustainably yield more than Z000 afy ad infinitum because the aquifer that fills them refills quickly even in low rain years. The consultant response also engages in some interesting revisionist history on the Bear Valley Center lawsuit (building subsidence alleged to have been caused by the city's well pumping, a charge the city inadequately refuted in court, thus producing a precedent that its pumping can be held accountable for damage to buildings, and leading to my claim it would only be feasilbe for a litigation -cautious city to engage in extensive pumping on Dalidio if the property remains undeveloped). The consultant makes claims of the city's non -culpability which, to my knowledge the city didn't assert in its court filings. The fact remains, the Bear Valley lawsuit loss should make the city very wary of pumping extensively in proximity to commercial development, and will act as a de =1III 8 ••-iW,N_"r•7 Z•i•TiT II=wiIMe 1iF •_ii•-W-0iFt—••n-i%iiir- #7 •r: i • . .. • . Bill. - Finally, the consultant sates: "There is no evidence to support the contention that development of the Dalidio property would result in the destruction of the groundwater resource." Really. Well, such categorical statements, unsupported by fact or commonsense (perhaps the consultant is unfamiliar with percolation through the soil surface), work both ways, so here's my rework: 'There is no evidence to support the contention that development of the Dalidio property would NOT result in the destruction of the groundwater resource." Frankly, I'd prefer good truthful, comprehensive CEQA analysis rather than the defensive, propagandistic rhetoric we've been given by our consultant. Marketplace EIR, Page 3 Richard Schmidt 4544-4247 M06/30/4 G9:39AM p4/9 IN CONCLUSION, PLEASE FIND THIS EIR INADEQUATE, AND REQUIRE IT'S DEFECTS (INCLUDING THOSE I'VE LISTED ABOVE) TO UNDERGO IMPROVEMENT BEFORE YOU ACT UPON IT OR THE RELATED PROJECT. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt Attachment: Letter to Planning Commission dated Feb. 23, 2004 Marketplace EIR, Page 4 Richard Schmidt 11T544-4247 M06/30/4 09:40AM 05/9 RICHARD SCHMIDT 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 February 23, 2004 Re: Comment on Daiidio Marketplace Draft EIR To the Planning Commission: This EIR needs a lot of work yet to be adequate. Here are some comments I hope you will push to have included. I reserve the right to make additional comments in writing at a later time. 1. Traffic Impacts. The EIR focuses on traffic impacts in the immediate vicinity, forgetting that since this huge retail development is designed to be freeway -accessible, it will draw traffic to the freewav alona surface streets far removed from the immediate vicinitv. The scope of the traffic impact study needs to be expanded city wide to those select locations where there will be clear impacts. One such location is North Broad Street, which while a neighborhood street has unfortunately been altered so it is also a freeway on -ramp. At the present time, the street, which is nearly entirely single family residential in an otherwise highly desirable neighborhood, is being subjected to more than twice the maximum traffic load the city has pledged in its Circulation Element to try to maintain. The Dalidio project will increase that load by about 1,000 vehicles per day, a load one-third again as large as the maximum the city has pledged to maintain. I do not see how the city can claim such an increase in traffic impact to a neighborhood is OK, and not in need of mitigation. I am particularly concerned that the street will become the route of choice for Marketplace - bound traffic from the North Coast, as Santa Rosa becomes increasingly gridlocked. We are already experiencing considerable regional cut -through traffic due to this cause, and the Marketplace will make the situation far worse. [Note: When I raised this issue during the previous Dalidio EIR round, the consultant responded by lying about the amount of traffic currently carried by North Broad Street, lying about the amount Dalidio would add to it; and lying about the impacts of that traffic on the neighborhood, and even when those gross errors were pointed out, refused to correct them.] DirectHere is what I wish the PC to doo 1. 1. 1- traffic impacts of 1- proJect •1 ►•ll Broad be included 1 the traffic 11!. • 1- 1- •1!• 1••! --. •11 1 -.F-7• Pil LEM a ill 1.1 er-A I 1 Lei R !-•Nmr-.11 1! I I 11!. 1" 11!z • 1- 1! "1 11• - C •.e -- .I 11" ! 1! 1 1" ■ �F,-1 �• • • 1• 1" : •-! -- -1111-1! •1 1• !. 1• 1 - 1-1!" 11• "11"1 •' •1 'I"1 1 1" - •1 "11-1 Marketplace EIR, Page 5 Richard Schmidt Iff 544-4247 r1 . N 4. T1, : e.d Street11 •. • •1 e- -d1 e- • 11 • 41 11 1a .1 r.T- 1 .•• •1. .041171 1• FTe•-• • 1 -.• • - • •-1-� - •-1 -- - • 2. Project Alternatives need to address at least the following: This project, on lush farmland at the freeway periphery of the city, is in the wrong place. A more economically productive and less environmentally damaging alternative could be located on already -developed urban land. The Mid Higuera Area (Marsh to Madonna) is the ideal location for retail commercial redevelopment for an in -town mall -like shopping area, similar to Santa Barbara's wildly successful Paseo Nuevo. This could accommodate the uses contemplated at Dalidio. There's hardly a building in the area with architectural worth, the existing service commercial uses are inappropriate for such prime in -town real estate, the area is a blight and cries out for improvement. On the positive side, infrastructure is already in place, the location is adJacent to downtown, and there is excellent freeway -access to both ends of the district (at Marsh and Madonna). Look at this as a land asset -- how many cities are fortunate enough to have such a great commercial land resource practically in the center of town? Imagine, for a moment, how this redevelopment might work. There could be parking structures at either end, each with ready freeway access. Shoppers would be encouraged to leave the freeway and immediately park, then negotiate the beautifully -developed pedestrian mall's "streets" on foot as they do in Santa Barbara. (Santa Barbara's Paseo Nuevo, however, lacks one of the strengths of this site -- direct freeway access. Think how that can draw in out-of-towners to spend their $$$ here!) Instead of bringing shoppers to a drive - through mall at the periphery of the city (as would be the case with a Dalidio mall) for a generic and unexciting shopping experience undifferentiated from that of any other freeway city, where furthermore shoppers are isolated from everything but the mall, here they would be parked practically in downtown. Electric trolley service linking the Lower Higuera "mall" and downtown would be a convenient way to keep regional shopping traffic out of downtown, while boosting the strength of the downtown shopping district. Unlike the Madonna Road malls, this mall would reinforce rather than compete with downtown simply by dint of its location. Given time, the several blocks along Higuera and Marsh between the Lower Higuera Mall and downtown would fill in with shopper -friendly uses, and there would be a continuous "downtown shopping area" that included the new mall, just as in Santa Barbara. (By contrast, that will never happen with the Madonna Road locations -- there's too much commercial junk in between, plus the freeway is a pedestrian -unfriendly wall.) This location would be perfect for the sort of large anchors people here say they want -- a Macy's or Nordstrom or some other upper scale retailer would fit in just as they have done in the elegant Paseo Nuevo. By redeveloping this area instead of proliferating sprawl at Dalidio, we could create the sort of in -town shopping experience all our planning efforts say we want, rather than subscribing to Marketplace EIR, Page 6 Richard Schmidt Ir544,4247 CW6/3014 09:42AM p719 the expansion of speculative '�-prawlMart shopping opportunities ulit have always been our second choice, and whose carcasses of late -- and soon again if Dalidio goes ahead -- littered Madonna Road -- and litter in even greater numbers nearly every other California.city that has pursued that route. 3. Project Alternatives need to address at least the following: Better uses for the Dalidio land. 1. It is obvious this signature agricultural working landscape is more valuable to the city's image than a shopping center. [Says Joni Biaggini of the visitor's bureau: "I think it's an opportunity to utilize ag space in a way that is friendly to the environment. It's a way of expanding our market for travelers who are interested in going away with an education -- not just a suntan." So, what will they learn at the Marketplace? That SLO is Anytown USA? Will they return for more of that? I've been lured to a lot of tourist traps by "visitor information" campaigns, never to return. Others I want to go back to because they're real, unique places. Which will it be here?] 2.. This community symbol cannot be sustained if the proposed development proceeds. 3. This property is of unique value for water production for a city which needs more water for future growth. Just over a decade ago, when the city was serious about pursuing such water sources, it hired Boyle Engineering to determine how much the land could supply. Boyle's answer was over 2,000 acre feet per year sustained yield. (This is due in part to the fact the aquifer refills very quickly, even in years of relatively low rainfall.) This quantity of additional water would more than meet:the city's buildout need for new water sources. The city, however, now more interested in importing water from other ecosystems than in living within our ecosystem's means, has changed its estimates of the value of this aquifer accordingly, based not on new information, but on the political needs of the moment. One of those needs for downgrading the water capacity of Dalidio is making water extraction compatible with the proposed development. Development of the property as proposed is not compatible with an ambitious water extraction program because of a lawsuit the city decided to lose several years ago, the Bear Valley Shopping Center suit, in which the city ended up with a multi -million dollar judgment for building damage allegedly caused by land subsidence allegedly caused by the city's ambitious ground water pumping during a drought. If -the Dalidio Marketplace were NOT built, there would be no liability -based hesitancy on the city's part to an ambitious pumping program on the property. There would be no need to limit water extraction to hundreds of acre feet per year when thousands are available. Marketplace EIR, Page 7 Richard Schmidt 'Q544-4247 006/30/4 09:44AM p619 Since at present, the land has,jnly agricultural value, without development entitlements, its price in condemnation would be relatively modest according to the city's $50 million plus cost of joining the Nacimiento Pipeline Project. We can now compare costs, and impacts, with some sense of knowledge -- which we couldn't do several years ago when Nacimiento costs were up in the air. If the city were to purchase the land for its water production value, a variety of compatible open space uses could be possible, including continuation'of the existing signature agricultural operation. 4. Furthermore, if the city were to own the land, it could use it to multiply its supply of potable water for municipal use while also saving money on future sewage treatment plant expansion. Land dispersal of secondarily treated sewage effluent, percolation through the soil and into an aquifer is a very cheap way to purify water and make it suitable for domestic use. I have no estimate of how much additional potable water could be created this way, but it seems reasonable if the city could continue recharging the aquifer all year round -- by natural means in winter, by spreading effluent on the land in the summer -- capacity might be increased substantially, perhaps close to doubled. This has the benefit of being a highly ecological way to augment our water supply, by closing the circle of its use. It would be far cheaper and more efficient than the costly scheme of piping tertiary -treated effluent all over town for landscape use. But it would require a substantial land base for it to work. 5. Destruction of the World's Finest Agricultural Soil. The EIR should explain why it is not a crime against humanity and against the earth to destroy a patch of the finest farmland in the world so the city may temporarily enrich itself from sales tax obtainable elsewhere (see #2 above, for example), while it is a known fact that such land globally is being destroyed rapidly even as the world's population booms and nations, like China, which have always fed their own people, are now joining the US in importing substantial parts of their food supply. The EIR needs to explain how people are going to be fed if every city behaves in the same manner as SLO is behaving in this instance -- making a finding of "overriding considerations" that more shopping opportunities are more important than protecting the land which produces our food so bountifully. The EIR needs to explain how people are going to afford food which, because of Chinese expansion into the global market, is expected within the decade to experience price shocks comparable to the gas price runup of the 1970s, or the more recent housing cost markup. The EIR needs to explain why it would not be preferable to keep this small, but bountiful, patch of soil to sustain our community's future need for certain types of food. 6. Incorporation of earlier EIR scoping and draft comments. By incorporation, I want all Marketplace EIR, Page 8 Richard Schmidt It544-4247 M6/30/4 09:45AM ❑9/9 my comments from the previo,.s Dalidio EIR process, including buch those at the scoping and draft stages, to be incorporated into my comments for this second EIR process. Those comments are available to the consultant from the printed record. (As far as I can tell, only one has been adequately dealt with in the present draft EIR: that relating to restraint of items stacked above 8 feet in retail areas.) By incorporating these earlier comments, I expect they will be responded to just as the comments above will be. 7. Reservation to make additional comments. These comments are being directed via the Planning Commission. Since the comment period remains open, I reserve the right to make additional future comments on the draft EIR. Thank you very much for considering these comments. a -To&-N ilril Marketplace EIR, Page Julie O'Connor- Fwd: Marketplace project —_ . _ Page T From: SLO Citycouncil To: O'Connor, Julie Date: 6/29/04 12:18PM Subject: Fwd: Marketplace project >>> "Phil Ackerman" <phil.ackerman@charter.net> 06/29/04 11:54AM >>> Dear Council Members, I think it's appalling that there is this "fighting" between the big guns in SLO (Rossi, Copeland and King) and the interests of the community at large concerning the Marketplace Project. Please let the developers (Dalidio/Byrd) build their marketplace. They've fought long enough to get this project through and I think it will be good for the community. Let the 3 big guys build their downtown center and take the risks that any business person assumes who goes out and builds this kind of project. I saw a sign the other day that someone. had put up on the comer of the Dalidio property (along the freeway) about "saving this open space". We've got loads of open space! This county is full of open space. As an outdoorsman I love open space as much as the next guy but I don't have to have it in the middle of town. Come to the city to shop, socialize and be entertained, not to "get away from it all". Please vote for the Marketplace project and don't let the "big guys" have their way just because they're the deep pockets and want to "comer" on the market. Regards, Phil Ackerman San Luis Obispo COUNCIL Z ACAO P ATTORNEY ZCLERIVORIG r® bC� FADS T CDD DIR FIN DIR 2-FIRE CHIEF J: PW DIR jt POLICE CHF tOREC DIR i'UTIL DIR _/ DI^n RECEIVED JUN 2 0 2004 SLO CITY CLERK RED FILE ME ING AGENDA DATE ITEM #- Page 1 of 2 ;Julie O'Connor - Referendum on the "San Luis Marketplace" proposal From: Orval Osborne <oosborne@fix.net> RECEIVED To: <dromero@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>, ,JUL 0 1 2004 <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org> Date: 6/30/04 6:20 PM SLO CITY CLERK Subject: Referendum on the "San Luis Marketplace" proposal CC: <KHAMPIAN@slocity.org>, <JMandevi@slocity.org>, <jlowell@slocity.org> Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, June.30, 2004 I am writing to you today to request that you place the San Luis Marketplace project on the November ballot as a referendum. RED FILE ME ING AGENDA Rather than speculate about how many people support or oppose it; with a DATE ITEM # referendum we would know the will of the voters with absolute clarity. The County would not dare to approve it in their jurisdiction if the voters rejected it. Only a referendum could remove this huge cloud over the City's decision -making ability. I am of the view that this project developing in County jurisdiction, if that were possible, would be the worst of all possible worlds: the City would get all the costs, while the County would get the benefit. If the. City voters say no, the County Supervisors would have to obey the will of the voters or commit political suicide. If the City voters approve it, then there would be no argument, and the project would be. allowed to develop in the City. — �` - : COUNCIL I ADD DIR %CAO FIN DIR The referendum should be worded to allow a different decision in the future /ACAO SIRE CHIEF I�'ATTORNEY y W DIR on the same or a similar project. (One of the objections to the San Luis POLICE CHFMarketplace is it is "too much too soon." The City's business environment1,�,CLERK/ORIG a DEPT HEADS Z REC DIR will change with time. Or the project proponents may want to come back with — ;;-uTIL DiR a scaled -down or phased project.) A referendum on the November ballot would be timely. A decision in four months is a short time compared to the many years this project has been discussed. A campaign would be an opportunity for all the facts and arguments to be laid out. However, I must admit the project proponents would have an advantage in having much more money to spend for their side than the opponents. Hopefully a vigorous public discussion will overcome the financial imbalance. Please do not reject the concept of a referendum. You may think that you have to decide everything yourself, but this is one of those issues that would best be decided by all citizens. The biggest advantage of a referendum is the public "buy -in" or acceptance of the decision. A referendum would settle the question with a clarity that a City Council vote never could. Finally, if you reject the referendum and vote on the project yourselves, citizens may mount a signature drive to put it on the ballot anyway. The file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW )00001.HTM 7/1/04 Page 2 of 2 r community would likely maintain unity better if they got a referendum without having to override a Council vote. Please, in the interest of democracy and fairness, use your power to initiate a referendum on the San Luis Marketplace proposal. Sincerely, Orval Osborne 310 Calle Lupita, SLO, CA 93401. (805) 235-8178 (cell), 545-9838 (work). file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW )00001.HTM 7/1/04 R IUL 01 2004 Julie O'Connor - against dalidio project From: "kev j" <kevanl906@hotmail.com> To: <dromer@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <jewan@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <kschwartz@ci.san-luis- obispo.ca.us> Date: 6/29/04 7:07 PM Subject: against dalidio project To who it may concern.... Hello my name is Kevan and I live at 1906 Oceanaire Dr. I am 24 years young and have lived here at this residence with my family for over 22 years. I can remember since I was 7 our neighborhood has been trying to fight this implant of this dalidio project. Adding more traffic and roads and building to the area will impact our neighborhood heavily. This once was a quiet small town and now you want to take some of the RED FILE last quiet neighborhoods away from us.. most of these people on these blocks ME ;TING AGENDA have been. here for years we have enough people speeding down Ocenaire as it DATE Plj}� ITEM # I- ) is every day of the week. There are 2 schools near by that have small children walking home while people are speeding down the street way over 40mph and you want to add now more traffic and noise to our back yards now. There are dozens of birds from hawks to owl's to vultures and many other species here in my back yard and adding a road next to them you think will ,� not impact them at all? Isn't the line of trees/birds a bird sanctuary? I - uuCIL :yCDD DIR just don't understand why this city is so greedy and all you want to do is 1✓ LCA FIN DIR add more stores and buildings to our area.. It costs enough to live here as. g g ��YACAO ;----FIRE CHIEF Half the stores that go in around here our out within the next month or so 1-Zr-ATTORNEY PW DIR it just doesn't make sense. 12-CLERKORIG OPOLICE CHF ❑ I DLUT HEADS 1REC DIR I just wish that you guys would listen to the people who live in these TIL DIR areas more than do what you guys want. I watch the meeting on TV its funny — — ✓H. D '7I how you seem to look down on us "regular" people and don't even seem to care what we say. Self interest runs this city its time that you start listening to the people who will be impacted my your projects before you go and mess up a good thing. Thank you and we are strongly against this Dalidio project please think about the impacts before you act. -Kevan B. FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar — get it now! http://toolbar-.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/O1/ file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW }000O1.HTM 7/1/04 _._._-- Julie O'Connor - Fwd: Target, Old Navy_, Wh^le Foods at the Madonna Plaza RECEIVED From: SLO Citycouncil To: O'Connor, Julie JUL 01 2004 Date: 7/1/04 7:47AM Subject: Fwd: Target, Old Navy, Whole Foods at the Madonna Plaza SLO CITY CLERK >>> Michele Fellows <Ibcfellows@yahoo.com> 06/30/04 03:26PM >>> Dear City Council, I would like to beg the city council to please allow Target, Whole Foods and Old Navy to build at the Madonna Plaza. My family has recently relocated here and I can tell you that nearly everyone I know from our old location shopped religiously at these stores. I know that the new Targets are extremely nice, clean and have everything one needs for much less. As a stay-at-home mom, this is vital. Also, my daughter has severe food allergies which can cause her to go into Anaphalaxic shock should she eat the wrong item. Prior to moving here, I was under the impression that Whole Foods was moving in, which is a store that one with food allergies can find a huge selection of food items a very resonable prices. I understand the city does not encourage too much growth, but these stores can only enhance the quality of living for those members of our town (stores like K-mart or Wal-mart would not). As mentioned, I am a stay-at-home mom and having these stores available to me would be such a terrific benefit. Michele Fellows Ibcfellows(&yahoo. com Los Osos Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DATE ITEM # IL'i /CbU J�IL DD DIR %CAO Z,,''IN DIR CHIEF I�ACAO J�ATTORNEY _2=IRE P -CLERKiORIG POLICE CHF [J DEPT HEP,DS 2�'R=C DIR UTIL DIR —.-- ---.-- -- __ .-.. ---.., __ _...- --- P _ _ _ _ Julie O'Connor Fwd: Attn: councilmember Nbilholland _age 1' RECEIVED From: SLO Citycouncil JUL 0 1 2004 To: O'Connor, Julie Date: 7/1/04 7:50AM SLO CITY CLERK Subject: Fwd: Attn: councilmember Mulholland >>> "Lee" <hdkdlee@charter.net> 06/30/04 05:11PM >>> Get real!!! The downtown has nothing to offer the working families of SLO. We need to get Costco past the Corps of Engineers and get the stores at the Marketplace. I'm not a newcomer. I've lived here 35 years and am tired of going to Arroyo Grande, Santa Maria or Paso Robles to shop. Thank goodness for HOME DEPOT. I've spent over $3,000 there since it opened. Most of that would have been spent.in either Santa Maria or Atascadero. We need the tax base along with the convience of having these in our city. RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DATEITEM #2�( -A s "T'T DD DIP COUNCIL I SIN DIR k FIRE CHIEF CAO 1-T0RNEY ZPOuCE I 2'CLERKIORIGR�C CHF , I ❑-'+ DEPJ�HF-ADS DIR UTIL DIR .. _ Julie O'Connor Fwd Market Place From: SLO Citycouncil RECBVED To: O'Connor, Julie Date: 7/1/047:49AM Subject: Fwd` Market Place GI 0 CITY CLEF >>> <FDuFault@aol.com> 06/30/04 04:24PM >>> To: The Mayor and city council members Why are the values of homes so high in SLO? Because of the demand to live here. Why the demand? Because of what SLO has to offer - uniqueness, charm and the appeal of our downtown. Recently SLO was named 3rd of the top 10 places to live in the U.S. and Canada. And alot of that appeal and charm was based on the downtown. If the downtown suffers economically, then anyone living in SLO is effected financially as well, not just the downtown businesses, and property owners. We all have an economic interest in the downtown. Will the Marketplace hurt downtown economically? One doesn't have to look very hard to see what has happened to other downtowns when large POWER CENTERS build in the same town. They die economically and the whole community feels the impact financially. The other thing that bothers me about the Marketplace, is the developer, Mr.. Byrd. He is the same individual who built and developed the Madonna Mall, then let it go into foreclosure and lost it. Where is his real concern? Does SLO have the population to support 2 large box stores like Home Depot and Lowes when they are so close to each other? Mr. Byrd is.not concerned about that orthe future of what happens to SLO. I am. Sincerely, Frank DuFault 798 Palm st. SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401 RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DATE(* ITEM #q�+—_ �COU`JCIL L Ii^CA0 y'ACAO Z'ATTORNEY i [�-CLERK/ORIG �gF�BT EADS ;? CDD DIR la'FIN DIR FIRE CHIEF 1c"PW DIR POLICE CHF S REC DIR /� UTIL DIR a iR DIR Page 1 of 1 Shelly Stanwyck - Marketplace From: "Donna Godfrey" <dhgodfrey @charter. net> RECEIVED To: <sstanwyc@slocity.org> JUL 0 1 2004 Date: 6/30/2004 6:00 PM Subject: Marketplace SLO CITY CLEF I support the Marketplace, especially Target, a type of store that is not represented at all in San Luis. The downtown is strong and will be stronger when the Copeland projects (which were not subject to the scrutiny that any developments outside of downtown are) are completed. The downtown serves mainly tourists, college students and their visiting parents, but does not have the everyday items that most families need. I've already mailed the city council directly, but please pass this on to them as well. Thank you, Donna Godfrey, San Luis Obispo RED FILE MEETING DATE1 AGENDA TEM !COUNCIL CDD DIR FIN DiR �/CAO -0 FIRE CHIEF ACAO G-ATTORNEY Z. PW DIR POLICE CHF ;?rCLERK/OFIIG I u DEPT HEADS ��^ Z R=C DIR f �^ 12- UTIL DIR file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 7/1/2004 Page 1 of 1 Shelly Stanwyck - San Luis Marketplace From: <TweCle@aol.com> To: <sstanwyc@slocity.org> Date: 7/1/2004 8:23 AM Subject: San Luis Marketplace JUL 01 2004 SLO CITY CLERK Please put us on record in support of the San Luis Marketplace. We would like to see this project come to completion. Thank you for your consideration. Terry & Cathi Evans 1565 Maxwellton St. I�mo""� 4405 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 COUNCIL �CDD DIR /'CAO FIN DIR ;G'ACAO FIRE CHIEF 'ATTORNEY ,Z"rW DIR ZCLERK/ORIG -�!'DOLICE CHF ❑ DEP HEADS GR=C DIR UTIL DIR RED FILE MEETING AGENDA D.,�TEITEM #—Tk1 file:/!C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GWIOOOO1.HTM 7/1/2004 i Page 1 of 1 J Shelly Stanwyck - San Luis Marketplace From: "Vivian Monro" <vivian363 @charter. net> RECEIVED To: <sstanwyc @ slocity.org> JUL 0 1 2054 Date: 6/30/2004 4:05 PM Subject: San Luis Marketplace SLO CITY CLERK I support the San Luis Marketplace project. I never shop downtown because it is too expensive for the average citizen. I always shop at Arroyo Grande or Santa Maria at Wal Mart or Target. Having our own Target would save not only gas, pollution, and traffic, but also citizens like myself who can't afford to shop at the specialty stores downtown would save money. Let the tourists and college students support downtown! Stop listening to the biased reports supported by the downtown merchants. Downtown SLO is very solid. These stores would not threaten them at all. Sincerely, Vivian Monro San Luis Obispo I I_ RED FILE ME ING AGENDA DATE ITEM #�L /COUNCITT �CAO -,e'ACAO .Zi ATTORNEY ..2 CLERK/ORIG u DEPT EADS %1q is CDD DIR .Z'FIN DIR ll /FIRE CHIEF PW DIR .ZPOLICE CHF eREC DIR ZUTIL UR �hR DIill file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW IOOOO1.HTM 7/1/2004 Page 1 of 1 Shelly Stanwyck - Dalidio Property JUL 01 2004 From: Cindy Williams <cwatslo@sbcglobal.net> To: <sstanwyc@slocity.org> LS 'LO C,TY Date: 6/30/2004 7:38 PM Subject: Dalidio Property Dear Ms. Stanwyck, Please add our names to the list of those who support the Dalidio project. We have looked forward to this development for a long time and would like to see it completed as soon as possible. Hopefully without prolonging the process until companies run out of money or are so disgusted they move on, as you have with Macy's. We need them more than they need us. The people's money the downtown business owner's are so worried about losing will still shop downtown. In case you haven't noticed it is a different clientele, consisting primarily of tourists and students (not just Cal Poly students). When I can, I love to go downtown for things that aren't everyday, to have lunch, buy presents and see people I know. But when I need every day work clothes I go to Santa Barbara or Thousand Oaks. I love Ann's but I can't afford it everyday, I go for something special.. And how much competition is there in men's stores downtown? The restaurants with good food and reasonable prices all seem to be doing fine. The only complaint I hear is that no one can find a place to park and if they do happen to find one it costs way too much. The Williams family San Luis Obispo RED FILE MEETING AGENDDA, DATE ITEM 9_i'� i� xcOUNCILT� /— CDD DIR /CAO ' �� ACAO yFIN DIR FIRE CHIEF 1 ATTORNEY ry ,cPW DIR t POLICE CHF .;2-CLERK/0RIG ❑ DE T HEADS Z, RAC DIR ;�IUTIL DIR � /'rZ GIP. file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW)00001.HTM 7/1/2004 LLOCITY VED 2004 �:. council mcmoRAnbuCLERK RED FILE ,mac°ur�cl' CDD DIZ= July 1, 2004 ME ING AGENDA XACAO fSFIN DIR ��%v�� ff FIRE CHIEF QATE2T ITEM #fit' 1�J ATTORNEY Z PW DIR TO: City Council 'fCLERK/ORIG O'POLICE CHIP ,1�%q. I ❑ DEPT HEADS Z REC DIR FROM: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officerq K/ 21rUTIL DIR Bill Statler, Director of Finance & Information Technology �� r HR `' SUBJECT- PRIOR STUDIES: IMPACT OF RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ON DOWNTOWN Council Member Mulholland recently asked if there were prior studies on the economic impact of retail development in the Madonna Road area on the downtown. The short answer is: yes. The following summarizes two key reports that were prepared in 1983 related to what would become the Central Coast Plaza. San Luis Mall EIR: 1983. Later to be known as Central Coast Plaza, the Environmental Impact Review (EIR) for this project included an extensive analysis of its likely economic impact on the downtown. Its basic findings were that this project would not have a significant adverse impact on the downtown as whole (although specific businesses might be affected) because: ■ The types of retail offered by this project would be significantly different from that provided in the Downtown. ® There was significant unmet market demand in the region that would be captured by the project. ■ This unmet demand would increase in the future with growth in the region, further mitigating any short-term impacts. ■ Regional leakage to Santa Maria was specifically noted as a factor. Strategic Planning Program: 1983-1984. This program was initiated in January 1983 in order to "pro -actively" achieve four goals: promote fiscal self-reliance, promote fiscal stability, make better use of existing resources and improve the City's economic role in the region. This effort resulted in the Strategic Planning Program Technical Report: A Survey of Economic Resources in September 1983. This 360-page document is chock full of economic base data and trends, as well as an analysis of City policies and how they help in (or detract from) achieving the four goals noted above. It also includes several "where to from here" recommendations. Because of its broad, "strategic" view, it did not focus extensively on Downtown retail issues; however, maintaining the vitality of the downtown was included in its scope. Its findings in this area concluded: ■ The City was losing its regional position as the retail center for the County. In the five years prior to this study, the City's retail sales had declined by 8%. ■ The City's regional position could be strengthened by this project, but that this did not have to occur with adverse impacts on the Downtown (along with added empirical research, it references the EIR study noted above). Prior Studies: Impact of Retail Development on Downtown Page 2 However, it recommended several strategies for improving the competitive position of the Downtown, many of which were subsequently pursued by the City, such as: Developing and implementing a Parking Management Plan that would allow businesses to contribute in -lieu fees rather than developing their own on -site parking, while using City resources to expand public parking through the use of structures. (Construction on the City's first structure on Palm Street began just a few years after the Strategic Planning Program). ■ Developing the Court Street property. e Making zoning and parking requirement changes in the Downtown that would encourage more shops, restaurants and "entertainment" places. A close look at retail sales in the years following the opening of the Central Coast Plaza shows two things: ■ Overall, the City reversed its prior trend of declining sales tax revenues. ■ And the Downtown's retail sales also increased. There are a number of factors that accounted for this (such as improved parking in the downtown and the opening of the Downtown Center), but the fact is that the Downtown became stronger after the opening of Central Coast Plaza, not weaker. It would be a stretch to conclude that Downtown retail became stronger because of the Central Coast Plaza, but it does show that there can be successful market niches for both. Moreover, it shows that the public policy initiatives launched by the City (such as zone changes and added public parking) were likely key factors in retaining (and in fact, boosting) the economic vitality of the Downtown. These Studies Were Not Without Controversy Then, Either. Council Member Mulholland's question was: were there studies? And while the answer is "yes," it should be noted that the findings of these two reports (especially the economic analysis in the 1983 EIR) generated a lot of discussion (and conflicting views) at the time on the ability of the downtown to effectively compete with national chains and larger -format stores like Gottschalk's in the Madonna Road area (much like the discussion we are having today regarding the San Luis Marketplace). Of special concern at that time was the concept of a more pro -active and aggressive public parking program as a key strategy in maintaining the economic vitality of Downtown. Stated simply, while many seem to conceptually agree with this strategy, the EIR comments show that there was great skepticism that the City would actually deliver. (Again, a discussion that is still ongoing twenty years later.) In summary, while there was extensive .analysis, it would be misleading to say that there was wide -spread community consensus on the results.. For More Information. Please call Bill Statler at extension 125 if you have any questions concerning the results of these two reports. Copies of the full reports (30-page EIR Appendix and 360-page Strategic Planning Program) are available from him upon request. Cc Wendy George, Shelly Stanwyck, John Mandeville, Jonathan Lowell, Pam Ricci G: San Luis Marketplace/2002 Proposal/Council Memorandum -Prior Studies Page 1 of 1 SLO Citycouncil - Attn: councilmember Mulholland From: "Lee" <hdkdlee@charter.net> To: <slocitycounci[Osiocity.org> Date: 6/30/2004 5:12 PM Subject: Attn: councilmember Mulholland JUL 01 2004 D CITY CLERK Get realM The downtown has nothing to offer the working families of SLO. We need to get Costco past the Corps of Engineers and get the stores at the Marketplace. I'm not a newcomer. I've lived here 35 years and am tired of going to Arroyo Grande, Santa Maria or Paso Robles to shop. Thank goodness for HOME DEPOT. I've spent over $3,000 there since it opened. Most of that would have been spent in either Santa Maria or Atascadero. We need the tax.base along with the convience of having these in our city. RED FILE MEETING AGENDA D ETC ITEM #T L -tea O�.�;C IL 1✓CAC ACAO 47 ATTORNEY 2nLERK'C9IG ❑ D,F.,PLLTTHHEADS C D D DIR SIN DIR AFIRE CHIEF IIPW DIR L'POLICE CHF Z"REC DIR ,GUTIL DIR n file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 7/1/2004