HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/2004, C5 - FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1452 (2004 SERIES) APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CI Counat Mcfi,D
j acEnaa Report 1w.N..6. C-
C
C I T Y OF SAN L U IS O B I S P O
FROM: Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney
Wendy George, Assistant City Administrator
Prepared By: Shelly Stanwyck, Economic Development Manager
SUBJECT: FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1452 (2004 Series)
APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY, THE DALIDIO FAMILY AND SAN LUIS OBISPO
MARKETPLACE, LLC FOR THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
MARKETPLACE PROJECT
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series) approving a Development Agreement between the
City, the Dalidio Family and San Luis Obispo Marketplace, LLC for the San Luis Obispo
Marketplace.
DISCUSSION
On August 3, 2004, the Council voted (3-1-1, Council member Mulholland voting no; Council
member Settle absent) to introduce Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series) to print approving a
Development Agreement between the City, the Dalidio family and San Luis Obispo Marketplace,
LLC governing development of the San Luis Obispo Marketplace project at 2005 Dalidio Drive.
At the August 3, 2004, the City Council modified the effective date of this ordinance to be upon
the effective date of the annexation of the property "or when the possible suspension,pursuant to
Elections Code Section 9237, of the effective date of Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series) is lifted,
whichever is later." Thus, Ordinance No. 1452(2004 Series) will not take effect until the
suspension of the Council's July 7, 2004 General Plan amendment (Resolution No. 9590),
caused by the pending referendum petition, is lifted. The lifting of the suspension of Resolution
No. 9590 will occur if either: 1) it is determined there is not a sufficient number of valid
signatures for the measure to qualify for the ballot, or 2) the measure is defeated by voters. In the
event that the referendum is successful, the finding of General Plan consistency cannot be made,
and Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series) will not take effect.
ATTACHMENT
Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series)
G:\Projects & Programs\Dalidio\Development Agreement\Dev. Agrmt. Final Adoption Rpt �� '
i
ORDINANCE NO..1452 (2004 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY,THE
DALIDIO FAMILY AND SAN LUIS OBISPO MARKETPLACE,LLC FOR THE SAN
LUIS OBISPO MARKETPLACE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 3,
2004, for the purpose of considering a proposed development agreement (hereinafter
"Development Agreement") for the San Luis Obispo Marketplace Project at 2005 Dalidio Drive;
and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was conducted pursuant to Chapter 17.94 entitled
Development Agreements of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Development Agreement was analyzed in the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the San Luis Obispo Marketplace project, and the City
Council certified said FEIR and adopted statements of overriding considerations on July 7, 2004;
and
WHEREAS, at a public hearing held on July 14, 2004, the Planning Commission of the
City of San Luis Obispo considered the subject Development Agreement and recommended
against its approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered the proposed Development
Agreement and exhibits, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, 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 ORDAINED by the City Council of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. The City of San Luis Obispo; Ernest F. Dalidio, Jr., Successor Trustee of
Dalidio Family Trust u/t/a dated October 29,. 1987, Ernest Dalidio Jr., Successor Trustee of the
Thelma F. Perrozi Trust u/t/a dated February 7, 1991, and Clara B. Dalidio, Trustee of the Clara
B. Dalidio Trust u/t/a dated January 15, 1991 (collectively, "Dalidio Family"); and San Luis
Obispo Marketplace Associates, LLC, desire to enter into a Development Agreement pursuant to
Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5, and Chapter 17.94 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code with respect to real property located at 2005 Dalidio Drive in San Luis Obispo.
The legal descriptions of said parcels are more particularly described in the proposed
Development Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference.
0; ��.
Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 series)
Page 2
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the
Development Agreement pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.94.100 on July 14, 2004 and
recommended against approval of the agreement, citing a potential inconsistency with the
General Plan due to skewing of the jobs/housing balance, and questionable public benefit to be
gained by the project. The City Council held a properly noticed public hearing regarding the
proposed Development Agreement pursuant to Section 17.94.110 et seq. on August 3, 2004. Oral
and written evidence were presented both to the Commission and the Council.
SECTION 3. Based upon substantial evidence in the record of the proceeding including,
without limitation, the written and oral staff reports, testimony of the applicant and other
interested parties, the FEIR prepared for the San Luis Obispo Marketplace project pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act, the General Plan, and the record and decision of the
Planning Commission, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed Development Agreement
is consistent with the General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo. The City Council further
finds that the proposed Development Agreement complies with the zoning, subdivision, and
other applicable ordinances and regulations.
SECTION 4. The proposed Development Agreement furthers the public convenience,
general welfare, and good land use practice, making it in the public interest to enter into the
Development Agreement with the applicant. The Development Agreement provides for the
orderly and comprehensive development of a land area in a visible and important location in the
City. The Development Agreement ensures that the project can be developed over time in its
approved form, and that the applicant will provide substantial public benefits as a part of the
development.
SECTION 5. Taking into account all of the conditions of approval that have been
applied to the project, the City Council further finds that:
(a) The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or
welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area, since the project is in
keeping with the character-and general development pattern of the existing area;
(b)The Development Agreement will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment
or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site, since the
Development Agreement ensures that public improvements, additional infrastructure and
other public benefits will be provided as the project is constructed;
(c) The Development Agreement will not jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a
menace to the public health, safety or general welfare, since the Development Agreement
will provide public safety improvements such traffic improvements contemplated by the
separate finding that the Development Agreement will help the City pay for the freeway
interchange as contemplated by the Circulation Element that the City could not otherwise
afford. Further, the project is conditioned to comply with applicable fire, building and life
safety codes and regulations;
�� 3
Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 series)
Page 3
(d) The Development Agreement will be in the best interests of the City in that it
implements the proposed San Luis Obispo Marketplace project and will provide certainty
to the City and the Applicant regarding that project's development time table, impact
fees, applicable ordinances, overall development standards and similar matters. The
proposed project will provide for a functional and attractive development that will
contribute to the City's tax base while preserving a considerable amount of land for
agricultural, conservation and open space uses. Because of this, the Development
Agreement is in the best interests of the City and its residents;
(e) The Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan, any applicable
Specific Plan and the Municipal Code. The administrative record and findings of.this
Ordinance demonstrate conformance with City requirements;
(f) The project will be appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with
neighboring uses, in light of the existing adjacent commercial uses, and as the
Conservation Land and the proposed residential uses separate much of the proposed
project from existing residential uses; and
(g) The Development Agreement would promote the public interest and welfare of the
City. The development project will preserve open space, provide for public
improvements contemplated by the Circulation Element and expand the City's tax base
through regional serving retail uses different from those in the downtown area. The
development project also provides for a residential use adjacent to an existing residential
area and limits the commercial-retail use to an area adjacent to existing commercial and
retail development.
SECTION 6. The proposed Development Agreement complies with the terms,
conditions, restrictions and requirements of Chapter 17.94 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code. Pursuant to San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.94.130, the Development
Agreement and the project approvals incorporated therein provide for a duration of the
agreement, uses to be permitted on the property, permitted density, maximum height, size and
location of buildings, and the reservation of land for public purposes such as open space.
SECTION 7. The proposed Development Agreement was analyzed in the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the San Luis Obispo Marketplace project, and the City
Council certified said FEIR and adopted statements of overriding considerations on July 7, 2004.
The City Council finds and determines that the Final Environmental Impact Report adequately
addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed Development
Agreement, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council, through the
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, incorporated the mitigation measures
listed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program into the project and the Development Agreement.
In light of adoption of the overriding considerations and incorporation of the mitigation
measures, the project and Development Agreement will not have a significant adverse impact on
the environment.
Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 series)
Page 4
SECTION 8. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby approves the
Development Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and authorizes the Mayor to execute
said Development Agreement on behalf of the City.
SECTION 9. 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 or when the possible suspension, pursuant to Elections Code Section 9237, of the
effective date of Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series) is lifted, whichever is later.
INTRODUCED on the 3rd day of August, 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 David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Diane Reynolds
Acting City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J ath P. Lowell
City Attorney
G:\Agenda-Ordinances-Resol\Marketplace Development Agreement Ordinance.doc
cs - s
' I
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
ANDRE,MORRIS &BUTTERY
P. O.BOX 730
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93406
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (hereafter "Agreement") is made and entered
into on (the "Agreement Date"), by and between: (i) the CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO, a Municipal Corporation and Charter City ("City"); (ii) ERNEST F. DALIDIO,
JR., Successor Trustee of Dalidio Family Trust u/t/a dated October 29, 1987, ERNEST
DALIDIO JR., Successor Trustee of the Thelma F. Perrozi Trust u/t/a dated February 7, 1991,
and CLARA B. DALIDIO, Trustee of the Clara B. Dalidio Trust u/t/a dated January 15, 1991
(collectively, "Dalidio Family"); and (iii) SAN LUIS OBISPO MARKETPLACE
ASSOCIATES, LLC, a California limited liability company ("SLO Marketplace"). Dalidio
Family and SLO Marketplace are referred to collectively as "Developer." Additional specified
terms are defined in Exhibit "A" hereto.
RECITALS
A. The Development Agreement Statute authorizes City to enter into an agreement for
the development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such
property in order to establish certain development rights in such property.
B. Dalidio Family is the owner of the Real Property. The Real Property consists of
approximately 131 acres of land that is included in City's General Plan and sphere of influence.
The Real Property is intended to be annexed to City.
C. SLO Marketplace has entered into an option agreement with Dalidio Family whereby
SLO Marketplace has an option to purchase a portion of the Real Property. Dalidio Family and
SLO Marketplace each have a legal and/or equitable interest in the Real Property.
D. Developer intends to: (i) develop the Project on the Real Property as follows: a) on
the Retail Land, SLO Marketplace intends to cause to be constructed the Retail Project; b) on the
Business Land, Dalidio Family intends to construct the Business Project; c) on the Residential
Land, SLO Marketplace intends to construct the Residential Project; and (ii) not develop those
portions of the Real Property as follows: a) the Conservation Land will be preserved as open
space via an easement; and b) approximately 16.2 acres of the Real Property committed to public
roads, including a freeway interchange approximately 11.7 acres in size. The "Project" shall
mean collectively, the Retail Project, the Business Project, the Residential Project, the creation of
CADo-u =and Srumgs\slou r\Deskmp\Fiml DA.DOC 1
I
open space on the Conservation Land and the Real Property committed to public roads including
the Freeway Interchange.
E. In 2002 Developer submitted a development proposal, and on May 21, 2002, the City
Council determined that the proposed Project constitutes an appropriate basis for a City project
application and directed further processing of the proposal.
F. The purpose of this Agreement is to facilitate the implementation of City's General
Plan through the development of the Project, thereby realizing various public benefits to City and
private benefits to Developer, including those described in these Recitals. The development of
the Project requires a major investment by Developer in public facilities, substantial front-end
investment in on-site and off-site improvements, dedications of land, participation in other
programs for public benefit and purposes, and substantial commitments of resources to achieve
both the private benefits of the Project for Developer and the public purposes and benefits of the
Project for City. Developer will be unable to make and realize the benefits from such
commitments of land and resources without the assurances of a realized Project provided by this
Agreement.
G. Developer is willing, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, to make expenditures
and provide benefits to City including, without limitation, contributions toward construction of a
full freeway interchange at U.S. Highway 101 and Prado Road, as described in Exhibit "B" (the
"Freeway Interchange"), the development cost of which is estimated to be approximately $22
million. City and Developer desire to provide a mechanism whereby the Freeway Interchange
will be constructed and funded in whole or in part by utilizing tax-exempt debt financing which
is secured by a portion of the Real Property and is reimbursed through sales tax and transient
occupancy tax revenues.
H. The general benefits to be received by City from this Agreement and the
implementing of the Project include, without limitation:
1. Implementing the General Plan and furthering it goals;
2. Implementing City's Circulation Element by providing improved access to the
Project and adjacent areas by constructing the Freeway Interchange;
3. Causing Developer to accelerate and provide specific public infrastructure
improvements and facilities in advance of City's opportunity to require Developer
to provide same;
4. Providing for Developer to dedicate approximately 54.7 acres of the Real
Property as a conservation easement;
5. Providing for Developer to contribute to City's open space acquisition fund an
amount determined by City to be sufficient to acquire a fee interest or an open
space/conservation easement on approximately 24 acres of additional off-site
land;
C:O�mW SeuingsW us \Dcskmp�Fuul D&DOC 2
6. Providing City with anticipated increased sales and transient occupancy tax
revenues;
7. Providing City with an opportunity for a portion of the Real Property to be
developed as a business park or such related use, in support of economic
development;
8. Providing for the opportunity of preserving the historic "Sulkey Racing Stadium"
structure, a grandstand structure that was constructed on the Real Property
approximately 100 years ago and used by City residents for horse racing, and
which is currently stored on the Real Property in a non-functional condition (the
"Grandstand Structure");
9. Providing for added commercial hotel development; and
10. Proving for affordable housing in furtherance of City's inclusionary housing
goals.
I. The parties acknowledge that it is the Dalidio Family's desire to make a voluntary,
charitable contribution to City of fee interest in and to the Conservation Land, at such time as
development of the Business Project is completed.
J. Some of those expenditures and dedications of land by Developer are over and above
those that City could require of Developer in the normal course of granting project approvals.
Developer is willing to make such additional expenditures and/or grant such additional
dedications in return for receiving the benefits conferred on Developer by this Agreement.
K. City desires the timely, efficient, orderly, and proper development of the Project, and
believes it is in the public interest to obtain the benefits conferred by the additional expenditures
and additional dedications by Developer referred to above. City further believes it is in the public
interest to provide for the vesting of Developer's rights to develop the Project in conformance
with the Project Approvals-and the terms and conditions contained herein so that such vested
rights shall not be disturbed by changes in laws, rules, or regulations, including measures passed
by initiative, that occur after the Effective Date of this Agreement.
L. The parties are entering into the Reimbursement Agreement concurrently with this
Agreement. The Reimbursement Agreement is intended to provide for reimbursement of costs
of construction, including related administration, design, and financing costs, of the Freeway
Interchange. The Reimbursement Agreement is intended to survive the expiration of all terms of
this Agreement. The Reimbursement Agreement shall provide for the sharing of up to 50% of
the net new sales tax and transient occupancy tax revenues generated by the Retail Project, less
certain exclusions and adjustments, as more particularly described in the Reimbursement
Agreement, not to exceed the Developer's special tax obligations under the Reimbursement
Agreement.
M. For the reasons recited herein, Developer and City have determined that the
development of the Real Property in accordance with the Project Approvals is a development
project for which this Agreement is appropriate. Further, this Agreement will: (i) eliminate
CADDcn nu and Satings\s1ouwr\Duktop\Finu1 DA.DOC' 3
uncertainty in planning and provide for the orderly development of the Real Property; (ii) insure
progressive installation of necessary improvements, provide for public services appropriate to the
development of the Real Property; (iii) help insure attainment of the maximum effective
utilization of resources within City at the least economic cost to its citizens; and (iv) otherwise
achieve the goals and purposes of the Development Agreement Statute. In exchange for these
benefits to City, together with the public benefits created by the development of the Real
Property, Developer desires to receive the assurance that it may proceed with development of the
Real Property; (i) in accordance with the Applicable Rules of City; (ii) pursuant to the terms and
conditions contained in this Agreement; and (iii) based on both existing and subsequent Project
Approvals.
N. City and Developer have reached agreement and desire to express herein a
development agreement that will facilitate development of the Project subject to the conditions
set forth in this Agreement and set forth in the Project.Approvals, as defined herein.
O. In connection with the development of the Project, City approved an amendment to
the General Plan on July 7, 2004, by Resolution No. 9590 (2004 Series) (the "General Plan
Amendment"). Among other things, the City Council found that this Agreement and the Project:
(i) are consistent with its General Plan, as amended; (ii) are compatible with the uses authorized
in, and the regulations prescribed for, the Real Property; (iii) are in conformity with public
convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice; (iv) will not be detrimental to the
health, safety, or general welfare; and (v) will not adversely affect the orderly development of
property or the preservation of property values.
P. The Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was certified by the City Council on July
7, 2004, by Resolution No. 9588 (2004 Series) (the "EIR Certification"). Pursuant to CEQA, a
mitigation/monitoring program for the Project was approved by the City Council. With respect to
all environmental impacts identified in the EIR as not being capable of mitigation to an
insignificant level, City has determined that the benefits of the proposed Project outweigh these
unmitigated environmental effects and, accordingly, City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations on July 7, 2004.
Q. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65859 and City's General Plan, City
prezoned the Real Property as set forth in Exhibit "C", on August 3, 2004, by Ordinance No.
1449 (2004 Series) (the "Prezoning"). The Prezoning shall become effective upon the date of
completion of annexation of the Real Property to City ("Annexation") or when the possible
suspension, pursuant to Elections Code Section 9237, of the effective date of Resolution No.
9590 (2004 Series) is lifted, whichever is later. Because Annexation is a necessary prerequisite
to the development of the Project, it is the intent of the parties that if Annexation is not
completed within the time specified herein, the Agreement and all rights and obligations
hereunder will thereupon terminate.
R. Consistent with City's General Plan, City approved that certain Development Plan
(the "Development Plan") for a portion of the Project, including the Retail Project, on July 7,
2004,by Ordinance No. 1449 (2004 Series).
C:0..n a mut Seningc\s1ou.\D..kmpTi.1 DAMOC 4
S. On July 14, 2004, the Planning Commission of City, after giving notice pursuant to
Government Code Sections 65867, 65090 and 65091, held a public hearing on Developer's
application for this Agreement.
T. The City Council, after providing public notice as required by law, on August 3,
2004, considered and approved the Conservation Easement by Resolution No. 9596 (2004
Series).
U. The City Council, after providing public notice as required by law, held a public
hearing on this Agreement on August 3, 2004. On [INSERT DATE], the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 1452 (2004 Series) approving this Agreement.
V. The parties acknowledge that the Project represents a unique development in the City
of San Luis Obispo by virtue of its composition, scale, public improvement components and
open space protection component, and as such is unlikely to be reproduced in the foreseeable
future in San Luis Obispo. The parties further acknowledge that City's interest in reaching
project-specific agreements with Developer as to the specifications of the Project, including
providing for a non-pedestrian oriented design and construction of the Freeway Interchange, is
served by this Agreement. By providing incentives and disincentives in this Agreement and the
Reimbursement Agreement, City intends that the Commercial Project will continue to be a
"hybrid power shopping center," and as such will not have a material adverse impact on
downtown San Luis Obispo retail activities from either an economic or social standpoint.
NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the above recitals and in consideration of the
mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein contained, City and Developer agree as
follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Real Property Subiect to the Agreement. This Agreement applies to and governs the
development of the Real Property.
2. Relationship of City and Developer. This Agreement is a contract that has been
negotiated and voluntarily entered into by City and Developer. Developer is not an agent of City.
City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership
between them, and agree that nothing contained in this Agreement or in any document executed
in connection with this Agreement shall be construed as making City and Developer joint
venturers or partners.
3. Effective Date and Term.
3.1. Effective Date. The parties anticipate that completion of Annexation
(having the meaning in this Agreement that the phrase 'completion of annexation proceedings
annexing the property to the city' has in Section 65865(b) of the Development Agreement
Statute), triggering the Effective Date, shall occur prior to December 31, 2004 and shall use their
best efforts to achieve Annexation by that date. In the event that Annexation has not occurred on
or before December 31, 2005 (subject to extension as set forth in Section 3.4, below), despite the
00�and Scmiugs\%1ouscAD=kwp\FwW on.00c 5
parties best efforts to achieve Annexation, this Agreement shall be null and void and shall be
terminated without any further obligations hereunder, unless the parties mutually agree to an
extension of the time for Annexation.
3.2. Term. The Term shall commence on the Effective Date and extend for
the following periods, unless this Agreement is otherwise terminated or modified as set forth
herein: (i) with respect to development of the Retail Project, the Term shall be five (5) years
from the Effective Date; and (ii) with respect to the development of the Business Project and the
Residential Project, the Term shall be fifteen (15) years from the Effective Date.
3.3. Term of Project Approvals. The term of any Subdivision Map and the
other Project Approvals shall automatically be extended for the Term. Expiration of this
Agreement shall not affect any rights of Developer arising from the Project Approvals, except to
the extent that Subdivision Maps or other entitlements have a validity coterminous with this
Agreement.
3.4. Effect of Challenge. If any litigation is filed, referendum commenced or
any legal or political action taken challenging this Agreement, the General Plan Amendment, the
EIR Certification, the Development Plan, the Prezoning, the Annexation or any other Project
Approval (including but not limited to any environmental determinations related to any of the
foregoing) or otherwise raising issues concerning the validity of such matters or the validity and
binding nature of this Agreement, the Term shall be extended for the period of time such action
is pending. Upon the conclusion of such action (by dismissal, final entry of judgment or
otherwise), Developer and City shall indicate on an addendum to this Agreement the period of
any such extension and may record a notice to that effect. Further, in the event of any such
action, City shall, upon Developer's request and at Developer's discretion, cause the Annexation
to be postponed until the later of the conclusion of such action providing for a resolution which
allows the Project to proceed, or the date upon which Developer requests the Annexation process
to resume. During any such postponement of Annexation, the dates for Annexation set forth in
Section 3.1 shall toll and be extended for a like period of time. In the event of a delay in the
letting of the contract for the construction of the Freeway Interchange, such that the contract is
not let within one (1) year after Annexation, then the Term shall be extended for the period
beginning one (1) year after Annexation and ending upon letting of such contract.
4. Development of the Real Property.
4.1. Right to Develop. Developer shall have the vested right to develop the
Project on the Real Property in accordance with the Vested Components. No part of the Vested
Components may be revised or changed during the Term without the consent of the owner of the
portion of the Real Property to which the change applies (taking into account the terms of
Sections 21 and 22 hereof, relating to assignment of rights under this Agreement). The Vested
Components shall be effective against, and shall not be amended by, any subsequent ordinance
or regulation, whether adopted or imposed by the City Council or by the initiative or referendum
process. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, in accordance with the Development
Agreement Statute, this Agreement specifies, with respect to the Project, the duration of this
Agreement, the permitted uses of the Real Property, the density and intensity of use, the
maximum height and size of the proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication
of land for public uses.
c:Z o ma sadngsXsbusceQcAmpXFmWon.00e 6
�1
4.2. Project Plan. The Project is more specifically described and defined in
Exhibit "D", (the "Project Plan"), provided that the parties acknowledge that certain components
of the Project Plan are subject to Discretionary Approvals. The parties acknowledge that the City
Council approves in concept the designs and specifications contained in the Project Plan,
provided that certain items contained in and components of the Project Plan are subject to
approval by advisory bodies of City. If any such advisory body of City denies approval of any
component of the Project, Developer shall be entitled to appeal any advisory body action to the
City Council. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein, in the event that any
component of the Project Plan is subjected to a final rejection by City, Developer shall be
entitled to terminate this Agreement, and thereupon the parties shall have no further obligations
hereunder.
4.3. Permitted_Uses. The permitted uses of the Real Property, the maximum
density and intensity of use, the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings, the
provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, the location and maintenance
of on-site and off-site improvements, the location of public utilities, and any other terms and
conditions of development applicable to the Real Property, shall be those set forth in this
Agreement, the Project Approvals, any Subsequent Approvals, and any amendments to this
Agreement, the Project Approvals or any Subsequent Approvals, and the Applicable Rules. The
permitted uses of the Real Property include those set forth in this Agreement, including the
description of the Project herein. Developer shall be entitled to construct the Project to the
maximum density, intensity, height and size set forth in the Project Plan, in this Agreement and
as permitted under the Applicable Rules.
4.4. Subdivision. Developer shall have the right from time to time to
subdivide or reconfigure the parcels comprising the Real Property, as may be necessary in order
to develop the Project or to lease, mortgage or sell a portion of the Real Property in connection
with its development, as long as the subdivision or reconfiguration is consistent with the terms of
this Agreement, the Subdivision Map Act and Applicable Rules.
4.5. Development of the.BusinessProject and Residential Project. The parties
acknowledge that as of the Effective Date development planning for the Business Project and the
Residential Project will be in their early stages. As such, substantial Subsequent Approvals are
expected to be required with respect to the Business Project and the Residential Project. The
terms and conditions of this Agreement shall apply to the development of the Business Project
and the Residential Project, and Subsequent Approvals related thereto.
5. Applicable Rules, Reizulations, and Official Policies.
5.1. Laws Applicable to the Project. The Applicable Rules shall remain in
full force and effect for the Term. For convenience, some of the Applicable Rules are listed in
Exhibit "E."
5.2. Subsequently Enacted Rules and Regulations. During the Term, City
may apply to the Real Property New Rules;provided that they are not in conflict with or more
stringent than the Applicable Rules and do not:
5.2.1. Limit the permitted uses of the Real Property;
CADocOt "and SatiogslilouscAUcsktoptFWW DA.DOC 7
(� I
5.2.2. Reduce the maximum density or intensity of use, or reduce the
maximum height, bulk or size of the proposed buildings;
5.2.3. Increase the provisions of the Project Approvals requiring the
reservation or dedication of land for public purposes;
5.2.4. Increase the on-site or off-site improvements required by the
Project Approvals or change the location thereof;
5.2.5. Limit or control the availability of public utilities, services or
facilities or any privileges or rights to public utilities, services, or facilities (for example; water
rights, water connections or sewage capacity rights, sewer connections, etc.)for the Project;
5.2.6. Limit the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of the approval,
development or construction of all or any part of the Project in any manner;
5.2.7. Limit or control the location of buildings, structures, grading, or
other improvements of the Project in a manner that is inconsistent with or more restrictive than
the limitations included in the Project Approvals;
5.2.8. Apply to the Project any New Rules otherwise allowed by this
Agreement that are not uniformly applied on a City-wide basis or that discriminate against
Developer;
5.2.9. Substantially increase the cost of constructing or developing the
Project or any portion thereof;
5.2.10. Result in Developer having to substantially delay construction
of the Project;
5.2.11. Establish, enact, increase or impose against the Project any
rules, regulations, policies or standards that were not in force and effect on the Effective Date
(except as expressly permitted by this Agreement), or otherwise impose against the Project any
condition, dedication or other exaction not specifically authorized by Applicable Rules;
5.2.12. Limit the processing or procuring of applications or approvals
of Project Approvals; or
5.2.13. Affect any other terms or conditions of this Agreement without
the approval of Developer.
If there is any conflict between the New Rules and this Agreement, the Vested Components or
the Applicable Rules, the latter shall control and prevail. If there is any conflict between the
Project Approvals and this Agreement, the Vested Components or the Applicable Rules, the
former shall control and prevail.
5.3. Moratorium Not Applicable. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in this Agreement, in the event an ordinance, resolution, or other measure is enacted,
whether by action of City, by initiative, referendum, or otherwise, that imposes a building
moratorium that would otherwise affect the Project or all or any part of the Real Property or
C:Wocu nu and SeaingsWouscrOeskmpTin.N DA.DOC 8
i—
which would require a vote of the people as a condition to the grant of any approvals for the
Project, City shall not apply such ordinance, resolution, or other measure to the Project, the Real
Property, this Agreement, or the Project Approvals. If, however, it is determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction that a building moratorium or voter approval referenced above is effective
as to any portion of the Project, this Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and
effect as to the portion of the Project not affected by such moratorium or voter approval;
provided, however, that Developer may elect to terminate this Agreement within ninety (90)
days after Developer receives written notice of such court determination. The parties
acknowledge and agree that this Section 5.3 shall in no manner be interpreted to affect the
validity of any challenge to the legislative adoption of this Agreement or approval of the Project.
5.4. Public Art. City acknowledges and agrees that Developer's installation of
works of art substantially consistent with the designs and locations set forth in Exhibit "F,"
subject to approval of such works in accordance with City's public art approval process, shall be
in full performance of any applicable City public art requirement or fees, and City shall impose
no additional public art requirements, approval requirements or fees with respect to the Project.
5.5. Drainage. City acknowledges and agrees that Developer shall be entitled
to construct the Project substantially in accordance with the general elevations set forth in the
plans attached hereto as Exhibit "G" and that said plans and specifications comply with adopted
City guidelines and are consistent with the EIR.
5.6. Parke. It is the intent of the parties that the Retail Project have a
parking ratio of no less than four (4) parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of total planned
commercial space (including outdoor sales areas), provided consistent with the FEIR and the
conditions imposed by the City Council in conjunction with its approval of the Preliminary
Development Plan, introduced by ordinance on July 7, 2004 and finally adopted on August 3,
2004. In no event shall a lesser ratio be allowed unless by the mutual consent of the parties.
5.7. Signage. The parties contemplate a signage program that will include up
to two (2) freeway monument signs and two (2) additional monument signs at entrances to the
Retail Project, subject to review in accordance with the Applicable Rules.
5.8. City Discretion. This Section 5 shall not be construed to limit the
authority or obligation of City under law to hold necessary public hearings, to limit discretion of
City or any of its officers or officials with regard to Applicable Rules that require the exercise of
discretion by City or any of its officers or officials, provided that subsequent discretionary
actions shall not conflict with the terms and conditions of this Agreement or any public financing
as approved pursuant to this Agreement, and City shall process such subsequent discretionary
actions expeditiously.
6. Timing of DeveloQment.
6.1. Later-Adopted Initiative. It is the parties' specific intent that this
Agreement shall prevail over any later-adopted initiative that might otherwise have the effect of
restricting or limiting the timing or sequencing of development of the Project. Therefore, subject
to the terms of this Agreement, the Project Approvals, any Subsequent Approvals and the
Applicable Rules, Developer shall have the right,but not the obligation, to develop the Real
Property in such order and at such rate and times as Developer deems appropriate within the
CADuc m amt Suning.%WouwADe%kmp\Final DA.DOC 9
i
exercise of its subjective business judgment, and such order, rate, and time selected by
Developer shall in no way affect or impair Developer's vested rights under this Agreement. The
parties acknowledge that the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City
of Camarillo, 37 Cal. 3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the
timing of development resulted in a later-adopted initiative restricting the timing of the
development. It is the intent of City and Developer to avoid such a result by hereby
acknowledging and providing that Developer has the right to develop the Project in such order
and at such rate and times as Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its sole and
subjective business judgment, except as specifically stated otherwise in this Agreement.
7. Processing.
7.1. Further Approvals and Permits. Subsequent to the Effective Date,
development of the Project may require Subsequent Approvals. Each Subsequent Approval
obtained by Developer shall automatically vest and become a Vested Component upon the
effective date of such approval. On satisfactory completion by Developer of all required
preliminary actions and payment of all required processing fees, City shall, in accordance with
this Agreement and the Applicable Rules, expeditiously process all requests or applications for
any Subsequent Approvals, and promptly initiate, commence, and complete all steps and actions
required to grant such Subsequent Approvals, that are necessary or desirable for the Project,
including, but not limited to, the following:
7.1.1. The processing of Discretionary Approvals; and
7.1.2. The processing of applications for and issuing of all Ministerial
Approvals.
7.2. No Abridgement of Density or Height. Notwithstanding its ability to
issue Subsequent Approvals in relation to site, architectural and design review, City shall not
refuse such approvals, or require changes in the Project, that would have the effect of restricting
or preventing Developer from constructing buildings at the maximum density, height and size
allowed in the Project Approvals.
7.3. Conditions of Approval. City may impose conditions of approval on
applications of Developer to the extent such conditions of approval are consistent with this
Agreement and Applicable Rules. If City denies any application for a Project Approval, City
must specify in writing the basis for its denial in order to assist Developer in resubmitting and
ultimately securing City's approval of the requested Project Approval. Any such denial shall be
consistent with this Agreement and Applicable Rules.
7.4. Processing During Third Party Litigation. City shall not delay or stop the
Project, processing or construction of the Project, or issuance of Discretionary Approvals or
Ministerial Approvals because of the filing of any litigation against City or Developer relating to
this Agreement, the Project, the Project Approvals or Subsequent Approvals unless a court order
prevents the activity or except as expressly provided herein. City shall not stipulate to the
issuance of any such order.
7.5. Significant Actions By Third Parties Necessary To Implement The
Existing Approvals. The parties acknowledge that development of the Project requires actions
CADocv %aad SMinVXsbusMDnktop\FM DA.DOC 10
by and agreements with other private, public and quasi-public entities other than City to issue
permits and approvals. Developer shall be responsible for the acquisition of permits, approvals,
easements (subject to the provisions of section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act) and services
required to serve the Project from all non-City providers of utilities at Developer's cost.
7.5.1. At Developer's sole discretion and in accordance with
Developer's construction schedule, Developer may apply for such other permits and approvals as
may be required by private and public and quasi-public entities other than City (including,
without limitation, districts and special districts providing flood control, sewer and fire
protection) in connection with the development of, or the provision of services to, the Project.
City shall cooperate with Developer to obtain such permits and approvals and shall, from time to
time at the request of Developer, use its best efforts to enter into binding agreements with any
such other entity as may be necessary to ensure the timely availability of such permits and
approvals. In the event that any such permit or approval as set forth above is not obtained within
three (3) months from the date the application is deemed complete by the appropriate entity, and
such circumstance materially deprives Developer of the ability to proceed with development of
the Real Property or any portion thereof, or materially deprives City of a bargained-for public
benefit of this Agreement, then, in such case, and at the election of Developer, Developer and
City shall meet and confer with the objective of attempting to agree on alteratives and/or
amendment to this Agreement to allow the development of the Real Property to proceed with
each party substantially realizing its bargained-for benefit therefrom.
8. Fees, Assessments, and Taxes.
8.1. Proiect Fees. Except as expressly provided herein, fees imposed by City
in connection with the Project and Project Approvals (including but not limited to planning,
engineering, building permit, fire plan check and development impact fees) shall be in
accordance with Applicable Rules and subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
8.2. Water Fees; Water Rights. Developer shall be responsible for payment of
water impact fees for the Retail Project in effect as of January 1, 2002 (which the parties agree
were the fees in place as of the date of Developer's application to City for development of the
Project). Water impact fees for the Business Project and the Residential Project shall be in
accordance with the Applicable Rules. Developer may request a reduction of water impact fees
in accordance with the Applicable Rules. The parties acknowledge that Developer neither
relinquishes nor conveys to City any rights with respect to groundwater or other water rights
with respect to the Real Property, and Developer expressly reserves any and all water rights it
has in connection with the Real Property. Developer shall be entitled to irrigate the Conservation
Land utilizing groundwater, and shall not be required by City to irrigate the Conservation Land
with reclaimed water in lieu of groundwater. For the Business Land and the Retail Land, the
parties acknowledge that pursuant to the Applicable Rules, Developer may use well water for
landscaping and irrigation purposes provided that appropriate agreements are in place in the
event that such well water crosses property lines.
8.3. Transportation Impact Fees. All transportation impact fees with respect
to the Retail Project shall be in the amounts determined by such fees in effect as of January 1,
2002 (which the parties agree were the fees in place as of the date of Developer's application to
City for development of the Project). Transportation impact fees for the Business Project and the
Residential Project shall be in accordance with the Applicable Rules. Except as expressly
C:%Docm`ems oml 5cuinSAsIo=ADcAwp\mail DADOC 11
provided herein, no additional transportation impact fees, including but not limited to traffic,
noise or pollution impact fees shall be imposed in connection with the Project.
8.4. EIR Impact Mitigation Fees.Developer shall be responsible for payment
of all impact mitigation fees required by the EIR.
8.5. Affordable Housing. City acknowledges and agrees that construction of
the Residential Project, without payment of any special fees or assessments, satisfies all
requirements applicable to the Project with respect to inclusionary housing and similar
residential housing requirements and, in particular, all affordable housing requirements,
ordinances and regulations.
8.5.1. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein, in the
event Developer is precluded for any reason from causing the Residential Project to be
constructed within five (5) years after the Effective Date, Developer shall pay the in-lieu
affordable housing fee in accordance with the Applicable Rules.
8.5.2. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein, in the
event Developer is precluded for any reason from causing the Residential Project to be
constructed: (a) the Conservation Land shall be increased by approximately 3.3 acres to include
the Residential Land, which shall be subject to the Conservation Easement described in Section
10.1.1; (b) the Off-Site Open Space shall be reduced by 3.3 acres, and City shall immediately
refund to Developer the sum of Twenty-Six Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($26,400.00)
representing the sum paid by Developer for such 3.3 acres of Off-Site Open Space.
8.6. New Fees. Except as expressly provided herein, any new or increased
fees; dedications, and exactions relating to or imposed upon new development that are adopted
by City after the Effective Date, as well as any new or increased fees (including but not limited
to application, development and impact fees), dedications, and exactions that result from any
modification of any Applicable Rules after the Effective Date, shall not be applicable to or
imposed upon the Project.
8.7. New Taxes. Except for taxes solely imposed on new development, any
subsequently enacted City-wide taxes shall apply to the Project provided that (1) such taxes have
general applicability on a City-wide basis and do not discriminate against Developer; (2) the
application of such taxes to the Real Property is prospective; and(3) the application of such taxes
would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement.
8.8. Right to Contest. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall prevent
Developer from paying any such fee, tax, or assessment under protest, or otherwise asserting its
legal rights to protest or contest a given fee, tax, or assessment assessed against the Project or the
Real Property.
9. Infrastructure Capacity. City hereby acknowledges that, upon implementation of the
Project (including the Freeway Interchange) and its environmental mitigation measures, it has
sufficient capacity in its existing infrastructure, services, and utility systems, including, without
limitation, traffic circulation, flood control, sewer collection, sewer treatment, sanitation service
and, except for services not provided by and outside City's control, water supply, treatment,
distribution, and service, to accommodate the Project as provided in this Agreement. To the
C:\Docuwenu mW Scmings\s1uuse,\Dcskwp%Finn1 DA.DOC 12
i
f
extent that the Project completes its necessary improvements, the will City render these services
or provides such utilities, and shall serve the Project and shall not restrict hookups or service for
the Project, except for reasons beyond City's control. Upon request from Developer, City shall
provide a letter, addressed to a recipient specified by Developer, acknowledging the sufficiency
of City's infrastructure capacity to service the Project based upon the assumption that the Project
completes its necessary improvements and environmental mitigation measures to the satisfaction
of the City.
10. Dedication of Land for Public Purposes.
10.1. Grant of Conservation Easement.
10.1.1. Promptly after both recordation of a Subdivision Map for the
Project and issuance of building permits necessary to construct the Retail Project, Dalidio Family
shall offer to dedicate to City, and City shall promptly accept, a conservation easement
preserving the Conservation Land, (the "Conservation Easement") in substantially the form set
forth in Exhibit "H." Developer shall be entitled to make use of the Conservation Land that is
consistent with the easement and the Applicable Rules, including but not limited to: agriculture;
a well; groundwater treatment facilities; water lines; and recreational and educational uses as
contemplated under the Applicable Rules, including bicycle and pedestrian paths, roadways and
land use studies areas.
10.1.2. The Conservation Easement described in Section 10.1.1 shall
not prohibit placement by Developer; at Developer's sole cost, of the Grandstand Structure on the
Conservation Land. However, Developer must secure all necessary permits and entitlements to
relocate the Grandstand Structure from its current location to the Conservation Land, as may be
requested by Developer under the Applicable Rules, e.g., authorization from the Cultural
Heritage Commission and or the Architectural Review Committee. City shall not be responsible
for the costs of moving, maintenance or repair of the Grandstand Structure.
10.2. Off-Site Open Space Preservation. Promptly after recordation of a
Subdivision Map for the Project and issuance of building permits necessary to construct the
Retail Project, Developer shall fund the perpetual preservation as open space twenty-four (24)
acres of land (the "Off-Site Open Space") by acquisition of a fee, conservation easement or open
space easement on and over land in or around the City of San Luis Obispo. Developer's
obligation under this Section 10.3 shall be limited to the payment to City of One Hundred and
Ninety-Two Thousand Dollars ($192,000.00), and any excess cost arising from the Off-Site
Open Space shall be paid by City. City shall be responsible for all obligations arising from
acquisition and ownership of the Off-Site Open Space. City shall apply the funds received by it
pursuant to this Section 10.3 to acquire, as promptly as reasonably practical, the Off-Site Open
Space land. The parties acknowledge that the Off-Site Open Space will be comprised of prime
agricultural land located within City's sphere of influence. Irrespective of City's acquisition of
land under this Section, Developer may pay to City the sum of One Hundred and Ninety-Two
Thousand Dollars ($192,000.00) in full performance of its obligations under this Section 10.3.
10.3. Roadways. In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, a Subdivision
Map for the Project prepared and submitted by Developer shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to
City that portion of the Real Property as is necessary for roadways and walkways in relation to
the Project for no additional consideration. Upon recordation of the Project's Subdivision Map
c:wx���scuiugs�uxnoeskWrwmW DA.DCC 13
said offer of dedication shall be accepted by the City in accordance with the City's standard
roadway acceptance policies. This shall not apply to land necessary for construction of the
Freeway Interchange, the property transfer of which land shall be governed by the terms of
Section 11.
11. Freeway Interchange. The Freeway Interchange improvements shall be
constructed and funded as set forth in this Agreement.
11.1. Funding of Freeway Interchange..
11.1.1. Funding of the Freeway Interchange will be accomplished
through the issuance of public financing obligations by the City in an amount such as to be able
to fund the total cost of the Freeway Interchange which is now estimated to be approximately
$22 million.
11.1.2. Debt service on this public financing will be supported among other things
by a special tax on the Project and other benefiting properties, as provided in the Reimbursement
Agreement. Pursuant to the Reimbursement Agreement, Developer will receive a contingent
reimbursement of special taxes on properties as a function of certain designated revenues City
derives from the Retail Project. The Reimbursement Agreement shall survive the term of this
Agreement, and Developer's obligations hereunder with respect to the Freeway Interchange are
expressly conditioned upon Developer's right to receive contingent reimbursement in accordance
with the Reimbursement Agreement.
11.1.3. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, in the event that, prior to
the date the Freeway Interchange financing becomesanobligation of Developer, the total cost of
the Freeway Interchange is increased to an amount whereby financing of such amount, and
recovery of such amount from tax revenues generated by the Project, is not reasonably feasible,
then the parties shall meet and confer in an effort to agree upon terms and conditions for the
construction and financing of freeway interchange improvements which are adequate for the
Project and which are reasonably feasible as to cost. In the event that the parties are unable to
reach such an agreement, either party may terminate this Agreement by giving thirty (30) days'
prior written notice to the other party, provided that Developer shall not be obligated to pay any
amounts associated with public financing of the Freeway Interchange. The parties acknowledge
and agree that financial calculations exchanged by the parties in connection with the preparation
of this Agreement shall constitute competent evidence of the reasonableness of the cost of the
Freeway Interchange, and that changed circumstances other than the total cost of the Freeway
Interchange shall not entitle either party to terminate this Agreement pursuant to this Section
11.1.3. In no event shall a total development cost of$22 million for the Freeway Interchange be
deemed reasonably infeasible.
11.2. Acquisition of Land. Developer shall use its best efforts to negotiate the
acquisition of land determined necessary or desirable for the Freeway Interchange and that is not
the Real Property or City-owned real property. Should Developer fail to acquire said property,
the City shall use all means at its disposal for property acquisition. The cost of acquiring all such
land shall be a Freeway Interchange Cost, and such acquisition shall be consummated as soon as
practicable after the funding of the Freeway Interchange financing. The purchase price of such
land shall be subject to the prior written consent of City, which shall not be unreasonably
withheld or delayed.
00ocum m and SntmgsWouweOcskmp\Foml DA-DOC 14
11.2.1. Upon funding of the Freeway Interchange financing,
Dalidio Family shall convey that portion of the Real Property described in Exhibit "I" for
construction of the Freeway Interchange, in exchange for the consideration set forth below. As a
Freeway Interchange Cost, Dalidio Family shall be paid the fair market value, calculated as
provided in this section, of the portion of the Real Property required for the purpose constructing
the Freeway Interchange. Such payment shall be made within ten (10) days after the date of
recordation of deed by Dalidio Family of such land to City or the State of California. The fair
market value of such portion of the Real Property means the sale value at the time of the
appraisal for comparable real property in San Luis Obispo County, comparable in area and
location to the Real Property, assuming that the land will not be used for road purposes and that
there are no special restrictions on its use, and taking into consideration other comparable
factors, as determined by an independent real estate appraiser appointed by City. Furthermore,
the fair market value determination shall be based upon the valuation of the property used for
agricultural purposes, added to the valuation of the property used for retail commercial purposes,
and then divided by two (2). In this way, the appraised value reflects the fact that approximately
one half the real property will remain as open space. The appraiser shall be selected by City and
shall have competed for inclusion on the City's approved list of consulting appraisers and
selected for such inclusion. The fees of the appraiser shall be advanced by Developer and shall
be a Freeway Interchange Cost.
11.2.2. City shall provide and make available that portion of City-
owned real property necessary for construction of the Freeway Interchange, in exchange for the
consideration set forth below. As a Freeway Interchange Cost, City shall be paid the fair market
value of City-owned real property required for the purpose constructing the Freeway
Interchange. The fair market value of such real property means the sale value at the time of the
appraisal for comparable real property in San Luis Obispo County, comparable in area and
location to such real property, assuming that the land will not be used for road purposes and that
there are no special restrictions on its use, and taking into consideration other comparable
factors, as determined by an independent real estate appraiser appointed by City. The appraiser
shall have competed for inclusion on the City's approved list of consulting appraisers and
selected for such inclusion. The fees of the appraiser shall be provided by Developer and then
capitalized into the cost of the Freeway Interchange.
11.3. Freeway Design and Development Applications. Developer and City
shall diligently pursue all aspects of the application for construction of the Freeway Interchange,
all environmental processing and supporting technical studies. Developer shall diligently pursue
the planning, initial study, and other efforts necessary to specify in final form the cost and
character of the Freeway Interchange. City shall provide timely review and response to
applications made in respect of the Freeway Interchange. By entering into this Agreement,
Developer specifically acknowledges its obligation and agrees to vote for and participate in the
District to fund a portion of the cost of the Freeway Interchange contemplated under this
Agreement.
11.4. Scope of Freeway Interchange Work. The scope of work for the Freeway
Interchange shall be those improvements between and including the intersections described in
Exhibit"B" as "Intersection D" (on the west side of the Freeway Interchange) and Intersection
A" (on the ease side of the Freeway Interchange), and all work conducted on State Highway 101.
00ocu ws and Seniugs'cbuseAD=k wp\FuW DA.DOC 15
' ( i
11.5. Pre-Construction Costs. Until the funding of the Freeway Interchange
financing, Developer shall be responsible for advancing all costs associated with obtaining
Caltrans approval of all documents necessary to allow construction of the Freeway Interchange
to commence. All such costs advanced by Developer, as well as costs of design and approval of
the Freeway Interchange shall be a Freeway Interchange Cost. Freeway Interchange Costs shall
also include 100% of the billings of Mark Thomas Company to Developer in connection with the
Freeway Interchange, and that portion of the billings of Cannon Associates and Andre Morris &
Buttery reasonably attributable to the design, development and construction of the Freeway
Interchange.
11.6. Time for Funding and Construction of Freeway Interchange. The parties
acknowledge and agree that completion of the Freeway Interchange is integral to the Project. As
no building permits will be issued by the City for any portion of the Developer's projects until
such time as the Freeway Interchange construction contract has been awarded, each party hereto
will use its best efforts to cause, in cooperation with Caltrans and other public agencies and
private parties, the Freeway Interchange construction contract to be awarded and completed as
soon as practical. Once the contract for Freeway Interchange Construction has been awarded,
either City or Caltrans shall manage the project and Developer will be relieved of any further
involvement. Upon completion of the Freeway Interchange all, if any, remaining proceeds of the
Freeway Interchange financing not otherwise expended shall be applied to the outstanding
principal and interest of any such financing outstanding, on a pro-rata basis. In the event that
City manages the Freeway Interchange construction project, City's reasonable construction
management costs with respect to the Freeway Interchange shall be Freeway Interchange Costs.
11.6.1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the
Applicable Rules and mitigations required by the EIR, including requirements for Discretionary
Approvals: (i) City shall issue grading permits for the Project irrespective of the status of the
Freeway Interchange; (ii) City shall issue building permits for the Project only upon successful
award of contract for construction of the Freeway Interchange; and (iii) Developer may
commence use of the Project (and City shall issue all necessary Certificates of Occupancy) prior
to completion of construction of the Freeway Interchange.
11.7. Approval by State Agencies. The parties acknowledge that the design
and completion of the Freeway Interchange is subject to California laws, rules and regulations,
and the parties shall use their best efforts to promptly obtain approvals from State agencies,
including Caltrans, for the Freeway Interchange.
11.8. Namingof f City Street. The extension of Dalidio Drive from Madonna
Road to the Freeway Interchange, at which point such street connects with Prado Road, shall be
named and for all purposes identified as "Dalidio Road."
11.9. Reimbursement of Freeway Interchange Costs. All Freeway
Interchange Costs advanced or incurred by Developer or City, respectively, shall be reimbursed
to them from the Freeway Interchange financing proceeds. Such reimbursements shall be made
promptly after the funding of the Freeway Interchange financing; and after Developer and City,
respectively,produce reasonable documentation of such costs and their relation to the Freeway
Interchange.
C1Doc nu and Setdngs\slouseADesL' p%RnW D&DOC 16
12. Fees, Conditions and Dedications. Developer or any other person with respect to
the Project shall have and be subject to only those obligations, conditions, and exactions
expressly provided in this Agreement or in force and applicable to the Project as of the Effective
Date of this Agreement.
13. Public Improvements; Dedication of Public Roads. The on-site and off-site
improvements, public roads and other infrastructure related to the Project shall be made and
constructed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, including the description of the
Project herein, which terms City acknowledges and agrees meet all applicable statutory and other
legal requirements..
14. Amendment or Cancellation.
14.1. Conflict of City and State or Federal Laws. In the event that state or
federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement prevent or
preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement or require changes in plans,
maps or permits approved by City, the parties shall modify or suspend this Agreement, as
required by Section 65869.5 of the Government Code, to the extent necessary to comply with
such state or federal laws or regulations. In such event, either party may provide the other party
with written notice of such state or federal law or regulation, a copy of such law or regulation
and a statement concerning the conflict with the provisions of this Agreement. The parties shall,
within thirty (30) days after such notice is provided, meet and confer in good faith in a
reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such state or federal law or
regulation.
14.1.1. Council Hearings. After the parties have met and conferred
pursuant to Section 14.1 hereof, regardless of whether the parties have reached an agreement of
the effect of the change upon this Agreement of the state or federal law or regulation, the matter
shall be scheduled for hearing before the City Council. Written notice of such hearing shall be
given pursuant to Government Code Section 65867 or any other then-applicable statute. The City
Council, at such hearing, shall determine the extent of the modification or suspension
necessitated by the change in the state or federal law or regulation. Developer, at the hearing,
shall have the right to offer oral and written testimony.
14.1.2. Cooperation in Securing-Permits. City shall cooperate with
Developer in the securing of any permits which may be required as a result of modifications or
suspensions made pursuant to Section 14.1.1 hereof.
14.2. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended in writing from time to
time by mutual consent of the parties to this Agreement and in accordance with the procedures of
State law. Modifications that are minor in nature and do not require legislative action may be
made by Developer and City's Administrative Officer. Substantive modifications shall be
approved by City under the appropriate approval process. Any amendment to this Agreement
which does not relate to the Term, permitted uses, provisions for reservation and dedication of
land, or conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements relating to subsequent discretionary
actions, monetary contributions by Developer or any conditions or covenants relating to the use
of the Real Property, shall not require notice or public hearing pursuant to Government Code
Sections 65867, 65867.5 and 65868. Any amendment of the Project Approvals by either City's
Administrative Officer or City, whichever is applicable, pursuant to Section 14.3 of this
CADoctmnnm and Settingstslo s v\DesktoptFitW DADOC 17
Agreement, shall not require an amendment to this Agreement. For purposes of this Agreement,
the resubdivision of the Real Property, or the filing of an amended subdivision map, that creates
new legal lots (including the creation of new lots within any designated remainder parcel) or that
merges lots, shall not require an amendment to this Agreement. Subsequent Approvals that are
consistent with City's General Plan shall also not require an amendment to this Agreement. Such
Subsequent Approvals shall be deemed incorporated into this Agreement, and shall be an integral
part hereof.
14.3. Amendment of Proiect. Approvals. Upon the written request of
Developer for a minor amendment or modification to the Project Approvals including, but not
limited to, (i) the location of buildings, streets and roadways and other physical facilities, or (ii)
the configuration of the parcels, lots or development areas, Community Development Director
shall determine whether the requested amendment or modification is consistent with this
Agreement and the Applicable Rules. For purposes of this Agreement, the determination of
whether such amendment or modification is minor shall be made by reference to whether the
amendment or modification is minor in the context of the overall Project. If City's Community
Development Director finds that the proposed amendment is both minor and consistent with this
Agreement and the Applicable Rules, City's Community Development Director may approve the
proposed amendment without notice and public hearing. If such findingsare not made, the
request shall be processed in accordance with the Applicable Rules. For purposes of this
Agreement and notwithstanding any City ordinance or resolution to the contrary, lot line
adjustments shall be deemed minor amendments or modifications.
14.4. Cancellation by Mutual Consent. Except as otherwise permitted in this
Agreement, this Agreement may be cancelled in whole or in part only by the mutual consent of
the parties or their successors-in-interest, in accordance with the same procedure used when
entering into this Agreement.
15. Annual Review.
15.1. Review Date. The Review Date shall be one year following the Effective
Date and the annual anniversary of said date each year thereafter.
15.2. Annual Review Process. City's designee shall initiate the annual review
by giving to Developer no later than sixty (60) days following the Review Date written notice
that City intends to undertake such review for the annual period ending with the Review Date.
Developer shall provide evidence of good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement to City's designee within thirty (30) days following receipt of City's notice. City's
designee shall review the evidence submitted by Developer and shall, within thirty (30) days
following receipt of Developer's evidence, make a recommendation to the City Council either: (i)
that the City Council finds that Developer has demonstrated good faith compliance with the
terms and conditions of this Agreement; or (ii) that the City Council finds that Developer has not
demonstrated good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, setting
forth with specificity the basis on which City's designee makes his/her recommendation of a
finding of non-compliance. Developer shall provide additional evidence as and when reasonably
determined necessary by City's designee.
15.3. Hearing. The recommendation of City's designee shall be considered by
the City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting following the Council's receipt of the
ClDocu =and SeuiugskslouseAD"LopTiml DA.DOC 18
recommendation. If the recommendation is that the City Council find that Developer has
demonstrated good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the matter
shall be placed on the "consent calendar." If the matter is either removed from the consent
calendar or the recommendation is that the City Council find that Developer has failed to
demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the matter
shall be heard by the City Council.
15.4. Determination. If the City Council finds and determines that Developer
has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement during the period
under review, the review for that period shall be concluded. If the City Council finds and
determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Developer has not complied in good faith
with the terms and conditions of this Agreement during the period under review, and Developer
has been notified and given an opportunity to cure in accordance with the provisions of Section
16.2,below, the Council may modify or terminate this Agreement in accordance with State law.
15.5. Failure to Hold Review. In the event that City does not initiate an annual
review or that the City Council does not make its determination within six (6) months of the
Review Date for a given year, then it shall be deemed conclusive that Developer has complied in
good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement during the period under review.
16. Default.
16.1. Other Remedies Available. In the event either party is in default of or
breaches the terms or conditions of this Agreement, the nondefaulting party may pursue all other
remedies at law or in equity that are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement, expressly
including the remedy of specific performance of this Agreement.
16.2. Notice and Cure. On the occurrence of an event of default of'the terms or
conditions of this Agreement by either party, the nondefaulting party shall serve written notice of
such default on the defaulting party. If the default is not cured by the defaulting party within
thirty (30) days after service of such notice of default, the nondefaulting party may then
commence any legal or equitable action to enforce its rights under this Agreement; provided,
however, that if the default cannot be cured within the thirty (30) day period, the nondefaulting
party shall refrain from any such legal or equitable action so long as the defaulting party begins
to cure such default within the thirty (30) day period and diligently pursues such cure to
completion. Failure to give notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default.
16.3. Judicial Reference. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
Sections 638 et seg., all legal actions shall be heard by a referee who shall be a retired judge
from either the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal, the
United States District Court, or the United States Court of Appeals, provided that the selected
referee shall have experience in resolving land use and real property disputes. Developer and
City shall agree on a single referee who shall then try all issues, whether of fact or law, and
report a finding and judgment thereon and issue all legal and equitable relief appropriate under
the circumstances of the controversy before such referee. If Developer and City are unable to
agree on a referee within ten (10) days of a written request to do so by either party to this
Agreement, either party may seek to have one appointed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
Section 640. The cost of such proceeding shall initially be borne equally by the parties. Any
CADocumenu and SMing*s10 crMkskeop\RnW DADOC 19
referee selected pursuant to this Paragraph shall be considered a temporary judge appointed
pursuant to Article 6, Section 21 of the California Constitution.
16.4. Estopyel Certificate. Either party may, at any time, and from time to
time, request written notice from the other party requesting such party to certify in writing that,
to the knowledge of the certifying party, (i) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a
binding obligation of the parties, (ii) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either
orally or in writing, or if so amended, identifying the amendments, and (iii) the requesting party
is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, to
describe therein the nature and amount of any such defaults. A party receiving a written request
under this Section shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following the
receipt thereof, or such longer period as may reasonably be agreed to by the parties. City's
Administrative Officer of City shall be authorized to execute any certificate requested on behalf
of City. The failure to deliver such certificate within such time shall be conclusive evidence on
the party which fails to deliver such statement that this Agreement is in full force and effect
without modification and that there are no uncured defaults in the performance of the requesting
party. Failure to execute such an estoppel certificate shall not be deemed a default.
16.5. Freeway Interchange Plans. In the event of Developer's material breach
hereunder with respect to the construction of the Freeway Interchange, Developer shall, upon
City's written request, deliver to City all plans, specifications, engineering work product and
similar written materials with respect to the Freeway Interchange in Developer's possession or
control, and Developer shall convey to City all Developer's right,title and interest thereto.
17. Mortgagee Protection; Certain Rights of Cure.
17.1. Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to any
Mortgage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish
or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all of the terms and
conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against any
Mortgagee.
17.2. Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section
17.1, above, no Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Agreement to construct
or complete the construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction or completion
of improvements.
17.3. Notice of Default to Mortgagee. If City receives notice from a
Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given Developer hereunder and specifying
the address for service thereof, then City shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with
service thereon to Developer, any notice given to Developer with respect to any claim by City
that Developer has committed an event of default. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during
the same period available to Developer to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the
event of claimed default set forth in City's notice.
18. Hold Harmless; Developer's Activities.
18.1. Developer hereby agrees to, and shall defend, indemnify, save and hold
City and its elected and appointed boards, commissions, officers, agents, and employees
CADocumen¢wd seniggs\cbuwADc*W\FmW DADOC 20
harmless from any and all claims, costs, and liability for any damages, personal injury or death,
which may arise, directly or indirectly, from Developer's or Developer's contractors,
subcontractors, agents, or employees' operations under this Agreement, whether such operations
be by Developer or by any of Developer's contractors or subcontractors or by any one or more
persons directly or indirectly employed by or acting as agent for Developer of any of
Developer's contractors or subcontractors. Nothing contained in the foregoing indemnity
provision shall be construed to require indemnification for claims, demands, damages, costs,
expenses or judgments resulting from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City.
18.2. Developer hereby agrees to, and shall defend, indemnify and hold
harmless City and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding
against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an
approval of the City concerning City's issuance of any approval, permit, certificate, or
acceptance relating to the Project, including entering into this Development Agreement or the
Reimbursement Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing: (a) City shall promptly notify
Developer of any claim, action, or proceeding, tender the defense to Developer, and cooperate
fully in the defense; (b) if the City fails to promptly notify Developer of any claim, action, or
proceeding, or if City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, then, (in addition to any claims of
Developer for City's breach)Developer shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify,
or hold the City harmless; and (c) upon the tender to Developer by City of the defense of a claim,
action or proceeding,Developer shall at its sole cost and expense defend such claim, action or
proceeding, and provided that Developer does so, Developer shall not be obligated under this
Section 18.2 to indemnify, defend or hold harmless City with respect to City's own expenses,
time and attomeys' fees, which shall be borne solely by City. Nothing contained in this Section
18.2 prohibits City from participating in the defense of any claim, action or proceeding; provided
that City bears its own attorneys' fees and costs, and City defends the action in good faith.
19. Severability. The unenforceability, invalidity, or illegality of any provision,
covenant, condition, or term of this Agreement shall not render the other provisions
unenforceable, invalid, or illegal, except that if it is determined in a final judgment by a court of
competent jurisdiction that Developers rights are not vested in the manner and to the extent
agreed to in this Agreement, then the Parties shall meet and confer in a good faith attempt to
agree on a modification to this Agreement that shall fully achieve the purposes hereof. If such a
modification cannot be agreed on, then Developer or City may terminate this Agreement on 90-
days' written notice to the other Party.
20. Attorneys' Fees.and Costs. If City or Developer initiates any action at law or in
equity to enforce or interpret the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party
shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in addition to any other relief to
which it may otherwise be entitled. In addition to the above award of attorneys' fees to the
prevailing party, the prevailing party in any lawsuit shall be entitled to its attorneys'fees incurred
in any post judgment proceedings to collect or enforce the judgment. This provision is separate
and several and shall survive the merger of this Agreement into any judgment on this Agreement.
If any person or entity not a party to this Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to
challenge the validity of any provision of this Agreement or the Project Approvals, the parties
shall cooperate in defending such action at their own cost and expense. City shall not reject any
financial settlement acceptable to Developer, provided that Developer pays any and all
CADoca =wA Scumgs\sbuser\De*Wp\FwW DADOC 21
consideration which is part of said settlement; if City does reject any financial settlement
acceptable to Developer, City shall continue to defend such action at its own expense.
21. Transfers and Assignments.
21.1. Right to Assign. The interests, rights, or obligations of Developer under
this Agreement and under the Project Approvals may be transferred or assigned, provided such
transfer or assignment is made as a part of the transfer, assignment, sale or lease of all or a
portion of the Real Property. Any such transfer or assignment shall be subject to the provisions
of this Agreement. If all or any portion of the Real Property is transferred by Developer.
("Transferred Real Property"), any transferee desiring the benefits of this Agreement shall
expressly assume this Agreement as it pertains to the Transferred Real Property; and such
transferee shall succeed to all of Developer's rights under this Agreement as they relate to the
Transferred Real Property. Thereafter, a default under this Agreement by Developer regarding
that portion of the Real Property other than the Transferred Real Property shall not be considered
or acted upon by City as a default by the transferee regarding the Transferred Real Property and
shall not affect the transferee's rights regarding the Transferred Real Property. Likewise, a
default by a transferee relating to the Transferred Real Property shall not be considered or acted
upon by City as a default by Developer regarding any remaining property and shall not affect
Developer's rights regarding such remaining property. City and Developer may amend this
Agreement without the assent of the transferee (i) if the amendment is pursuant to Section 14.3;
or (ii) if the amendment relates to portions of the Real Property other than the Transferred Real
Property; or(iii) if the amendment does not require notice and public hearing pursuant to Section
14, or (iv) if the amendment is to effectuate a change in the required public improvements and
the value and usability of the Transferred Real Property are not substantially and materially
affected thereby.
21.2. Release Upon Transfer. Upon the transfer, sale, or assignment of
Developer's rights and interests hereunder pursuant to the preceding subparagraph of this
Agreement, Developer shall be released from the obligations under this Agreement with respect
to the Transferred Real Property arising after the date of such transfer, sale, or assignment;
provided, however, that if any transferee, purchaser, or assignee expressly assumes the
obligations of Developer under this Agreement, Developer shall be released with respect to all
such assumed obligations. The transferee; purchaser, or assignee shall be subject to all the
provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any such transferee shall be
obligated by this Agreement to vote for and participate in the District to fund the cost of the
Freeway Interchange contemplated under this Agreement.
21.3. Foreclosure. Nothing contained in this Section 21 shall prevent a transfer
of the Real Property, or any portion of the Real Property, to a lender as a result of a foreclosure
or deed in lieu of foreclosure, and any lender acquiring the Real Property, or any portion of the
Real Property, as a result of foreclosure or a deed in lieu of foreclosure shall take such Real
Property subject to the rights and obligations of Developer under this Agreement; provided,
however, in no event shall such lender be liable for any defaults or monetary obligations of
Developer arising before acquisition of title to the Real Property by such lender, and provided
further, in no event shall any such lender or its successors or assigns be entitled to a building
permit or occupancy certificate until all fees due under this Agreement (relating to the portion of
the Real Property acquired by such lender)have been paid to City.
CAD�wd SeaiugsWouwr\DeskWp\FuW DA.DOC 22
i
22. Agreement Runs with the Land. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement,
all of the provisions, rights, terms, covenants, and obligations contained in this Agreement shall
be binding on, and inure to the benefit of, the parties and their respective heirs, successors, and
assignees, representatives, lessees, and all other persons acquiring the Real Property, or any
portion of the Real Property, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any
manner whatsoever. All of the provisions of this Agreement,shall be enforceable as equitable
servitudes and shall constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable laws,
including, but not limited to, California Civil Code Section 1468. Each covenant to do, or refrain
from doing, some act on the Real Property under this Agreement, or with respect to any owned
property, (i) is for the benefit of such properties and is a burden on such properties, (ii) runs with
such properties, and (iii) is binding on each party and each successive owner during its
ownership of such properties or any portion thereof, and shall be a benefit to and a burden on
each party and its property hereunder and each other person succeeding to an interest in such
properties.
23. Force Majeure. In addition to any specific provisions of this Agreement,
performance of obligations under this Agreement shall be excused and the term of this
Agreement shall be similarly extended during any period of delay caused at any time by reason
of acts of God such as floods, earthquakes, fires, or similar catastrophes; wars, riots, or similar
hostilities; strikes and other labor difficulties beyond the party's control; shortage of materials;
the enactment of new laws or restrictions imposed or mandated by other governmental or quasi-
governmental entities preventing this Agreement from being,implemented; litigation involving
this Agreement or the Project Approvals, which delays any activity contemplated under this
Agreement; or other causes beyond a party's control. City and Developer shall promptly notify
the other party of any delay under this Agreement as soon as possible after the delay has been
ascertained.
24. Recordation of Development Agreement, Amendment, or Cancellation. Within
ten (10) days after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the City Clerk shall submit a fully-
executed original of this Agreement for recording with the County Recorder. If the parties to the
Agreement or their successors-in-interest amend or cancel the Agreement or if City terminates or
modifies the Agreement for failure of Developer to comply in good faith with the terms or
conditions of the Agreement, the City Clerk shall submit for recording the notice of such action
with the County Recorder of San Luis Obispo County.
25. Miscellaneous Provisions. The following miscellaneous provisions shall apply to
this Agreement:
25.1. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts which together shall constitute the agreement of the parties.
25.2. Laws. It is specifically stipulated that this Agreement will.be interpreted
and construed according to the laws of the State of California. Venue for any dispute arising
under this Agreement shall be San Luis Obispo County, California.
25.3. Amendments. No modification or amendment of this Agreement will be
of any force or effect unless made in writing and executed by all parties hereto.
CMoc m and Senivg0z1ousce Dcskmp\FmW OADOC 23
_ 1
25.4. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and
be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, legal representatives and
successors.
25.5. Further Documents. The parties agree that they will execute such other
instruments and documents as are or may become necessary or convenient to carry out the intent
and purposes of this Agreement.
25.6. Pronouns. All pronouns and any variations thereof shall be deemed to
refer to the masculine, feminine or neuter, singular or plural, as the identity of the person,
persons or entities may require.
25.7. Entire Agreement. This instrument contains all of the understandings and
agreements of whatsoever kind and nature existing between the parties hereto with respect to this
Agreement, and the rights, interests, understandings, agreements and obligations of the
respective parties and their prior oral agreements, if any.
25.8. Headings. All headings in this Agreement are inserted only for
convenience and ease of reference, and are not to be considered in the construction or
interpretation of any provision of this Agreement.
25.9. Authority. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of a party
hereto, by his or her signature, represents that he or she maintains full authority on behalf of the
applicable party to execute this Agreement, and thereby bind the applicable party to all
covenants, duties and obligations contained herein.
25.10. Exhibits. All exhibits, schedules and recitals to this Agreement as
referenced in any portion hereof are hereby incorporated by this reference, as though fully set
forth in the body of this Agreement; provided, however, notwithstanding any other provisions of
this Agreement, if for any reason any exhibit or schedule referenced herein is not attached to this
Agreement at the time of its execution by the parties, then when such exhibit or schedule
becomes available, it shall be initialed by the parties and attached to this Agreement, bearing no
impact on the enforceability of this Agreement.
25.11. Time. Time is agreed to be of the essence with respect to this
Agreement.
25.12. Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given under this
Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly given (i) if delivered personally, when
received; (ii) if transmitted by facsimile, upon the generation by the transmitting facsimile
machine of a confirmation that the entire document has been successfully transmitted; (iii) if sent
by recognized courier service, on the business day following the date of deposit with such
courier service, or(iv) if sent by registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, on the
third business day following the date of deposit in the United States mail. All such notices shall
be addressed to a party at its address as set forth below, or to such other address or facsimile
number as a party shall notify the other of in accordance with this Section.
CADocu =and SatmS.%\slouscMeakwp\FinW DA.DOC 24
If to City: City of San Luis Obispo
Ken Hampian
City Administrative Officer
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
facsimile: (805) 781-7109
With a Copy to: Jonathan Lowell
City Attorney
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
facsimile: (805) 781-7409
If to Developer: Ernest Dalidio,Jr.
2706 Rodman Drive
Los Osos, CA 93402
facsimile: (805) 528-0941
SC Properties
Attn: Bill Bird
510 S. Grand Avenue
Glendora, CA 91741
facsimile: (626)963-1505
With a Copy to: Andre, Morris &Buttery
Attn: Michael J. Morris
P.O. Box 730
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-0730
facsimile: (805) 543-0752
25.13. Project is a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed
to by and between the parties hereto that: (i) the subject development is a private development;
(ii) City has no interest or responsibilities for or duty to third parties concerning any
improvements until such time and only until such time that City accepts the same pursuant to the
provisions of this Agreement or in connection with the various subdivision map approvals; and
(iii) Developer shall have full power over and exclusive control of the Project subject only to the
limitations and obligations of Developer under this Agreement; and (iv) the contractual
relationship between City and Developer is such that Developer is an independent contractor and
not an agent of City.
25.14. Enforceability. City acknowledges that SLO Marketplace has an
equitable interest in a portion of the Real Property, in that SLO Marketplace has entered into an
option agreement with Dalidio Family whereby SLO Marketplace has an option to purchase such
portion of the Real Property. Dalidio Family hereby consents to SLO Marketplace's entering into
this Agreement, and to this Agreement becoming effective with respect to SLO Marketplace on
the Effective Date, irrespective of whether or not SLO Marketplace has then acquired fee title to
a portion of the Real Property. City agrees that, to the extent that, and for so long as, SLO
Marketplace's interest in the Real Property as an option holder is deemed under California law to
c:0ac nu and SettingsUb s.'DeskeopTinnl DA.Doc 25
J
be insufficient to enforce its rights under this Agreement, Dalidio Family may, in its sole
discretion, enforce all rights and interests of SLO Marketplace hereunder. Rights and obligations
of Developer hereunder shall be deemed to apply to Dalidio Family or SLO marketplace,
respectively, only insofar as those parties are owners of respective portions of the Real Property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
as of the date and year first above written.
"City" "Dalidio Family"
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a Municipal
Corporation
ERNEST DALIDIO, JR. Successor Trustee
of Dalidio Family Trust u/t/a dated October
By: 29, 1987
Its:
ERNEST DALIDIO JR., Successor Trustee
of the Thelma F. Perrozi Trust u/t/a dated
I HEREBY APPROVE the form and legality February 7, 1991
of the foregoing Agreement this
day of
CLARA B. DALIDIO, Trustee of the Clara
B. Dalidio Trust u/t/a dated January 15, 1991
City Attorney
"SLO Marketplace"
SAN LUIS OBISPO MARKETPLACE
ASSOCIATES, LLC, a California limited
liability company
By:
Its:
C1D�=and SeuingslslowmADesk (final DA.DOC 26
Page 1 of 1
Allen Settle- Marketplace Development Agreement
From: <taylor805@aol.com> QU'b 0 9 2004
To: <kschwartz@slocity.org>
Date: 8/8/2004 8:07 PM SLO CITY CLERK
Subject: Marketplace Development Agreement
CC: <asettle@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>
August 2,2004
To Mayor Romero and Councilmernbers
John Ewan, Ken Swchartz,and Christine Mulholland,.
Regarding the Development Agreement for the Marketplace/Dalidio project.
On July 6,2004,three of you voted for the Marketplace project. Proposed projects are to be consistent with the General Plan.
Apparently this project was not consistent with the General Plan. The CAO's recommendation#3 requested your vote of approval for
adopting a Resolution amending the General Plan Use Element Map to reflect the applicant's current land use proposal. In other
words,the proposed project was not consistent with the General Planr until after you voted to amend the General Plan. Consistency
would take place only after the amendment change.
On August 3,2004,you will again be voting on the Marketplace project, This time for the Development Agreement. How do you
vote on a Development Agreement that has a court challenge pending against the project's environmental impact report? If the EIR is
proven deficient and needs to be rewritten,wouldn't you have to revise the Development Agreement too? Your vote is based on an
assumed adequate EIR: What if the EIR is proven inadequate?
An example of one possible EIR deficiency appears to be in the Circulation section regarding Prado Rd and the Interchange. In my
opinion the following issues have not been adequately addressed:
•the importance of Caltrans regarding interchange/Prado Rd(what if they say
no,and what if Caltrans EIR conflicts with the project's EIR?)
• Prado Rd and the subsequesnt impacts regarding the US Post
Office ingress/egress-there is no clarity to whether Prado Rd is 4 lanes or 2
lanes at that intersection?
•no discussion on the cumulative city wide impacts of the Prado Rd
interchange and connecting Prado Rd eastward to Broad St and westward to
Madonna Rd.
•no discussion and hardly any mention of the impacts from the unnamed road
proposed to connect through to LOVRD as it travels through neighborhoods,
open space,and crosses a creek.
This proposed project.is too big. It is too high maintenance. It requires too many
special considerations and borders on discrimination and special treatment. It could
be setting a precedent. Commissioner Boswell said it appropriately"...we are not that desperate".
Through the years, many of you on the Council have helped build this wonderful
city including our award-winning downtown. Hopefully you do not vote for it's demise.
Thank You for your time, Patti Taylor
11 P
Oe,�l
; lam
file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW 100001.HTM 8/9/2004
I
�����������������►►��������� ������� c o u n c i l m c m o m n o u m
city of san Luis onispo. a0mmistuation aepautment _M 1
DATE: August 12, 2004 RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA:
TO: Council DATE q'�/��ITEM TRS"
FROM: Wendy George, ACAO
Prepared By: Shelly Stanwyck,Economic Development Manager
SUBJECT: MARKETPLACE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT,COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM C5
Council Agenda Item CS is proposed Ordinance No 1452 (2004 Series), the approval of a
Development Agreement between the City, the Dalidio Family and San Luis Obispo
Marketplace, LLC for the San Luis Obispo Marketplace Project. Exhibit A to Ordinance No
1452 (2004 Series)is the Development Agreement. There is a numerical error in Section 5.7 of
the Development Agreement. That Section should read as follows:
5.7 Signage. The parties contemplate a signage program that will include up to
one (1) freeway shopping center identification sign and two (2) additional
monument signs at entrances to the Retail Project, subject to review in accordance
with the Applicable Rules..
_XP,(4 '
COUNCIL CDD DIF
I E CAO ;::IN DIP
E ACAO FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY PW DIR
CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
LE DEFT EADS REC DIR
IE � Vr� U-1 IL DIR
LE L i HR DIR
GAProjects&Programs\Dalidio\Memos\Red.File Dalidio.DOC
i
From Michael Sullivan r(City of San Luis Obispo RE Dalidio i.-. rketplace project
08 Aug 2004 Page I of 1
08 August 2004 RED FILE _
To: City of San Luis Obispo, California ME I GENDA
Attention: City Council; Community Development Department(DirectogATE �� EM #�
From: Michael Sullivan, 1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
RE: Dalidio Marketplace project including Development Agreement
For the Council hearing of 03 Aug. 2004 I had submitted a letter and two attachments.
I had sent the attachments by Federal Express to an address in San Luis Obispo (Kinko's
Copies), to be retrieved by colleagues of mine for hand delivery to the City. Apparently
the attachments did not arrive on time to be submitted for the hearing of 03 Aug. 2004.
I enclose a second copy of the letter and the attachments now,to be included in the
administrative record for the Dalidio Marketplace project including its Development
Agreement. I wish to have these documents also included for the next(August 17,
2004?) Council consideration of the Development Agreement.
Thank you.
Michael Sullivan
Enclosures:
1. Letter of 02 Aug. 2004 from Michael Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo RE Dalidio
Marketplace Development Agreement etc.
2. ATTACHMENTS
(A) City of San Luis Obispo—Planning Commission staff report etc. —Feb. 11,
2004—Margarita and Airport Area SP/ER 73-00. (A-1 through A-44)
(B) Letters from Michael Sullivan to City of SLO—dated May 7, 2004,April 28,
2004, March 23, 2004 (B-1 through B-16)
L 11 COUNCIL CDD DIR
CAO FIN DIR REr c;VEz D
ACAO FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY PW DIR
CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF A.U6 12 20P
DET EADS R=C DIR
UTIL DIR SLO CI1Y COUNCIL
[7 L HR DIR
02 Aug 2004 To City of"San Luis Obispo from Michael Sulliv..) Page I of 5
RE: Dalidio development agreement
To: City of San Luis Obispo
From: Michael Sullivan
RE: City Council hearing of 03 Aug 2004—Dalidio development agreement
Abbreviations
CEQA- California Environmental Quality Act
DA - Development Agreement
EIR - Environmental Impact Report
FEIR- Final Environmental Impact Report
LOVR-Los Osos Valley Road
SLO - San Luis Obispo
Members of City Council:
This letter and its two attachments (A and B) and my other comments to the City
(Planning Commission, Council, etc.)have indicated that the City would be committing
an abuse of discretion as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act and as
defined by other state laws in approving the final EIR and in approving the so-called
Dalidio Marketplace project and Development Agreement. This abuse of discretion
results from various instances in which the City has failed to meet the requirements of
state and local laws such as CEQA,the Planning and Zoning Law,etc. In addition,the
City would be committing an abuse of discretion in approving the proposed Development
Agreement (DA) when several of the findings in support of the DA are invalid or not
supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Findings are given in the staff report for 03 Aug 2004 at page 3-88, Sections 5, 6 and
7 of proposed ordinance(attachment 6). The findings are invalid or false or not
supported by substantial evidence as follows:
(a) The DA will not adversely affect the health,peace, comfort or welfare of persons
residing or working in the surrounding area, since the project is in keeping with the
character and general development pattern of the existing area.
FALSE. The FEIR identified several significant environmental impacts (e.g. traffic)
which cannot be completely mitigated. The "peace"of the community will be
permanently degraded because of excessive traffic and noise. The health of persons in
the community will be harmed by increased air pollution caused by the project. The
welfare of the community will suffer because of the imbalance in jobs and housing(i.e.
the project will create an unmet need for additional housing,thereby making an existing
affordability problem even worse.)
(b) The DA will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of
property or other persons located in the vicinity of the site, since the DA ensures that
public improvements, additional infrastructure and other public benefits will be provided
as the project is constructed.
1
02 Aug 2004 To City of'San Luis Obispo from Michael SulliV4._ Page 2 of 5
RE: Dalidio development agreement
FALSE. Persons affected by excessive traffic and noise (e.g.those along Madonna Road,
Oceanaire Street,Los Osos Valley Rd., etc)are likely to have property values adversely
impacted by the project. People in these areas will also have a degradation in the
enjoyment of their properties (e.g. their use of outdoor spaces) due to the excessive traffic
and noise caused by the project. The proposed additional road which would connect the
project site to Los Osos Valley Road will bring additional negative impacts(noise,
traffic, aesthetics, air pollution)not adequately analyzed by the EIR. On a regional basis,
there will likely be additional congestion in areas such as US 101 southbound (especially
south of Los Osos Valley Rd.)because the project EIR fails to adequately assess regional
traffic impacts and cumulative impacts. For example,the COSTCO 2003 EIR had
identified the need for at least one additional freeway lane south of LOVR within 10
years due to cumulative impacts. The Dalidio project(which contributes to those
cumulative impacts) has an inadequate EIR that fails to adequately address or mitigate
this impact. Also, since the traffic study area of the Dalidio EIR was so limited,the
analysis of traffic impacts on nearby neighborhoods (e.g. Margarita/Airport area, Orcutt
area,town of Los Osos,etc) is inadequate. It is highly probable that impacts in such
areas would be significant.
(c) The DA will not jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public
health, safety or general welfare, since the DA will provide public safety improvements
such as traffic improvements contemplated by the separate finding that the Development
Agreement will help the City pay for the freeway interchange as contemplated by the
Circulation Element that the City could not otherwise afford. Further,the project is
conditioned to comply with applicable fire,building and life safety codes and regulations.
FALSE. The project will cause significant increases in traffic on various routes e.g.
LOVR, Madonna Rd., Oceanaire St., etc. This will create a menace to public health and
safety primarily for pedestrians who will have more difficulties safely crossing these
streets. Crossing the proposed US 101 /Prado Rd interchange would be unsafe for
pedestrians and bicyclists given the volume and speed of traffic there.
(d) The DA will be in the best interests of the City in that it implements the proposed
San Luis Obispo Marketplace project and will provide certainty to the City and the
Applicant regarding that project's standards and similar matters. The proposed project
will provide for a functional and attractive development that will contribute to the City's
tax base while preserving a considerable amount of land for agricultural, conservation
and open space uses. Because of this, the DA is in the best interests of the City and its
residents.
FALSE. The goals of enhancing the tax base and providing more shopping could have
been met by more intensely developing nearby commercial properties,e.g. at Madonna
Plaza and the Promenade. This was one of the viable options stated in the EIR. Instead,
the City has chosen the more environmentally destructive option of placing a huge new
02 Aug 2004 To City of San Luis Obispo from Michael Sullivz... Page 3 of 5
RE: Dalidio development agreement
retail center on"green fields"and this will have a very severe impact on agricultural use
and will diminish the net amount of open space.
(e) The Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan, any applicable
Specific Plan and the Municipal Code. The administrative record and findings of this
Ordinance demonstrate conformance with City requirements.
FALSE. As noted by Planning Commission and various other persons, the proposed
project is inconsistent with the General Plan in various ways. For example,the proposed
project would violate Land Use Element policy 1.4 (jobs/housing relationship)because
according to the EIR the project would increase the gap between housing demand and
supply. Also, the project is inconsistent with General Plan policies related to open space
(e.g. Land Use element policies 1.13.5E) because significantly less than the required
"approximately 5011/o of the ownership(Dalidio parcel)would be dedicated as open space.
Staff report(2004 Aug 03) at p. 3-44 notes that the amount of on-site open space(06 Jan
2004) is 54.67 acres which amounts to 41.7 % of the 131 acre site. This is clearly
inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use Element policy 1.13.5 which calls for
approximately 50%of on-site open space. Several other General Plan inconsistencies are
mentioned in communications from Michael Sullivan(e.g. letter for Council hearing of
06 July 2004) and others.
(f) The project will be appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with
the neighboring uses, in light of the existing adjacent commercial uses, and as the
Conservation Land and the proposed residential uses separate much of the proposed
project from existing residential uses.
FALSE. This statement omits mention of the proposed roadway which would eventually
connect the Dalidio site to Los Osos Valley Road. This roadway will create additional
impacts related to traffic, noise, air pollution, aesthetics, and loss of open space. Such
impacts are incompatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods e.g. the
neighborhoods south of the site (Oceanaire St., etc.). In addition,the insufficient buffers
between agricultural use and proposed on-site residences would be incompatible with the
residential use there.
(g) The DA would promote the public interest and welfare of the City. The development
project will preserve open space,provide for public improvements contemplated by the
Circulation Element and expand the City's tax base through regional serving retail uses
different from those in the downtown area. The development project also provides fora
residential use adjacent to an existing residential area and limits the commercial-retail use
to an area adjacent to existing commercial and retail development.
FALSE. The Planning Commission found that the statement of overriding considerations
(under CEQA) is not justified. The significant(and permanent) environmental impacts of
the project,the creation of an imbalance in jobs and housing, and the erosion of public
sales tax revenue to finance a very expensive overpass that mainly benefits the project
02 Aug 2004 To City of San Luis Obispo from Michael Sulliva.. Page 4 of 5
RE: Dalidio development agreement
developer at the expense of the city, are all reasons why the project and the Development
Agreement are not in the public interest.
Section 7
The proposed DA was analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report(FEIR) for the
San Luis Obispo Marketplace project, and the City Council certified said FEIR and
adopted statements of overriding considerations on July 7, 2004. The City Council finds
and determines that the Final Environmental Impact Report adequately addresses the
potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed DA, and reflects the
independent judgment of the City Council. The Council,through the certification of the
FEK incorporated the mitigation measures listed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program
into the project and the DA. In light of adoption of the overriding considerations and
incorporation of the mitigation measures,the project and DA will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment.
FALSE. A statement of overriding considerations clearly does not eliminate the
significant adverse impacts on the environment. The statement of overriding
considerations,rather, is a statement that the known significant adverse impacts on the
environments are tolerable given the project's purported benefits to the city. However, it
has been clear from the record that the purported benefits do not outweigh the adverse
environmental impacts. At a time when housing scarcity and affordability are extreme
hardships in San Luis Obispo,the Dalidio project makes these problems only worse.
Furthermore,the final EIR should never have been certified because of its many
deficiencies. Some of these deficiencies were explained in letters by Michael Sullivan
and others. Mitigation measures proposed in some cases do not meet the requirements of
CEQA. The project is inconsistent with the General Plan in various ways. Discussion
and analysis of certain environmental impacts was inadequate.
Two major projects (Dalidio Marketplace,and Margarita/Airport specific plan) have
considered the Prado Road corridor(extending from Madonna Road to Broad Street) as
the future route of State Highway 227. For example, Attachment A-1 at page A-24 notes
that in 1994, the City recommended that Prado Road ultimately become Highway 227
removing that distinction from Broad and South Street. Since 1994,the City has been
planning to use Prado Road as a public highway. Under CEQA, a public project such as
this must have environmental review at the earliest possible stage. Instead, the City
continues to use a"piecemeal"or segmented approach, See letter of Michael Sullivan in
attachment B (pages B-2, B-3).
Also, the City has not properly analyzed the fiscal impact of the financing scheme for
the US 101 /Prado Rd. overpass. This scheme could have significant indirect
environmental impacts if the city's Transportation Improvement Fund(TIF)becomes
partly depleted to help finance the overpass. If general funds or TIF funds are
diminished, there would be less money available for other improvement projects
throughout the city, and this could cause indirect traffic problems.
02 Aug 2004 To City of San Luis Obispo from Michael Sullivan' Page 5 of 5
RE: Dalidio development agreement
The Development Agreement also establishes a bad precedent for the city which is
harmful to the general welfare of the city. Development should pay its own way. (See
Land use Element policy LU 1.14: Costs of Growth). The trade-off for"community
wide benefits" is not a good one. The city would get a new overpass, but it is the project
itself which makes the overpass necessary at this time. The trade-off is loss of significant
city revenue (due to the loss of sales tax) and also the permanent significant
environmental effects (e.g. traffic, noise, loss of open space, etc.) which would remain
with the city for many, many years to come. The Development Agreement is, on
balance, an especially bad deal for the City.
Michael C. Sullivan
ATTACHMENTS
(A) City of San Luis Obispo—Planning Commission staff report etc.—Feb. 11, 2004—
Margarita and Airport Area SP/ER 73-00. (A-1 through A-44)
(B) Letters from Michael Sullivan to City of SLO—dated May 7, 2004,April 28, 2004,
March 23,2004 (B-1 through B-16)
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Council Chamber
City Hall - 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
February 11, 2004 Wednesday 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners, Carlyn Christianson, Jim Aiken, Alice Loh, Allan
Cooper, Michael Boswell, Vice-Chair James Caruso, and Chairperson
Orval Osborne.
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items..
MINUTES: Minutes of January 14, 2004. Amend or approve.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the commission about items
not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their
name and address. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at
this time are generally referred to the staff and, if action by the commission is
necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda
may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the
public hearing.
If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Please limit
your comments to three minutes; consultant and project presentations limited to six
minutes.
1. Bishop Peak Natural Reserve. City-wide. ER 183-03; Conservation plan for the
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve, including Environmental Review; City of SLO,
applicant. (Nei!Havlik)
2. Margarita Area and Airport Area. SP/ER 73-00: Margarita Area Specific Plan, and
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Airport Area and Margarita Area
Specific Plans and related Facilities Master. Plans; City of San Luis Obispo,
applicant. (John Shoals/Michael Draze) (Continued from January 28, 2004.)
Planning Commission Agenda
Page 2
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
A. Agenda Forecast
4. Commission
ADJOURN to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for
Wednesday February 25, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990
Palm Street.
Presenting Planner: Michael Draze
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM# 1
MEETING DATE: February 11, 2004
FILE NUMBER: ER 183-03
PROJECT ADDRESS: City-wide.
SUBJECT: Conservation Plan for the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve, including.Environmental
Review. (Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager)
The (Draft) Bishop Peak Conservation Plan has been distributed under separate cover to
the Planning Commission.
A counter copy is available in Administration; contact Melissa Ellsworth at 781-7123.
Also, the complete plan can be viewed online at wwwslocity.org (Click on the link for the
Bishop Peak Natural Area Conservation.Plam)
A • +
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSQa§4AFT REPORT ITEM# rZ
FROM:. Mike Draz , _ erector of Community Development MEETING DATE: February 11, 2004
BY: John Shoals, Project Planner
FILE NUMBER; ER 73-00, SP 73-00
PROJECT ADDRESS: Tank Farm Road area between Broad and South Higuera
SUBJECT: Continued hearing on the Draft Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP) and Final Program
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific
Plans and Related Facilities Master Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Discuss the draft MASP, take public testimony, provide direction to staff, and continue the hearing to
March 17, 2004.
DISCUSSION
Background
On January 28, 2004, the Planning Commission continued taking public comments on the draft
Margarita Area Specific Plan. Public and Commission discussion focused on adjacency of land uses,
the mix of land uses in Airport Land Use Plan Zone 3, and the location of Prado Road. The
Commission tentatively agreed that the specific plan was compatible with existing residential
neighborhoods and that potential land use conflicts could be addressed through design at the project-
specific stage. Commission members also agreed that, although the planned Prado Road alignment is
not a perfect solution, it is consistent with the General Plan and past City Council actions and is the best
option available when balanced against all related issues. Discussion on the size, phasing and financing
of Prado Road was deferred to the next meeting.
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to continue discussion of the draft Margarita Specific Plan, and to
provide direction to staff. In order to focus the discussion, the Commission should discuss the specific
plan topics in the same sequence as discussed in the draft MASP. Those plan components are:
1. Land Use
2. Open Space and Parks
3. Development Standards
4. . Design Criteria
5. Airport Compatibility
6. Transportation and Circulation
7. Public Services and Facilities
8. Utilities
9. Housing Affordability
10. Public Facilities and Financing
11. Implementation
Planning Commission Meeting 2/11/20.
ER 73-00,SP 73-00
Page 2
To assist the Commission in its deliberations, each topic is summarized in the January 28 staff report
(Attachment 1). The Commission should discuss each topic and decide if it is adequately addressed or
whether revisions are wan-anted. At the end of each section or chapter, the Commission should take a
"straw poll"to see if there is consensus before moving to the next topic.
The Commission should review the specific plan to determine if it is consistent with the General Plan,
and if implementation of the guidelines and standards contained in the specific plan would achieve a
cohesive neighborhood with adequate infrastructure and services. At the end of deliberations, the public
hearing should be continued to a date certain so that the plan can be revised_ and the proper documents
prepared for Commission action.
Landowner's Comments
Staff has met with landowners or their representatives to discuss the specific plan. The owners of the
property already annexed into the City, or "Western Enclave Property Owners", outlined their concerns
in a letter dated December 10, 2003,.which was previously distributed to the Commission (Attachment
2). Staff and the landowners have agreed on many of the suggested changes, but staff has concerns and
is seeking the Commission's specific direction on the following:
1. (Various locations) Shall versus Should. The owners would like the specific plan to be flexible to
allow for changing market conditions and unforeseen physical constraints.
2. (Page 12—Table 2) Reduce the second story side setback from 5 to 10 feet in the R-2 zone
3. (Page 13 2.2.3) Eliminate the minimum parcel size requirement in the MDR/R-2 zone.
4. (Page 13 2.2..3) Revise minimum lot area for a 4+bedroom dwelling from 7,260 to 6,000 sf
5. (Page 13-14) Require the parking standard for detached units be 2 parking spaces for 2+
bedrooms
6. (Page 14) Add a note to Table 3-A that specifies that the LDR standards (Table 2) apply to
single-family detached developments in
7. (Page 22—2.6.3) Eliminate the 1-acre minimum parcel size in the Business Park zone
8. (Page 22—2.6.3) Eliminate the requirement for a 5-acre parcel in the BP zone
9. (Page 22—2.6.6) Maintain flexibility on linking walkways, shared driveways and amenities
(should versus shall)
10. (Page 27—3.1.13) Consider adding language to except sites with steeper slopes from this
requirement.
11. (Pages 42 & 60 and Table 14) Phasing and Financing of Prado Road [staff will provide
additional recommendations on these issues as soon as they are completed]
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission will not take action on the draft MASP at this meeting so no alternatives are
suggested.
ATTACHMENTS
1. January 28, 2004 Planning Commission staff report
2. Landowners' letter dated December 10, 2003
3. Cardoza Real Estate letter dated February 2, 2004 3.
G:Vshoals\PCReport(February 11,2004)[3l.DOC
A ab ro
Attachment 7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
FROM: Michael Dr Direct f Community Development MEETING DATE: January 28, 2004
BY: John Shoals, Project Plann
FILE NUMBER: ER 73-00, SP 73-00
PROJECT ADDRESS: Tank Farm Road area between Broad and South Higuera
SUBJECT: Draft Margarita Area Specific Plan and Final Program Environmental Impact Report for
the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities Master Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Discuss the draft MASP, take public testimony, provide direction to staff, and continue the hearing to
February 11, 2004.
DISCUSSION
Background
On January 14, 2004, the Planning Commission considered the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan and
the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) for the Margarita and Airport Area Specific
Plans and related Master Facilities Plans. The January 14 meeting was used primarily to review the
FPEIR and to determine if it adequately addressed the potential project impacts. After substantial public
testimony and discussion, the Planning Commission, by "straw poll," agreed that the FPEIR had
adequately addressed the potential impacts, and that it was time to move on to evaluation of the specific
plan. The Commission continued the public hearing to January 28 with direction to staff to focus
discussion on all aspects of the draft MASP, including Prado Road. In addition, the Commission
identified five specific items to be discussed at the January 28 meeting. Those items are: 1) adjacency
of Chumash Village and other uses; 2) the mix of land uses in Airport Land Use Zone 3 (business park
versus manufacturing); 3) the size and location of Prado Road; 4) the Prado Road east end; and 5) Prado
Road funding.
This staff report addresses the Commission's primary concerns and various issues-raised by the general
public and landowners. It is organized into 11 topics that highlight the major components of the draft
MASP. The topic areas are: specific plan development, land use plan, development standards, design
criteria, airport compatibility, circulation plan, public services and facilities, stormwater drainage &
utilities, housing affordability, public facilities and financing plan, and implementation. The
Commission's items and issues are included in the appropriate areas of discussion. Items 1 and 2 are
covered under Land Use Plan. Items 3, 4 and 5 are covered under Circulation Plan.
The purpose of the January 28 meeting is twofold. The Commission will begin evaluating all
components of the specific plan, including Prado Road. As discussed at the January 14 meeting, the
Commission should discuss Prado Road in the context of the specific plan's circulation plan with the
option to discuss funding and phasing on February 11, 2004. Staff will provide the Commission with
information that documents past actions on Prado Road. The second part of the meeting involves the
Planning Commission providing staff with direction on the Specific Plan so that the proper corrections,
resolutions, and ordinances can be prepared for a possible Commission action on Feb ru 11.
s
Planning Commission Meeting 1/28/2004
ER 73-00,SP 73-00
Page 2
Margarita Area Specific Plan
Specific Plan Development
Individuals expressed concerns with the specific plan process and not being able to give comments on
the document. The Planning Commission hearings currently underway, as well as subsequent Council
meetings, provide such an opportunity. Some people may question the basic concepts the specific plan
is based on. While it is understandable that people participating in the public review process today
would like to have been involved in the earlier decisions made regarding the specific plan, it is
necessary to accept the previous direction that has set the course for the current draft. Comments and
recommendations can still be made regarding any aspect of the plan, though fundamental changes to the
basic plan objectives at this point in time are not anticipated. It is important to note that substantial
public input and City Council direction have gone into the plan currently before the Commission. Much
of the early direction for the plan came from members of County Service Area 22 (CSA 22) who funded
a preliminary specific plan in the late 1980's. The 1994 Land Use Element established many specific
objectives for the specific plan.
The Land Use Element (LUE) designates the Margarita Area as a Residential Expansion Area. Specific
plans for the residential expansion areas are to include a detailed list of contents. (LUE Section 2.3 —
Attachment 1). In addition, the Land Use Element also contains a list of objectives for residential
projects. (LUE Section 2.2 — Attachment 2). Other General Plan elements, including the Open Space
Element, Parks and Recreation Element, Circulation Element, and Water and Wastewater Management
Element, direct various aspects of the specific plan. Because specific plans must be consistent with
general plans, the general plan provides a framework for the plan based on a substantial amount of
public review and participation. In addition to the specific plan objectives stated in the General Plan
sections noted above, more refined objectives were endorsed in the reviews of the various components
of the draft, especially in the review of the project description for the specific plan environmental report.
Since the adoption of the Land Use Element, there have been many additional public meetings involving
the Architectural Review Commission, Cultural Heritage Committee, the Planning Commission, and the
City Council as well as public hearings at the Airport Land Use Commission that directly affected the
MASP. These bodies reviewed circulation and transportation; land use types and locations; housing
types, costs and densities; preservation and protection of open space (South Hills and lower wetland
areas); the provision of recreational opportunities (parks); public facilities and infrastructure; noise and
airport compatibility; drainage; visual and aesthetics; financing and growth management. The draft
MASP was revised to address Airport Land Use Commission concerns, landowner requests, and updates
to the General Plan (1994) and the Municipal Code. A detailed chronology was provided in the
December 10, 2003 Planning Commission staff report.
Land Use Plan
Issues: Adjacency of land uses(Chumash Village Mobile Home Park)
Affordable housing density bonus
Mix of land uses (Business Park versus Services and Manufacturing)
I
Planning Commission Meeting 1/28/2004
ER 73-00,SP 73-00
Page 3
The MASP would direct the future development of the Margarita Area, including the distribution of land
uses, the location and sizing of infrastructure, site planning, development standards, architectural
guidelines and the methods of financing public improvements. The draft specific plan designates 75
acres of Residential, 69 acres of Business Park, 2 acres of Neighborhood Commercial, 1 acre of Special
Use (a ranch house and orchard), 169 acres of Open Space, and 19 acres for Streets. The proposed
specific plan would allow for the development of up to 868 dwellings, 2,800 square feet of
neighborhood commercial, and 959,000 square feet of business park uses.
Several residents of Chumash Village Mobile Home Park expressed concerns with the proposed density
of the properties adjacent to the Park, and the potential impacts from concentrating affordable housing
units near their homes. Chumash Village Mobile Home Park is designated Medium Density Residential
and zoned R-2, with a maximum density of 8 to 12 dwelling units. The draft specific plan designates the
adjacent properties MDR/R-2 to be consistent with the existing mobile home park density. In fact, the
draft plan took based the layout of the project on Land Use Element policies 2.2.6 and 2.2.10
(attachment 2) that call for the creation of neighborhoods and their compatibility with existing
neighborhoods.
Figure 5 of the specific plan identifies a specific location where affordable-housing density is available.
This area was identified for a possible density bonus because it was the only area not located in the
Zones 3 and 4 of the Airport Land Use Plan. The ALUP identifies Zone 3 as approach and climb-out
extensions and restricts residential uses to 5 acres or more. Zone 4 is an area with potential conflict with
airport operations. The General Plan contains policies, which require that affordable housing units be
dispersed throughout the City and not concentrated in any one area so while the area in Figure 5 allows
for a density bonus, it does not require or even allow all the affordable housing to be in that area.. The
Specific Plan provides for a distribution of affordable housing units throughout the Margarita Area
consistent with the General Plan.
A representative of the Martinelli Family suggested that the Plan be revised to change the land use
designation proposed for their property from Business Park to Services and Manufacturing. They
believe that there is a better market for manufacturing uses than Business Park. The specific plan
designates this property Business Park for several reasons. First, the BP designation allows for the
development of light industrial, research and development uses that would buffer the planned residential
uses in Margarita from heavy manufacturing operations as required by Land Use Element Policy 2.2.4
.(Attachment 2). Second, the specific plan provides for less intensive industrial uses along Prado Road,
which is intended to have a different character than Tank Farm.Road. Finally, the MASP was developed
in concert with the AASP, which proposes a substantial amount of land for service and manufacturing
operations: Page 21 of the draft Specific Plan describes all of the uses that would be possible in the
Business Park.zone.
Development Standards
Issue:Are the development standards appropriate for the Margarita Area?
how9'
Planning Commission Meeting 1/28/2004
ER 73-00,SP 73-00
Page 4
The specific plan contains development standards for the developable land in the Margarita Area. The
measure of the specific plan's development standards is how well they implement the objectives of the
specific plan. With the project objectives clearly defined, staff worked to augment the existing
development standards in the Zoning Regulations to achieve the objectives. The specific plan supersedes
portions of the City's Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations, Engineering Standards and other
applicable City Codes. Where specific plan standards are silent on an issue, the Municipal Code will
apply. The development standards are more flexible in some respects and more restrictive in others.
Generally, more flexible lot sizing is allowed to accommodate the higher densities envisioned in the
plan. The more restrictive aspects are generally intended to assure compatibility with the ALUP or to
help ensure that the area develops as a cohesive neighborhood. The Planning Commission should relate
the development standards to the objectives stated in applicable General Plan policies provided in the
attachments and in the specific plan itself.
Design Criteria
Issue: Do the design criteria achieve the desired vision for Margarita?
In addition to the development standards, the specific plan contains design criteria for the specific plan
area. The design criteria address architectural styles, building forms and materials, landscaping,
lighting, solar exposure, public art and road traffic noise mitigation. The specific plan does not establish
a preferred architectural style, but it does outline several styles that may be appropriate for the Margarita
Area. Those styles are Craftsman, Mission Revival, Victorian, Provincial, Neoclassic and Art Deco.
Airport Compatibility
Issue: Increase the Number of Dwelling Units irrespective of Specific Plan consistency with the Airport
Land Use Plan
There were several comments on the low number of potential dwellings in the specific plan. Some
suggested that.the number be increased above that allowed by the current ALUP. Land Use Element
policy LU 7.2 (Attachment 3) directs us to provide development consistent with the ALUP. In addition,
State law requires that the General Plan and specific plans be consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan
unless the City makes very rigorous findings why consistency in not necessary. The draft MASP was
revised to address the Airport Land Use Commission's concerns regarding residential density and the
location of an elementary school. The specific plan addresses the ALUC's concerns by reducing the
number of dwellings from 1,200 to 868, eliminating the school site and placing height and location
restrictions on certain areas within the Business Park. Staff and City Council representatives have had
numerous meetings with the Airport Land Use Commission to resolve the differences between the two
plans. The 868 dwelling units and the location of residential, non-residential, parks, and open space are
the result of those meetings.
��
I
Planning Commission Meeting 1/28/2004
ER 73-00,SP 73-00
Page 5
Circulation.Plan
The Margarita Area Specific Plan takes a distinct approach in designing the circulation system ,that
internally and externally binds the plan area to the City. Neighborhood design and land use was a
significant driving force in laying out neighborhood street patterns, roadway connections and cross
sections, modal connectivity and traffic systems integration.
The orientation of the plan from a residential perspective is to take advantage of many of the
philosophies of the Neo-Traditional residential design movement. Cul-de-sacs have been minimized and
roadway & pedestriantbike connections maximized to promote circulation other than primarily use of
the automobile. The limitation established by the Airport Land Use Plan has restricted some ability to
be more creative in these areas, but overall the neighborhoods will be distinct from conventional
residential neighborhoods.
Traffic calming features have been incorporated along sections of local and collector roadways where
street length and traffic volumes may. become problematic. The features have been proposed based
upon the City's experience in using similar devices in existing neighborhoods that share like
characteristics. Bulb-outs are provided to allow landscaping closer to the street and "bulb-ins" provide
for parking for neighborhood residences. This is an alterative to current street design standards that
have favored attached sidewalks next to the traveled way.
Transit service has been incorporated into the land use proposals with the intent to maximize
accessibility to adjacent neighborhoods. It is anticipated that bus service will be extended into the areas
as phasing of the neighborhoods completes. Further integration of transit into the neighborhoods (on
residential streets) is limited by service frequency goals of establishing minimal bus headways (30-60
minutes) for routes that serve the southern part of the City.
Pedestrian and bicycle facilities run throughout the specific plan area. These include separate bicycle
paths, trails and concurrent routes along proposed streets. Connections to the north, east and west are
provided via identified locations that pedestrians can use to avoid taking automobiles to or from major
destinations, such as the future Damon-Garcia sports field and the Marigold shopping center. Pedestrian
connections to the transit routes are also provided in the circulation plan design.
Finally, the MASP area is part of the larger City planning areas and as such, the specific plan
incorporates some of the larger City issues. Prado Road alignment and design reflects prior Council
decisions on the actual alignment of the roadway as it traverses the MASP area and accesses Broad
Street. In addition, the cross section of Prado Road has been revised to incorporate concerns expressed
by the Airport Land Use Commission and other environmental issues.
Prado Road
Issues:Prado Road east end(Intersection with Broad Street)
Prado Road size and location
Prado Road Funding and Construction Phasing �'
. . A
Planning Commission Meeting 1/28/2004
ER 73-00,SP 73-00
Page 6
At the December Planning Commission hearing on the draft Program EIR and MASP, a number of
public comments were made requesting additional information about the alignment of Prado Road and
the environment review regarding this component of the specific plan.
The proposed alignment of Prado Road contained in the draft MASP reflects Council adopted General
Plan direction on this issue. As part of adopting the current alignment, which occurred in February
2000, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). That MND contained 17
mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. At the December 10
meeting, Commissioner Boswell requested copies of the Council agenda reports relating to the Prado
Road issue. A separate binder containing these reports and other pertinent information on the Prado
Road issue has been transmitted to the Planning Commission for use in reviewing the MASP and EIR.
A copy of the Prado Road Information binder will be available at the Community Development and
Public Works Departments. To date, at least 13 separate and distinct planning level activities have
reviewed the issue of Prado Road and its alignment through the MASP area. Attachment 4 details the
major planning activities on this issue to date.
Contrary to some recent rumors, the construction of Prado Road contains no blasting of adjacent
hillsides, tunneling, or realignment of Acacia Creek. The conceptual alignment of Prado Road has been
altered to minimize impacts to wetland areas within the Margarita Area and the archeological site near
the Damon-Garcia sports field. These modifications were made in accordance with mitigation measures
established by the Council as part of the February 2000 General Plan Amendment decision. The
alignment in the specific plan is as shown in the environmentally superior alternative for the MASP
Program EIR, (other than the no-project alternative). Similarly, roadway design and construction will
be completed to ensure appropriate level of safety for users of the Damon-Garcia sports field, residents
of the MASP area and the general public.
Potential Realignment to Use existing Prado ROW
At the January 14 Planning Commission meeting a question arose if the existing Prado Road street
improvements east of the City limits (it is not publicly accepted right-of-way) could be used for the
Prado Road alignment on the west end of the planning area. The use of this alignment could potentially
reduce the costs for additional right of way and construction costs.
The adopted alignment and meandering of Prado Road was promoted to accommodate the proposed land
uses in the MASP planning area. The west end of Prado Road bisects proposed business park/industrial
land uses in order to minimize potential noise issue with adjacent residential uses. Noise Element
policies; in particular N1.2.1, N1.2.2, N1.2.6, and N1.2.7 (Attachment 5) were use in locating the
proposed road. Extending the road along the existing improvement will bring the road in closer
proximity to these residential units and could result in additional noise impacts to proposed residential
locations. While this revision is doable, additional environmental analysis would be necessary to review
potential impacts of such an alignment change.
r j
Planning Commission Meeting 1/28/2004
ER 73-00,SP 73-00
Page 7
Tank Farm Road Alignment
The draft MASP contains the General Plan alignment for Prado Road as adopted by Council in February
2000,and then reaffirmed in January 2001. As part of the 2001 review of this issue, staff was requested
to provide information on a potential Tank Farm Road alignment for Prado Road. The information
provided a detailed qualitative assessment of this alternative alignment and compared it to both the
northern and southern Prado Road alignment across the Damon-Garcia sports field. After much
discussion, public testimony and review of the issues, Council reaffirmed that the currently adopted
alignment was the preferred alignment for the Prado Road connection.
Funding and Phasing of Prado Road
The City's General Plan calls for a phased approach to development of the major expansion areas based
on the availability of resources and development paying its fair share of costs to install adequate public
facilities. General Plan policy LU 1.14 (Attachment 6) states "The costs for public facilities and
services needed for new development shall be borne by the new development, unless the community
chooses-to help pay the costs for a certain development to obtain community-wide benefits. The City
will adopt a development-fee program and other appropriate financing measures, so that new
development pays its share of the costs of new services and facilities needed to serve it." Consistent
with the General Plan, the draft MASP requires new development fund construction of Prado Road and
other required public facilities. This can only be achieved by developing a funding and phasing program
prior to any development in the specific plan area. Staff has made several recommendations for
financing construction of public facilities, including Prado Road. Thus far, property owners have
expressed concerns with all of them. Staff will continue to work with the property owners to resolve
this issue. At the time this report went to print, no solution has been agreed upon. Staff will be prepared
to discuss this issue if time allows on January 28, but anticipates that more discussion will take place on
February 11.
Public Services and-Facilities
General Plan policy LU 1.13.4 (Attachment 7) requires that development in expansion areas be
approved only when adequate City services can be provided for that development, without reducing
levels of service or increasing the costs of services for existing developments. The draft MASP
implements this General Plan policy by providing for the delivery of essential services, including
education, law enforcement, fire protection, paramedic services, health, recreation, parks maintenance,
transportation (transit), solid waste and recycling.
Stormwater Drainage& Utilities
The specific plan provides for the extension and upgrade of existing utilities to serve the Margarita
Area. Primary facilities needed to serve the area are water, sewer, drainage, energy, lighting, tele-
communications and high-speed data access. Landowners/developers will be required to install utilities
to serve their projects. Citywide water and wastewater management have been updated, as the specific
plan EIR was prepared. The original draft specific plan called for the establishment of a regional
I
Planning Commission Meeting 1/28/2004
ER 73-00,SP 73-00
Page 8
drainage system and basin with the Margarita Area owners contributing financially. In response to
landowner concerns, onsite detention or sub-regional basins will handle stormwater drainage. The
current draft MASP will be revised to clarify this change.
Housing Affordability
General Plan policy H.2.3.1 (Attachment 8) requires that development within the specific plan area
comply with the City's Inclusionary Housing Requirement (Municipal Code Chapter 17.91). Table 5 of
the Specific Plan calls for 43 (5%) dwellings affordable for lower-income households and 87 (10%)
dwellings for-moderate-income households. It is important to note that the inclusionary housing standard
is tied to the City's adopted requirement. The draft Housing Element proposes change in both the
residential and commercial requirements for increasing housing, and whatever is adopted by the City
Council will prevail in the MASP. Staff recommends that Table 5 and all references to it be removed
for the final version of the specific plan.
The specific plan envisions that the San Luis Housing Authority or other non-profit housing provider
could acquire sites through purchase at market rate or by receiving dedications at reduced or no cost, in
fulfillment of all or part of the Inclusionary Housing Requirement. The specific plan does not identify
specific sites, but does require the dwelling to be integrated throughout the neighborhood. The owners
of the western properties that have already been annexed to the City are in discussions with the Housing
Authority on a proposal that will provide land for housing. The preliminary proposals that staff has seen
appear to place all of the housing in one location but staff will be working with the owners and Housing
Authority on refining any such proposal.
Public Facilities Financing
As required by State law, the draft MASP contains a Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) that
evaluates the ability of the land uses proposed in the specific plan to fund required public improvements
such as street improvements, water and wastewater facilities, storm drainage facilities, undergrounding
utilities. The PFFP estimates $23.2 million for transportation infrastructure and planning costs. This
amount does not include: 1) costs for land acquisition for roadway improvements; 2) existing City;
school district and other public agency development fees; 3) onsite storm drainage detention costs; and
4) in-tract frontage or other project-speck costs. The PFFP identifies three financing methods, which
include the formation of a Mellos-Roos district, impact fees and developer financing. The PFFP
recommends a financing strategy that includes a combination of impact fees, community facilities
district debt financing, citywide and add-on impact fees, developer funding and land dedications.
Landowners and their representatives have expressed concerns with the amounts and recommended
financing strategies. The PFFP has been revised twice to reduce infrastructure costs. A proposed
regional storm drainage system was eliminated; Tank Farm Road Infrastructure costs were reduced; and
utility undergrounding would be done with individual development and from the City's Rule 20A
program rather than as part of the PFFP. Staff continues to work with the property owners on the
funding recommendation. At the time this report went to print, no solution has been agreed upon. Staff
��
1 I f
Planning Commission Meeting.1/28/2004
ER 73-00,SP 73-00
Page 9
will be prepared to discuss this issue if time allows on January 28,but anticipates that more discussion
will take place on February 11.
Implementation
Issue: Portions of the MASP are not consistent with the General Plan
Individuals have commented that the draft MASP is not consistent with the General Plan. The Land Use
Element of the General Plan shows the Margarita area as a combination of lands uses with an overlay
requiring adoption of a specific plan prior to development. Implementation of the MASP is the intended
vehicle to meet this requirement. With the adoption of the MASP, the City Council will certify the Final
Program Environmental Impact Report and amend the General Plan Land Use Map to reflect the land
use categories contained in the specific plan. Any properties within the City would be zoned consistent
with the specific plan, using the City zone category in combination with the "SP" overlay. Properties
within the Margarita Area, but not in the City, would also reflect the land use categories in the specific
plan but rezoning from existing County zoning would take place upon annexation. Future projects
would include residential subdivision and development plans.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission will not take action on the draft MASP at this meeting so no alternatives are
suggested.
ATTACHMENTS
1. General Plan Policy LU 2:3
2. General Plan Policy LU 2.2
3. General Plan Policy LU 7.2
4. Figure 1 —Major Planning Documents Discussing Prado Road Alignment
5. General Plan Policies N 1.2
6. General Plan Policy LU 1.14
7. General Plan Policy LU 1.13.4
8. General Plan Policy H 2.3.1
Distributed under separate cover: Prado Road Information Binder
PC MASP(January28,2004)[7].DOC
A � �S
Land Use Element
texture, places for people to walk through them at regular
intervals, and planting.)
I) Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such
as front porches, front yards along streets, and entryways facing
public walkways.
J) Buffers from hazardous materials transport routes, as
recommended by the City Fin: Department.
LU 2.2.13: Nonresidential Activities
Residential areas may accommodate limited nonresidential activities which generall7
have been compatible, such as child day care, elementary schools, churches, and home
businesses meeting established criteria.
LU 2.3: Residential Expansion Areas
LU 2.3.1: Specific Plans
Specific plans for the Margarita Area and Orcutt Area residential expansions shall include:
r A) Desired types and intensities of development, compatible with
the surrounding area;
B) Phasing of development and public facilities, subject to
availability of resources;
C) Measures to protect resources and open space, including,
among other types, permanent wildlife habitats and corridors,
and farm fields;
D) Desired types of public facilities and the means to provide them,
to City standards, including water supply, sewage collection,
= storm water drainage, streets, bikeways, walking paths, and
passive and active park space;
E) Desired levels of public services and the means to provide
them, including fire, police, and schools;
F) A variety of owner and rental housing, including a broad range
of prices, sizes, and types. (See also LU Policy 2.5 below)
H 5.2.5
H 6.3.4 G) Trees to help reduce wind exposure, and water-frugal
landscaping;
H) Public parks and open space, and other land that is not to be
built on; such as yards, and community gardens for multifamily
areas;
LU-24 genenal plan OigEst- city of san Luis osispC
,m 'r
Land Use Element
I) Dual water systems allowing.use of treated wastewater for non-
potable uses.
J) Energy efficient design, utilizing passive and active solar
features;
K) Amenities to facilitate public transportation within the area;
L) Opportunities for individuals or small groups, other than the
specific plan developer, to build homes or to create living
environments suited to small groups or to special needs.
LU 2..3.2: Separate Paths
Within the major expansion areas, bicycle and walking paths which are separate from
roadways should connect residential areas with neighborhood commercial centers, CI 3.3
schools, parks and, where feasible, other areas of the City. CI 3.6
CI 3.7
CI 4.2
LU 2:3.3: Residential Neighborhood Designation
The major residential expansion areas are shown as Residents!Neighborhood on the
General Plan Land Use.Map. They may be developed as adequate utilities and services
are made available. They should be developed as residential neighborhoods, with a wide
range of housing types and costs, and supporting uses such as small parks, elementary
schools,and shopping and services to meet the daily demands of neighborhood residents.
The estimated residential capacities of the major expansion areas are shown in Table 3.
These capacities are based on the amount of land suitable for development according to
policies of this element, and average densities on the housing sites in the range of eight
to ten dwellings per acre (excluding public streets, parks, and other land dedicated to
public use).
LU 2.3.4: Transfer of Development Credits
For each major expansion area, Table 3 indicates a low capacity which may be developed
without transfer of development credits and a high capacity which may be used with OS 1.3.6
transfer of development credits. Development credits would be transferred from areas
in the City, the urban reserve, or the greenbelt where development would be less
appropriate, generally those designated conservation/open space or, on the County's
map, agriculture or rural lands.
city of. san Luis ow.spo - ceneizal plan Oiciest / LU-25
Land Use Element
CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
e tt3Y y '
LU 2.1: Neighborhood Protection and Enhancement
LU 2.1.1: Neighborhood Identity
The city shall assist residents to identify and designate neighborhoods. The city will
work with residents to prepare neighborhood plans, to facilitate development of a sense
of place within neighborhoods.
LU 2.1.2: Neighborhood Groups
The City should encourage and support the formation and continuation of neighborhood
planning groups, composed of neighborhood residents.
LU 2.1.3: Neighborhood Traffic
Neighborhoods should be protected from intrusive traffic. All neighborhood street and
circulation improvements should favor the pedestrian and local traffic. Vehicle traffic on CI 6.5
residential streets should be slow. To foster suitable traffic speed, street design should C16.6
include measures such as narrow lanes, landscaped parkways, traffic circles, textured
crosswalks, and, if necessary, stop signs, speed humps, and bollards.
LU 2.1.4: Neighborhood Connections
All areas should have a street and sidewalk pattern that promotes neighborhood and
community cohesiveness. There should be continuous sidewalks or paths of adequate
width, connecting neighborhoods with each other and with public and commercial
services to provide continuous pedestrian paths-throughout the City.
LU 2.1.5: Neighborhood Open Links
The City should treat streets, sidewalks, and front setbacks as a continuous open link CI 4.2
between all areas of the City and all land uses. These features should be designed as
amenities for light, air, social contact, and communityidentity.
LU 2.2: Residential Location, Uses, and Design
LU 2.2.1: Mixed Uses&Convenience
Neighborhoods shall include a mix of uses to serve the daily needs of nearby residents,
including schools, parks, churches, and convenience retail stores. Neighborhood
shopping and services should be available within about one mile of all dwellings. When
nonresidential, neighborhood-serving uses are developed, existing housing shall be
preserved. If existing dwellings are removed for such uses, the development shall include
replacement dwellings.
city of san Luis oaispo - cene>zat plan aicest LU-21
1
Land Use Element -
LU 2.2.2: Separation and Buffering
Residential areas should be separated or screened from incompatible, nonresidential
activities, including most commercial and manufacturing businesses, traffic arteries, the
freeway, and.the railroad. Residential areas should be protected from encroachment by
detrimental commercial and industrial activities.
LU 2.2.3: Housing and Aircraft
N 1.2.7 New housing should not be allowed in areas where aircraft noise exposure and the risk
of aircraft accidents are not acceptable.
LU 2.2.4: Residential.Next to Nonresidential
In designing development at the boundary between residential and nonresidential uses,
protection of a residential atmosphere is the fust priority.
LU 2.2.5: Street Access
New residential developments, or redevelopment involving large sites, should be
designed to orient low-density housing to local access streets, and medium- or
high-density housing to driveways accessible from collector streets.Major arterials through
residential areas shall provide only limited private access o_r controlled street
intersections.
661-) LU 2.2.6: Neighborhood Pattern
All residential development should be integrated with existing neighborhoods. Where
H 7'2'4 physical features make this impossible, the new development should create new
neighborhoods.
LU 2.2.7: Housing and Businesses
Where housing can be compatible with offices or other businesses, mixed-use projects
should be encouraged.
LU 2.2.8: Natural Features
Residential developments should preserve and incorporate as amenities natural site
features, such as land forms, views, creeks, wetlands, wildlife habitats, and plants.
LU 2.2.9: Parking
Large parking lots should be avoided. Parking lots should be screened from street
views. In general, parking should.not be provided between buildings and the street.
LU-22 censual plan digest- city of San Luis OBispo
Land Use Element
1112.2.10: Compatible Development ,
Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in character with
that neighborhood. All multifamily development and large group-living facilities should H 8.2.4
be compatible with any nearby, lower density development.
A) Architectural Character: New buildings should respect.
existing buildings which contribute to neighborhood historical
or architectural character, in terms of size, spacing, and variety.
B) Privacy and Solar Access: New buildings will respect the 6VI
privacy and solar access of neighboring buildings and outdoor EC 1.3.25
areas, particularly where multistory buildings or additions may EC 1.3.31
overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings.
IU 2.2.11: Site Constraints
Residential developments shall respect site constraints such as property size and shape,
ground slope, access, creeks and wetlands, wildlife habitats, native vegetation, and
significant trees.
LU 2.2.12: Residential Project Objectives
Residential projects should provide:
A) Privacy, for occupants and neighbors of the project;
B) Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and
prevailing winds, and oriented to receive light and sunshine;
C) Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, and shade to make indoor
and outdoor spaces comfortable with minimum mechanical
support;
D) Pleasant views from and toward the project;
E) Security and safety;
F) Separate paths for vehicles and for people,and bike paths along
collector streets;
G) Adequate parking and storage space;
H) Noise and visual separation from. adjacent roads and
commercial uses. (Barrier walls, isolating a project, are not N 1.2.11
desirable. Noise mitigation walls may be used only when there N 1.2.15
is no practicable alternative. Where walls are used, they should N 1.2.16
help create an attractive pedestrian, residential setting through N 1.2.17
features such as setbacks, changes in alignment, detail and
city of san tuts owspo - geneizal plan digest LU-23
Land Use Element
texture, places for people to walk through them at regular
intervals, and planting.)
1) Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such
as front porches,front yards along streets, and entryways facing
public walkways.
J) Buffers from hazardous materials transport routes, as
recommended by the City Fire Department.
LU 2.2.13: Nonresidential Activities
Residential areas may accommodate limited nonresidential activities which generally
have been compatible, such as child day care, elementary schools, churches, and home
businesses meeting established criteria.
LU 2.3: Residential Expansion Areas
LU 2:3.1: Specific Plans
Specific plans for the Margarita Area and Orcutt Area residential expansions shall include:
A) Desired types and intensities of development, compatible with
the surrounding area;
B) Phasing of development and public facilities, subject to
availability of resources;
Q Measures to protect resources and open space, including,
among other types; permanent wildlife habitats and corridors,
and farm fields;
D) Desired types of public facilities and the means to.provide them,
to City standards, including water supply, sewage collection,
storm water drainage, streets; bikeways, walking paths, and
passive and active park space;
E) Desired levels of public services and the means to provide
them, including fire, police, and schools;
F) A variety of owner and rental housing, including a broad range
of prices, sizes, and types. (See also LU Policy 2.5 below.)
H 5.2.5
H 6.3.4 G) Trees to help reduce wind exposure, and water-frugal
landscaping;
H) Public parks and open space, and other land that is not to be
built on, such as yards, and community gardens for multifamily
areas;
LU-24 cenERal plan airiest -crty of san lues oBispo
Z I
Land Use Element
AIRPORT AREA
HE,W2401
LU 7.1: Regional Service
The airport will continue to serve the region, consistent with the approved Airport
Master Plan.
LU 7.2: Airport Land Use Plan
Development should be permitted only if it is consistent with the San Luis Obispo County
Airport Land Use Plan. Prospective buyers of property which is subject to airport CI 10.1
influence should be so informed.
LU 7.3: City Annexation and Services
The City intends to actively pursue annexation of the Airport Area. Airport Area land
inside the urban reserve shall be considered for annexation if it meets the criteria stated
in Policy 1.13.3A. Annexation of areas that do not meet these interim annexation criteria
may be annexed subject to completion of environmental and economic studies and a
specific plan. Pending annexation:
A) Any urban development approved by the County shall be
consistent with City development standards; and
B) Urban development and provision of adequate resources and
services needed citywide shall be closely monitored.
LU 7.4: Greenbelt Protection
Annexation of-the Airport Area, whether it occurs as one action or several, shall be LU 6.2.3
consistent with the growth management objectives of maintaining areas outside the
urban reserve line in rural, predominantly open space uses. An Airport Area annexation
shall not take effect unless the annexed area helps protect an appropriate part of the
greenbelt near the Airport Area, through one or more of the following methods:
A) Dedicating an open-space easement or fee ownership to the
City or to a responsible land-conservation organization.
B) Paying fees to the City in-lieu of dedication,which shall be used
within a reasonable time to secure greenbelt open space near
the Airport Area.
city of san Luis oBispo - GEncRal. plan digest ^ . Z% LU-75
• m'
w b
o �
4A
C
i� a .a o
` C.•.� y p O w
J �
PC
Fxp
O a 0 O a
d
O a i
Q' •� L gO e� a � Z .0
VA PC
p:� a am zaz
I ao
cz
u)ccl C) ED
w O
9 z e e a 4 � . 7 � .,., U •a c � c p � v � 3
� .
O ao o a -0 n $ y � c
o U a .d ITyco p c p' 3 �.no. v N v° I C3 a�
C
W -00d � ttl 3N V atd r .p a
C tUV
...
I C
ee , . �ar- cd
:05 -0,
E myy t'7 O0
fl b *43 � 4 . a70 0
c0c� $_ .. � 04» •� c� � Q � o.0 t0i 00 0
O cd .r kr Vi N l7 /dp 9 C. Cd C� N' 1"' y ¢ �7 O rJ
. A Z O 0wC s >, o O ' t '•: O pn to
F�1 .+ .+ _ O O d:7 0
E cad0 3 x U o . y 0 ° 0 ca «+ o a o o °o y c o •^ a °
O eowpm ' � rs � a3R �� a� ' `0° 0 " °� `°
.� rsAo � FUr� cnU ¢ cOiAgto �LBSyaU° VO
�+ M •--� M � Q\ O� N
a
_ ^
C o
cs rn
C7 V � Win°
O . caa U � jj y
e IT I � I 'w W �
o N 3T a a
0 co
O OO 0 °�, O 7 0
`° m r
M - -
�pp5 •p o � � .� q3 qo �. o
C O C
O y r� p H y y •IJ � y
19 -A
o � F
T ■ ■ ■ ■ r. a a • ■ ■ e
.>
`V D p L�'• p. � 'O p O N f_/� b �'. ��' •p ° � O U m �r •r3 � •O
C N M1 rJ O 70
3 a) [y N y,., U
° r, 3 r N sy y •c CL L7 3 b o N `° a S c w
En
00
c � 3 � L
y i° mU 40) o�
° ° � � � co � 0 ° � .5 �' ° n ' ate oao
�
apt, a ' '� °' e ' 'a � � urs ooC dA c
° aciaciOC °o api � o :: � od mb E8 po m > > a
ap :v_ = y ,� `° 'o_ •a° O � e� c •}Ot� ai � 3EC �o.06 � acboo-p
0 IngO U W y bA .fl 'O •a C C N .`� .p O d 'a
UA r.3 = b m a g racoapi O b r
ay7
O �= ^ y c �' d rs ao c
° v° Oo �Ccacid oo � otio sb oo .oEywo � oE c � W o � � .a .
E � � � CL CO)
� � awaawbS � a � a � ' aQ�
C x N y D G
pp G
' 00 pp00 00 Obi O�
Q\ O� ON O\ ONON
^. ... .r .. ..�
a° 0000
c a o •os � c o
cz 7�
v = I 8 cn
F &,E t I : � ON
c
Q c d 'a eP� U y
r.
ow
cc 10
a) U 7,
C7W
M � I
C� o Cal :a
0 4J w
owe .
� " s
N
•c c
� 0.
b v
C «. cd o
ci IX
too D ... j"J' 'J O
l� 'u So a " $ E 3 u
C04 '00
8 ~ c9a ;, av° a � •D
d •D1 c o c 1 Ea
� �" � y •e ,aoa�i � Ety � ac �_ '�
•. w � cha � � 'yw ' c
yo o ° Q C u, .= p ag cg
y � c cQ � AQ cEHisQr � � W •o
2 hGv v� $ cr
Q� c
8
N N
J F o C
°^ V
aCIAccay.
� a VCc
CL yC7 0 °
,N�,
> hip 246
Noise Elernent
1.0 NOISE GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
N 1.1.1: Noise Exposure Protection
Protect people from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to noise. (p3,1)
N 1.1.2: Noise Prevention
Preserve the.tranquillity of residential neighborhoods by preventing noise-producing
uses from encroaching upon existing or planned noise-sensitive uses. (p3,2)
N 1.1.3: Public Education
Help citizens understand the effects of exposure to excessive noise and the methods
available for minimizing such exposure. (p3,3)
r�
N 1.1.4: Emphasize Careful Site Planning
Emphasize the reduction of noise impacts through careful site planning and project
design, giving second preference to the use of noise barriers and structural features.
(p3,4)
N 1.1.5: Prevent Incompatible Land Uses
Prevent incompatible land uses from encroaching on existing or planned uses which are
desired parts of the community, but which produce noise. (p3,5)
N 1.1.6: Noise Reduction
Encourage practices and technologies which reduce noise. (p3,6)
J�.i L ,Ci'IESx-'•. ^. K.yi"t'Sa` '.2y ':�"a=45 4 : ..a^a*ruL+3' :$�. .moi:�... xr k"Y .F°'� �}7,_�.
ua h #M
N 1.2.1: hfinimizing Noise .
The numerical noise standards of this element are maximum acceptable noise levels.
New development should minimize noise exposure and noise generation. (p3,1)
N 1.2.2: Land Use&Transportation Noise Sources
Figure 1 shall be used to determine the appropriateness of designating land for noise-
sensitive uses, considering noise exposure due to transportation sources. Figure i shows LU 4.14
the ranges of noise exposure, for various noise-sensitive land uses, which are consid- LU 3.7.9
ered to be acceptable, conditionally acceptable, or unacceptable. (p3,2)
N-3
city of san Luis oatspo - gcnERal plan digest ���
Noise Element
N 1.2.6: New Development Design and Transportation Noise Sources
New noise-sensitive development shall be located and designed to meet the maximum
outdoor and indoor noise exposure levels of Table 1. (p4,3)
Table 1 - Maximum Noise-Exposure For
Noise-Sensitive Uses Due To Transportation Noise Sources
01
%
�a� WE. OS142.8
L orCNEL, L orCNEL,
Land Use ap m dB a� in dB Leq in dBz L.max in dB3
Residences, hotels,
motels, hospitals, 60 45 — 60
musing homes
Theaters, auditoriums, — — 35 60
music halls
Churches, meeting
halls, office building; 60 — 45 —
mortuaries
Schools, libraries, — — 45 60
museums
Neighborhood parks 65 — —
Playgimutzls 70 — — —
�.
* �.��r"'�
et�cat�c�
�a �eprcl�tieoft
YFv» (
.qTtT
� ti er�nut{aeci�#orta;iyjxcai�wors�t�-case our ods �'-
3n sap#,ljleS.'Roy l'llyy3t loll l§
ARI
t�t°j.
S�t�C+e:�Brorwt��urrtiraA�ssaciates :_ w '�
1.2.7: New Transportation Noise Sources
Noise created by new transportation noise sources, including road, railroad, and airport
expansion projects, shall be mitigated to not exceed the levels specified in fable 1 for
outdoor activity areas and indoor spaces of noise-sensitive land uses which were estab-
lished before the new transportation noise source. (p4,4)
city of san Luis osispo - Gsneaal plan digest N-5
Land Use Element
C) Orcutt Area properties shall dedicate land or easements
covering the Santa Lucia foothills and Mine.Hill, as identified
in the Open Space Element.
D) Airport Area properties shall secure protection for any on-
site resources as identified in the Open Space Element. These
properties, to help maintain the greenbelt, shall also secure
open space protection for any contiguous, commonly owned
land outside the urban reserve. If it is not feasible to directly
obtain protection for such land, fees in lieu of dedication shall
be paid when the property is developed, to help secure the
greenbelt in the area south of the City's southerly urban reserve
line.
E) Dalidio area properties (generally bounded by Highway 101,
Madonna Road, and Los Osos Valley Road) shall dedicate land
or easements for the approximately one-half of each LU 6.2
ownership that is to be preserved as open space.
F) Foothill Annexation: The northern portion of the Foothill
property(Open Space Element.Site Map,Site#3) and the creek
area shall be annexed as open space. Development on this
site should be clustered or located near Foothill Boulevard,
with the northern portion of the site and the creek area
preserved as open space.
G) Other area properties, which are both along the urban reserve
line and on hillsides, shall dedicate land or easements for about
four times the area to be developed (developed area includes
building lots,roads,parking and other paved areas,and setbacks
required by zoning).
LU 1.14: Costs of Growth
The costs of public facilities and services needed for new development shall be borne by
the new development, unless the community chooses to help pay the costs for a certain
development to obtain community-wide benefits. The City will adopt a development-
fee program and other appropriate financing measures, so that new development pays
its share of the costs of new services and facilities needed to serve it.
LU 1.15: Solid Waste Capacity
In addition to other requirements for adequate resources and services prior to
development, the City must determine that adequate solid waste disposal capacity will
be available before granting any discretionary land use approval which would increase
solid waste generation.
city of san Luis owspo - cEneaat plan bigest � LU-17
V
D) For any other annexations, the required plan may be a specific
plan, development plan under "PD" zoning, or similar
development plan covering the entire area.
LU 1.13.4: Development and Services
Actual development in an annexed area may be approved only when adequate City
WW 121.3 services can be provided for that development, without reducing the level of services or
WW 121'7 increasing the cost of services for existing development and for build-out within the City
limits as of July 1994, in accordance with the City's water management policies. Water
for development in an annexed area may be made available by any one or any combination
of the following:
A) City water supply, ddudini-reclaimed water;
B) Reducing usage of City water in existing development so that
there will be no net increase in long-tern water usage;
C) Private well water, but only as an interim source, pending
availability of an approved addition to City water sources, and
when it is demonstrated that use of the well water will not
diminish the City's municipal groundwater supply.
LU 1.13.5: Open Space
W 6.2.6E Each annexation shall help secure permanent 'protection for areas designated Open
LU 6.2.6H Space, and for the habitat types and wildlife corridors within the annexation area that
are identified in LU Policy 6.1.1. Policies concerning prime in
land shall apply
when appropriate. The following standards shall apply to the indicated areas:
A) Irish Hills Area properties shall dedicate land or easements
covering an area in the hills at least equal to the area to be
developed.
B) Margarita Area properties shall dedicate land or easements
covering the hills above the elevation designated in the hillside
planning section and riparian and wetlands areas as identified
in the Open Space Element.
LU-16 c,EneRal plan 6IQest- city of san Luis OBISPO
A wZ9
Housing Element
H 2.3.1: New Development Project Requirements
The City shall require require that new development projects include affordable housing
units., dedicate land for affordable housing, or pay an in-lieu fee to assist in the
development of affordable housing Citywide. (p14,1.22.10)
Table 1
Affordable Housing Requirements'
v
i
5
Build 3% low or 5%
moderate cost Affordable Build 1 ADU per acre, but
Dwelling Units (ADUsz), not less than 1 ADU per
In City but not less than 1 ADU project; or pay in-lieu fee
per project; or pay in-lieu equal to 2% of building
fee equal to 5% of building valuation.
valuation 3
Build 5% low - and 10% Build 1 ADU per acre, but
In not
- cost ADUs, but not less than 1 ADU per not less than 1 ADU per
Expansion project; or pay in-lieu fee
=- Area Project; or pay in-lieu fee.of building equal to 10 equal to 2% of building
/0 valuation.
1 valuation.
1 Developer may build affordable housing in the required amounts, pay an
in-lieu fee or dedicate land based on the above formula.
2 Affordable Dwelling Units must meet City affordability criteria listed in
Goal 2.1.1.
i 3 Building Value shall mean the total value of all construction work for
which a permit would be issued, as determined by the Chief Building
official using the Uniform Building Code.
z
j
H-6 geneizal plan bicest -city of san Luis owspo
Alm 3®
m Enclave Property Owers-Margarita Area Specific t _ Attachment 2
c%King Ventures,285 Bridge Street
Sm Luis Obispo,CA 93401
12/10i20o3
SLO Planning Commission
Via Mr. John Shoals
Community Development Department
Re: 12/10/2003 Review of Margarita Area Specific Plan and Final EIR
Commissioners and Staff:
Please accept this letter on behalf of the undersigned,owners of approximately 145 acres of land located
in the westemmost portions of the Margarita Area Specific Plan,commonly referred to as the Cowan,
DeBlauw/Sierra Gardens and King properties.
Our purpose in writing is to express our overall support for the Final EIR and Draft Specific Plan,and in
so doing,also provide a series of suggestions regarding final clean-up language for the'Specific Plan as
you consider your recommendations to the City Council for adoption/passage. Our suggestions primarily
address the following topics:
1. Development standards as described in the MASP need to be flexible.Itis important to
recognize that many of the MASP standards were developed prior to imposing the Airport Land Use
Commission's restrictions on density and their preference for detached housing in their critical fly-over
areas. In this context,these standards are new to city zoning and specific plan doc's,and should be
tempered with some built in flexibility in their use.This flexibility will be key to their successful
implementation in the Margarita area.
2. Margarita is being asked to develop ALL of Prado Road and contribute 19%of the Prado
interchange cost,whereas the Airport Area contributes $0 to each.Airport Area will contribute traffic to
Prado and should participate in both road and interchange improvements.Prado Road as 4 lane highway.
is the city's desire,whereas we believe that 2 lane roadways for MASP and AA development densities
would be appropriate.If Prado Road is to be a relocated Highway 227,the city should participate as to
general citywide benefits of such a new highway link to US 101.
3. MASP needs to be internally consistent regarding phased construction of Prado Road.
Instead of references to building ALL of Prado Road before any development/prior to the first Phase of
development,phased construction of Prado as noted in Table 13 needs to be noted throughout the SP.
4. Development standards for detached housing in higher density zones needs to be clarified so that
detached lots/units meet single family housing and not multi-family parking,lot area and design
standards.
Each of these issues has been addressed in specific detail in the accompanying pages.We look forward to
participating in a constructive manner with the city as�we bring this planning process to a close with
adoption of the Margarita Area Specific Plan.In tpis`light,we ask that we be allowed to work with staff on
these edits so that they maybe brought back t e Commission in January with staffs recommendations
for each.
Sin, ly,
g Cowan Richard DeBlauw ohn E. g
Margarita Area Specific Plan
Consolidated Western Enclave Property Owner
Ouestions and Comments
On
December 2003 Hearing_ Drag
12/8/03
1) Introduction: Adoption and Enforceability:
a) Will the City refer the MASP to the County for adoption?
b) If not,how will the City enforce the MASP against private property within the
plan area but in the County jurisdiction?
c) Is there a problem with collecting fees applicable to a project outside of the
collecting agency's jurisdiction?
2) Page 7—What is the source of the statement in Section 1.5 that most of the lands to
be developed consist of prime agricultural soils?
3) Pagesl l through 26: Development Standards -= REQUESTED CHANGES
a) Page 11 —Section 2.1.4 B: Parking"should"rather than"shall"be located at the
rear of lots ....
b) Page 11 —Section 2.1.4 B: Verandas overlooking the public street"should instead
of"shall"be included .......
c) Page 12 -- Table 2: The second story setbacks should be 5' instead of 10' except
that side by side 5' second story setbacks are not allowed.
d) -.Page 13 — Subsection 2.2.3 Lot Dimensions. Rewrite first sentence to read: "A.
A lot for an individual detached dwelling must should be sized to meet the density
limit, as follows."
e) Page 13 =- Section 2.2 Medium- Density Residential(R-2-SP).
(1) Subsection 2.2:3 Minimum(Lot) Area Chart. For dwellings of 4+bedrooms,
reduce minimum area of lots to 6,000 SF from 7,260 SF..
(2) Subsection 2.2.5 Parking. Rewrite section to read: "Car parking shall be
provided as follows:
Property Owner Comments and Questions concerning the
Margarita Area Specific Plan—December 2003 Hearing Draft
Page 1 of 4
For Attached Dwelling Units:
Each studio or one-bedroom dwelling-one covered space;
Each two-bedroom dwelling—two spaces, one covered;
Each dwelling with three or more bedrooms—three spaces, one
covered. (Two of the spaces may be a tandem pair,without special
approval. Parking in a street yard is prohibited.);
For Detached Dwelling Units:
Each studio or one-bedroom dwelling—one covered space;
Each dwelling with dwee two or more bedrooms—twee two spaces,
one covered. (T-we of the tandem pak-,,A4theat speeial
appr-eval.Parking in a street yard is prohibited."
f) Page 14--Table 3-A
(1) Add reference as follows: "Table 2 standards are applicable to single
family detached development located in Medium-Density Districts."
(2) Revise note A at bottom by adding,"reciprocal yard easements are
allowed as an alternative."
g) Page 22 —Subsection 2.6.3.B:Eliminate the minimum parcel size and
requirement for at least one 5-acre parcel in the Business Park.
h) Page 22 —Subsection 2.6.5.B: Change second sentence to read: In the low-rise
Ace area, at least"20"rather than"25"percent of each development site will be
landscaped out door space.
i) Page 24—Subsection 2.6.6.B: Change Walkways "should"rather than"shall' link
building entries,parking lots.....
j) Page 24—Subsection 2.6.6.C: Change Shared Driveways,parking, and outdoor
employee amenities (such as areas for plan and eating) are"encouraged"rather
than "required", especially for smaller parcels, to the approval of the ARC.
k) Page 24—Subsection title missing presumed to be"Parking" 2.6.7.0 (?): Insert
"nearly"so the sentence reads: Tree planting should provide a nearly continuous
canopy at maturity.
4) Page 27 --Design Criteria: 3.1.C: Universal Access: Comment: The sloping nature of
the site and the required provisions of the Development Standards could be in conflict
in some of the steeper areas of the project. We suggest a way to resolve such potential
conflicts be inserted.
Property Owner Comments and Questions concerning the
Margarita Area Specific Pian=December 2003 Hearing Draft
Page 2 of 4 A
5) Page 33—Section 3.6 Road Traffic Noise Mitigation--Figure 9:Noise.Mitigation
along Prado Road: Add the phrase: "Development setbacks for noise mitigation shall
be determined on a case by case basis."
6) Page 41 -- Section 5.5 Highway/Regional Routes: In the event SR-227 is rerouted to
Prado Road the City shall share any"state of good repair" funding with developers of
the Prado Road extension.
7) Page 42 -- Section 5.5.2 Prado Road.
a) The third sentence of the second paragraph be rewritten to state: "This Specific
Plan requires that Prado Road be constructed by the developers in each area of the
Plan Areas where Prado Road passes through a subdivision or development
proiect. While it is desirable that.Prado Road be constructed in the initial phase of
development within the Margarita Area, it is unrealistic to expect that all land
owners/developers in the Area will pursue coordinated development projects at
the same time. For this reason, it is expected that Prado Road will be constructed
in segments as provided in the Area Phasing Plan described in `Development and
Facilities Links' Table 13.
8) Page 60-- Section 9.5.3 Infrastructure Phasing. Second paragraph, second sentence,
revised to read: "As illustrated in the table, $10.5 million, or more than 45%of the
costs allocated to the Airport and Margarita areas,require funding pfier-te concurrent
with any development occurring in the initial Phase of the development(identified as
the first 1-4 vearaof construction)."
9) Page 62— Section 9.5.6 Transportation Facilities: It would be helpful if staff
described which bike paths are referred to in this section.
10)Page 65 —Section 9.7.1 Recommended Project Financing Strategy/Overview/
Margarita Area
a) Revise the first two (2) sentences to read: "The City expects that construction of
Prado Road as it crosses individual subdivision and development projects will be
set as a condition of development in the Margarita Area Initial development
rp oiects will be required to construct the roadway segments as specified in Table
13 `Development and Facilities Links'. To the degree that rights-of-way are
available to extend Prado Road construction off-site for anyigiven proiect, and the
city and developer are able to agree to a cooperative extension of Prado Road
beyond the limits of any individual proiect,developer costs paid in advance to
facilitate such an extension will then receive fee credits which can be used against
the Margarita area-specific transportation impact fees. Developer costs advanced
beyond project specific transportation impact fees may be treated by the city as an
expense subject.to future reimbursement from other developing properties."
11)Page 74 -- Implementation, Section 10.1 Annexation. What is the City's strategy for
inducing properties currently within the County jurisdiction to annex into the City?
Property Owner Comments and Questions concerning the
Margarita Area Specific Plan—December 2003 Hearing Draft !
Page 3 of 4
12)Page 76 — Section 10.10: Phasing—Add the following phrase to the second sentence:
", except that if the City creates a CFD to finance regional transportation
infrastructure then MASP residential development within the CFD area shall be
exempt from the City's Residential Growth management Regulations."Page 13 --
Section 2.2 Medium- Density Residential (R-2-SP).
Property Owner Comments and Questions concerning the
Margarita Area Specific Plan—December 2003 Hearing Draft
Page 4 of 4 A
Cardoza Real Estate Attachment 3
684 Rancho Oaks Drive
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
(805)544-2966—telephone/telefar
February 2, 2004
W. Mike McCluskley
Director of Public Works
City of San Luis Obispo
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Dedication and Construction of Prado Road as to Margarita Area Specific Plan
Dear Mike:
Thank you for your letter of January 28, 2004. The Martinellis agree that Prado Road
as an east-west arterial is surely needed. As we discussed at our January 27h meeting, the
Martinellis,over 25 years ago at significant expense, constructed the existing 1655 foot long
Prado Road, complete with curbs and gutters,and to San Luis Obispo County standards with
OFFER of DEDICATION, Document #34973 (7/15/77), as was required at that time. This
OFFER of DEDICATION is there and has not been accepted.
Relocation of Prado Road.
In passed years the Martinellis have sent the Planning Department several letters
consistently objecting to the reconfiguration of Prado Road,particularly as such
reconfiguration would bisect several parcels and, with the installation of another major arterial
road as shown on the Plan, substantially reduce the property which could be developed within
their parcels. While such a substantial economic impact to their properties is obviously of
great concern to them, the Martinellis would also point out that the City and adjoining
property owners would benefit from the maintenance of the existing configuration of Prado
Road. An obvious benefit would be the reduction in costs for both the initial acquisition and
the associated expenses, including,but not limited to,the adjustment of lot lines, relocation of
major water lines and utilities, and related engineering and surveying fees. It is our
undersfanding that the transportation fees associated with the Prado Road improvements could
be substantially reduced by maintaining the current configuration of Prado Road, thereby
rendering the total impact fees more feasible for all.
Carda¢"s Real Fslste -
Mr.Mile McCluskley
Director of Public Works
City of San.Luis Obispo
February 2, 2004
Again, the Martnellis are appreciative of the efforts of the City Staff to move this
process forward, but are compelled to register their very serious concerns on the above issue.
The Martinellis look forward to the opportunity to work with staff to address these matters.
Sincerely,
v '
YTINELLI
1 kV
FRED2MARTINELLI
JLC/sac
cc: Planning Commission Community Development Dept
Orval Osborne, Chairman John Mandeville, Director
Alice Loh Michael Draze
Jim Aiken John Shobds, Project Planner
Michael Boswell
Carlyn Christianson
Allan Cooper
James Caruso
Public Works Department Finance Department
Tim Bochum, Dep. Dir., Circulation Bill Statler, Director
CardozaRe4state\Martinelli McCluskey Ltr#1
AW37
j1!
MINE
IIIIIII 111/I�r.]J t
fill
t
'� � r•�' r rr rr loan
� ��i of l' � �`,�IOuOu••.u.......i - -
=
#® M
ri Alla M,
-
�/iii i
1 _uurn
I�
r r.
�s,t o
Draft
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 14, 2004
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, January 14, 2004, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Jim Aiken, Allan Cooper, Alice Loh. James Caruso,
Michael Boswell, Carlyn Christianson,and Chairperson Orval Osborne
Absent: None
Staff: Associate Planners John Shoals and .Phil Dunsmore, Deputy Community
Development Directors Ron Whisenand and Michael Draze, Assistant City
Attorney Gil Trujillo, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTE:
The Minutes of October 8, 2003, were accepted as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, encouraged others to attend these public
hearings, and spoke against home businesses in the R-1 zone.
Dela Barr, 650 Skyline Drive, a ninth-grade student, spoke against the proposed Prado
Road extension through the Damon Garcia Sports Fields to Broad Street, and
suggested it be routed south to Tank Farm Road at Santa Fe Road.
Larry Stabler, requested that item 3 be first on the agenda, since it may be lengthy, and
noted a number of citizens did not attend because of the anticipated lateness that it
would be heard.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. 1308 Monterey Street. AP-PC 131-03; Appeal of Hearing Officer's approval of a
request to allow a new car wash at an existing service station; C-R zone; Jim Pfeil,
applicant / Vern A. Ludwick Il, Debra D. Jones et al, appellants. Continued from
December 17, 2003. (Phil Dunsmore) A
Draft Planning Commission Minuws _
January 14,2004
Page 2
Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report and recommended the
Commission uphold the Hearing Officer's determination approving a new automated car
wash in conjunction with an existing Unocal fuel station and deny the appeal, based on
findings and subject to conditions. He noted that the December 170 hearing concluded
after the testimony by the appellants and the applicant, and this hearing was to begin with
the public hearing portion.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Steve Mann, appellant, 1515 Palm Street, presented signed petitions to the Commission
in opposition to the car wash, and noted a contradiction with the City's policy prohibiting
"drive-through facilities."
Scott Hagaman, appellant, 1259 Palm Street #D, spoke against the car wash, concurred
with Mr. Mann's concerns, and noted the traffic, noise and odor impacts it would have on
the neighborhood.
Betty Aten, appellant, 1315 Palm Street, opposed the car wash request and requested a
new sound study be conducted by an independent noise expert.. She also noted
concerns with air quality issues.
Gina Rosco, 966 Johnson Avenue, felt that due to the closeness of the car wash to her
residence, emissions from vehicles would pass through her windows and into her home.
She noted concerns with traffic and congestion and asked the Commission to deny the
car wash.
Dennis Ahearn, 537 Cerro Romauldo; did not feel that a 7-foot sound wall would capture
the noise created by a 12-foot tall building since the mechanical equipment is located in
the rafters.
Jennifer Santos, 1259 Palm Street #A, noted there would be noise emitted from the
entrance of the car wash as well as the exit. She suggested landscaping, trees, or dense
shrubbery to buffer the noise.
MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, spoke against the car wash.
Mark Blair, adjacent property owner, spoke in opposition to the car wash. He noted his
tenants across the street from the proposal also oppose the car wash.
George Garcia, applicant, noted that conditions were applied to the project during
Architectural Review that address the height of the noise wall and installation of
landscaping in the open space area as a sound buffer.
COMMISSION COMMENT:
l
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
January 14,2004
Page 3
Commr. Caruso moved the staff recommendation to uphold the Hearing Officer's
approval and deny the appeal, with the hours of operation being changed to 8 a.m. to 7
p.m. Seconded by Commr. Christianson.
Commr. Loh suggested a condition be added that a landscape architect be hired by the
applicant to work diligently with the neighbors to resolve areas of conflict, and that that
landscaping, trees, or dense shrubbery to buffer the noise be incorporated into the
rp oiect. She did not feel that noise issues had been adequately addressed. The motion
maker and seconder accepted the amendment.
Commr. Boswell had concerns with the noise levels and proposed mitigation measures.
AYES: Commrs. Caruso, Christianson, Aiken, Cooper and Osborne.
NOES: Commrs. Loh and Boswell
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 5:3 vote.
2. Citywide. TA and ER 108-03; Request to amend City regulations related to
concurrent sale of motor fuel and alcohol; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Phil
Dunmore)
Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report asking.the Commission to
review the proposed Municipal Code amendments and to recommend that the City
Council approve these amendments. He explained that the proposed amendments
repeals Section 5,36.020 and amends Sections 17.08.040 and 17.100 of the Zoning
Code to define when beer and wine sales may be allowed on a site in conjunction with
automotive fuel sales. He detailed each of the changes proposed.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, spoke in opposition to the request.
Darren Brewer, 1438 Nipomo Street, noted his attorney, Ann Russell, has submitted a
letter on his behalf. He felt that the ABC review process was in conflict with the City's use
permit process in that each one requires the others approval. He noted there is a
moratorium on Type 20 (off-premises beer and wine) licenses and that he could not get a
new license or add to the concentration of alcohol permits; he must purchase an existing
license from someone else.
COMMISSION COMMENT:
Commr. Christianson moved the staff recommendation with two changes: Section 1
Finding 3: Strike the language, "Establishment of concurrent sales of motor fuel and beer
or wine will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons living or working
within the City and" . . . and that Finding 5 be changed from Planning Commission Use
A -#/
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
January 14,2004
Page 4
Permit to Administrative Use Permit, which would also change 17.08.040.1 to read 'The_
Zoning Hearing Officer must make . . ." Seconded by Commr. Cooper.
Commr. Cooper expressed frustration that the Council sent this back to the Commission
and ignored the previous recommendations of the Commission. He felt the Council has
the authority to adjudicate on this without the need for sending it back to the Commission.
Commr. Osborne felt this issue is a Costco-driven loophole, and he could not support it.
AYES: Commrs. Christianson, Cooper, Aiken and Boswell
NOES: Commrs. Caruso, Loh and Osborne
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 4:3 vote.
3. Margarita Area and Airport Area. SP and ER 73-00; Margarita Area Specific Plan
and Final Environmental Impact Report for the Airport Area and Margarita Area
Specific Plans, and related Facilities Master Plans, City of San Luis Obispo,
applicant. (John Shoals/Michael Draze) Continued from December 10,2003.
Commr. Osborne stepped down from participation because he owns property very close
to the Margarita Area Specific Plan area, which constitutes an appearance of a conflict of
interest. He turned the meeting over to Vice-Chair Caruso.
Deputy Director Draze, distributed copies of letters received late in the day, on this item.,
He presented the staff report, recommending the Commission discuss the final program
environmental impact report, take public testimony, provide direction to staff, and continue
the hearing to February 11, 2004. He explained that the Prado Road issues would be
addressed at the February 11th hearing, and staff from affected departments will be in
attendance.
Planner John Shoals gave a project description and a PowerPoint presentation on the
project.
Maggie Townsley, EIR Consultant spoke on the individual resource topics and discussed
the types of impacts found, as well as the significant conclusions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wildling Lane, objected to residential development in the
airport area.
Douglas Gerard, NE corner of Margarita and Calle Jazmin, felt the proposal is
outstanding. He noted the environmental assessment did not address the preservation of
wetlands, and felt airport noise is an issue that could be addressed by aircraft not turning
north towards the city until reaching an altitude of 2000 to 2500 feet. _�
Draft Planning Commission Minutes -
January 14, 2004
Page 5
Eugene Judd, 665 Leff Street, felt this project does not address sustainable development,
and does not follow the Circulation Element. He felt the Prado Road alignment should be
reconsidered and Prado Road should become a collector street rather than an arterial
street.
Andrew Carter, 1283 Woodside Drive, noted his confusion with the plan and
disappointment that the Airport Area plan does not include housing. He also expressed
concern with the fairness of the financing of the project.
Elizabeth Righetti, 3057 South Higuera Street Space 114, responded to the Margarita
Area Specific Plan, and asked that the property next to Chumash Village be rezoned to
low-density or open space. She commented on the Design Criteria, Bicycle and
Pedestrian facility, Housing as it relates to affordable housing, and natural resources
mitigation. She submitted three letters from other tenants of the mobile home park.
Lorraine Acklian, 3057 South Higuera Street Space 110, voice her concern with the lack
of a greenbelt between Chumash Village MHP and the proposed project, and opposed
multiple-story residences. She felt open space should be preserved.
Michael Sullivan, SLO resident, suggested a feasibility study for additional residential
development. He expressed environmental concerns with inadequate mitigation
measures, and referred to his alternative plan that omits Prado Road and connects
Buckley Road to the Los Osos Valley Road Interchange, and noted concern with water
demands.
Bill Wilson, 1690 Southwood Drive, had concerns with noise impacts, that the northern
alignment of Prado Road will affect the Indian site, and felt that the road is illegally
segmented.
Mildred Ann Hollis, 3057 South Higuera Street #13, agreed with the concerns of the other
residents and noted concerns with hillside erosion, noise from the airport, lack of buffer
zones, and increased traffic. She suggested a traffic signal at the entrance of Chumash
Village MHP. -
Dave Watson, representing an affected property owner, had 'issues with the review
process and made some suggestions. He noted the need to begin review of the actual
plan.
Norman Beco, 329 Indio Drive, Pismo Beach, complimented staff on a comprehensive
document. He noted that traffic issues currently exist, and completion of the project
should mitigate those issues.
Larry Stabler, 3075 South Higuera Street, spoke against the project, and disagreed with
the findings in the Airport Land Use Plan. He felt an independent study should be
conducted during the summer and specifically on Saturday's on aircraft flight paths and
over-flight leaving SLO airport, specifically the smaller and freight aircraft. He noted
concerns with the disappearance of agricultural open space and structure height.
A —'s 3
Draft Planning Commission Min._ -
January 14,2004
Page 6
Joe Cardoza, representing the Martinelli family, had concerns with the realignment of
Prado Road and its impact on the Martinelli property, felt service-commercial uses are the
more appropriate use, objected to use of open space upon annexation for the project, and
had concerns with drainage..
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Caruso summarized the concerns addressed and the areas for the Commission
to focus as 1) the Prado Road realignment, where will it end and and will it be consistent
with Circulation Element; 2) the size, location, and number of lanes; 4) what to do in the
zone under the flight path of Area 3 that is currently business park; 4) funding of Prado
Road; and 5) adjacencies (Damon Garcia and Chumash Village). Cornmr. Boswell added
6) density.
There was discussion on how the Commission would work with the Airport Land Use
Commission to address airport concerns and the need for housing.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the adequacy of the Program EIR has been
addressed and focus should move to the actual plan, and include the realignment of
Prado Road in the discussion of the specific plan.
It was the unanimous consensus of the Commission to continue this item to the January
28"' meeting.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast:
Ronald Whisenand gave an agenda forecast of upcoming items.
4. Commission:
ADJOURMENT:
With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
to the next regular meeting scheduled for January 28, 2004, at 7:00 pm.. in Council.
Chamber.
Respectfully submitted by
Diane Stuart
Management Assistant
Page 1 of 1
SLO Citycouncil - Council agenda item, August 17 RED FILE
AG
DAT a ITEM#
From: "John ]. Bruno" <jj_bruno@pacbell.net>
To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org>
Date: 8/12/2004 1:39 PM
Subject: Council agenda item, August 17
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
The bumper-sticker issue on your August 17 agenda deserves your serious
attention. It concerns the fundamental constitutional right to freedom of
expression.
According to the Downtown Association, the rationale for the rule is to deter
graffiti "to keep the town beautiful."
The rule defies common sense, and is unenforceable. Any private individual can
walk anywhere at Farmers' Market--including a few feet from a political
booth—and hand out bumper stickers, containing any message, to anyone who
wants them.
The rule also violates basic equal rights. Local SLO businesses routinely
give away and sell stickers by the thousands. According to the Downtown
Association's own presentation, those stickers comprise, by far, the vast
majority of the graffiti. Yet only political parties have been targeted for
enforcement of the rule.
A town's image and reputation rest upon the cumulative effect of everyday
decisions its government makes. This rule that is unenforceable to start,
and then is selectively applied against a-few-but-not-all cases, is not
worthy of our town. It obstructs free Iexpression and is discriminatory.
The rule was obviously a careless mistake, passed without careful
consideration. You have the obligation to correct the error and rescind the
rule.
Nancy Bruno
528 Mason Way
SLO, Ca 93401
_
I COUNGLADD DIR
CAO =1N DIR
ACAO FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY PW DIR
CLERK/ORIG ROUCE CHF
DT FADS REC DIR
7 _ / I` UTIL Din
i 1 ✓ _ __ U HR DIR
file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW IOOOO1.HTM 8/12/2004
To City of San Luis Obispo from Michael Sullivan-ATTENTION: John Mandeville,Director,Deparommt Page 1 of 4
May 79 2004
May 7,2004
To:.
Mr. John Mandeville,Director
Community.Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo,CA
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
From:
Michael Sullivan, 1127 Seaward St.,San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 (805)545-9614
REGARDING: (1) CEQA review of Prado Road/highway 227 project; (2) Circulation
element amendment for modified alignment of Prado Road; (3) Public participation in
design of interchange at U.S. 101 /Los Osos Valley Road
Glossary of abbreviations/acronyms
CEQA-California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code,Sec.21000 et sec)
CEQA GL-CEQA Guidelines(Code of Regulations,Title 14,Sec. 15000 et sec)
GL-Guidelines(of CEQA)
EIR-Environmental Impact Report
LOVR-Los Osos Valley Road
SLO-San Luis Obispo
Mr. Mandeville:
This letter expresses some of my concerns about procedural deficiencies for the Margarita/
Airport specific plan and environmental review and for the environmental review for the Dalidio/
Marketplace project, Please refer to the following attachments:
-Copy of my 3-page letter to the Planning Commission(for Margarita/Airport hearing of
4/29/2004)
-Copy of my 9-page letter to the Planning Commission(for Margarita/Airport hearing of
3/24/2004)
Please respond to me in writing,as soon as possible,regarding the following items:
1. The City is proposing significant changes to the alignment of Prado Road in conjunction
with the Margarita/Airport Specific Plan. These changes require an amendment to the
circulation element of the General Plan,as was done for the "northern alignment"
modification of Prado Road in 2000-2001. Why does a change in the Prado Road alignment
require amendment of the circulation amendment in 2000-2001 (northern alignment)bsd not
now(for proposed new alignment of central portion of Prado Rd.)?
Recently(early 200 1)the City made modifications to the alignment of Prado Road for the so
called "northern alignment" for the part of Prado Road near the base of the South Hills at Broad
Street. This change in mad alignment required environmental review by the City, because itis an
amendment of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. A mitigated negative declaration was
approved by the city. Similarly,the City is currently(3/2004)proposing another re-alignment of
Prado Road in a different segment of the road within the Margarita area. This modification in the
circulation element requires an environmental review under the requirements of CEQA. This
Q =0 if
To City of San Luis Obispo from Mic,,...:i Sullivan-ATTENTION: John Mandeville,Director,Department Page 2 of 4
May 79 2004
specific modification was not analyzed as part of the proposed Margarita/Airport draft EIR or final
EIR. At a minimum,the City should require a supplemental EIR focused on this modification of
the circulation element,or include the environmental review as part of the current Margarita plan
environmental review and EIR process. Preferably,there should be a separate environmental
review for the entire Prado Road project,including the proposed change in the road alignment,as
outlined below.
2. "Piecemeal" (segmented)environmental review for Prado Road/Highway 227 project is
improper and illegaL Why has the City allowed this improper procedure to occur?
These comments follow up on similar concerns given in my letter to the City/Planning
Commission,dated 3-23-2004,for the Planning Commission hearing of 3-24-2004 for the
Margarita/Airport specific plan and environmental review.
I am concerned about the improper and apparently illegal "piecemealing"(segmenting)of the
environmental review for the revised plan for Highway 227(Prado Road,and Dalidio Drive)which
will rum from Madonna Road to Broad Street.
Some examples of segmentation of the environmental review:
-Northern alignment portion of Prado Road received separate environmental review and Negative
Declaration(early 2001);
-Margarita portion of Prado Road is receiving environmental review,presumably, as part of
Specific Plan for Margarita/Airport Specific Plan and Environmental Review(still in progress as
of 4/28/04); however,apparently the Prado Road will be developed in segments over a period of
years, although its alignment and design will be pre-determined(as part of Margarita/Airport
plan);
-Dalidio portion of Prado Road(now called Dalidio Drive),between Madonna Road and U.S. 101,
and including a proposed freeway interchange at US 101 and Prado Rd., is receiving separate
environmental review for that project.
-On Tuesday,April 20,2004,the City Council stated that yet another environmental review would
be required for the segment of Highway 227 from US 101 to Higuera Street(including a new bridge
at Prado and Higuera). Council person Christine Mulholland stated(4/20/04)the opinion that this is
one more indication that the environmental review for the Prado Road/Highway 227 project is
being improperly segmented.
There remain significant,unmitigated and unanalyzed traffic impacts of two types: (a) impacts
caused by other nearby projects on traffic within the Margarita/Airport areas; (b) impacts caused
by the Margarita/Airport plan in nearby project areas(i.e. 101 corridor; certain intersections
which will be severely impacted following the completion of Dalidio and Margarita projects, such
as Los Osos Valley Road at Madonna Road; 101 south of Los Osos Valley Rd.; etc.).
(a) Dalidio "Marketplace"project's draft and final EIR has only addressed a portion of the traffic
impact on Prado Road; the study area only reaches as far east as Prado Rd. at Higuera Street.
Planning Commissioner Boswell has previously(25 Feb 2004)stated in public hearings for the
Dalidio/Marketplace project that the traffic analysis study area for the Dalidio/Marketplace
project is too small. I expressed similar concerns in my letter of 3-11-2004 to City of SLO and
Planning Commission with comments on the draft EIR for the Dalidio project. In that letter I stated
that a substantial amount(121/6)of project-generated traffic from Dalidio would impact Prado Road
and beyond(e.g. Broad St.); however the response of Rincon Consultants(422-2004 letter to M.
Sullivan)is the following:
r
To City of San Luis Obispo from Michael Sulfivan-ATTENTION: John Mandeville,D rmtor,Depa tmeat Page 3 of 4
May 792004
Response 12J..... "The traffic distributed to Prado Road and Tank Farm Road east of Higuera Sheet
would be distributed over a fairly large area that includes the Margarita Area,Broad/Orcutt area,
and Tank Farm Road east of Broad Street. With project traffic "spread"over these areas,potential
impacts were only anticipated where this traffic would be concentrated(i.e.,near the Prado Road/
Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road/Higuera intersections)closer to the project site. Thus,the
analysis was focused on the Higuera Street corridor."
This response is inadequate and ignores the real impacts of traffic along the Prado Road corridor
that arise from the large Dalidio project(regional shopping center). Of course,eventually the traffic
impacts are spread out over a larger area,but only after the traffic passes through the Margarita area
The response offers no responsible detailed traffic analysis to reach its unreasonable conclusions.
(b) A similar deficiency in response is seen in the same Response 12J in the Dalidio final EIR I
had pointed out that the Margarita project will add traffic that can and most likely will increase the
traffic along the 101 corridor including south of Los Osos Valley Road This will add to the traffic
burden associated with the Costco project EIR which had predicted the need to add at least one lane
to 101 southbound within 10 years(Le. 10 years from 3/2003,the date of the Costco draft EIR).
The Rincon response(12J),Dalidio FEIR,also contained in letter of 4-22-2004 from Rincon
Consultants to Michael Sullivan)states that"It should be noted that the current City General Plan
Circulation element does not identify plans to widen Highway 101 to 6 lanes." But CEQA requires
analysis of actual potential impacts,regardless of what the General Plan does or does not include
measures for mitigation.
The city should prepare an updated EIR(for example,a focused EIR)which examines the total
stretch of Redo Road/Highway 227 simultaneously;comprehensively,and cumulatively,not in
segments as is now being done. The inadequate,segmented environmental analysis currently being
used by the City for analysis of the Prado Road/Highway 227 corridor constitutes a violation of
CEQA.
Furthermore,note that this public project(the revised Highway 227/Prado Road project,
running from Madonna Road to Higuera Street to Broad Street)requires environmental review at
an early stage. CEQA requires agencies to prepare EIRs and-negative declarations "as early as
feasible in the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project
program and design and yet late enough to provide meaningful information for environmental
assessment." CEQG GL 15004(b). And,with public projects(e.g. Prado Road), "at the earliest
feasible time,project sponsors shall incorporate environmental considerations into project
conceptualization,design,and planning. CEQA compliance should be completed prior to
acquisition of a site for a public project." CEQA GL 15004(bxl). Agencies shall not"take any
action which gives impetus to a planned or foreseeable project in a manner that forecloses
alternatives or mitigation measures that would ordinarily be part of CEQA review of that public
project." CEQA GL 15004(bx2)(13). During recent(Dec. 2003 - Apr.2004)public hearings
(Planning Commission)for Margarita/Airport Specific Plan,members of city staff stated that
additional environmental review would occur for future parts of the project as they occur. However,
for the public road part of the project(i.e., Prado Road),the comprehensive environmental review
should occur early.
To City of San Luis Obispo from I had swim-ATTENTION: John Mandeville,D_irww,Deportment Page 4 of 4
May 712004
3. Please explain why the public participation in the US 101 /LOVR interchange design
alternatives has been stifled.
Approximately one year ago,the City held a public forum to discuss various design alternatives
for the proposed U.S. 101 /Los Osos Valley Road freeway interchange. Mr. Tim Bochum,of the
City Public Works Dept., stated at that first meeting that additional public meetings would occur,
that people who had provided their names and addresses at the first meeting would be notified of
future public meetings. I never received such notification,and I know other persons who had
attended the first meeting who also said they were never notified about subsequent meetings. Why
did the City fail to notify us? When were these promised subsequent meetings held,and what was
discussed and decided? What additional public meetings, if any,will be held to discuss this issue?
I and several other people,including Eugene Jud,advocated the alternative which carried eastbound
traffic from the interchange toward the south and then connecting to Buckley Road; I believe this
was called "Alternative 7." It seems to us that perhaps the reason why we were not notified of
subsequent hearings was that the City had essentially already made up its mind about its selection of
alternatives and therefore did not want additional public scrutiny. If that is true,it certainly does not
seem proper or democratic.
Sincerely,.
Michael C. Sullivan
=P #P
i
To City of San Luis Obispo from Michael Sullivan-for Planning Commission nearing of 4/28/2004-
regarding Margarita/Airport Area Specific Plan and Environmental Review Page 1 of 3
4-28-2004
To: City of San Luis Obispo
RE: Planning Commission hearing 4/28/2004 - Agenda item Public Hearing 4 - Margarita Area
and Airport Area-SP/ER 73-00
From: Michael Sullivan, 1127 Seaward St ,San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 545-9614
Glossary of abbreviations/acronyms
CEQA-California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code,Sec. 21000 et seq)
CEQA GL-CEQA Guidelines (Code of Regulations,Title 14,Sec. 15000 et seq)
GL-Guidelines(of CEQA)
EIR-Environmental Impact Report
LOVR-Los Osos Valley Road
SLO-San Luis Obispo
April 26, 2004
To: City of San Luis Obispo (Planning Commission)
From: Michael C. Sullivan, 1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
SUBJECT: Comments for Planning Commission hearing of 4/28/2004 - Margarita/
Airport Specific Plan and Environmental Review
Dear Commissioners:
1. The City is proposing significant changes to the alignment of Prado Road in conjunction
with the Margarita/Airport Specific Plan . These changes require an amendment to the
circulation element of the GenwW Plea
Recently(early 2001) the City made modifications to the alignment of Prado Road for the so
called "norther alignment" for the part of Prado Road near the base of the South Hills at Broad
Street. This change in road alignment required environmental review by the City, because it is an
amendment of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. A mitigated negative declaration was
approved by the city. Similarly, the City is currently (3/2004)proposing another re-alignment of
Prado Road in a different segment of the road within the Margarita area. This modification in the
circulation element requires an environmental review under the requirements of CEQA. This
specific modification was not analyzed as part of the proposed Margarita/Airport draft EIR or final
EIR. At a minimum,the City should require a supplemental EIR focused on this modification of
the circulation element, or include the environmental review as part of the current Margarita plan
environmental review and EIR process. Preferably, there should be a separate environmental
review for the entire Prado Road project, including the proposed change in the road alignment, as
outlined below.
To City of San Luis Obispo fig _Michael Sullivan-for Planning Coinmissionvng of 4/28/2004-
regarding Margarita/Airport Area Specific Plan and Environmental Review Page 2 of 3
2. "Piecemeal' (segmented) environmental review for Prado Road/Highway 227 project is
improper and illegal.
These comments follow up on similar concerns given in my letter to the City/Planning
Commission, dated 3-23-2004, for the Planning Commission hearing of 3-24-2004 for the
Margarita/Airport specific plan and environmental review.
I am concerned about the improper and apparently illegal "piecemealing" (segmenting)of the
environmental review for the revised plan for Highway 227 (Prado Road, and Dalidio Drive) which
will run from Madonna Road to Broad Street.
Some examples of segmentation of the environmental review:
- Northern alignment portion of Prado Road received separate environmental review and Negative
Declaration (2001);
- Margarita portion of Prado Road is receiving environmental review, presumably, as part of
Specific Plan for Margarita/Airport Specific Plan and Environmental Review (still in progress as
of 4/28/04);
- On Tuesday, April 20, 2004, the City Council stated that yet another environmental review would
be required for the segment of Highway 227 from US 101 to Higuera Street (including a new bridge
at Prado and Higuera). .Council person Christine Mulholland stated the opinion that this is one more
indication that the environmental review for the Prado Road/Highway 227 project is being
segmented.
There remain significant, unmitigated and unanalyzed traffic impacts of two types: (a) impacts
caused by other nearby projects on traffic within the Margarita/Airport areas; (b) impacts caused
by the Margarita/Airport plan in nearby project areas (i.e. 101 corridor, certain intersections
which will be severely impacted following the completion of Dalidio and Margarita projects, such
as Los Osos Valley Road at Madonna Road; 101 south of Los Osos Valley Rd.; etc.).
(a) Dalidio "Marketplace" project's draft and final EIR has only addressed a portion of the traffic
impact on Prado Road; the study area only reaches as far east as Prado Rd. at Higuera Street.
Planning Commissioner Boswell has previously (25 Feb 2004)stated in public hearings for the
Dalidio/Marketplace project that the traffic analysis study area for the Dalidio/Marketplace
project is too small. I expressed similar concerns in my letter of 3-11-2004 to City of SLO and
Planning Commission with comments on the draft EIR for the Dalidio project. In that letter I stated
that a substantial amount (12%)of project-generated traffic from Dalidio would impact Prado Road
and beyond (e.g. Broad.St.); however the response of Rincon Consultants (4-22-2004 letter to M.
Sullivan) is the following:
Response 12J..... "The traffic distributed to Prado Road and Tank Farm Road east of Higuera Street
would be distributed over a fairly large area that includes the Margarita Area, Broad/Orcutt area,
and Tank Farm Road east of Broad Street. With project traffic "spread" over these areas, potential
impacts were only anticipated where this traffic would be concentrated (i.e., near the Prado Road/
Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road/Higuera intersections) closer to the project site. Thus, the
analysis was focused on the Higuera Street corridor."
This response is inadequate and ignores the real impacts of traffic along the Prado Road corridor
that arise from the large Dalidio project (regional shopping center). Of course, eventually the traffic
impacts are spread out over a larger area, but only after the traffic passes through the Margarita area.
The response offers no responsible detailed traffic analysis to reach its unreasonable conclusions.
-c
To City of San Luis Obispo from Michael Sullivan-for,Planning Commission nearing of 4/28/2004-
regarding Margarita gar ' g gari /Airport Area Specific Plan and Environmental Review Page 3 of 3
(b) A similar deficiency in response is seen in the same Response 12J in the Dalidio final EIR. I
had pointed out that the Margarita project will add traffic that can and most likely will increase the
traffic along the 101 corridor including south of Los Osos Valley Road. This will add to the traffic
burden associated with the Costco project Elk which had predicted the need to add at least one lane
to 101 southbound within 10 years (i.e. 10 years from 3/2003, the date of the Costco draft EIR).
The Rincon response(12J), Dalidio FEIR, also contained in letter of 4-22-2004 from Rincon
Consultants to Michael Sullivan) states that "It should be noted that the current City General Plan
Circulation element does not identify plans to widen Highway 101 to 6 lanes." But CEQA requires
analysis of actual potential impacts, regardless of what the General Plan does or does not include
measures for mitigation.
The city should prepare an updated EIR (for example, a focused EIR) which examines the total
stretch of Prado Road/Highway 227 simultaneously, comprehensively, and cumulatively, not in
segments as is now being done. The inadequate, segmented environmental analysis currently being
used by the City for analysis of the Prado Road/Highway 227 corridor constitutes a violation of
CEQA.
3. Re: Attachment 2,PC Staff report,4/28/04, Residential Development Areas,Margarita
Specific Plan
The map shows proposed housing areas very close to the "northern alignment" portion of Prado
Road and very close to sensitive resource areas (e.g. archaeological sites, sensitive vegetation,
scenic rock outcrops). The city should provide a map that shows the precise location of these
resources so the potential environmental impacts in these proposed housing areas can be evaluated
by staff and the Commission and the public.
Sincerely,
Michael C. Sullivan
To City of San Luis Obispo fry _ .Michael Sullivan-for Planning Commission'nuaring 3/24/2004:
regarding Margarita/Airport Area Specific Pian and Environmental Review Page 1 of 9
3-23-2004
To: City of San Luis Obispo
RE: Planning Commission hearing 3/24/2004 - Agenda item 2 -Margarita Area and Airport Area -
SP/ER 73-00
From: Michael Sullivan, 1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 545-9614
Glossary of abbreviations/acronyms
— - CEQA-California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code,Sec.21000 et seq)
CEQA GL-CEQA Guidelines(Code of Regulations,Title 14,Sec. 15000 et seq)
GL-Guidelines(of CEQA)
EIR-Environmental Impact Report
LOUR-Los Osos Valley Road
SLO-San Luis Obispo
1. The City is proposing significant changes to the alignment of Prado Road in conjunction
with the Margarita/Airport Specific Plan . These changes require an amendment to the
circulation element of the General Plana
Recently(2001)the City made modifications to the alignment of Prado Road for the so called
"northern alignment" for the part of Prado Road near the base of the South Hills at Broad Street.
This change in alignment required environmental review by the City. A mitigated negative
declaration was approved by the city. Similarly, the City is currently(3/2004)proposing another re-
alignment of Prado Road in a different segment of the road. This modification in the circulation
element requires an environmental review under the requirements of CEQA. This specific
modification was not analyzed as part of the proposed Margarita/Airport draft EIR or final EIR.
At a minimum, the City should require a supplemental EIR focused on this modification of the
circulation element. Preferably, there should be a separate environmental review for the entire
Prado Road project, including the proposed change in the road alignment,as outlined below.
2. The environmental analysis for the entire Prado Road project remains segmented and
disjointed in time and geography. Under CEQA the City is required to analyze the whole of
the project (Prado Road in its entire length from Madonna Rd. to Broad St.) in one
comprehensive analysis, not in "piecemeal" fashion.
In the City of San Luis Obispo, a new Highway 227 route is proposed. It would be the same
route as the proposed route of Prado Road from Prado at South Higuera to Prado at Broad Street.
Ultimately, Prado Road would continue westward from South Higuera Street to Madonna.Road, via
a proposed new freeway interchange where Prado Road would cross over U.S. 101. Please see
Attachment 1 (maps).
The construction of Prado Road has not yet been considered by the city, under CEQA law, to be
a separate; distinct "project." The General Plan circulation element of 1994 was supported by an
EIR which addressed various city-wide changes in the circulation element. One of the changes
concerned Prado Road.
The city's environmental review which discussed Prado Road has proceeded in several phases, as
shown in Attachment 2. (Attachment 2 is a list prepared for Planning Commission hearing (11 Feb
2004),Margarita/Airport Specific Plan and Final Program EIR). However, the cumulative impact
To City of San Luis Obispo frum Michael Sullivan-for Planning Commission nearing 3/74/2004-
regarding Margarita/Airport Area Specific Plan and Environmental Review Page 2 of 9
of recent (since 1994)projects and other currently(3/04)proposed and reasonably foreseeable
projects are only analyzed in the documents shown in Table 2.
Table 1 -Environmental studies related to Prado Road- 1994 to resent (3/2004).
Date Action Environmental document
1994 City of SLO-General Plan circulation element EIR including analysis of alternative alignments
amendment of Prado Rd
1998 Draft Margarita Area Specific Plan
1999-2000 City of SLO-General Plan circulation element Mitigated Negative Declaration(2-2000)for
amendment(2-2000) Prado Road norther alignment.
2000 City of SLO-Draft Airport Area Specific Plan
(2000)
1-2001 City of SLO-Council review of 2000 Gen.Plan Previous Mit Neg.Dec.for Prado Road northern
circulation element alignment upheld.
5-2001 City of SLO-Damon Garcia sports fields.
Environmental review technical reports. Initial
Study/application.#185-99.
2002 County of SLO-Draft SLO County Regional
Airport Proposed Airport Land Use Plan.
2003-2004 City of SLO: Planning Commission hearings on City of SLO-Final program EIR. Airport Area
Margarita/Airport plan. and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related
(12110/03, 1/14/04, 1/28/04,2/11/04 and Facilities Master Plans. (9-2003)
continuin
2004City of SLO: Planning Commission hearings on City of SLO-Draft EIR. Dalidio/San Luis
Dalidio Marketplace. (2125/04 and continuing) Marketplace Annexation and Development
_ Project. (1-2004)
Table 2 - Recent environmental documents in which Prado Road traffic is anal ed
Date Project Environmental City of SLO actions
document
1/2000 Gen. Plan circulation element Mit. Neg. Dec. (1/2000) Adopted Mit. Neg. Dec.
amendment for norther
alignment, Prado Road
2003 Damon Garcia sports fields Mit. Neg. Dec. (date?) Adopted Mit. Ne . Dec.
2004 Margarita/Airport Specific Final Program EIR Final Program EIR still
Plan (9/2003) under Plan. Comm. review
as of 3/12/04)
2004 Dalidio Marketplace Draft EIR (1/2004) Draft EIR still under Plan.
annexation and development Comm. review as of
3/12/04)
Ultimately, the entire Prado Road route from Madonna Road to Prado/US 101 interchange to the
terminus of Prado Road at Broad Street will have a significant amount of traffic. The road would be
a 4-lane cross-town highway with about 30,000 vehicle trips per day. �t�
To City of San Luis Obispo fry. _Aichael Sullivan-for Planning Commission hv�ring 3/24/2004-.
regarding Margarita/Airport Area Specific Plan and Environmental Review Page 3 of 9
Although a number of incremental environmental analyses have been done for the City, there has
been no recent comprehensive environmental study of the entire Prado Road route (Madonna Rd. to
Broad St.)to assess the cumulative and regional traffic impacts and other impacts. For example, the
Costco draft EIR (dated 3/2003)predicted that increased traffic along southbound US 101 would
result in the need for at least one additional freeway lane south of Los Osos Valley Road within 10
years. The Dalidio EIR predicts severe traffic congestion at southbound and northbound on and off
ramps at 101 and Prado Road. Yet there is no regional analysis to determine how the Dalidio
project or the Margarita project could make the Costco impacts even worse. Similarly, the large
amount of new traffic on Prado Road would have impacts beyond the Dalidio site, for example, on
the eastern part of Prado Road, on Broad Street, and on and Buckley Road, but these potential
impacts are not analyzed adequately in the Dalidio EIR. In a similar manner, the Margarita/
Airport Specific Plan final EIR fails to adequately analyze its (Margarita's)traffic impacts on US
101, or other impacted intersections (e.g. Madonna Rd/Los Osos Valley Rd) where severe(Class 1
impact)traffic congestion was predicted by the Dalidio EIR. The environmental review process for
Prado Road has been segmented and disjointed by geography and,by time.
The Margarita/Airport final EIR (DOC 1)and the Dalidio EIR (DOC 2)are the most recent
environmental impact reports which address the Prado Road traffic impacts.
The traffic study area for the Margarita/Airport final EIR encompasses the area from South
Street to the north, Buckley Road to the south,Highway 101 to the west, and Broad Street to the
east. DOC 1 at p.3D-1. Thus, the study area omits part of Prado Road (west of US 101). The
Margarita/Airport final EIR notes that the design of the Prado Road/US 101 interchange "needs
to be re-visited in any future planning for the Prado Road interchange." DOC 1 at p. 3D-17. The
Intersection levels of service analysis (Doc 1 at p. 3D-25) ignores certain key intersections (e.g.
LOVR/Madonna, Madonna/US 101). Thus, the traffic information related to Prado Road is not
complete or comprehensive in a regional or cumulative context, based on this EIR alone.
The traffic study area for the Dalidio draft EIR (DOC 2) only looks at intersections (Fig. 4.10-1)
within a restricted area close to the Dalidio site. (The intersection analysis for Prado Road extends
eastward only to Prado at S. Higuera-- See DOC 2, Fig. 4.10-1.) The traffic analysis in the draft
EIR (DOC 2, Figure 4.10-15) shows 12% of project trip distribution along Prado Road. Yet there is
no analysis of this impact on Prado Road east of Higuera St. (in the Margarita neighborhood) or in
the Airport Neighborhood in terms of increased traffic volume, air pollution, and noise. Thus,the
traffic information related to Prado Road is not complete or comprehensive in a regional or
cumulative context, based on this EIR alone.
While two new large developments (Margarita/Airport Specific Plan; Dalidio Marketplace
annexation) are currently under consideration, the time is ripe for the comprehensive traffic analysis
for the entire Prado Road project from Madonna Road to Broad Street. CEQA requires agencies to
prepare EIRs and negative declarations "as early as feasible in the planning process to enable
environmental considerations to influence project program and design and yet late enough to
provide meaningful information for environmental assessment." CEQG GL 15004(b). And, with
public projects (e.g. Prado Road), "at the earliest feasible time, project sponsors shall incorporate
environmental considerations into project conceptualization, design, and planning. CEQA
compliance should be completed prior to acquisition of a site for a public project." CEQA GL
15004(b)(1). Agencies shall not "take any action which gives impetus to a planned or foreseeable
project in a manner that forecloses alternatives or mitigation measures that would ordinarily be part
ow ��
To City of San Luis Obispo huni Michael Sullivan-for Planning Commission nearing 3/24/2004-
regarding Margarita/Airport Area Specific Plan and Environmental Review Page 4 of 9
of CEQA review of that public pPoject." CEQA GL.15004(b)(2)(B). During recent public hearings
(Planning Commission) for Margarita/Airport Specific Plan,members of city staff stated that
additional environmental review would occur for future parts of the project as they occur. However,
for the public road part of the project (i.e., Prado Road),the comprehensive environmental review
should occur early.
The example of Prado Road is an example that shows how incremental, "piecemeal"
(segmented)environmental analyses have failed to adequately address the ultimate impacts of the
whole project (Prado Road in its entity). However, the City's Planning Director has recently
(3/10/04, Planning Commission) stated that in his opinion,the City's environmental review for
Prado Road has been adequate, has not used "piecemeal" analysis, and adequately addresses
cumulative impacts of traffic for the Prado Road corridor. These differing viewpoints form the
legal controversy examined here. -
Highlights of statutes, regulations,and case law
CEQA requires that the Lead Agency, through its initial study, review the whole of a project. A
project must not be broken into smaller parts,each of which alone might qualify for a Negative
Declaration,in an attempt to avoid preparing an EIR. Association for Sensible Development of
Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (4th Dist. 1985) 172 Cal App 3d 151. An agency cannot treat one
project as a succession of smaller projects,none of which, by itself, causes significant impacts.
(Remy 1999, p. 235). The definition of a project encompasses an entire activity, and not each
separate governmental approval. CEQA GL 15378(c). In its initial study, the lead agency must
consider all phases of project planning, implementation, and operation. CEQA GL 15063(a)(1).
The environmental analysis must embrace future development that will forseeably occur if the
agency approves the project. City of Antioch v. City Council (1st Dist. 1986) 187 Cal App 3d 1325,
1333-1336. Cal Rptr 507. The lead agency shall be responsible for considering the effects, both
individual and collective, of all activities involved in a project. CEQA 21001.1(d). The cumulative
impacts of the Prado Road project (along its entire length from Madonna Road to Broad Street)
must be considered (in an EIR)in relation to other, closely related past,present, or reasonably
foreseeable, probable future projects. GL 15130.
On the other hand, CEQA does allow earlier EIRs to form at least part of the basis for future
environmental studies through the process of tiering. Tiering refers to using the analysis of general
matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement)
with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the
general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration
solely on the issues specific to the later project. CEQA GL 15152.
The most recent general EIR which examined Prado Road (and other city roads)in the broader
regional context was the 1994 amendment to the Circulation Element. The City's mitigated
negative declaration of 2000/2001 pertained primarily to the more narrowly focused, minor
General Plan amendment to alter about one half mile of the Prado Road alignment, creating the so
called "northern alignment" for the connection of Prado Road to Broad Street. Thus, if the concept
of"tiering" is invoked, it would need to be based on the 1994 General Plan circulation element
amendment, which is the broader EIR on which subsequent changes to Prado Road should be based.
To City of San Luis Obispo frc._-dichael Sullivan-for Planning Commission hosting 3/24/2004-
regarding Margarita/Airport Area Specific Plan and Environmental Review Page 5 of 9
Much has changed in the City of San Luis Obispo since the 1994 General Plan circulation
element amendment. Several large annexations have been approved (e:g. Madonna Froom Ranch,
DeVaul Ranch North, DeVaul Ranch South)or are pending(e.g. Dalidio); large commercial
projects have been built, (e.g. Home Depot, Food 4 Less) or will be built soon (e.g. Costco); larger
residential projects have been built (e.g. DeVaul Ranch North, DeVaul Ranch South, or are under
review (e.g. Margarita Specific Plan, Orcutt area plan). All of these projects, considered
cumulatively, have increased, or soon will increase, the city's volume of traffic significantly. Prado
Road will very likely receive traffic impacts from all of these sources. Substantial changes in traffic
volume have occurred and new information has become known as the newer projects have come
forward. Thus,the City is obligated to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR pertinent to the
entire Prado Road project. CEQA sec. 21166; GL 15162.
The concept of tiering is mentioned in the case below:
"In assessing whether a cumulative effect requires an EIR, Guidelines section 15064(i)(3)states that "A lead agency
may determine that a project's [*1151 incremental contribution.to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable
if the project will comply[***261 with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which
provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem(e.g., water quality control
plan,air quality plan, integrated waste management plan)within the geographic area is which the project is located.
Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected
resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered
by the public agency.
COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT v.CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY, (2002);
CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION(3rd Dist.2002) 103 Cal. App.4th 98; 126 Cal. Rptr.2d 441:
Tiering is appropriate where a previously approved pian or mitigation program provides specific
requirements to mitigate the environmental problems. However, in the current case, tiering is not
adequate, because various large projects have been built or planned since 1994(or are now
reasonably forseeable), yet these project were not analyzed in the EIR for the 1994 General Plan
circulation element amendment. For example, since 1994, the Home Depot project and DeVaul
Ranch residential projects have added some traffic impacts; and additional traffic impacts can be
expected form other large projects under current review (e.g. Margarita/Airport Specific Plan;
Costco; Orcutt area plan; Dalidio Marketplace; etc.) CEQA sec. 21166 requires that a subsequent
or supplemental EIR be produced to address the traffic (or other) issues arising from these newer,
cumulative projects.
Piecemeal review has occurred with respect to the comprehensive environmental review of the
Prado Road project. For example, the Dalidio Marketplace draft EIR (1/2004)examines the traffic
impacts from the Dalidio project only within a-rather limited distance from the project site, ignoring
impacts on Prado Road beyond Higuera Street. The case below points out that piecemeal review is
forbidden under CEQA. In addition,the piecemeal (segmented) review in essence distorts the
project description (i.e., the entire length of Prado Road) when various environmental documents
only examine impacts related to just a part of the length of Prado Road:
"4)Pollution and Conservation Laws§2.3--California Environmental Quality Act--Environmental Impact Reports--
Contents and Sufficiency--Piecemeal Review. --The California Environmental Quality Act(Pub. Resources Code. §
21000 et seq.)forbids piecemeal review of the significant environmental impacts of a project(Pub. Resources Code, §
21002.1,subd. (d)).A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process.
Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision makers balance the proposal's
benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures,assess the advantage of terminating the proposal
Sup � �
To City of San Luis Obispo frutn Michael Sullivan-for Planning Commission nearing 3/24/2004-
regarding Margarita/Airport Area Specific Plan and Environmental Review Page 6 Of 9
and weigh other alternatives in the balance.An accurate,stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an
informative and legally sufficient environmental impact report."
BERKELEY KEEP JETS OVER THE BAY COMMITTEE,v. BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY
OF OAKLAND(1st Dist.,2001). CITY OF SAN LEANDRO et al.,Plaintiffs,v.BOARD OF PORT
COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF OAKLAND,Defendant.CITY OF ALAMEDA et al.,Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v. BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS OF OAKLAND,Defendant and Appellant.
91 Cal.App.4th 1344; 111 Cal. Rptr.2d 598.
The City's "piecemeal" approach to analysis of traffic (or other) impacts caused by Prado Road is
also inconsistent with CEQA's mandate that EIRs address cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts
are defined as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or...
compound or increase other environmental impacts. CEQA GL 15355. Stated another way, a
cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the
project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. CEQA GL
15130(a)(1). Remy 1999 at p. 465.
Important case related to cumulative impacts is given by Remy 1999 at p. 472-480. Other more
recent cases on cumulative impacts:
(1)
Potential impacts from a different, nearby project affecting the Eel river should have been, but were
not, considered in the cumulative impacts analysis of a different project potentially affecting the
river. The absence of this analysis makes the EIR an inadequate informational document.
FRIENDS OF THE EEL RIVER et al.,v. SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY;PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY,Real Party in Interest and Respondent. (1st Dist.,May 2003) 108 Cal..App.4th 859; 134 Cal.Rptr.2d
322
(2)
It is not enough for the EIR simply to contain information submitted by the public and experts.
Problems raised by the public and responsible experts require a good faith reasoned analysis in
response. ( Cleary v. County of Stanislaus (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 348, 357, 173 Cal. Rpm 390.)
The requirement of a detailed analysis in response ensures that stubborn problems or serious
criticism are not "swept under the rug." -
SANTA CLARTTA ORGANIZATION FOR PLANNING THE ENVIRONMENT et al.,v.COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES,;THE NEWHALL LAND AND FARMING COMPANY et al.,Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.
(2nd Dist.,Feb.2003). 106 Cal. App.4th 715; 131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 186
(3)
The case cited below produced significant changes in the CEQA Guidelinesrelated to analysis of cumulative impacts.
The trial court invalidated the following CEQA Guidelines: Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15064,subd. (h)(regulatory
standards to determine significant environmental effect); Cal. Code Regs.,tit. 14, §15064,subd. (i)(3)(incremental
cumulative effect); Cal. Code Regs.,tit. 14, §§ 15064, subd. (i)(4)and 15130, subd (a)(4)(de minimis incremental
contributions to cumulative impacts); Cal Code Regs., tit. 14, §15130,subd(b)(1)(B)2(definition of probable future
projects for cumulative impact purposes); Cal. Code Regs.,tit 14, §15152,subd. (0(3)(C)(when significant
environmental effects have been adequately addressed for purposes of tiering environmental impact reports(EIR)); Cal.
Code Regs.,tit. 14, §15378,subd. (b)(5)(excluding political activities from definition of project). However, the trial
court declared valid Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15332(categorical exemption for in-fill urban development projects).
(Superior Court of Sacramento County, No. 00CS00300, Ronald A Robie,Judge.)
13
To City of San Luis Obispo.fn,_Aichael Sullivan-for Planning Commission hearing 3/24/2004-
regarding Margarita/Airport Area Specific Plan and Environmental Review Page 7 of 9
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, except with respect to the trial court's invalidation of Cal. Code Regs.,tit.
14, §15064,subd. (i)(3),and the incorporation of this guideline into Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15152,.subd (0(2). The
court held that the trial court did not err in its invalidation of the specified CEQA Guidelines, except that the trial court
erred in invalidating Cal. Code Regs.,tit..14, §15064,subd (i)(3). The court held that this guideline is consistent with
controlling CEQA law, so long as it is read to incorporate the fair argument standard for preparation of an EIR. The
courtfurther held that incorporation of Cal. Code Regs.,tit. 14 subd.(i)(3),into Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14,subd. (t)(2), is
valid. The court also held that the trial court properly found valid Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15332,
which legitimately states a class of projects that generally will not have a significant effect on the environment.
(Opinion by Davis,Acting P.J., with Morrison and Callahan,JJ, concurring.)
COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT et al.,v.CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY;
CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION,Intervener and Appellant. (3rd Dist.,Oct.2002) 103 Cal.
App.4th 98; 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 441.
The CEQA guidelines currently(3/12/04) address cumulative impacts as follows: _
15O64(h)_
(1) When assessing whether a cumulative effect requires an EIR,the lead agency shall consider whether the cumulative
impact is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable.An EIR must be prepared if
the cumulative impact may be significant and the project's incremental effect,though individually limited,is
cumulatively considerable."Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the
effects of probable future projects.
-" (2)A lead agency may determine in an initial study that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact will
be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and thus is not significant.When a project might contribute to a
significant cumulative impact,but the contribution will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable through
mitigation measures set forth in a mitigated negative declaration,the initial study shall briefly indicate and explain how
the contribution has been rendered less than cumulatively considerable.
(3)A lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively
considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program
which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem(e.g.water quality
control plan,air quality plan,integrated waste management plan)within the geographic area in which the project is
located Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public:agency with jurisdiction over the
affected resources through a public review process to implement,interpret,or make specific the law enforced or
administered by the public agency.
(4)The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial
evidence that the proposed project's incremental effects are cumulatively considerable.
NOTE
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087,Public Resources Code. Reference:Sections 21003, 21065,21068,21080,
21082,21082.1,21082.2,21083 and 21100,Public Resources Code;No Oil,Inc. v.City of Los Angeles(1974) 13
Cal.3d 68;San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Center v. County of Stanislaus(1996)42 Cal.App.4th 608;Gentry v.City of
Murrieta(1995)36 Cal.AppAth 1359;Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California
(1993)6 CalAth 1112;and Communities fora Better Environment v. California Resources Agency(2002) 103
Cal.AppAth 98.
To City of San Luis Obispo from Michael Sullivan-for Planning Commission nearing 3/24/2004-
regarding Margarita/Airport Area Specific Plan and Environmental Review Page 8 of 9
How to resolve the controversy `
a. Legal and regulatory options available
It is evident from the facts that the cumulative traffic (or other) impacts of Prado Road are
cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an
individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. CEQA GL 15064(h)(1).
The cumulative traffic impacts are based on newer projects which cause substantial changes with
respect to the circumstances under which the project (Prado Road)is being undertaken. The
examples above (e.g. Home Depot, Costco, DeVaul Ranch, Dalidio Market Place, Margarita and
Airport specific plans, Orcutt plan), are projects implemented or under review since the 1994
General.Plan circulation amendment, which can substantially increase the local and regional traffic.
These facts indicate that based on CEQA sec. 21166, and CEQA GL 15162, a subsequent or
supplemental EIR is required.
EIR Tiering cannot be used because the 1994 General Plan circulation element amendment
information is outdated (10 years old).
Newer EIRs (Margarita, Dalidio)are inadequate because (a)standing alone, those EIRs offer
incomplete analysis in a regional,geographical context and(b)certain other traffic factors are
ignored in either of those FIRS. (For example, neither EIR analyzes how the Prado Road traffic
might exacerbate other problems identified in other recent EIRs, such as the need for an additional
lane within 10 years for US 101 southbound.south of LOVR, identified in the draft Costco EIR of
3/2003).
The most appropriate type of EIR would be a supplemental EIR (supplementing the earlier EIR
for the 1994 General Plan circulation element amendment). Another option would be a "Focused
EIR" although these are more appropriately used to augment a Master EIR. Bass 1999 at p. 64.
The scope of the supplemental EIR would probably need to address some additional issues besides
traffic. For example, the supplemental EIR would probably also address air pollution,.noise, and
growth-inducing effects.
b. Proposed resolution of the controversy
My proposed solution is that the City must require preparation of a supplemental EIR addressing
the traffic analysis of the entire Prado Road Corridor from Madonna Road to Broad Street. The
analysis should include a broader geographic area which presents a realistic regional context. This
study area should encompass the following- LOVR at Foothill (to include projected traffic increase
on westbound LOW); S. Higuera St. at South St.; South St. to Broad St.; Buckley Road along its
entire length; Buckley Rd/S. Higuera St; Buckley Rd at Broad St.,- all major US 101 intersections
(101/LOVR, 101/Prado, 101/Madonna); Tank Farm Road along its entire length to Orcutt Road;
Broad Street from South Street to the Airport.
The scope of the supplemental EIR should include, at a minimum, traffic, traffic-associated air
pollution, traffic-associated noise, and growth inducing effects.
,V
To City of San Luis Obispo fio...Michael Sullivan-for Planning Commission hearing 3/24/2004-
regarding Margarita/Airport Area Specific Plan and Environmental Review Page 9 of 9
Footnotes
1. Based on staff report of City of SLO Planning Commission for hearing of 25 Feb 2004,Dalidio
Marketplace project.
Attachments
1. (4 pages total) -City of SLO(2003). Final Program,Envitonmental Impact Report(FPEIR). Figures 313-
8 (Proposed project), 3D-10(Alternative 1),3D-11 (Alternative 2), 3D-12(Alternative 3).
2. (3 pages total)-City of SLO(2004). Planning commission staff report for hearing of 11 Feb 2004.
Margarita/Airport specific pian and final program environmental impact report. Figure 1 -Major planning
documents discussing Prado Road alignment.
References
Bass, R.et al(1999). CEQA Deskbook. (with 2001 supplement). Point Arena,CA: Solan Press.
Curtin,D. and Talbert,C. (2003). Curtin's California Land Use and Planning Law. (23rd ed.) Point Arena,
CA: Solano Press.
Remy,M et al(1999). Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act. (10th ed.). Point Arena, CA:
Solano Press
DOC 1 - City of San Luis Obispo (9/2003). Final program environmental impact report. Airport
area and Margarita area specific plans and related facilities master plans. Volumes 1 and 2. State
clearinghouse number 2000051062.
DOC 2 - City of San Luis Obispo (1/2004). Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace annexation and
development project. Draft Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse number
20030221089.
Richard Schmidt Q544-4247 RED FILE M8/17/4 08:54AM Dill
MEETING AGENDE
RICHARD SCHMIDT DAUES61&ITEM # (;
112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
August 17, 2004
Re: Agenda Item C-5: Marketplace Development Agreement
To the City Council:
I urge you to Stop! and proceed no further with approvals for the Marketplace Development Agreement.
I believe it will be both unlawful and unethical for any of you to vote to approve thts tonight given the current
circumstance of the first referendum's having been received and found by your city clerk to have prima fiacia more
than twice the required number of signatures.
Prior to your Aug. 3 meeting, you received notice from the referendum proponents'attorney that further action on
the Marketplace was unlawful becuase the General Plan amendments upon which further approvals depended had
been stayed by proponents' submittal of a referendum petition on said General Plan amendments.
While not disagreeing with the substance of said attorney's argument, your city attorney advised that you could
proceed because technically the referendum had not yet been received by the city, and therefore the General Plan
amendments upon which all additional approvals depended were not yet stayed. (A weird technicality since press
and TV photos had already depicted for all to behold the delivery of said petitions into the city clerk's vault!) Your
attorney advised that the petition would be deemed received when the city clerk had established prima facia
evidence that there were an adequate number of signatures for certification of the referendum to proceed, a task
which would have taken less than one hour and for which, your attorney said, the clerk had lacked time in the 28
hours between referendum submittal and your meeting.
The clerk has now verified the petition has prima facia more than twice the required number of signatures, and the
petition has been deemed received by the city. That means the General Plan amendments upon which your further
approval of the Development Agreement depend are stayed pending resolution of the referendum, and legally you
may take no further action which rests upon the foundation of those General Plan amendments.
In specific, in Section 5 of your findings recitals for tonight, paragraph (e) states"The Development Agreement is
consistent with the General Plan . . ."This; of course, is not true since required General Plan changes are stayed
by the petition. You must make that blatantly false finding in order to proceed with your approvals tonight.
You cannot make that finding without being blatantly untruthful.
The mayor cannot sign the ordinance without putting his signature to a blatant untruth.
This issue transcends all others in this disgreement about the wisdom and merits of the Marketplace. It places the
integrity of the city's management, as well as the personal integrity of each council member voting for this
Development Agreement tonight, on the line. having council membersproceed with an unethical action. after the
unethical nature of that action has beenIp ainly pointed out to them opens a whole new front for opponents of this
project to exploit.
You would therefore be well advised to suspend all additional Marketplace approvals, including tonight's vote on
the Development Agreement, until the referendum is resolved.
Sincerely, _zrca,;aL fODD DIR
AO
J:�n,70A -2-TIN DIR
AO y=1RE CHIEF FAUC-
Ec�FII/ED
ATTORNEY ,DPW DIR
I 9^CLERK/ORIG -?rPOUCE CHF ] 2004
Richard Schmidt ❑ DEPT �ADs �-REC DIRuTIL DiR i;r)l
L,11 vUNCIL I
RECEIVED
Meeting of Aug. 17, 04 AUU 17 2604
SLO CITY CLERK
C5: Second Reading of Dalidio Development Agreement.
A Formality: Attachments to Michael Sullivan's Letter of August 2 were found
Dear Council Members
For the meeting of August 3, Michael (currently working in the State of Washington) sent
you a letter, which is in your records.
Two attachments to the letter were sent by Michael on time by Fedex,but, because of a
misplacement within Fedex, were delivered to the right address in San Luis Obispo only
four days ago. They were therefore not included in the first filing of Michael.
Michael asked me to pass these on to you. In order to have everything together I resubmit
the whole package of Michael to you:
- Letter Michael Sullivan to Council of August 2, 04
- Attachment A: Staff report of Planning Commission of February 11, 04
- Attachment B: Letter Michael Sullivan of May 7, 04 to Director of the
Community Development Department.
The two attachments have been in the files of the City anyway.
I assume that the filing is now formally correct and I thank you for your understanding.
Should we not be formally correct,please let me know.
04, woo
Eugene Jud RED FILE
665 Leff Street ME ING AGENDA
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 DATE. ITEM #CS
—1
549 81 85
�-"C;OU�IL le,CDDDIR
Three encloures ICAO FIN DIR
-ACAO ,E FIRE CHIEF
%ATTORNEY ;2-PW DIR
❑ CLERK/ORIG ,a POLICE CHF
DEPT �Eh1� 4�DS 0REC D
j --G juTILD!R
C C-,1� i7, o
02 Aug 2004 To City of San Luis Obispo from Michael Sullivan Page 1 of 5
RE: Dalidio development agreement
To: City of San Luis Obispo
From: Michael Sullivan
RE: City Council hearing of 03 Aug 2004—Dalidio development agreement
Abbreviations
CEQA- California Environmental Quality Act
DA Development Agreement
EIR - Environmental Impact Report
FEIR-Final Environmental Impact Report
LOVR-Los Osos Valley Road
SLO - San Luis Obispo
Members of City Council:
This letter and its two attachments (A and B) and my other comments to the City
(Planning Commission, Council, etc.)have indicated that the City would be committing:
an abuse of discretion as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act and as
defined by other state laws in approving the final EIR and in approving the so-called
Dalidio Marketplace project and Development Agreement. This abuse of discretion
results from various instances in which the City has failed to meet the requirements of
state and local laws such as CEQA, the Planning and Zoning Law, etc. In addition, the
City would be committing an abuse of discretion in approving the proposed Development
Agreement(DA) when several of the findings in support of the DA are invalid or not
supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Findings are given in the staff report for 03 Aug 2004 at page 3-88, Sections 5, 6 and
7 of proposed ordinance (attachment 6). The findings are invalid or false or not
supported by substantial evidence as follows:
(a) The DA will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons
residing or working in the surrounding area, since the project is in keeping with the
character and general development pattern of the existing area.
FALSE. The FEIR identified several significant environmental impacts (e.g. traffic)
which cannot be completely mitigated. The "peace" of the community will be
permanently degraded because of excessive traffic and noise. The health of persons in
the community will be harmed by increased air pollution caused by the project. The
welfare of the community will suffer because of the imbalance in jobs and housing(i.e.
the project will create an unmet need for additional housing, thereby making an existing
affordability problem even worse.)
(b) The DA will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of
property or other persons located in the vicinity of the site, since the DA ensures that
public improvements, additional infrastructure and other public benefits will be provided
as the project is constructed.
02 Aug 2004 To City of San Luis Obispo from Michael Sullivan Page 2 of 5
RE`. Dalidio development agreement
FALSE. Persons affected by excessive traffic and noise(e.g. those along Madonna Road,
Oceanaire Street, Los Osos Valley Rd., etc) are likely to have property values adversely
impacted by the project. People in these areas will also have a degradation in the
enjoyment of their properties(e.g. their use of outdoor spaces) due to the excessive traffic
and noise caused by the project. The proposed additional road which would connect the
project site to Los Osos Valley Road will bring additional negative impacts (noise,
traffic, aesthetics, air pollution) not adequately analyzed by the EIR. On a regional basis,
there will likely be additional congestion in areas such as US 101 southbound (especially
south of Los Osos Valley Rd.) because the project EIR fails to adequately assess regional
traffic impacts and cumulative impacts. For example, the COSTCO 2003 EIR had
identified the need for at least one additional freeway lane south of LOVR within 10
years due to cumulative impacts. The Dalidio project(which contributes to those
cumulative impacts) has an inadequate EIR that fails to adequately address or mitigate
this impact. Also, since the traffic study area of the Dalidio EIR was so limited, the
analysis of traffic impacts on nearby neighborhoods (e.g. Margarita/Airport area, Orcutt
area,town of Los Osos, etc) is inadequate. It is highly probable that impacts in such
areas would be significant.
(c) The DA will not jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public
health, safety or general welfare, since the DA will provide public safety improvements
such as traffic improvements contemplated by the separate finding that the Development
Agreement will help the City pay for the freeway interchange as contemplated by the
Circulation Element that the City could not otherwise afford. Further, the project is
conditioned to comply with applicable fire,building and life safety codes and regulations.
FALSE. The project will cause significant increases in traffic on various routes e.g.
LOUR,Madonna Rd., Oceanaire St., etc. This will create a menace to public health and
safety primarily for pedestrians who will have more difficulties safely crossing these
streets. Crossing the proposed US 101 /Prado Rd interchange would be unsafe for
pedestrians and bicyclists given the volume and speed of traffic there.
(d) The DA will be in the best interests of the City in that it implements the proposed
San Luis Obispo Marketplace project and will provide certainty to the City and the
Applicant regarding that project's standards and similar matters. The proposed project
will provide for a functional and attractive development that will contribute to the City's
tax base while preserving a considerable amount of land for agricultural, conservation
and open space uses. Because of this,the DA is in the best interests of the City and its
residents.
FALSE. The goals of enhancing the tax base and providing more shopping could have
been met by more intensely developing nearby commercial properties, e.g. at Madonna
.Plaza and the Promenade. This was one of the viable options stated in the EIR. Instead,
the City has chosen the more environmentally destructive option of placing a huge new
02 Aug 2004 To City of San Luis Obispo from Michael Sullivan Page 3 of 5
RE: Dalidio development agreement
retail center on "green fields"and this will have a very severe impact on agricultural use
and will diminish the net amount of open space.
(e) The Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan, any applicable
Specific Plan and the Municipal Code. The administrative record and findings of this
Ordinance demonstrate conformance with City requirements.
FALSE. As noted by Planning Commission and various other persons, the proposed
project is inconsistent with the General Plan in various ways.. For example, the proposed
project would violate Land Use Element policy 1.4 (jobs/housing relationship) because
according to the EIR the project would increase the gap between housing demand and
supply. Also, the project is inconsistent with General Plan policies related to open space
(e.g. Land Use element policies 1.13.5E)because significantly less than the required
"approximately 50% of the ownership (Dalidio parcel)would be dedicated as open space.
Staff report (2004 Aug 03) at p. 3-44 notes that the amount of on-site open space(06 Jan
2004) is 54.67 acres which amounts to 41.7 %of the 131 acre site. This is clearly
inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use Element policy 1.13.5 which calls for
approximately 50% of on-site open space. Several other General Plan inconsistencies are
mentioned in communications from Michael Sullivan (e.g. letter for Council hearing of
06 July 2004) and others.
(f) The project will be appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with
the neighboring uses, in light of the existing adjacent commercial uses, and as the
Conservation Land and the proposed residential uses separate much of the proposed
project from existing residential uses.
FALSE. This statement omits mention of the proposed roadway which would eventually
connect the Dalidio site to Los Osos Valley Road. This roadway will create additional
impacts related to traffic, noise, air pollution, aesthetics, and loss of open space. Such
impacts are incompatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods e.g. the
neighborhoods south of the site(Oceanaire St., etc.). In addition, the insufficient buffers
between agricultural use and proposed on-site residences would be incompatible with the
residential use there.
(g) The DA would promote the public interest and welfare of the City. The development
project will preserve open space, provide for public improvements contemplated by the
Circulation Element and expand the City's tax base through regional serving retail uses
different from those in the downtown area. The development project also provides for a
residential use adjacent to an existing residential area and limits the commercial-retail use
to an area adjacent to existing commercial and retail development.
FALSE. The Planning Commission found that the statement of overriding considerations
(under CEQA) is not justified: The significant (and permanent) environmental impacts of
the project, the creation of an imbalance in jobs and housing, and the erosion of public
sales tax revenue to finance a very expensive overpass that mainly benefits the project
02 Aug 2004 To City-of San Luis Obispo from Michael Sullivari` Page 4 of 5
RE: Dalidio development agreement
developer at the expense of the city, are all reasons why the project and the Development
Agreement are not in the public interest.
Section 7
The proposed DA was analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the
San Luis Obispo Marketplace project, and the City Council certified said FEIR and
adopted statements of overriding considerations on July 7, 2004. The City Council finds
and determines that the Final Environmental Impact Report adequately addresses the
potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed DA, and reflects the
independent judgment of the City Council. The Council, through the certification of the
FEIR, incorporated the mitigation measures listed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program
into the project and the DA. In light of adoption of the overriding considerations and
incorporation of the mitigation measures, the project and DA will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment.
FALSE. A statement of overriding considerations clearly does not eliminate the
significant adverse impacts on the environment. The statement of overriding
considerations, rather,is a statement that the known significant adverse impacts on the
environments are tolerable given the project's purported benefits to the city. However, it
has been clear from the record that the purported benefits do not outweigh the adverse
environmental impacts. At a time when housing scarcity and affordability are extreme
hardships in San Luis Obispo, the Dalidio project makes these problems only worse.
Furthermore, the final EIR should never have been certified because of its many
deficiencies. Some of these deficiencies were explained in letters by.Michael Sullivan
and others. Mitigation measures proposed in some cases do not meet the requirements of
CEQA. The project is inconsistent with the General Plan in various ways. Discussion
and analysis of certain environmental impacts was inadequate.
Two major projects (Dalidio Marketplace, and Margarita/Airport specific plan) have
considered the Prado Road corridor(extending from Madonna Road to Broad Street) as
the future route of State Highway 227. For example, Attachment A-1 at page A-24 notes
that in 1994, the City recommended that Prado Road ultimately become Highway 227
removing that distinction from Broad and South Street. Since 1994, the City has been
planning to use Prado Road as a public highway. Under CEQA, a public project such as
this must have environmental review at the earliest possible stage. Instead,the City
continues to use a"piecemeal'or segmented approach, See letter of Michael Sullivan in
attachment B (pages B-2, B-3).
Also, the City has not properly analyzed the fiscal impact of the financing scherne for
the US 101 /Prado Rd. overpass. This scheme could have significant indirect
environmental impacts if the city's Transportation Improvement Fund (TIF)becomes
partly depleted to help finance the overpass. If general funds or TIF funds are
diminished, there would be less money available for other improvement projects
throughout the city, and this could cause indirect traffic problems.
02 Aug 2004 To City of San Luis Obispo from Michael Sullivan Page 5 of 5
RE: Dalidio development agreement
The Development Agreement also establishes a bad precedent for the city which is
harmful to the general welfare of the city. Development should pay its own way. (See
Land use Element policy LU 1.14: Costs of Growth). The trade-off for"community
wide benefits" is not a good one. The city would get a new overpass,but it is the project
itself which makes the overpass necessary at this time. The trade-off is loss of significant .
city revenue (due to the loss of sales tax) and also the permanent significant
environmental effects (e.g. traffic, noise, loss of open space, etc.) which would remain
with the city for many, many years to come. The Development Agreement is, on
balance, an especially bad deal for the City.
Michael C. Sullivan
ATTACHMENTS
(A) City of San Luis Obispo—Planning Commission staff report etc. —Feb. 11, 2004—
Margarita and Airport Area SP/ER 73-00. (A-1 through A-44)
(B) Letters from Michael Sullivan to City of SLO—dated May 7, 2004, April 28, 2004,
March 23, 2004 (B-1 through B-16)
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Council Chamber
City Hall - 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
February 11, 2004 Wednesday 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners, Cadyn Christianson, Jim Aiken, Alice Loh, Allan
Cooper, Michael Boswell, Vice-Chair James Caruso, and Chairperson
Orval Osbome.
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
MINUTES: Minutes of January 14, 2004. Amend or approve.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the commission about items
not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their
name and address. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at
this time are. generally referred to the staff and,. if action by the commission is
necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda
may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing, or in
written correspondence'delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the
public hearing.
If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Please limit
your comments to three minutes; consultant and project presentations limited to six
minutes.
1. Bishop Peak Natural. Reserve. City-wide. ER 183-03; Conservation plan for the
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve, including Environmental Review; City of SLO,
applicant. (Neil Havlik)
2. Margarita Area and Airport Area. SP/ER 73-00: Margarita Area Specific Plan, and
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Airport Area and Margarita Area
Specific Plans and related Facilities Master. Plans; City of San Luis Obispo,
applicant. (John Shoals/Michael Draze) (Continued from January 28, 2004.)
Planning Commission Agenda
Page 2
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
A. Agenda Forecast
4. Commission
ADJOURN to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for
Wednesday February 25, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990
Palm Street.
4
"B
Presenting Planner: Michael Draze
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#1
MEETING DATE: February 11, 2004
FILE NUMBER:ER 183-03
i
PROJECT ADDRESS: City-wide.
SUBJECT: Conservation Plan for the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve, including,Environmental
Review. (Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager)
The (Draft) Bishop Peak Conservation Plan has been distributed under separate cover to
the Planning Commissiom
A counter copy is available in Administration; contact Melissa Ellsworth at 751-7123.
Also, the complete plan can be viewed online at www.slocity.org (Click on the link for the
Bishop Peak Natural Area Conservation Plan.) .
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISYO
PLANNING COMMISSI AFF REPORT ITEM#
FROM:. Mike ector of Community Development MEETING DATE: February 11, 2004
BY: John Shoals, Project Planner
FILE NUMBER: ER 73-00, SP 73-00
PROJECT ADDRESS: Tank Farm Road area between Broad and South Higuera
SUBJECT: Continued hearing on the Draft Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP) and Final Program
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific
Plans and Related Facilities Master Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Discuss the draft MASP, take public testimony, provide direction to staff, and continue the hearing to
March 17, 2004.
DISCUSSION
Background
On January 28, 2004, the Planning Commission continued taking public comments on the draft
Margarita Area Specific Plan. Public and Commission discussion focused on adjacency of land uses,
the mix of land uses in Airport Land Use Plan Zone 3, and the locaton of Prado Road.*
oad The
Commission tentatively agreed that the specific plan was compatible with existing residential
neighborhoods and that potential land use conflicts could be addressed through design at the project-
specific stage. Commission members also agreed that, although the planned Prado Road alignment is
not a perfect solution, it is consistent with the General Plan and past City Council actions and is the best
option available when balanced against all related issues. Discussion on the size, phasing and financing
of Prado Road was deferred to the next meeting.
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to continue discussion of the draft Margarita Specific Plan, and to
provide direction to staff. In order to focus the discussion, the Commission should discuss the specific
plan topics in the same sequence as discussed in the draft MASP. Those plan components are:
1. Land Use
2. Open Space and Parks
3. Development Standards
4. , Design Criteria
5. Airport Compatibility
6. Transportation and Circulation
7. Public Services and Facilities
8. Utilities
9. Housing Affordability
10. Public Facilities and Financing
11. Implementation
C7
Planning Commission Meeting 2/iz12004
ER 73-00,SP 73-00
Page 2
To assist the Commission in its deliberations, each topic is summarized in the January 28 staff report
(Attachment 1). The Commission should discuss each topic and decide if it is adequately addressed or
whether revisions are warranted. At the end of each section or chapter, the Commission should take a
"straw poll"to see if there is consensus before moving to the next topic.
The Commission should review the specific plan to determine if it is consistent with the General Plan,
and if implementation of the guidelines and standards contained in the specific plan would achieve a
cohesive neighborhood with adequate infrastructure and services. At the end of deliberations,the public
hearing should be continued to a date certain so that the plan can be revised and the proper documents
prepared for Commission action.
Landowner's Comments
Staff has met with landowners or their representatives to discuss the specific plan. The owners of the
property already annexed into the City, or"Western Enclave Property Owners", outlined their concerns
in a letter dated December 10, 2003,-which was previously distributed to the Commission (Attachment
2). Staff and the landowners have agreed on many of the suggested changes, but staff has concerns and
is seeking the Commission's specific direction on the following:
1. (Various locations)Shall versus Should.The owners would like the specific plan to be flexible to
allow for changing market conditions and unforeseen physical constraints.
2. (Page 12—Table 2)Reduce the second story side setback from 5 to 10 feet in the R-2 zone
3. (Page 13—2.2.3)Eliminate the minimum parcel size requirement in the MDR/R-2 zone.
4. (Page 13—2.2.3) Revise minimum lot area for a 4+bedroom dwelling from 7,260 to 6,000 sf
5. (Page 13-14)Require the parking standard for detached units be 2 parking spaces for 2+
bedrooms
6. (Page 14)Add a note to Table 3-A that specifies that the LDR standards (Table 2) apply to
single-family detached developments in
7. (Page 22 2.6.3)Eliminate the 1-acre minimum parcel size in the Business Park zone
8. (Page 22 2.6.3)Eliminate the requirement for a 5-acre parcel in the BP zone
9. (Page 22—2.6.6)Maintain flexibility on linking walkways,shared driveways and amenities
(should versus shall)
10. (Page 27—3.1.D)Consider adding language to except sites with steeper slopes from this
requirement.
11. (Pages 42 &60 and Table 14)Phasing and Financing of Prado Road [staff will provide
additional recommendations on these issues as soon as they are completed]
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission will not take action on the draft MASP at this meeting so no alternatives are
suggested.
ATTACFIMENTS
1. January 28, 2004 Planning Commission staff report
2. Landowners' letter dated December 10, 2003
3. Cardoza Real Estate letter dated February 2, 2004 3.
G: Jshoals\PCReport(February11,2004)[3].DOC
A ob co
Attachment 1
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
FROM: MichaelDirec f Community Development MEETING DATE: January 28, 2004
BY: John Shoals,Project Plannq
FILE NUMBER: ER 73-00, SP 73-00
PROJECT ADDRESS: Tank Farm Road area between Broad and South lEguent
SUBJECT: Draft Margarita Area Specific Plan and Final Program Environmental Impact Report for
the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities Master Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Discuss the draft MASP, take public testimony, provide direction to staff, and continue the hearing to
February 11, 2004.
DISCUSSION
Background
On January 14, 2004, the Planning Commission considered the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan and
the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) for the Margarita and Airport Area Specific
Plans and related Master Facilities Plans. The January 14 meeting was used.primarily to review the
FPEIR and to determine if it adequately addressed the potential project impacts. After substantial public
testimony and discussion, the Planning Commission, by "straw poll," agreed that the FPEIR had
adequately addressed the potential impacts, and that it was time to move on to evaluation of the specific
plan. The Commission continued the public hearing to January 28 with direction to staff to focus
discussion on all aspects of the draft MASP, including Prado Road. In addition, the Commission
identified five specific items to be discussed at the January 28 meeting. Those items are: 1) adjacency
of Chumash Village and other uses; 2) the mix of land uses in Airport Land Use Zone 3 (business park
versus manufacturing); 3)the size and location of Prado Road;4)the Prado Road east end; and 5)Prado
Road funding.
This staff report addresses the Commission's primary concerns and various issues raised by the general
public and landowners. It is organized into 11 topics that highlight the major components of the draft
MASP. The topic areas are: specific plan development, land use plan, development standards, design
criteria, airport compatibility, circulation plan, public services and facilities, stormwater drainage &
utilities, housing affordability, public facilities and financing plan, and implementation. The
Commission's items and issues are included in the appropriate areas of discussion. Items 1 and 2 are
covered under Land Use Plan. Items 3,4 and 5 are covered under Circulation Plan.
The purpose of the January 28 meeting is twofold. The Commission will begin evaluating all
components of the specific plan, including Prado Road. As discussed at the January 14 meeting, the
Commission should discuss Prado Road in the context of the specific plan's circulation plan with the
option to discuss funding and phasing on February 11, 2004. Staff will provide the Commission with
information that documents past actions on Prado Road. The second part of the meeting involves the
Planning Commission providing staff with direction on the Specific Plan so that the proper corrections,
resolutions, and ordinances can be prepared for a possible Commission action on February 11.
Planning Commission Meeting 128/2004
ER 73-00,SP 73-00.
Page 2
Margarita Area Specific Plan
Specific Plan Development
Individuals expressed concerns with the specific plan process and not being able to give comments on
the document. The Planning Commission.hearings currently underway, as well as subsequent Council
meetings, provide such an opportunity. Some people may question the basic concepts the specific plan
is based. on. While it is understandable that people participating in the public review process today
would like to have been involved in the earlier decisions made regarding the specific plan, it.is
necessary to accept the previous direction.that has set the course for the current draft. Comments and
recommendations can still be made regarding any aspect of the plan, though fundamental changes to the
basic plan objectives at this point in time are not anticipated. It is important to note that substantial
public input and City Council direction have gone into the plan currently before the Commission: Much
of the early direction for the plan came from members of County Service Area 22 (CSA 22)who funded
a preliminary specific plan in the late 1980's. The 1994 Land Use Element established many specific
objectives for the specific plan.
The Land Use Element(LUE) designates the Margarita Area as a Residential Expansion Area. Specific
plans for the residential expansion areas are to include a detailed list of contents. (LUE Section 2.3 —
Attachment 1).. In addition, the Land Use Element also contains a_ list of objectives for residential
projects.. (LUE Section 2.2 =Attachment 2). Other.General Plan elements, including the Open Space
Element,Parks and Recreation Element, Circulation Element, and Water.and Wastewater Management
Element, direct various.aspects of the specific plan. Because specific.plans must be consistent with
general plans, the general plan provides a framework for, the plan based on a substantial amount of
public.review and participation. In addition to the specific,plan objectives stated in the General Plan
sections noted above, more refined objectives were endorsed in the reviews of the various components
of the draft, especially in the review of the project description for the specific plan environmental report.
Since the adoption of the Land Use Element, there have been many additional public meetings involving
the:Architectural Review Commission, Cultural Heritage Committee,the Planning Commission,and the
City Council as well as public hearings at the Airport Land Use Commission that directly affected the
MASP. These bodies reviewed circulation and transportation; land use types and locations; housing
types, costs and densities; preservation and protection of open space (South Hills and lower wetland
areas); the provision of recreational opportunities (parks); public facilities and infrastructure; noise and
airport compatibility; drainage; visual and aesthetics; financing and growth management. The draft
MASP was revised to address Airport Land Use Commission concerns, landowner requests, and updates
to the General Plan (1994) and the Municipal Code. A detailed chronology was provided in the
December 10, 2003 Planning Commission staff report.
Land Use Plan
Issues: Adjacency of land uses(Chumash Village Mobile Home Park)
Affordable housing density bonus
Mix of land uses(Business Park versus Services and Manufacturing)
Planning Commission Meeting 1/28/2004
ER 73-00,SP 73-00
Page 3
The MASP would direct the future development of the Margarita Area,including the distribution of land
uses, the location and sizing of infrastructure, site planning, development standards, architectural
guidelines and the methods of financing public improvements. The draft specific plan designates 75
acres of Residential, 69 acres of Business Park, 2 acres of Neighborhood Commercial, 1 acre of Special
Use (a ranch house and orchard), 169 acres of Open Space, and 19 acres for Streets. The proposed
specific plan would allow for the development of up to 868 dwellings, 2,800 square feet of
neighborhood commercial, and 959,000 square feet of business park uses.
Several residents of Chumash Village Mobile Home Park expressed concerns with the proposed density
of the properties adjacent to the Park, and the potential impacts from concentrating affordable housing
units near their homes. Chumash Village Mobile Home Park is designated Medium Density Residential
and zoned R-2, with a maximum density of 8 to 12 dwelling units. The draft specific plan designates the
adjacent properties MDR/R-2 to be consistent with the existing mobile home park density. In fact, the
draft plan took based the layout of the project on Land Use Element policies 2.2.6 and 2.2.10
(attachment 2) that call for the creation of neighborhoods and their compatibility with existing
neighborhoods.
Figure 5 of the specific plan identifies a specific location where affordable-housing density is available.
This area was identified for a possible density bonus because it was the only area not located in the
Zones 3 and 4 of the Airport Land Use Plan. The ALUP identifies Zone 3 as approach and climb-out
extensions and restricts residential uses to 5 acres or more. Zone 4 is an area with potential conflict with
airport.operations. The General Plan contains policies, which require that affordable housing units be
dispersed throughout the City and not concentrated in any one area so while the area in Figure 5 allows
for a density bonus, it does not require or even allow all the affordable housing to be in that area 'The
Specific Plan provides for a distribution of affordable housing units throughout the Margarita Area
consistent with the General Plan.
A representative of the Martinelli Family suggested that the Plan be revised to change the land use
designation proposed for their property from Business Park to Services and Manufacturing. They
believe that there is a better market for manufacturing uses than Business Park. The specific plan
designates this property Business Park for several reasons. First, the BP designation allows for the
development of light industrial,research and development uses that would buffer the planned residential
uses in Margarita from heavy manufacturing operations as required by Land Use Element Policy 2.2.4
(Attachment 2). Second, the specific plan provides for less intensive industrial uses along Prado Road,
which is intended to have a different character than Tank Farm Road. Finally, the MASP was developed
in concert with the RASP, which proposes a substantial amount of land for service and manufacturing
operations. Page 21 of the draft Specific Plan describes all of the uses that would be possible in the
Business Park zone.
Development Standards
Issue:Are the development standards appropriate for the Margarita Area?
or
Planning Commission Meeting 1/28/2004
ER 73-00,SP 73-00
Page 4
The specific plan contains development standards for the developable land in the Margarita Area. The
measure of the specific plan's development standards is how well they implement the objectives of the
specific plan. With the project objectives clearly defined, staff worked to augment the existing
development standards in the Zoning Regulations to achieve the objectives. The specific plan supersedes
portions of the City's Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations, Engineering Standards and other
applicable City Codes. Where specific plan standards are silent on an issue, the Municipal Code will
apply. The development standards are more flexible in some respects and more restrictive in others.
Generally, more flexible lot sizing is allowed to accommodate the higher densities envisioned in the
plan. The more restrictive aspects are generally intended to assure compatibility with the ALUP or to
help ensure that the area develops as a cohesive neighborhood. The Planning Commission should relate
the development standards to the objectives stated in applicable General Plan policies provided in the
attachments and in the specific plan itself.
Design Criteria
Issue:Do the design criteria achieve the desired vision for Margarita?
In addition to the development standards, the specific plan contains design criteria for the specific plan
area. The design criteria address architectural styles, building forms and materials, landscaping,
lighting, solar exposure,public art and road traffic noise mitigation. The specific plan does not establish
a preferred architectural style,but it does outline several styles that may be appropriate for the Margarita
Area. Those styles are Craftsman,Mission Revival,Victorian,Provincial,Neoclassic and Art Deco.
Airport Compatibility
Issue: Increase the Number of Dwelling Units irrespective of Speciftc Plan consistency with the Airport
Land Use Plan
There were several comments on the low number of potential dwellings in the specific plan. Some
suggested that the number be increased above that allowed by the current ALUP. Land Use Element
policy LU 7.2(Attachment 3) directs us to provide development consistent with the ALUP. In addition,
State law requires that the General Plan and specific plans be consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan
unless the City makes very rigorous findings why consistency in not necessary. The draft MASP was
revised to address the AirportLand Use Commission's concerns regarding residential density and the
location of an elementary school. The specific plan addresses the ALUC's concerns by reducing the
number of dwellings from 1,200 to 868, eliminating the school site and placing height and location
restrictions on certain areas within the Business Park. Staff and City Council representatives have had
numerous meetings with the Airport Land Use Commission to resolve the differences between the two
plans. The 868 dwelling units and the location of residential, non-residential, parks, and open space ate
the result of those meetings.
Planning Commission Meeting 128/2004
ER 73-00,SP 73-00
Page 5
Circulation Plan
The Margarita Area Specific Plan takes a distinct approach in designing the circulation system that
internally and externally binds the plan area to the City. Neighborhood design and land use was a
significant driving force in laying out neighborhood street patterns, roadway connections and cross
sections, modal connectivity and traffic systems integration.
The orientation of the plan from a residential perspective is to take advantage of many of the
philosophies of the Neo-Traditional residential design movement. Cul-de-sacs have been minimized and
roadway & pedestrian/bike connections maximized to promote circulation other than primarily use of
the automobile. The limitation established by the Airport Land Use Plan has restricted some ability to
be more creative in these areas, but overall the neighborhoods will be distinct from conventional
residential neighborhoods.
Traffic calming features have been incorporated along sections of local and collector roadways where
street length and traffic volumes may.become problematic. The features have been proposed based
upon the City's experience in using similar devices in existing neighborhoods that share like
characteristics. Bulb-outs are provided to allow landscaping closer to the street and "bulb-ins" provide
for pa Idng for neighborhood residences. This is an alternative to current street design standards that
have favored attached sidewalks next to the traveled way.
Transit service has been incorporated into the land use proposals with the intent to maximize
accessibility to adjacent neighborhoods. It is anticipated that bus service will be extended into the areas
as phasing of the neighborhoods completes. Further integration of transit into the neighborhoods (on
residential streets) is limited by service frequency goals of establishing minimal bus headways (30-60
minutes)for routes that serve the southern part of the City.
Pedestrian and bicycle facilities run throughout the specific plan area. These include separate bicycle
paths, trails and concurrent routes along proposed streets. Connections to the north, east and west are
provided via identified locations that pedestrians can use to avoid taking automobiles to or from major
destinations, such as the future Damon-Garcia sports field and the Marigold shopping center. Pedestrian
connections to the transit routes are also provided in the circulation plan design.
Finally, the MASP area is part of the larger City planning areas and as such, the specific plan
incorporates some of the larger City issues. Prado Road alignment and design reflects prior Council
decisions on the actual alignment of the roadway as it traverses the MASP area and accesses Broad
Street. In addition, the cross section of Prado Road has been revised to incorporate concerns expressed
by the Airport Land Use Commission and other environmental issues.
Prado Road
Issues:Prado Road east end(Intersection with Broad Street)
Prado Road size and location amp „
Prado Road Funding and Construction Phasing
Planning Commission Meeting 1/28/2004 J
ER 73-00,SP 73-00
Page 6
At the December Planning Commission hearing on the draft Program EIR and MASP, a number of
public comments were made requesting additional information about the alignment of Prado Road and
the environment review regarding this component of the specific plan.
The proposed alignment of Prado Road contained in the draft MASP reflects Council adopted General
Plan direction on this issue. As part of adopting the current alignment, which occurred in February
2000, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). That MND contained 17
mitigation measures to.reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. At the December 10
meeting, Commissioner Boswell requested copies of the Council agenda reports relating to the Prado
Road issue. A separate binder containing these reports and other pertinent.information on the Prado
Road issue has been transmitted to the Planning Commission for use in reviewing the MASP and E1R.
A copy of the Prado Road Information binder will be available at the Community Development and
Public Works Departments. To date, at least 13 separate and distinct planning level activities have
reviewed the issue of Prado Road and its alignment through.the MASP area. Attachment 4 details the
major planning activities on this issue to date.
Contrary to some recent rumors, the construction of Prado Road contains- no blasting of.adjacent
hillsides, tunneling, or realignment:of Acacia Creek. The conceptual:alignment of Prado Road has been
altered to.minimize impacts to wetland areas.within the Margarita,Area and the archeological site near
the Damon-Garcia sports field. These modifications were made in accordance with mitigation measures .
established by the Council as. part of the February 2000 .General Plan Amendment decision. The
alignment in the specific plan is as shown in the:environmentally superior alternative for the MASP
Program.EK (other than the no-project.alternative). Similarly, roadway design and construction.will
be completed to ensure appropriate level of safety for users of the Damon-Garcia sports field, residents
of the MASP area and the general public. ,
Potential Realignment to Use existing Prado ROW
At the January 14 Planning.Commission meeting a question arose if the existing Prado Road street
improvements east of the City limits (it is not publicly accepted right-of-way) could be used for the
Prado Road alignment on the west end of the planning area. The use of this alignment could potentially
reduce the costs for additional right of way and construction costs.
The adopted alignment and meandering of Prado Road was promoted to accommodate the proposed land
uses in the MASP planning area. The west end of Prado Road bisects proposed business park/industrial
land uses in order to *n;n;m; e potential noise issue with adjacent residential uses. Noise Element
policies; in particular N1.2.1, N1.2.2, N1.2.6, and N1.2.7 (Attachment 5) were use in locating the
proposed road. Extending the road along the existing improvement will bring the road in closer
proximity to these residential units and could result in additional noise impacts to proposed residential"
locations. While this revision is doable, additional environmental analysis would be necessary to review
potential impacts of such an alignment change.
004 WP �
Planning Commission Meeting 1282004
ER 73-00,SP 73-00
Page 7
Tank Farm Road Alignment
The draft MASP contains the General Plan alignment for Prado Road as adopted by Council in February
2000, and then reaffirmed in January 2001. As part of the 2001 review of this issue, staff was requested
to provide information on a potential Tank Farm Road alignment for Prado Road. The information
provided a detailed qualitative assessment of this alternative alignment and compared it to both the
northern and southern Prado Road alignment across the Damon-Garcia sports field. After much
discussion, public testimony and review of the issues, Council reaffirmed that the currently adopted
alignment was the preferred alignment for the Prado Road connection.
Funding and Phasing of Prado Road
The City's General Plan calls for a phased approach to development of the major expansion areas based
on the availability of resources and development paying its fair share:of costs to install adequate public
facilities. General Plan policy LU 1.14 (Attachment 6) states `°The costs for public facilities and
services needed for new development shall be bome by the new development, unless the community
chooses to help pay the costs for a certain development to obtain community-wide benefits. The City
will adopt a development-fee program and other appropriate financing measures, so that new
development pays its share of the costs of new services and facilities needed to serve it." Consistent
with the General Plan, the draft MASP requites new development fund construction of Prado Road and
other required public facilities. This can only be achieved by developing a funding and phasing program
prior to any development in the specific plan area. Staff has made several recommendations for
financing construction of public facilities, including Prado Road. Thus far, property owners have
expressed concerns.with all of them. Staff will continue to work with the property owners to resolve
this issue. At the time this report went to print,no solution has been agreed upon. Staff will be prepared
to discuss this issue if time allows on January 28,but anticipates that more discussion will take place on
February 11.
Public Services and Facilities
General Plan policy LU 1.13.4 (Attachment 7) requires that development in expansion areas be
approved only when adequate City services can be provided for that development, without reducing
levels of service or increasing the costs of services for existing developments. The draft MASP
implements this General Plan policy by providing for the delivery of essential services, including
education, law.enforcement, fire protection, paramedic services, health, recreation, parks maintenance,
transportation (transit), solid waste and recycling.
Stormwater Drainage&Utilities
The specific plan provides for the extension and upgrade of existing utilities to serve the Margarita
Area. Primary facilities needed to serve the area are water, sewer, drainage, energy, lighting, tele-
communications and high-speed data access. Landowners/developers will be required to install utilities
to serve their projects. Citywide water and wastewater management have been updated, as the specific
plan FIR was prepared. The original draft specific plan called for the establishment of a regional
Aaw i3
Planning Commission Meeting 1/28/2004
ER 73-00,SP 73-00
Page 8
drainage system and basin with the Margarita Area owners contributing financially. In response to
landowner concerns, onsite detention or sub-regional basins will handle stormwater drainage. The
current draft MASP will be revised to clarify this change.
Housine Affordability
General Plan policy H.23.1 (Attachment 8) requires that development within the specific plan area
comply with the City's Inclusionary Housing Requirement (Municipal Code Chapter 17.91). Table 5 of
the Specific Plan calls for 43 (5%) dwellings affordable for lower-income households and 87 (10%)
dwellings for moderate-income households. It is important to note that the inclusionary housing standard
is tied to the City's adopted requirement. The draft Housing Element proposes change in both the
residential and commercial requirements for increasing housing, and whatever is adopted by the City
Council will prevail in the MASP. Staff recommends that Table 5 and all references to it be removed
for the final version of the specific plan.
The specific plan envisions that the San Luis Housing Authority or other non-profit housing provider
could acquire sites through purchase at market rate or by receiving dedications at reduced or no cost, in
fulfillment of all or part of the Inclusionary Housing Requirement. The specific plan does not identify
specific sites, but does require the dwelling to be integrated throughout the neighborhood. The owners
of the western properties that have already been annexed to the City are in discussions with the Housing
Authority on a proposal that will provide land for housing. The preliminary proposals that staff has seen
appear to place all of the housing in one location but staff will be working with the owners and Housing
Authority on refining any such proposal.
Public Facilities Financing
As required by State law, the draft MASP contains a Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) that
evaluates the ability of the land uses proposed in the specific plan to fund required public improvements
such as street improvements, water and wastewater facilities, storm drainage facilities, undergrounding
utilities. The PFFP estimates $23.2 million for transportation infrastructure and planning costs. This
amount does not include: 1) costs for land acquisition for roadway improvements; 2) existing City,
school district and other public agency development fees; 3) onsite storm drainage detention costs; and
4) in-tract frontage or other project-specific costs. The PFFP identifies three financing methods, which
include the formation of a Mellos-Roos district, impact fees and developer financing. The PFFP
recommends a financing strategy that includes a combination of impact fees, community facilities
district debt financing, citywide and add-on impact fees, developer funding and land dedications.
Landowners and their representatives have expressed concerns with the amounts and recommended
financing strategies. The PFFP has been revised twice to reduce infrastructure costs. A proposed
regional storm drainage system was eliminated; Tank Farm Road Infrastructure costs were reduced; and
utility undergrounding would be done with individual development and from the City's Rule 20A
program rather than as part of the PFFP. Staff continues to work with the property owners on the
funding recommendation. At the time this report went to print, no solution has been agreed upon. Staff
A " /4w
Planning Commission Meeting 128/2004
ER 73-00,SP 73-00
Page 9
will be prepared to discuss this issue if time allows on January 28, but anticipates that more discussion
will take place on February 11.
Implementation
Issue: Portions of the MASP are not consistent with the General Plan
Individuals have commented that the draft MASP is not consistent with the General Plan. The Land Use
Element of the General Plan shows the Margarita area as a combination of land uses with an overlay
requiring adoption of a specific plan prior to development. Implementation of the MASP is the intended
vehicle to meet this requirement, With the adoption of the MASP, the City Council will certify the Final
Program Environmental Impact Report and amend the General Plan Land Use Map to reflect the land
use categories contained in the specific plan. Any properties within the City would be zoned consistent
with the specific plan, using the City zone category in combination with the "SP" overlay. Properties
within the Margarita Area, but not in the City, would also reflect the land use categories in the specific
plan but;rezoning from existing County zoning would take place upon annexation. Future projects
would include residential subdivision and development plans.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission will not take action on the draft MASP at this meeting so no alternatives are
suggested.
ATTACHMENTS
1. General Plan Policy LU 2.3
2. General Plan Policy LU 2.2
3. General Plan Policy LU 7.2
4. Figure 1 —Major Planning Documents Discussing Prado Road Alignment
5. General Plan Policies N 1.2
6. General Plan Policy LU 1.14
7. General Plan Policy LU 1.13.4
8. General Plan Policy H 2.3.1
Distributed under separate cover: Prado Road Information Binder
PC MASP(January28,2004)[71.DOC
A fig
Land Use Element
texture, places for people to walk through them at regular
intervals, and planting.)
I) Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such
as front porches, front yards along streets,and entryways facing
public walkways.
J) Buffers from hazardous materials transport routes, as
recommended by the City Fire Department.
LU 2.2.13: Nonresidential Activities
Residential areas may accommodate limited nonresidential activities which gene;
have been compatible, such,as child day care, elementary schools, churches, and h,
businesses meeting established criteria.
LU 2.3: Residential Expansion Areas
LU 2.3.1: Specific Plans
Specific plans for the Margarita Area and Orcutt Area residential expansions shall inch
A) Desired types and intensities of development, compatible with
the surrounding area;
B) Phasing of development and public facilities, subject to
availability of resources;
C) Measures to protect resources and open space, including,
among other types, permanent wildlife habitats and corridors,
and farm fields;
D) Desired types of public facilities and the means to provide them,
to City standards, including water supply, sewage collection,
storm water drainage, streets, bikeways, walking paths, and
passive and active park space;
E) Desired levels of public services and the means to provide
them, including fire, police, and schools;
F) A variety of owner and rental housing, including a broad range
of prices, sizes, and types. (See also LU Policy 2.5 below)
H 52.5
H 6.3.4 G) Trees to help reduce wind exposure, and water-frugal
landscaping;
H) Public parks and open space, and other land that is not to be
built on;such as yards, and community gardens for multifamily
areas;
LU-24 rieneRal plan airiest-city of san lues oBi
A
' r
J
Land Use Element
I) Dual water systems allowing use of treated wastewater for non-
potable uses.
n Energy efficient design, utilizing passive and active solar
features;
K) Amenities to facilitate public transportation within the area;
L) Opportunities for individuals or small groups, other than the
specific plan developer, to build homes or to create living
environments,suited to small groups or to special needs.
LU 2.3.2: Separate Paths
Within the major expansion areas, bicycle and walking paths which are separate from
roadways should connect residential areas with neighborhood commercial centers, CI 3 3
schools, parks and, where feasible, other areas of the City. CI 3.6
CI 3.7
0 42
LU 2:3.3: Residential Neighborhood Designation
The major residential expansion areas are shown as ResidentW Neighborhood on the
General Plan Land Use Map. They may be developed as adequate utilities and services
are made available. They should be developed as residential neighborhoods,with a wide
range of housing types and costs, and supporting uses such as small parks, elementary
schools,and shopping and services to meet the daily demands of neighborhood residents.
The estimated residential capacities of the major expansion areas are shown in Table 3.
These capacities are based on the amount of land suitable for development according to
policies of this element, and average densities on the housing sites in the range of eight
to ten dwellings per acre (excludingpublic streets, parks, and other land dedicated to
public use).
LU 2.3.4: Transfer of Development Credits
For each major expansion area, Table 3 indicates a low capacity which may be developed
without aransfer of devvlopmcnt crv&ts and a high capacity which may be used with pg 1.3.6
transfer of development credits. Development credits would be transferred from areas
in the City, the urban reserve, or the greenbelt where development would be less
appropriate, generally those designated conservation/open space or, on the County's
map, agriculture or rural lands.
city of san Luis osispo - csnsttal plan bigest .. / LU-2
Land Use Element
CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
N M i t r WA
( 3
LU 2.1: Neighborhood Protection and Enhancement
LU 2.1.1: Neighborhood Identity
The city shall assist residents to identify and designate neighborhoods. The city will
work with residents to prepare neighborhood plans, to facilitate development of a sense
of place within neighborhoods.
LU 2.1.2: Neighborhood Groups
The City should encourage and support the formation and continuation of neighborhood
planning groups, composed of neighborhood residents.
LU 2.1.3: Neighborhood Tram
Neighborhoods should be protected from intrusive traffic. All neighborhood street and
circulation improvements should favor the pedestrian and local traffic. Vehicle traffic on CI 6.5
residential streets should be slow. To foster suitable traffic speed, street design should Cl 6.6
include measures such as narrow lanes, landscaped parkways, traffic circles, textured
"crosswalks, and, if necessary, stop signs, speed humps, and bollards.
LU 2.1.4: Neighborhood Connections
All areas should have a street and sidewalk pattern that promotes neighborhood and
community cohesiveness. There should be continuous sidewalks or paths of adequate
width, connecting neighborhoods with each other and with public and commercial
services to provide continuous pedestrian paths throughout the City.
LU 2.1.5: Neighborhood Open Links
The City should treat streets, sidewalks, and front setbacks as a continuous open link CI 42
between all areas of the City and all land uses. These features should be designed as
amenities for light, air, social contact, and community identity.
LU 2.2: Residential Location, Uses, and Design
LU 2.2.1: Mixed Uses&Convenience
Neighborhoods shall include a mix of uses to serve the daily needs of nearby residents,
including schools, parks, churches, and convenience retail stores. Neighborhood
shopping and services should be available within about one mile of all dwellings. When
nonresidential, neighborhood:serving uses are developed, existing housing shall be
preserved. If existing dwellings are removed for such uses, the development shall include
replacement dwellings.
city of San lws OBISpO gcnsuat plan aicsst LU-21
S
Land Use Element -
LU 2.2.2: Separation and Buffering
Residential areas should be separated or screened from incompatible, nonresidential
activities, including most commercial and manufacturing businesses, traffic arteries, the
freeway, and the railroad. Residential areas should be protected from encroachment by
detrimental commercial and industrial activities.
66/-w LU 2.2.3: Housing and Aircraft
N 127 New housing should not be allowed in areas where aircraft noise exposure and the risk
of aircraft accidents are not acceptable.
LU 2.2.4: Residential Next to Nonresidential
In designing development at the boundary between residential and nonresidential uses,
protection of a residential atmosphere is the first priority.
LU 2.2.5: Street Access
New residential developments, or redevelopment involving large sites, should be
designed to orient low-density housing to local access streets, and medium. or
high-density housing to driveways accessible from collector streets.Major arterials through
residential areas shall provide only limited private access or controlled street
intersections.
LU 2.2.6: Neighborhood Pattern
H 724 All residential development should be Integrated with existing neighborhoods. Where
physical features make this impossible, the new development should create new
neighborhoods.
LU 2.2.7: Housing and Businesses
Where housing can be compatible with offices or other businesses, mixed-use projects
should be encouraged.
LU 2.2.8: Natural Features
Residential developments should preserve and incorporate as amenities natural site
features, such as land forms, views, creeks, wetlands, wildlife habitats, and plants.
LU 2.2.9: Parking
Large parking lots should be avoided. Parking lots should be screened from street
views. In general, parking should not be provided between buildings and the street.
LU-22 geneRat plan biGEst-city of san Luis osispo
A =I, tf
Land Use Element
LU 2.2.10: Compatible Development ,
Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in character with
that neighborhood. All multifamily development and large group-living facilities should H 82-4
be compatible with any nearby, lower density development.
A) Architectural Character: New buildings should respect
existing buildings which contribute to neighborhood historical
or architectural character, in terms of size, spacing, and variety.
B) Privacy and Solar Access: New buildings will respect the
privacy and solar access of neighboring buildings and outdoor EC 13.25
areas, particularly where multistory buildings or additions may EC 1.3.31
overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings.
LU 2.2.11: Site Constraints
Residential developments shall respect site constraints such as property size and shape,
ground slope, access, creeks and wetlands, wildlife habitats, native vegetation, and
significant trees.
LU 2.2.12: Residential Project Objectives
Residential projects should provide:
A) Privacy, for occupants and neighbors of the project;
B) Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and
prevailing winds, and oriented to receive light and sunshine;
C) Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, and shade to make indoor
and outdoor spaces comfortable with .minimum mechanical
support;
D) Pleasant views from and toward the project;
E) Security and safety;
F) Separate paths for vehicles and for people,and bike paths along
collector streets;
G) Adequate parking and storage space;
H) Noise*and visual separation from adjacent roads and
commercial uses. (Barrier walls, isolating a project, are not N 1211
desirable. Noise mitigation walls may be used only when there N 1.2.15
is no practicable alternative. Where walls are used, they should N 12.16
help create an attractive pedestrian, residential setting through N 12.17
features such as setbacks, changes in alignment, detail and
city of san Luis oBispo - cenEual plan N est LU-23
A iow
Land Use Element
texture, places for people to walk through them at regular
intervals, and planting.)
I) Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such
as front porches,front yards along streets, and entryways facing
public walkways.
n Buffers from hazardous materials transport routes, as
recommended by the City Fire Department.
LU 2.2.13: Nonresidential Activities
Residential areas may accommodate limited nonresidential activities which generally
have been compatible, such as child day care, elementary schools, churches, and home
businesses meeting established criteria.
LU 2.3: Residential Expansion Areas
LU 2.3.1: Specific Plans
Specific plans for the Margarita Area and Orcutt Area residential expansions shall include:
A) Desired types and intensities of.development, compauble with
the surrounding area;
B) Phasing of development and public facilities, subject to
availability of resources;
C) Measures to protect resources and open space, including,
among other types, permanent wildlife habitats and corridors,
and farm fields;
D) Desired types of public facilities and the means to provide them,
to City standards, including water supply, sewage collection,
storm water drainage, streets, bikeways, walking paths, and
passive and active park space;
E) Desired levels of public services and the means to provide
them, including fire, police, and schools;
F) A variety of owner and rental housing, including a broad range
of prices, sizes, and types. (See also LU Policy 2.5 below)
H 52.5
H 6.3A G) Trees to help reduce wind exposure, and water-frugal
landscaping;
H) Public parks and open space, and other land that is not to be
built on, such as yards, and community gardens for multifamily
areas;
LU-24 GsnEual plan bic,Est-ctty of san Luis oaispc
A am Z/
n
Land Use Element
AIRPORT AREA
LU 7.1: Regional Service
The airport will continue to serve the region, consistent with the approved Airport
Master Pian.
LU 7.2: Airport Land Use Plan ,
Development should be permitted only if it is consistent with the San Luis Obispo County
AirportLand Use Plan. Prospective buyers of property which is subject to airport CI 10.1
influence should be so informed.
LU 7.3: City Annexation and Services
The City intends to actively pursue annexation of the Airport Area. Airport Area land
inside the urban reserve shall be considered for annexation if it meets the criteria stated
in Policy 1.13.3.A. Annexation of areas that do not meet these interim annexation criteria
may be annexed subject to completion of environmental and economic studies and a
specific plan. Pending annexation:
A) Any urban development approved by the County shall be
consistent with City development standards; and
B) Urban development and provision of adequate resources and
services needed citywide shall be closely monitored.
LU 7.4: Greenbelt Protection
Annexation of the Airport Area, whether it occurs as one action or several, shall be W 623
consistent with the growth management objectives of maintaining areas outside the
urban reserve line in rural, predominantly open space uses. An Airport Area annexation
shall not take effect unless the annexed area helps protect an appropriate part of the
greenbelt near the Airport Area, through one or more of the following methods:
A) Dedicating an open-space easement or fee ownership to the
City or to a responsible land-conservation organization.
B) Paying fees to the City in-lieu of dedication,which shall be used
within a reasonable time to secure greenbelt open space near
the Airport Area.
crty of san lues oBispo - geneizal plAn bicest A vp Zw& LU-75
.. o 4
D �
'D w
a c
N b
.r
"d
v
10,
I . °a a � zaz
fAcc
od
dy-
O O id .�C •'r1 °. . .'pv. G .
bow a 'z+ ar
2 y
43
oen
o U s tia °. �qcjSyaCoci 1c
�¢I aPO °i � K �C a �. a K Via° CL
m
Go
,'p Q a� ai .�7 qp �j . C Q ry N C> to ie q
A p: mpJm „ � 0a
p
. .� 8 Abp � � ya a� w3 ways a ��rQ
W44
�� _ a`'• oo p 'O O d W e�
.■`SSi •F�r a t7 .a v D ' C'��. y cis
Co. ami w z 6 -
ed
Tj*
d_ �•'C� Z Q.�. C'w O. o.�� .mEmC'�`QUasc bac°v Vw1 `;V�'�a„�r�°- eo:�s' a'�Oe �• am U"y� a �'avO �poCa 'V ,d _�cO°° $ aF�dU•.�P '�a'O^r 0mb _ o gE Z a ao ocv $ul .eW9 EUMa
tn en %0
� c -
7
y h v
cc d O� .. p .•+ ONcc
_
N a � � U ^ tUE a� U'•. � �
Ela I � � w � y aQ
p � p �'' �L c c o m'
� 3 CL
y � y = p
O � O O 4oCw Op° w I' f
.a ;
ti
0 -
�, '° 'o c ,o p •�
at ►+ � wKy � � � /�a[�� e7 � Y
`I pOp O C •.°7 C m O 00 t� •sj 'C C°' N
d
m w 5 a co
= o
"IOU
{vs
Y 10 O b b m
10
a
40 cc
ba
•�lu
Ca9 cc ppp6 C� �N q
g .9 g E; N pas
a 'OO doo _nw :cl
oan o d ZOm m
e � ol
a
; y � U o eod ° o � 9A. 0 o mb
n . a $ � s o °Y' o m 5 v° u ° a d a 8 ti 8
moo/ c
Os .� coC ° ° a3a o � � FA
C � S. fO � Awoo
10 m 'o m �' a y °' o o � aC c eoa
o9 ca oE �:•av° vab - � c 0 v� � a � 'ter goo � C � z �
o 0 o a3 CO e c °q�' 3 � b a � ra. pm �y E� p ,� � *gn
.�` N. P4 4: •w 04 C �'�' ^' N p �+ G .�+ d O C v of O .� a) y ^�I. t
o. ° Ocvc �i 00o � or� 0O ' o � oE' a
,, � .o a w • •v . v Q q
8 � c �' d 125 o
2 U w rs p, v .� w '4 ' vJ R: p; m W v 00 � N
N wd S
• ■ ■ e ■ ■. ■ ■ • ■ • • • a a 0
O
O
{I 000 000 M00
00 0 0 a .
ON Q\ 01
.-� .� .r .•-� .� O\
�R .r
43
V,
•C
• I .- C 00 tE N d' C
qu
ON
u a> -. O m
CN
I o � a I �°' °'
,. 0000 01:6 I w C c�
c C% ON
00 oa ., y fs5 c _ •a �o.. U
�, .c6 a, •�ja d as •� U I � eci
h a A
cc
cis
� � a
Y jpy7
-
OZ C
a
3
40.
a s a
p�p q •U °
fw 6}(� O •q
C Y Q q� O G• y d
3 L' 0 'v > to S as
caa u �
O Q _K O O V w N - U O
Od
a ai d N _JJ
•� ..r W S A I tC Q 06
� � � ■ciq a o � �w Es •a° 0 4+
w° ora � ° ° C7 � 5o0 . Ug� � .ro y
g q Oor-
O 9 G N •SO' 'L7 'O `�
ao � � p ° � � gc � ocm `° fid
= g � a � „ a = H � ara � w •� .
� U c°i •s c o �
�. � ..
Y
4Wi L� •`y c
cc
..1 cv m
v V1 m �'
J o °
Z
a q �
Nouse Element
1.0 NOISE GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
N 1.1.1: Noise Exposure Protection
Protect people from the harmful and annoyingeffects.of exposure to noise. (p3,1)
N 1.1.2: Noise Prevention
Preserve the tranquillity of residential neighborhoods by-preventing noise-producing
uses from encroaching upon existing or planned noise-sensitive uses. (p3,2)
N 1.1.3: Public Education
Help citizens understand the effects of exposure to excessive noise and the methods
available for minimizing such exposure. (p3,3) .
N 1.1.4: Emphasize Careful Site Planning
Emphasize the reduction of noise impacts through careful site planning and.project
design, giving second preference to the use of noise barriers and structural features.
(p3,4)
N 1.1.5: Prevent Incompatible Land Uses
Prevent incompatible land uses from encroaching on existing or-planned uses which are
desired parts of the community, but which produce noise. (p3,5)
N 1.1.6: Noise Reduction .
Encourage practices and technologies which reduce noise. (p3,6)
� f
N 1.2.1: hfinimizing Noise
The numerical noise standards of this element are maximum acceptable noise levels.
New development should minimize noise exposure and noise generation. (p3,i)
N 1.2.2: Land Use&Transportation Noise Sources
Figure 1 shall be used to determine the appropriateness of designating land for noise-
sensitive uses,considering noise exposure due to transportation sources. Figure 1 shows LU 4:14
the ranges of noise exposure, for various noise-sensitive land uses; width are consid- LU 3.7.9
ered to be acceptable, conditionally acceptable, or unacceptable. (p3,2)
crty of san to s-.pmspo - ceneml plan digest *4v:?
N-3
Noise (Element
N 1.2.6: New Development Design and Transportation Noise Sources
New noise-sensitive development shall be located and designed to meet the maximum
outdoor and indoor noise exposure levels of Table 1. (p4,3)
Table 1 - Maximum Noise Exposure For
Noise-Sensitive Uses Due To Transportation Noise Sources
Old
;A.�easr
OS 1428
Land Use Ldp or CN EL, Ldp or CN EL, L in dBz Lmax in d'B3
in dB in dB ea
Residences, hotels,
motels, hospitals, 60 45 — 60
nursing homes
Theaters, auditoriums, — —
35 60
nxsic halls
Churches, meting
halls, office bu>Ildin& 60 — 45 —
mortuaries
Schools, libraries, — — 45 60
museums
-Nhood perks 65 — — —
Playgrounds 70 — - -
-If 0 .16666on of outclocit act lty areas 1s not s1t
anY,at b6 prey lindthe rer ivuig i use
t
for:i typical v t-i bout d�Irwit*rad ase,
1n star�datui appoles y 1 -i�rdhaks4vt .south cif'.Op4a
;l�r3ad. S�ciumc�B $+rarti�Associalfes .. .. - •
12.7: New Transportation Noise Sources
Noise created by new transportation noise sources, including road, railroad, and airport
expansion projects, shall be mitigated to not exceed the levels specified in Table 1 for
outdoor activity areas and indoor spaces of noise-sensitive land uses which were estab-
lished before the new transportation noise source. (p4,4)
city of san fuss owspo - genenat plan bigest N-5
Land Use Element
C) Orcutt Area properties shall dedicate land or easements
covering the Santa Lucia foothills and Mine Hill, as identified
in the Open Space Element.
D) Airport Area properties shall secure protection for any on-
site resources as identified in the Open Space Element. These
properties, to help maintain the greenbelt, shall also secure
open space protection for any contiguous, commonly owned
land outside the urban reserve. If it is not feasible to directly
obtain protection for such land, fees in lieu of dedication shall
be paid when the property is .developed, to help secure the
greenbelt in the area south of the City's southerly urban reserve
line.
E) Dalidio area properties (generally bounded by Highway 101,
Madonna Road, and Los Osos Valley Road) shall dedicate land
or easements for the approximately one-half of each LU 62
ownership that is to be preserved as open space.
• F) Foothill Annexation: The northern portion of the Foothill
property(Open Space Element Site Map,Site#3) and the creek
area shall be annexed as open space. Development on this-
site should be clustered or located near Foothill Boulevard,
with the northern portion of the site and the creek area
preserved as open space.
G) Other area properties, which are both along the urian reserve
line and on hillsides, shall dedicate land or easements for about
four times the area to be developed (developed area includes
building lots,roads,parking and other paved areas,and setbacks
required by zoning).
LU 1.14: Costs of Growth
The costs of public futilities and services needed for new development shall be bome by
the new development, unless the community chooses to help pay the costs for a certain
development to obtain community-wide benefits. The City will adopt a development-
fee program and other appropriate financing measures, so that new development pays
its share of the costs of new services and facilities needed to serve it.
LU LIS: Solid Waste Capacity.
In addition to other requirements for adequate resources and services prior to
development, the City must determine that adequate solid waste disposal capacity will
be available before granting any discretionary land use approval which would increase
solid waste generation.
city of san Luis oBispo. - cienettat plan bigest �, LU-'
NNEIrm I
D) For any other annexations, the required plan may be a specific
plan, development plan under "PD" zoning, or siMilar
development plan covering the entire area.
LU 1.13.4:Development Arid Services
Actual development in an annexed area may be approved only when adequate Ci
WW12.1.3' services can be provided for that development, without reducing the level of services t
VM 12.1.7 increasing the cost of services for existing development and for build-out within the Ci
limits as of July 1994, in accordance with the City's water management policies. Wad
for development in an annexed area may be made available by any one or any combinatie
of the following:
A) City water supply, idcluding reclaimed water,
B) Reducing usage of City water in existing development so that
there will be no net increase in long-term water usage;
C) Private well water, but only as•an interim source, pending
availability of an approved addition to City water sources, and
when it is demonstrated that use of the well water will not
diminish the City's municipal groundwater supply.
LU 1.13.5: Open Space
W 6.2.6E Each annexation shall help secure permanent protection for areas designated Ope
W 626H Space, and for the habitat types and wildlife corridors within the annexation area th
are identified in LU Policy 6.1.1. Policies concerning prime agricultural land shall app
when appropriate. The following standards shall apply to the indicated areas:
A) Irish Hills Area properties shall dedicate land or easements
covering an area in the hills at least equal to the area to be
developed.
B) Margarita Area properties shall dedicate land or easements
covering the hills above the elevation designated in the hillside
planning section and riparian and wetlands areas as identified
in the Open Space Element.
LU-16 gcneizal.plan divest-crty of san Luis ostsl
A ` Z 9
Housing Element
*41
y
H 2.&1: New Development Project Requirements.
The City shall require require that new development projects-include affordable housing
units, dedicate land for affordable housing, or pay an in-lieu fee to assist in the
development of affordable housing Citywide. (p14,1.22.10)
Table 1
Affordable Housing Requirements'
- -- -
0010
$ ' ,('� f / X i �'3.- J ( T_ Y w ♦ 'i"� ,�,5 Y 3n it
�x IU' t.w�M':, bg' t t Y �' I i. E w'• Y1 y"'v�'i�pS{_ - t"`
Build 3% low or 5%
moderate cost,Affordable Build 1 ADU per acre, but
Dwelling Units (ADW), not less than 1 ADU per
In City but not less than 1 ADU project; or pay in-lieu fee
per project; or pay in-lieu equal to 2% of building
fee equal to 5% of building valuation.
valuation.3
r _ -
Build 5% low - and 10% Build 1 ADU per acre, but
In moderate- cost ADUs, but not less than 1 ADU per
Expansion project;
less than 1 ADU per project; or pay in-lieu fee
project: or pay in-lieu fee �� ° �
Area equal to 10% of building equaltior��' of buil
valuation.
1 Developer may build affordable housing in the required amounts,pay an
in-lieu fee or dedicate land based on the above formula.
2 Affordable Dwelling Units must meet City affordability criteria listed in
Goal 2.1.1.
3 "Building Value" shall mean the total value of all construction work for
which a permit would be issued, as determined by the Chief Building
Official using the Uniform Building Code.
l�-6 Gsncizal plan bicest - city of san Luis oBispo
" m Endave Proputy owe-Margants Am Specific Attachment 2
c/o King Ve=nes,285 Bridge Strew
Sm Luis Obispo,CA 93401
12/10/2003
SLO Planning Commission
Via Mr. John Shoals
Community Development Department
Re:12/10/2003 Review of Margarita Area Specific Plan and Final EIR
Commissioners and Staff
Please accept this letter on behalf of the undersigned,owners of approximately 145 acres of land locked
in the westemmost portions of the Margarita Area Specific Plan,commonly referred to as the Cowan,
DeBlauw/Sierra Gardens and King properties.
Our purpose in writing is to express our overall support for the Final EIR and Draft Specific Plan,and in
so doing,also provide a series of suggestions regarding final clean-up language for the Specific Plan as
you consider your recommendations to the City Council for adoption/passage.Our suggestions primarily
address the following topics:
1. Development standards as described in the MASP need to be flexible.It is important to
recognize that many of the MASP standards were developed prior to imposing the Airport Land Use
Commission's restrictions on density and their preference for detached housing in their critical fly-over
areas.In this context,these standards are new to city zoning and specific plan does,and should be
tempered with some built in flexibility in their use.This flexibility will be key to their successful
implementation in the Margarita area,.
2. Margarita is being asked to develop ALL of Prado Road and contribute 190/9 of the Prado
interchange cost,whereas the Airport Area contributes$0 to each.Airport Area will contribute traffic to
Prado and should participate in both road and interchange improvements.Prado Road as a 4 lane highway
is the city's desire,whereas we believe that 2 lane roadways for MASP and AA development densities
would be appropriate.If Prado Road is to be a relocated Highway 227,the city should participate as to
general citywide benefits of such a new highway link to US 101.
3. MASP needs to be internally consistent regarding phased construction of Prado Road
Instead of references to building ALL of Prado Road before any development/prior to the first Phase of
development,phased construction of Prado as noted in Table 13 needs to be noted throughout the SP.
4. Development standards for detached housing in higher density zones needs to be clarified so that
detached lots/umts meet single family housing and not multi-family parking,lot area and design
standards.
Each of these issues has been addressed in specific detail in the accompanying pages.We look forward to
participating in a constructive manner with theEiii;t'
bring this planning process to a close with
adoption of the Margarita Area Specific Plan. we ask that we be allowed to work with staff on
these edits so that they may be brought backmission in January with staffs recommendations
for each.
Sin ly,
g Cowan Richard DeBlauwohm E. ' g
A - 3/.
Margarita. Area Specific Plan
Consolidated Western Enclave Property Owner
Ouestions and Comments
On
December 2003 Hearing Draft
12/8/03
1) Introduction: Adoption and Enforceability:
a) Will the City refer the MASP to the County for adoption?
b) If not,how will the City enforce the MASP against private property within the
plan area but in the County jurisdiction?
c) Is there a problem with collecting fees applicable to a project outside of the
collecting agency's jurisdiction?
2) Page 7 —What is the source of the statement in Section 1.5 that most of the lands.to
be developed consist of prime agricultural soils?
3) Pagesl 1 through 26:Development Standards—REQUESTED CHANGES
a) Page 11 —Section 2.1.4 B: Parking"should"raiher than"shall"be located at the
rear of lots ....
b) Page 11 —Section 2.1.4 B:Verandas overlooking the public street"should instead
of"shall"be included .......
c) Page 12—Table 2: The second story setbacks should be 5' instead of 10' except
that side by side 5' second story setbacks are not allowed.
d) Page 13 — Subsection 2.2.3 Lot Dimensions. Rewrite first sentence to read: "A.
A lot for an individual detached dwelling must should be sized to meet the density
limit, as follows."
e) Page 13 -- Section 2.2 Medium-Density Residential(R-2-SP).
(1) Subsection 2.2.3 Minimum(Lot)Area Chart. For dwellings of 4+bedrooms,
reduce minimum area of lots to 6,000 SF from 7,260 SF.
(2) Subsection 2.2.5 Parking. Rewrite section to read: "Car parking shall be
provided as follows:
Property Owner Comments and Questions concerning the
Margarita Area Specific Plan—December 2003 Hearing Draft `
Page 1 of 4 'F �'
For Attached Dwelling Units:
Each studio or one-bedroom dwelling—one covered space;
Each two-bedroom dwelling—two spaces, one covered;
Each dwelling with three or more bedrooms—three spaces, one
covered. (Two of the spaces may be a tandem pair, without special
approval. Parking in a street yard is prohibited.);
For Detached Dwelling Units:
Each studio or one-bedroom dwelling—one covered space;
Emb two bedmem dwelling two spaeas, one ;
Each dwelling with tee two or more bedrooms—wee two spaces,
one covered.
a al-Parking in a street yard is prohibited."
fj Page 14—Table 3-A
(1) Add reference as follows: "Table 2 standards are applicable to single
family detached development located in Medium-Density Districts."
(2) Revise note A at bottom by adding,"reciprocal yard easements are
allowed as an alternative."
g) .Page 22—Subsection 2.6.3.B: Eliminate the minimum parcel size and
requirement for at least one 5-acre parcel in the Business Park.
h) Page 22—Subsection 2.6.5.B: Change second sentence to read: In the low-rise
office area, at least"20"rather than"25"percent of each development site will be
Landscaped out door space.
i) Page 24—Subsection 2.6.6.B: Change Walkways"should"rather than"shall"link
building entries,parking lots.....
D Page 24-Subsection 2.6.6.C:Change Shared Driveways,parking, and outdoor
employee amenities(such as areas for plan and eating)are"encouraged"rather
than"required", especially for smaller parcels,to the approval of the ARC.
k) Page 24—Subsection title missing presumed to be"Parking"2.6.7.0(?): Insert
"nearly"so the sentence reads: Tree planting should provide a nearly continuous
canopy at maturity.
4) Page 27 —Design Criteria: 3.1.C:Universal Access: Comment: The sloping nature of
the site and the required provisions of the Development Standards could be in conflict
in some of the steeper areas of the project. We suggest a way to resolve such potential
conflicts be inserted.
Property Owner Comments and Questions concerning the
Margarita Area Specific Plan—December 2003 Hearing Draft
Page 2 of 4 f 1
5) Page 33 —Section 3.6 Road Traffic Noise Mitigation—Figure 9:Noise Mitigation
along Prado Road: Add the phrase: "Development setbacks for noise mitigation shall
be determined on a case by case basis."
6) Page 41 — Section 5.5 Highway/Regional Routes: In the event SR-227 is rerouted to
Prado Road the City shall share any"state of good repair" funding with developers of
the Prado Road extension.
7) Page 42—Section 5.5.2 Prado Road.
a) The third sentence of the second paragraph be rewritten to state: "This Specific
Plan requires that Prado Road be constructed by the developers in each area of the
Plan Areas where Prado Road passes through a subdivision or development
project.While it is desirable that Prado Road be constructed in the initial phase of
development within the Margarita Area, it is unrealistic to expect that all land
owners/develovers in the Area will pursue coordinated development projects at
the same time. For this reason,it is expected that Prado Road will be constructed
in segments as provided in the Area Phasing Plan described in `Development and
Facilities Links' Table 13.
8) Page 60—Section 9.5.3 Infrastructure Phasing. Second paragraph, second sentence,
revised to read: "As illustrated in the table,$10.5 million, or more than 45%of the
costs allocated to the Airport and Margarita areas,require funding prier to concurrent
with any development occurring in the initial Phase of the development(identified as
the first 1-4 years of construction)."
9) Page 62—Section 9.5.6 Transportation Facilities: It would be helpful if staff
.described which bike paths are referred to in this section.
10)Page 65—Section 9.7.1 Recommended Project Financing Strategy/Overview/
Margarita Area
a) Revise the first two (2) sentences to read: "The City expects that construction of
Prado Road as it crosses individual subdivision and development projects will be
set as a condition of development in the Margarita Area. Initial development
projects will be required to construct the roadway segments as specified in Table
13. `Development and Facilities Links'. To the degree that rights-of a are
available to extend Prado Road construction off-site for anyigiven project, and the
city and developer are able to agree to a cooperative extension of Prado Road
beyond the limits of any individual project, developer costs paid in advance to
facilitate such an extension will then receive fee credits which can be used against
the Margarita area-specific transportation impact fees. Developer costs advanced
beyond prof ect specific transportation impact fees may be treated by the cites
expense subject to future reimbursement from other developing properties."
I I)Page 74 --Implementation, Section 10.1 Annexation. What is the City's strategy for
inducing properties currently within the Countyjurisdiction to annex into the City?
Property Owner Comments and Questions concerning the
Margarita Area Specific Tlan—December 2003 Hearing Draft
Page 3 of 4
� T
12)Page 76— Section 10.10:Phasing—Add the following phrase to the second sentence:
",except that if the City creates a CFD to finance regional transportation
infrastructure then MASP residential development within the CFD area shall be
exempt from the City's Residential Growth management Regulations."Page 13 —
Section 2.2 Medium-Density Residential(R-2-SP).
Property Owner Comments and Questions concerning the
Margarita Area Specific Plan—December 2003 Hearing Draft
Page 4 of 4 A
Cardoza Real Estate
Attachment 3
684 Rancho Oaks Drive
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
(805)544-2966—telephon Idefax
February 2,2004
Mr. Mike McCluskley
Director of Public Works
City of San Luis Obispo
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Re: Dedication and Construction of Prado Road as to Margarita Area Specific Plan
Dear Mike:
Thank you for your letter of January 28,2004. The Martinellis agree that Prado Road
as an east-west arterial is surely needed. As we discussed at our January 27&meeting, the
Martinellis,over 25 years ago at significant expense,constructed the existing 1655 foot long
Prado Road, complete with curbs and gutters,and to San Luis Obispo County standards with.
OFFER of DEDICATION. Document#34973 (7/15/77),as was required at that time. Tris .
OFFER of DEDICATION is there and has not been accepted.
Relocation of Prado Road.
In passed years the Martinellis have sent the Planning Department several letters
consistently objecting to the reconfiguration of Prado Road,particularly as such
reconfiguration would bisect several parcels and,with the installation of another majorarterial
road as shown on the Plan,substantially reduce the property which could be.developed within'
their parcels. While such a substantial economic impact to their properties is obviously of
great concern to them,the Martipellis would also point out that the City and adjoining
property owners would benefit from the maintenance of the existing configuration of Prado
Road. An obvious benefit would be the reduction in costs for both the initial acquisition and
the associated expenses, including,but not limited to,the adjustment of lot lines, relocation of
major water lines and utilities,and related engineering and surveying fees. It is our
understanding that the transportation fees associated with the Prado Road improvements could
be substantially reduced by maintaining the current configuration of Prado Road,thereby
rendering the total impact fees more feasible for all.
Cardoza Real Estate
Mr. Mile McCluskley
Director of Public Works
City of San Luis Obispo
February 2,2004
Again,the Martinellis are appreciative of the efforts ofthe City Staff to move this
process forward,but are compelled to register their very serious concerns on the above issue.
The Martinellis look forward to the opportunity to work with staff to address these matters.
Sincerely,
Y THEM
FRED MARL ELU
WSW
M: Planning Commission Community Development Dept.
Orval Osborne, Chairman. John Mandeville,Director
Alice Loh Michael Daze
Tim Aiken John ShoW Project Planner
Iviichael Boswell
Carlyn Christianson
Allan Cooper
James Caruso
Public Works Department • Finance Department
Tun Bochum, Dep. Dir.,Circulation Bill Statler, Director
Cw&zaRczWstM\Mar inelti McClukey W I
AIM
3
NOW
,
logo's is
ME
Sam—
RN .10
11 ~ •- - 1111, ,i ==�= �� 1..11../„ = •,' ,
•. `(/= ��`� ii=y ii
1;1111/1;111111 R I'i�1•• .�
- ,r
m ii ii wi umrr c_
.': NMI
i ►�u
Ali ■,
� �,11•i i
♦� v -
4b _,A
1 ���► rn.
\�..USED
REL
y
Draft
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 14, 2004
CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, January 14, 2004, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Jim Aiken, Allan Cooper, Alice .Loh. James Caruso,
Michael Boswell, Carlyn Christianson, and Chairperson Orval Osborne
Absent: None
Staff: Associate Planners John Shoals and Phil Dunsmore, Deputy Community
Development Directors Ron Whisenand and Michael Draze, Assistant City
Attorney Gil Trujillo, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTE:
The Minutes of October 8, 2003, were accepted as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, encouraged others to attend these public
hearings, and spoke against home businesses in the R-1 zone.
Dela Barr, 650 Skyline Drive, a ninth-grade student, spoke against the proposed Prado
Road extension through the Damon Garcia Sports Fields to Broad Street, and
suggested it be routed south to Tank Farm Road at Santa Fe Road.
Larry Stabler, requested that item 3 be first on the agenda, since it may be lengthy, and
noted a number of citizens did not attend because of the anticipated lateness that it
would be heard.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. 1308 Monterey Street. AP-PC 131-03; Appeal of Hearing Officers approval of a
request to allow a new car wash at an existing service station; C-R zone; Jim Pfeil,
applicant / Vern A. Ludwick II, Debra D. Jones et al, appellants. Continued from
December 17, 2003. (Phil Dunsmore)
Draft Planning Commission N....utes
January 14,2004
Page 2
Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report and recommended the
Commission uphold the Hearing Officer's determination approving a new automated car
wash in conjunction with an existing Unocal fuel station and deny the appeal, based on
findings and subject to conditions. He noted that the December 17th hearing concluded
after the testimony by the appellants and the applicant, and this hearing was to begin with
the public hearing portion.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Steve Mann, appellant, 1515 Palm Street, presented signed petitions to the Commission
in opposition to the car wash, and noted a contradiction with the City's policy prohibiting
"drive-through facilities
Scott Hagaman, appellant, 1259 Palm Street #D, spoke against the car wash, concurred
with Mr. Mann's concerns, and noted the traffic, noise and odor impacts it would have on
the neighborhood.
Betty Aten, appellant, 1315 Palm Street, opposed the car wash request and requested a
new sound study be conducted by an independent noise expert. She also noted
concerns with air quality issues.
Gina Rosco, 966 Johnson Avenue, felt that due to the closeness of the car wash to her
residence, emissions from vehicles would pass through her windows and into her home.
She noted concerns with traffic and congestion and asked the Commission to deny the
car wash.
Dennis Aheam, 537 Cerro Romauldo; did not feel that a 7-foot sound wall would capture
the noise created by a 12-foot tall building since the mechanical equipment is located in
the rafters.
Jennifer Santos, 1259 Palm Street #A, noted there would be noise emitted from the
entrance of the car wash as well as the exit. She suggested landscaping, trees, or dense
shrubbery to buffer the noise.
MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, spoke against the car wash.
Mark Blair, adjacent prope fty owner, spoke in opposition to the car wash. He noted his
tenants across the street from the proposal also oppose the car wash.
George Garcia, applicant, noted that conditions were applied to the project during
Architectural Review that address the height of the noise wall and installation of
landscaping in the open space area as a sound buffer.
COMMISSION COMMENT:
Draft Planning Commiss. .Minutes
January 14,2004
Page 3
Commr. Caruso moved the staff recommendation to uphold the Hearing Officer's
approval and deny the appeal, with the hours of operation beina changed to 8 a.m. to 7
p.m. Seconded by Commr. Christianson.
Commr. Loh suggested a condition be added that a landscape architect be hired by the
applicant to work diligentiv with the neighbors to resolve areas of conflict, and that that
landscaping, trees, or dense shrubbery to buffer the noise be incorporated into the
rp olect. She did not feel that noise issues had been adequately addressed. The motion
maker and seconder accepted the amendment.
Commr. Boswell had concerns with the noise levels and proposed mitigation measures.
AYES: Commrs. Caruso, Christianson, Aiken, Cooper and Osborne.
NOES: Commrs. Loh and Boswell
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 5:3 vote.
2. Citywide. TA and ER 108-03; Request to amend City regulations related to
concurrent sale of motor fuel and alcohol; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Phi!
Dunmore)
Associate Planner.Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report asking the Commission to
review the proposed Municipal Code amendments and to recommend that the City
Council approve these amendments. He explained that the proposed amendments
repeals Section 5.36.020 and amends Sections 17.08.040 and 17.100 of the Zoning
Code to define when beer and wine sales may be allowed on a site in conjunction with
automotive fuel sales. He detailed each of the changes proposed.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, spoke in opposition to the request.
Darren Brewer, 1438.Nipomo Street, noted his attorney, Ann Russell, has submitted a
letter on his behalf. He felt that the ABC review process was in conflict with the City's use
permit process in that each one requires the others approval. He noted there is a
moratorium on Type 20 (off-premises beer and wine) licenses and that he could not get a
new license or add to the concentration of alcohol permits; he must purchase an existing
license from someone else.
COMMISSION COMMENT:
Commr. Christianson moved the staff recommendation with two changes: Section 1
Finding 3: Strike the language. "Establishment of concurrent sales of motor fuel and beer
or wine will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons living or working
w_ ithin the'City and" . . . and that Finding 5 be changed from Planning Commission Use
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
January 14, 2004
Page 4
Permit_to Administrative Use Permit..which would alsochange..17.08.040.i to read 'The
Zoning Hearing Officer must make . . " Seconded by Commr. Cooper.
Commr. Cooper expressed frustration that the Council sent this back to the Commission .
and ignored the previous recommendations of the Commission. . He felt the Council. has
the authority to-adjudicate on this without the need for sending it back to the Commission.
Commr.Osborne felt this issue is a Costco-driven loophole, and he could not support it.
AYES: Commrs. Christianson, Cooper, Aiken and Boswell
NOES: . Commrs. Caruso, Loh and Osborne
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 4:3 vote.
3. Margarita Area and.Airport Area. SP and ER 73-00; Margarita Area Spec Plan
and Final Environmental Impact Report for the Airport Area .and Margarita Area
Specific Plans, and related Facilities Master Plans;.. City of San:.Luis Obispo,
applicant. (John Shoals/Michael Draze) Continued from December 10, 2003.
Commr. Osbome stepped:down from participation because he.owns property`very close
to the Margarita Area Specific Plan area, which constitutes an appearance of a conflict of
interest. He turned the meeting over to Vice-Chair Caruso.. .
Deputy Director Draze, distributed copies of letters received late in, the day, on this item.
-He presented the staff report, recommending the Commission discuss the final program
environmental impact report,take public testimony, provide direction to staff, and continue
the hearing to February 11, 2004. He explained that the Prado Road issues would be
`addressed at the February 11"' hearing, and staff from affected departments will-be in
attendance.
Planner John Shoals gave a project description and a PowerPoint presentation on the
project.
Maggie Townley, EIR Consultant spoke on the individual resource.topics and discussed
the types of impacts found, as well as the significant conclusions,
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wildling Lane, objected to residential, development in the
airport area.
Douglas Gerard, NE corner . of Margarita and Calle Jazmin, felt .the proposal is
outstanding. He noted the environmental assessment did not address the preservation of
wetlands,.and felt airport noise is an issue that could be addressed by aircraft not turning
north.towards the city until reaching an altitude of 2000 to 2500 feet. R�
Draft Planning Commissic 'inutes
January 14, 2004
Page 5
Eugene Judd, 665 Leff Street, felt this project does not address sustainable development,
and does not follow the Circulation Element. He felt the Prado Road alignment should be
reconsidered and Prado Road should become a collector street rather than an arterial
street.
Andrew Carter, 1283 Woodside Drive, noted his confusion with the plan and
disappointment that the Airport Area plan does not include housing. He also expressed
concern with the fairness of the financing of the project.
Elizabeth Righetti, 3057 South Higuera Street Space 114, responded to the Margarita
Area Specific Plan, and asked that the property next to Chumash Village be rezoned to
low-density or open space. She commented on the Design Criteria, Bicycle and
Pedestrian facility, Housing as it relates to affordable housing, and natural resources
mitigation. She submitted three letters from other tenants of the mobile home park.
Lorraine Acklian, 3057 South Higuera Street Space 110, voice her concern with the lack
of a greenbelt between Chumash Village MHP and the proposed project, and opposed
multiple-story residences. She-felt open space should be preserved.
Michael Sullivan, SLO resident, suggested a feasibility study for additional residential
development. He expressed environmental concerns with inadequate mitigation
measures, and referred to his alternative plan that omits Prado Road and connects
Buckley Road to the Los Osos Valley Road Interchange, and noted concern with water
demands.
Bill Wilson, 1690 Southwood Drive, had concerns with noise impacts, that the northern
alignment of Prado Road will affect the Indian site, and felt that the road is illegally
segmented.
Mildred Ann Hollis, 3057 South Higuera Street #13, agreed with the concerns of the other
residents and noted concerns with hillside erosion, noise from the airport, lack of buffer
zones, and increased traffic. She suggested a traffic signal at the entrance of Chumash
Village MHP.
Dave Watson, representing an affected property owner, had issues with the review
process and made some suggestions. He noted the need to begin review of the actual
plan.
Norman Beco, 329 Indio Drive, Pismo Beach, complimented staff on a comprehensive
document. He noted that traffic issues currently exist, and completion of the project
should mitigate those issues.
Larry Stabler, 3075 South Higuera Street, spoke against the project, and disagreed with
the findings in the Airport Land Use Plan. He felt an independent study should be
conducted during the summer and specifically on Saturday's on aircraft flight paths and
over-flight leaving SLO airport, specifically the smaller and freight aircraft. He noted
concerns with.the disappearance of agricultural open space and structure height.
A "� 3
Draft Planning Commission ,rtes
January 14, 2004
Page 6
Joe Cardoza, representing the Martinelli family, had concerns with the realignment of
Prado Road and its impact on the Martinelli property, felt service-commercial uses are the
more appropriate use, objected to use of open space upon annexation for the project, and
had concerns with drainage.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Caruso summarized the concerns addressed and the areas for the Commission
to focus as 1) the Prado Road realignment, where will it end and and will it be consistent
with Circulation Element; 2) the size, location, and number of lanes; 4) what to do in the
zone under the flight path of Area 3 that is currently business park; 4) funding of Prado
Road; and 5) adjacencies (Damon Garcia and Chumash Village). Commr. Boswell added
6) density.
There was discussion on how the Commission would work with the Airport Land Use
Commission to address airport concerns and the need for housing.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the adequacy of the Program EIR has been
addressed and focus should move to the actual plan, and include the realignment of
Prado Road in the discussion of the specific plan.
It was the unanimous consensus of the Commission to continue this item to the January
28°t meeting'.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast:
Ronald Whisenand gave an agenda forecast of upcoming items.
4. Commission:
ADJOURMENT:
With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
to the next regular meeting scheduled for January 28, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in Council
Chamber.
Respectfully submitted by
Diane Stuart
Management Assistant
To City of San Luis Obispo frrn._.echad Sullivan-ATTENTION:`John Mandeville_ ector;Department Page 1 of 4
May 7,2004
May 7,2004
To:
Mr.John Mandeville,Director
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo,CA
990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
From:
Michael Sullivan, 1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 (805)545-9614
REGARDING: (1) CEQA review of Prado Road/.Highway 227 project; (2) Circulation
element amendment for modified alignment of Prado Road; (3) Public participation in
design of interchange of U.S. 101/Los Osos Valley Road
Glossary of abbreviations/acronyms
CEQA-California Envuonnental Quality Ad (Public Resoraces Code,Sec:21000 et sq)
CEQA GL-CEQA Guidelmes(Code of Regulations,Title 14,Sec. 15000 et sco
GL-Guidelines(of CEQA)
EIR-Environmental Impact Report
LOVR-Los Osos Valley Road
SLO-San Luis Obispo
Mr.Mandeville:
This letter expresses some of my concerns about procedural deficiencies for the Margarita/
Airport specific plan and environmental review and for the environmental.review for the Dalidio/
Marketplace project. Please refer to the following attachments:
-Copy of my 3-page letter to the Planning Commission(for Margam/Ai-port hearing of
4/282004)
-Copy of my 9-page letter to the Planning Commission(for Margarita/Airport hearing of
3242004)
Please respond to me in writing,as soon as possible,regarding the following items:
1. The City is proposing significant changes to the alignment of Prado Road in conjunction
with the Margarita/Airport Specific Plan. 'These changes require an amendment to the
circulation element of the General Plan,as was done for the"northern,alignment"
modification of Prado Road in 2000-2001. _Wky.does_a change in the Prado Road alignment____
require amendment of the circulation amendment in 2000-2001 (northernalignment )bid not
now(for proposed new alignment of central portion of Prado Rd.)?
Recently(early 200 1)the City made modifications to the alignment of Prado Road for the so
called"northern alignment".for the part of Prado Road near the base of the South Hills at Broad
Street. This change in road alignment required environmental review by the City,because it is an
amendment of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. A mitigated negative declaration was
approved by the city. Similarly,the City is currently(3/2004)proposing another re-aligament of
Prado Road in a different segment of the road within the Margarita area. This modification in the
circulation element requires an environmental review under the requirements of CEQA. This
To c ty of San Luis Obispo from michael Sullivan-ATTENTION: John Mandeville,Director,Departanew Page 2 of 4
May 712004
specific modification was not analyzed as part of the proposed Margarita/Airport draft.EIR or final
EIR At a minimum,the City should require a supplemental EIR focused on this modification of
the circulation element,or include the environmental review as part of the current Margarita plan
environmental review and EIR process. Preferably,there should be a separate environmental
review for the entire Prado Road project,including the proposed change in the road alignment,as
outlined below.
2. "Piecemeal'(segmented)environmental review for Prado Road/Highway 227 project is
improper and illegal. Why has the City allowed this improper procedure to occur?
These comments follow up on similar concerns given in my letter to the City/Planning
Commission,dated 3-23-2004,for the Planning Commission hearing of 3-24-2004 for the
Margarita/Airport.specific plan and environmental review.
Tam concerned about the improper and apparently illegal"piecemealW(segmenting)of the
environmental review for the revised plan for Highway 227(Prado Road,and Dalidio Drive)which
will nm from Madonna Road to Broad Street.
Some examples of segmentation of the,environmental review:
-Northern alignment portion of Prado Road received separate environmental review and Negative
Declaration(early 2001);
-Margarita portion of Prado Road is receiving environmental review,presumably,as part of
Specific Plan for Margarita/Airport Specific Plan and Environmental Review(still in progress as
Of 428/04); however,apparently the Prado Road will be developed in segments over a period of
years,although its alignment and design will be pre-determined(as part of Margarita/Airport
per);
-Dandio portion of Prado Road(now called Dalidio Drive),between Madonna Road and U.S. 101,
and including a proposed freeway interchange at US 101 and Prado Rd., isreceiving separate
environmental review for that project.
-On Tuesday,April 20,2004,the City Council stated that yet another environmental review would
be required for the segment of Highway 227 from US 101 to Mguera Street(including a new bridge
at Prado and Iffiiguera� Council person Christine Mulholland stated(420/04)the opinion that this is
one more indication that the environmental review for the Prado Road/Highway 227 project is
being improperly segmented
There remain significant,unmitigated and unanalyzed traffic impacts of two types: (a) impacts
caused by other nearby projects on traffic within the Margarita/Airport areas, (b) impacts caused
by the Margarita/Airport Plan in nearby project areas(i.e. 101 corridor, certain intersections
which will-be.severely ted
kV&c .following:the_ completion of Dalidio_and-Margarita-projects;such
- - as Los Osos Valley Roid at Madonna Road;- 101 south of Los Osos Valley Rd.;etc.).
(a) Dalidio "Marketplace,"project's draft and final EIR has only addressed a portion of the traffic
impact on Prado Road; the,Audy area only reaches as far east as Prado Rd at Higuera Street.
Planning Commissioner Boswell has previously(25 Feb 2004)stated in public hearings for the
Dalidio/Marketplace project that the traffic analysis study area for the Dalidio/Marketplace
project is too small. I expressed similar concerns in my letter of 3-11-2004 to City of SLO and
Planning Commission with comments on the draft EIR for the Dalidio project. In that letter I stated
that a substantial amount(12%)of project-generated traffic from Dalidio would impact Prado Road
and beyond(e.g.Broad St.); however the response of Rincon Consultants(4-22-2004 letter to M.
Sullivan)is the following:
e
To City of San Leis Obispo fioi. _.ticbael Sullivan-ATfEMt`[ON: Jobn Mandeville. error,Department Page 3 of 4
May 7,2004
Response 12J....."The traffic distributed to Prado Road and Tank-Farm Road east of Higuera Street
would be distributed over a fairly large area that-includes the Margarita Area,Broad/Orcutt area,
and Tank Farm Road east of Broad Street. With project traffic"spread"over these areas,potential
impacts were only anticipated where this traffic would be concentrated(i.e.,near the Prado Road/
Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road/Higuera intersections)closer to the project site. Thus,the
analysis was focused on the Higuera Street corridor."
This response is inadequate and ignores the real impacts of traffic along the Prado Road corridor
that arise from the large Dalidio project(regional shopping center). Of course,eventually the traffic
impacts are spread out over a larger area,but only after the traffic passes through the Margarita area.
The response offers no responsible detailed traffic analysis to reach its unreasonable conclusions.
(b) A similar deficiency in response is seen in the same Response 12J in the Dalidio final EIR. I
W pointed out that the Margarita project will add traffic that can and most likely will increase the
traffic along the 101 corridor including south of Los Osos Valley Road. This will add to the traffic
burden associated with the Costco projectEIR which had predicted the need to add at least one lane
to 101 southbound within 10 years(Le. 10 years from 32003,the date of the Costco draft EIR).
The Rineon response(12J),Dalidio FEIR,also contained in letter of 4-22-2004 from Rincon
Consultants to Michael Sullivan)states that"If should be noted that the current City General Plan
Circulation element does not identify plans to widen Highway 101 to 6 lanes." But CEQA requires
analysis of actual potential impacts,regardless of what the General Plan does or does not:include
measures for mitigation.
The city should prepare an updated EIR(for example,a focused EIR)which examines the total
stretch of Prado Road/Highway 227 simultaneously,comprehensively,and cumulatively,not in
segments as is now being done. The inadequate,segmented environmental analysis currently being
used by the City for analysis of the Prado Road/Highway 227 corridor constitutes a violation of
CEQA.
Furthermom note that this public project(the revised Highway 227/Prado Road project,
running from Madonna Road to Higuem Street to Broad Street)requires environmental review at
an early stage. CEQA requires agencies to prepare EIRs and negative declarations "as early as
feasible in the Planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project.
program and design and yet late enough to provide meaningful fi fomaation for environmental
assessment" CEQG GL 15004(b). And,with public projects(eg.Prado Roads "at the earliest
feasible tune,project sponsors shall incorporate environmental considerations into project
co- --matron,design,and Planning CEQA compliance should ti completed prior to
acquisition of a site for a public project" CEQA GL 15004(bxl). Agencies shall not"take any
action which gives impetus to a planned or foreseeable project in a manner that forecloses
alternatives or mitigation measures that would ordinarily be part of CEQA review of that public
project." CEQA GL 15004(b)(2)(B). During recent(Dec.2003 -Apr.2004)public hearings
(Planning Commission)for Margarita/Airport Specific Plan,members of city staff stated that
additional environmental review would occur for future parts of the project as they occur. However,
for the public road part of the project(i.e.,Prado Road),the comprehensive environmental review
should occur early.
To City of San Luis Obispci tiom Michael Minn-ATTENTION: John INandevillq Ditrctor,Department Tapof4
May 7,2004
3. Please explain why the public participation in the US 101 /LOVR interchange design
alternatives has been stifled.
Approximately one year ago,the City held a public forum to discuss various design alternatives
for the proposed U.S. 101 /Los Osos Valley Road f=way interchange. Mr. T'un Bochum,of the
City Public Works Dept.,stated at that first meeting that additional public meetings would occur,
that people who had provided their names and addresses at the first meeting would be notified of
future public meetings. I never received such notification,and I know other persons who had
attended the fust meeting who also said they were never notified about subsequent meetings. Why
did the City fail to notify us? When were these promised subsequent meetings held, and what was
discussed and decided? What additional public meetings,if any,will be held to discuss this issue?
I and several other people,.including.Eugene Jud,advocated the alternative which carried eastbound
traffic fiom the interchange toward the south and then connecting to Buckley Road, I believe this
was called"Alternative 7." It seems to us that perhaps the reason why we were not notified of
subsequent hearings was that the City had essentially already made up its mind about its selection of
alternatives and therefore did not want additional public scrutiny. If that is true,it certainly does not
seem proper or democratic.
Sincerely,
Michael C. Sullivan
To City of San.Luis Obispo...,m Michael Sullivan-for Planning Commissi._. Aearing.of 4/28/2004-
regarding Margarita/Airport Area Specific Plan and Environmental Review Page 1 of 3
4-28-2004
To- City of San Luis Obispo
RE: Planning Commission hearing 4/28/2004 -Agenda item Public Hearing 4 -Margarita Area
and Airport Area-SP/ER 73-00
From: Michael Sullivan, 1127 Seaward St.,San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 (805)545-9614
Glossary of abbreviations/acronyms
CEQA-California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code,Sec..21000 et seq)
CEQA GL-CEQA Guidelines(Code of Regulations,Title.14,Sec. 15000 et sero
GL-Guidelines(of CEQA)
EIR-Environmental Impact Report
LOVR-Los Osos.Valley Road
SLO-San Luis Obispo
April 26,2004
To: City of San Luis Obispo(Planning Commission) .
From: Michael C.Sullivan,,1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
SUBJECT: Comments for Planning Commission hearing of 4/28/2004 -Margarita/
Airport Specific Plan and Environmental Review
Dear Commissioners:
1. The City is proposing significant changes to the alignment of Prado Road in conjunction
with the Margarita/Airport Specific Plan. These changes require an amendment to the
circulation element of the General Pla+a.:.
Recently(early 2001)the City made modifications to the alignment of Prado Road for the so
called "northern alignment"for the part of Prado Road near the base of the South Hills at Broad
Street. This change in road alignment required environmental review by the City, because it is an
amendment of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. A mitigated negative declaration was
approved by the city. Similarly,the City is currently(3/20044)proposing another re-alignment of
Prado Road in a different segment of the road within the Margarita area:- This modification in the
circulation element requires an environmental review under the requirements of CEQA. This
specific modification was not analyzed as part of the proposed Margarita[Airport draft EIR or final
EIR. At a minimum,the City should require a supplemental EIR focused.on this modification of
the circulation element,_or include:the-enyiroamental.ieview-as-part-of the-current-Margarita-plan---------
environmental review and EIR process. Preferably, there should be a separate environmental
review for the entire Prado Road project, including the proposed change in the road alignment, as
outlined below.
To City of San-Luis Obispo"from Michael Sullivan.=for Planning Commission hearing of 4/28/2004=
regarding Margarita/Airport Area Specific Plan and Environmental Review Page 2 of 3
2. "Piecemeal' (segmented) environmental review for Prado. Road/Highway 227 project is
improper and.illegal.
These comments follow up on similar concerns given in my letter to the City/Planning
.Commission, dated 3-23-2004, for the Planning Commission hearing of 3-24-2004 for the
Margarita/Airport specific plan and environmental review.
I am concerned about the improper and apparently illegal "piecemealing" (segmenting) of the
environmental review for the revised plan for Highway 227(Prado Road,and Dalidio Drive) which
will run from Madonna Road to Broad Street.
Some examples of segmentation of the environmental review:
-Northern alignment portion of Prado Road received separate environmental review and Negative
Declaration(2001);
-Margarita portion of Prado Road is receiving environmental review, presumably, as part of
Specific Plan for Margarita/Airport Specific Plan and Environmental Review(still in progress as
of 4/28/04);
-On Tuesday,April 20,2004, the City Council stated that yet another environmental review would
be required for the segment of Highway 227 from US 101 to Higuera Street(including a new bridge
at Prado and Higuera). Council person Christine Mulholland stated the opinion that this is one more
indication that the environmental review for the Prado Road/Highway 227 project is being
segmented.
There remain significant,unmitigated and unanalyzed traffic impacts of two types: (a) impacts
caused by other nearby projects on traffic within the Margarita/Airport areas; (b) impacts caused
by the Margarita/Airport plan in nearby project areas (i.e. 101 corridor; certain intersections
which will be severely impacted following the completion of Dalidio and Margarita projects, such
as Los Osos Valley Road at Madonna Road; 101 south.of Los Osos Valley Rd.;etc.).
(a) Dalidio "Marketplace"project's draft and final EIR has only addressed a portion of the traffic
impact on Prado Road; the study area only reaches as far east as Prado Rd. at Higuera Street.
Planning Commissioner Boswell has previously(25 Feb 2004)stated in public hearings for the
Dalidio/Marketplace project that the traffic analysis study area for the Dalidio/Marketplace
project is too small. I expressed similar concerns in my letter of 3-11-2004 to City of SLO and
Planning Commission with comments on the draft EIR for the Dalidio project. In that letter I stated
that a substantial amount(12%)of project-generated traffic from Dalidio would impact Prado Road
and beyond(e.g. Broad St.); however the response of Rincon Consultants (4-22-2004 letter to M.
Sullivan)is the following:
"The traffic distributed to Prado Road and Tank Farm Road east of Higuera Street
would be distributed over a fairly large area that includes the Margarita Area, Broad/Orcutt area,
and Tank Farm Road east of Broad Street. With project traffic "spread" over these areas,potential
impacts were only anticipated where this traffic would be concentrated (i.e., near the Prado Road/
Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road/Higuera intersections)closer to the project site. Thus,the
analysis was focused on the Higuera Street corridor."
This response is inadequate and ignores the real impacts of traffic along the Prado Road corridor
that arise from the large Dalidio project(regional shopping center). Of course, eventually the traffic
impacts are spread out over a larger area, but only after the traffic passes through the Margarita area.
The response offers no responsible detailed traffic analysis to reach its unreasonable conclusions.
To City of San Luis Obispo uUm Michael Sullivan-for Planning Comm ssi._,nearing of 4/28/2004
regarding Margarita/Airport Area Specific Plan and Environmental Review Page 3 of 3
(b) A similar deficiency in response is seen in the same Response 12J in the Dalidio final EIR. I
had pointed.out that the Margarita project will add traffic that can and most.likely will increase the
traffic along the 101 corridor including south of Los Osos Valley Road. This will add to the traffic
burden associated with the-Costco project EIR which had predicted the need to add at least one lane
to 101 southbound within 10 years (i.e. 10 years from 3/2003,the date of the Costco draft EIR).
The Rincon response(12J), Dalidio FEIR, also contained in letter of 4-22-2004 from Rincon
Consultants to Michael Sullivan) states that "It-should be noted thatthe current City General Plan
Circulation element does not identify plans to widen Highway 101 to 6 lanes." But CEQA requires
analysis of actual potential impacts,regardless of what the General Plan does or does not include
measures for mitigation.
The city should prepare an updated EIR (for example, a.focused EIR)which examines the total
stretch of Prado Road/Highway 227 simultaneously,comprehensively, and cumulatively,not in
segments as is now being done. The inadequate, segmented"environmental analysis currently being
used by the City for analysis of the Prado Road/Highway 227 corridor constitutes a violation of
CEQA:
3. Re: Attachment 2,PC Staff report,4/Z>1/04,Residential Development Areas,Margarita
Specific Plan
The map shows proposed housing areas very close to the "northern alignment"portion of Prado
Road and"very close to sensitive resource areas (e.g. archaeological sites, sensitive vegetation,
scenic rock outcrops). The city should provide a map that shows the precise location of these
resources so the potential environmental impacts in these.proposed housing areas can be evaluated
by staff and the Commission and the public.
Sincerely,
G .�
Michael C. Sullivan
To City of San Luis:Qbispo.from Michael Sullivan for Planning Commission hearing 3/2412004-
regarding Margarita/Airport Area Specific.Plan and Environmental Review Page 1 of 9
3-23-2004
To: City of San Luis Obispo
RE: Planning Commission hearing 3/24/2004-Agenda item 2 -Margarita Area and Airport Area-
SP/ER 73-00
From: Michael Sullivan,1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 (805)545-9614
Glossary of abbreviations/acronyms
CEQA-California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code,Sec.21000 et seq)
CEQA GL-CEQA Guidelines(Code of Regulations,Title 14,Sec. 15000 et seq)
GL-Guidelines(of CEQA)
EIR-Environmental Impact Report
LOVR-Los Osos Valley Road
SLO-San Luis Obispo
1. The City is proposing significant changes to the alignment of Prado Road in conjunction
with the Margarita/Airport Specific Plan. These changes require an amendment to the
circulation element of the General Plana
Recently.(2001)the City made modifications to the alignment of Prado Road for the so called
"northern alignment" for the part of Prado Road near the base of the South Hills at Broad Street.
This change in alignment required environmental review by the City. A mitigated negative
declaration was approved by the city. Similarly, the City is currently(3/2004)proposing another re-
alignment of Prado Road in a different segment of the road. This modification in the circulation
element requires an environmental review under the requirements of CEQA. This specific
modification was not analyzed as part of the proposed Margarita/Airport draft EIR or final EIR.
At a minimum,the Cityshould requiie a supplemental EIR focused on this modification of the
circulation element. Preferably,there should be a separate environmental review for the entire
Prado Road project, including the proposed change in the road alignment, as outlined below.
2. The environmental analysis for the entire Prado Road project remains segmented and
disjointed in time and geography. Under CEQA the City is required to analyze the whole of
the project (Prado Road in its entire length from Madonna Rd.to Broad St.) in one
comprehensive analysis,not in"piecemeal" fashion. J
In the City of San Luis Obispo,anew Highway 227 route is proposed. It would be the same
route as the proposed route of Prado Road from Prado at South Higuera to Prado at Broad Street.
Ultimately, Prado Road would continue_westward.from.Soudi Higuera Street to-Madonna-Road,-via
-a-proposed newway-interchange where Prado"Road would cross over U.S. 101. -Please see
Attachment 1 (maps).
The construction of Prado Road has not yet been considered by the city, under CEQA law,to be
a separate, distinct "project." The General Plan circulation element of 1994 was supported by an
EIR which addressed various city-wide changes in the circulation element. One of the changes
concerned Prado Road.
The city's environmental review which discussed Prado Road has proceeded in several phases, as
shown in Attachment 2. (Attachment 2 is a list prepared for Planning Commission hearing(11 Feb
2004), Margarita/Airport Specific Plan and Final Program EIR). However,the cumulative impact
To City of San Luis Obispo from Michael Sullivan for Planning Commission u,aiing 3/24/2004
regarding Margarita/Airport Area Specific Plan and Environmental Review Page 2 of 9
of recent(since 1994) projects and other currently(3/04)proposed and reasonably foreseeable
projects are only analyzed in the documents shown in Table 2.
Tabled —Environmental studies related to Prado Road-1994 to present
Date Action I . Environmental document
1994 City of SLO-General Plan circulation element oEIR f Prado diincluding analysis of alternative alignments
amendment
1998 Draft Margarita Area Specific Plan
1999-2000 City of SLO-General Plan circulation element Mitigated Negative Declaration(2-2000)for
amendment(2-2000) Prado Road northern alignment
2000 City of SLO-Draft Airport Area Specific Plan
(20(0)
1=2001 City of SLO-Council review of 2000 Gen.Plan Previous lvtit Neg.Dec.for Road northern
circulation element alignment upheld..
5-2001 City of ILO-Damon Garcia sports fields.
Environmental review technical reports. Initial
Study/application#185.-99.
2002 County of SIA Draft SLO County Regional
Airport proposed Airport Land Use Plan.
2003-2004 City of SLD: Planning-Commission hearings on City of SLO-Final program EIIL Airport Area
Margarita/Airport plan- and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related
(12/10/03, 1/14/04,1/28/04,2/11/04 and Facilities Master Plans. (9-2003)
continuin
2004 City of SLO: Planning Commission bearings on City of SLO-Draft EIR Dalidio/San Lois
Dalidio Marketplace. (?125/04 and continuing) Marketplace Annexation and Development
Project.,(1-2004)
Table 2 -Recent environmental documents in which Prado Road traffic is analyzed
Date Project Environmental City of SLO actions
document
1/2000 Gen. Plan circulation element Mit. Neg.. Dec. (1/2000) Adopted Mit- Neg.
Dec.
amendment for northern
alignment,Prado Road
2003 Damon Garcia sPorts fields Mit. Ne Dec.. date. Adopted Mit. Ne�Dec-
2004 Margarita/Airport Specific Final Program EIR Final Program
Plan under-Plan. COmnL,review-
-- as of 3/12104
2004 Dalidio Marketplace Draft EIR(1/2004) Draft EIR still under Plan.
annexation and development Comm, review as of
3/12/04)
Ultimately, the entire Prado Road route from Madonna Road to Prado/US 101 interchange to the
terminus of Prado Road at Broad Street will have a significant amountoftraffic. The road would be
a 4-lane cross-town highway with about 30,000 vehicle trips per day..
To.City of San Luis Obispo from Michael Sullivan-for Planning Commission hearing 3/24/2004-
regarding Margarita/Airport Area Specific.Plan and Environmental Review Page 3 of 9
Although a number of incremental environmental analyses have been done for the City,there has
been no recent comprehensive environmental study of the entire Prado Road route(Madonna Rd. to
Broad St.)to assess the cumulative and regional traffic impacts and other impacts. For example,the
Costco draft EIR (dated 3/2003)predicted that increased traffic along southbound US 101 would
result in the need for at least one additional freeway lane south of Los Osos Valley Road within 10
years. The Dalidio EIR predicts severe traffic congestion at southbound and northbound on and off
tamps at 101 and Prado Road. Yet there is no regional analysis to determine how the Dalidio
.project or the Margarita project could make the Costco impacts even worse. Similarly,the large
amount of new traffic on Prado Road would,have impacts beyond the Dalidio site, for example, on
the eastern part of Prado Road,on Broad Street,and on and Buckley Road, but these potential
impacts are not analyzed adequately in the Dalidio EIR. In a similar manner, the Margarita/
Airport Specific Plan final EIR fails to adequately analyze its (Margarita's)traffic impacts on US
101,or other impacted intersections (e.g.Madonna Rd/Los Osos Valley Rd)where severe(Class 1
impact)traffic congestion was predicted by the Dalidio EIR. The environmental review process for
Prado Road has been segmented and disjointed by geography and.bytime.
The Margarita/Airport final EIR (DOC 1)and the Dalidio EIR (DOC 2)are the most recent
environmental impact reports which address the Prado Road traffic impacts.
i
The traffic study area for the Margarita/Airport.final EIR encompasses the area from South
Street to the north,Buckley Road to the south,Highway 101 to the west, and Broad Street to the
east. DOC 1 at p. 313-1. Thus, the study area omits part of Prado Road(west of US 101). The
Margarita/Airport final EIR notes that the design of the Prado Road/US 101 interchange "needs
to be re-visited in any future planning for the Prado Road interchange." DOC 1 at p. 3D-17. The
Intersection levels of service analysis (Doc 1 at p. 3D-25)ignores certain key intersections(e.g.
LOVR/Madonna,Madonna/US 101)., Thus,the traffic information related.to Prado Road is not
complete or comprehensive in a regional or cumulative context,based on this EIR alone.
The trafficstudy area for the Dalidio draft EIR(DOC 2) only looks at intersections(Fig.4.10-1)
within a restricted area close to the Dalidio site. (The intersection analysis for Prado Road extends
eastward only to Prado at S. Higuera See DOC 2, Fig. 4.10-1.) The traffic analysis in the draft
EIR (DOC 2,Figure 4.10-15)shows 12% of project trip distribution along Prado Road. Yet there is
no analysis of this impact on Prado Road east of Higuera St. (in the Margarita neighborhood) or in
the Airport Neighborhood in terns of increased traffic volume, air pollution, and noise. Thus,the
traffic information related to Prado Road is not complete or comprehensive in a regional or
cumulative context, based on this EIR alone.
- -.--------While two new l&gd develo�r*iits- ar arta
g p (M g Airport Specrfic Plan; Dalidio -Marketplace
annexation)are currently under consideration,the time is ripe for the comprehensive traffic analysis
for the entire Prado Road project from Madonna Road to Broad Street. CEQA requires agencies to
prepare EIRs and negative declarations "as early as feasible in the planning process to enable-
environmental
nableenvironmental considerations to influence project program and design and yet late enough to
provide meaningful information for environmental assessment." CEQG GL 15004(b). And, with
public projects (e.g. Prado Road), "at the earliest feasible time, project sponsors shall incorporate
environmental considerations into project conceptualization,design, and planning. CEQA
compliance should be completed prior to acquisition of a site for a public project." CEQA GL
15004(b)(1). Agencies shall not "take any action which gives impetus to a planned or foreseeable
project in a manner that forecloses alternatives or mitigation measures that would ordinarily be part
To City of San Luis Obispo from Michael Sullivan-for Planning Commission nearing 3/24/2004-
regarding Margarita/Airport Area Specific Plan and;Environmental Review Page 4. of 9
of CEQA review of that public project." CEQA GL 15004(b)(2)(B). During recent public hearings
(Planning Commission) for Margarita/Airport Specific Plan,members of city staff stated that
additional environmental review would occur for future parts of the project as they occur. However,
for the public road part of the project(i.e.,Prado Road),the comprehensive environmental review
should occur early. .
The example of Prado Road is an example that shows how incremental, "piecemeal"
(segmented)environmental analyses have failed to adequately address the ultimate impacts of the
whole project(Prado Road in its entity). However,the City's Planning Director has recently
(3/10/04,Planning Commission)stated that in his opinion,the City's environmental review for
Prado Road has been adequate, has not used "piecemeal" analysis,and adequately addresses
cumulative impacts of traffic for the Prado Road corridor. These differing viewpoints form the
legal controversy examined here.
Highlights of statute®ulations,and.case law
CEQA requires that the Lead Agency, through its initial study,review the whole of a project. A
.project must not be broken into smaller parts,each of which alone might qualify for a Negative
Declaration,in an attempt to avoid preparing an Elk. Association for Sensible Development of
Bishop Area v.County of Inyo(4th Dist. 1985) 172 Cal App 3d 151. An agency cannot treat one
project as a succession of smaller projects, none of which,by itself, causes significant impacts.
(Remy 1999,p.235). The definition of a project encompasses an entire activity,and not each
separate governmental approval. CEQA GL 15378(c). In its initial study, the lead agency must
consider all phases of project planning,implementation,and operation. CEQA GL 15063(a)(1).
The environmental analysis must embrace future development that will forseeably occur if the
agency approves_ the project, City of Antioch v. City Council (1 st Dist. 1986) 187 Cal App 3d 1325,
1333-1336. Cal Rpti 507. The lead agency shall be responsible'for considering the.effects,both
individual and collective,of all activities involved in a project. CEQA 21001.1(d). The cumulative
impacts of the Prado Road project (along its entire length from Madonna Road to Broad Street)
must be considered(in an EIR)in relation to other,closely related past,present, or reasonably
foreseeable, probable future projects. GL 15130.
On the other hand, CEQA does allow earlier EIRs to form at least part of the basis for future
environmental studies through the process of tiering. Tiering refers to using the analysis of general
matters contained in a broader EIR(such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement)
with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the
general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration_
solely on the issaes specific to the lafer project. CEQA GL 15152..
The most recent general EIR which examined Prado Road (and other city roads)in the broader
regional context was the 1994 amendment to the Circulation.Element. The City's mitigated
negative declaration of 2000/2001 pertained primarily to the more narrowly focused, minor
General Plan amendment to alter about one half mile of the Prado Road alignment, creating the so
called "northern alignment" for the connection of Prado Road to Broad Street. Thus, if the concept
of"tiering" is invoked, it would need to be based on the 1994 General Plan circulation element
amendment, which is the broader EIR on which subsequent changes to Prado Road should be based.
Bow / /
To City of San Luis Obispo from Michael Sullivan-for Planning Commission hearing 3/24/2004
regarding Margarita/Airport Area Specific Plan and Environmental Review Page 5 of 9
Much has changed in the City of San Luis Obispo since the 1994 General Plan circulation
element amendment Several large annexations have been approved (e.g. Madonna Froom Ranch,
DeVaul Ranch North, DeVaul Ranch South)or are pending(e.g. Dalidio); large commercial
projects have been built, (e.g. Home Depot, Food 4 Less)or will be built soon (e.g. Costco);larger
residential projects have been built(e.g. DeVaul Ranch North, DeVaul Ranch South,or are under
review(e.g. Margarita Specific Plan,Orcutt area plan). All of these projects, considered
cumulatively, have increased, or soon will increase, the city's volume of traffic significantly. Prado
Road will very likely receive traffic impacts from all of these sources. Substantial changes in traffic
volume have occurred and new information has become known as the newer projects have come
forward: Thus,the City is obligated to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR pertinent to the
entire Prado Road project. CEQA sec. 21166; GL 15162.
The concept of tiering is mentioned in the case below:
"In assessing whether a cumulative effect requires an EM Guidelines section 15064(1)(3)states that"A lead agency
may determine that a project's [*1151 incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable
if the project will comply[***261 with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which
provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem(e.g.,water quality control
plan,air quality plan,integrated waste management plan)within the geographic area in which the project is located.
Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected
resources through a public review process to implement,interpret, or make specific the taw enforced or administered
by the public agency."
COMMUNITIES FOR.A BETTER ENVIRONMENT v.CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY,(2002);
CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION(3rd Dist.2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98; 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 441:
Tiering is appropriate where a previously approved plan or mitigation program provides specific
requirements to mitigate the environmental problems. However,in the current case, tiering is not
adequate,because various large projects have been built or planned since 1994(or are now
reasonably forseeable), yet these project were not analyzed in the EIR for the 1994 General Plan
circulation element amendment.,For example, since 1994,the Home Depot project and DeVaul
Ranch residential projects have added some traffic impacts; and additional traffic impacts can be
expected form other large projects under current review(e.g.Margarita/Airport Specific Plan;
Costco; Orcutt area plan; Dalidio Marketplace; etc.) CEQA sec.21166 requires that a subsequent
or supplemental EIR be produced to address the traffic (or other)issues arising from these newer,
cumulative projects.
Piecemeal review has occurred with respect to the comprehensive environmental review of the
Prado Road project. For example,the Dalidio Marketplace draft EIR (1/2004)examines the traffic
---impacts-from-the Dalidio-project-only-within-a-rather-imited-distance-from-the-project-site,-ignoring--
--impacts on Prado Road beyond Higuera Street. The case below points out that piecemeal review is
forbidden under CEQA. In addition,the piecemeal(segmented)review in essence distorts the
project description(i.e.,the entire length of Prado Road) when various environmental documents
only examine impacts related to just a part of the length of Prado Road:
,4)Pollution and Conservation Laws§1.3--California Environmental Quality Act--Environmental Impact Reports--
Contents and Sufficiency--Piecemeal Review.--The California Environmental Quality Act(Pub.Resources Code, §
21000 et seq.)forbids piecemeal review of the significant environmental impacts of a project(Pub.Resources Code,§
21002.1,subd. (d)).A curtailed or distorted project description may stulkjy the objectives of the reporting process.
Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision makers balance the proposal's
benefu against its environmental cost,consider mitigation measures,assess the advantage of termittating the proposal
To City of San Luis Ob'
ispo tion Michael Sullivan-for Planning Commissiu,.-nearing 3/24/2004-
regarding Margarita/Airport.Area Specific Plan and Environmental Review Page 6 of 9
and weigh other alternatives in the balance.An accurate,stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an
informative and legally environmental,impact report."
BERKELEY KEEP JETS OVER THE BAY COMMITTEE,v.BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY
OF OAKLAND(1st Dist.,2001). CITY OF SAN LEANDRO et al.,Plaintiffs,v.BOARD OF PORT
COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF OAKLAND,Defendant.CITY OF ALAMEDA et al.,Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS OF OAKLAND,Defendant and Appellant.
91 Cal.App.4th 1344; 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 598.
The City's "piecemeal" approach to analysis of traffic (or other) impacts caused by Prado Road is
also inconsistent with CEQA's mandate that EIRs address,cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts
are defined as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or...
compound or increase other environmental impacts. CEQA GL 15355. Stated another way,.a
cumulative.impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the
project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. CEQA GL
15130(a)(1). Remy 1999 at p. 465.
Important case related to cumulative impacts is given by Remy 1999 at p.472-480. Other more
recent cases on cumulative impacts:
(1)
Potential impacts from a different, nearby project affecting the Eel river should have been,but were
not, considered in the cumulative impacts analysis of a different project potentially affecting the
river. The absence of this analysis makes.the EIR an inadequate informational document.
FRIENDS OF THE EEL RIVER et al.,v..SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY;PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY,Real Party in Ingest and Respondent. (1st Dist:,May 2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859; 134 Cal.Rptr.2d
322
(2)
It is not enough for the EIR simply to contain information submitted by the public and experts.
Problems raised by the public and responsible experts require a good faith reasoned analysis in
response. ( Cleary v. County of Stanislaus(1981) 118 Cal.App. 3d 348, 357, 173 Cal. Rpm 390.)
The requirement of a detailed analysis in response ensures that stubborn problems or serious
criticism are not:"swept under the rug."
SANTA CLARITA ORGANIZATION FOR PLANNING THE ENVIRONMENT et aL,v.COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES,;THE NEWHALL LAND AND FARMING COMPANY et al.,Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.
(2nd Dist.,Feb.2003). 106 Cal.App.4th 715; 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 186
)
The case cited below produced significant changes in the CE94 Guidelines related to analysis of cumulative impacts.
The trial court invalidated the following CEQA Guidelines: Cal. Code Regs.,tit. 14,§15064,subd(h)(regulatory
standards to determine significant environmental effect);Cal. Code Regs.,tit. 14,§15064,subd(i)(3)(incremental
cumulative effect);Cal. Code Regs.,tit. 14, §§15064,subd.(i)(4)and 15130, subd(a)(4)(de minimis incremental
contributions to cumulative impacts); Cal Code Regs.,tit. 14,§15130,subd(b)(1)(B)2(definition of probable future
projects for cumulative impact purposes); Cal. Code Regs.,tit 14,§15152,subd.(0(3)(C)(when significant
environmental effects have been adequately addressed for purposes of tiering environmental impact reports(EIR)); Cal.
Code Regs.,tit. 14, §15378,subd. (b)(5)(excluding political activities from definition of project).However,the trial
court declared valid Cal. Code Regs.,tit. 14, §15332(categorical exemption for in fl11 urban development projects).
(Superior Court of Sacramento County,No.00000300,Ronald B.Roble,Judge.)
�3op 03
To City of San Luis Obispoj'otn Michael Sullivan-for Planning Commission hearing 3/24/2004-
regarding Margarita/Airport Area Specific Plan and Environmental Review Page 7 of 9
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment,except with respect to the trial court's invalidation of Cal. Code Regs.,tit.
14, §15064,subd(i)(3),and the incorporation of this guideline into Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15152,subd(f)(2).The
court held that the trial court did not err in its invalidation of the specified CEQA Guidelines, except that the trial court
erred in invalidating Cal.Code Regs.,tit. 14, §15064 ,subd(i)(3). The court held that this guideline is consistent with
controlling CEQA law,so long as it is read to incorporate the fair argument standard for preparation of an EIR. The
courtfurther held that incorporation of Cal. Code Regs.,tit. 14 subd. (i)(3),into Cal. Code Regs.,tit. 14,subd(t)(2),is
valid. The court also held that the trial court properly,fbund,valid Cal. Code Regs.,tit. 14,§15332,
which legitimately states a class of projects that generally will not have a significant eb#ect on the environment.
(Opinion by Davis,Acting P.J.,with Morrison and Callahan,JJ.,concurring.)
COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT et al.,v.CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY;
CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION,Intervener and Appellant. (3rd Dist.,Oct.2002) 103 Cal.
App.4th 98; 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 441.
The CEQA guidelines currently (3712/04) address cumulative impacts as follows:
15O64(h)
(1) When assessing whether cumulative effect requires an ELR,the lead agency shall consider whether the cumulative
impact is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable.An EIR must be prepared if
the cumulative impact may be significant and the project's incremental effect,though individually limited,is
cumulatively considerable."Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the
effects.of probable future projects.
(2)A lead agency may determine in an initial study that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact will
be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and thus is not significant.When a project might contribute to a
significant cumulative impact,but the contribution will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable through
mitigation measures set forth in a mitigated negative declaration,the initial study shall briefly indicate and explain how
the contribution has been rendered less than cumulatively considerable.
(3)A lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively
considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program
which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative prdblem(e.g.water quality
control plan,air quality per,integrated waste management plan)within the geographic area in which the project is
located.Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the
affected resources through a public review process to implement,interpret,or make specific the law enforced or
administered by.the public agency.
(4)The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial
evidence that the proposed project's incremental effects are cumulatively considerable:
NOTE
Authority cited:Sections 21083 and 21087,Public Resources Code.Reference:Sections 21003,21065,21068,21080,
__..._21.082,-21DBZ1-.21082:2;21083 and:21100;.P6blic Resources Code;No Oi1,-Inc:-v.City of-Los Angeles(1974) 13 -
Cal.3d 68;San Joaquin Raptor/Wddlife Center v.County of Stanislaus(1996)42 CaLApp.4th 608;Gentry V.City of
Murrieta(1995)36 Cal.App.4th 1359;Laurel Heights Improvement Assn.v.Regents of the University of California
(1993)6 CalAth 1112;and Communities for a Better Environment v.California Resources Agency(2002) 103
Cal.AppAth 98.
; � 3124!2004_.
from Michael Sullivan-for Planning Cosion heat.,,.;
to Ipott Area gpe�tfic Plan and Environmental Review . Page 8 Of:9
To City of San_Luis Qbtspo
regarding Hargan.
How to resolve the controver•sv
Legal and regulatory options available do Road are
c or other)impacts of Pia
m the facts that the cumulative traffic( that the incremental effects of an
It is evident fro projects,
ects,the
cumulatively considerable. "Cumularvely considerable" meanwith s p GL 15064(h)(1).
onsida
-able when viewed in connectifi°ture proe ecCEQP P , with
individual project rejects,and the effects of probable which cause substantial changes
effects of other currentprojects,
are based on newer projects being undertaken. The
der which the project gorado Road)' Place,l and
The cumulative traffic ung h Dalidio Market .
respect to the circumstan Costco,DeVaul Rantthe
les abov94
e(e.g.Home Depot, implemented or under review strand regional
traffic.
examP plans,Orcutt plan),are Prof increase the local
Airport specific p on ame men ch can substantially p GL 15162,a subsequent or
Plan circular p, .21166,and CEQ
.ham facts indicate that based on
supplemental EIR is requires on element amendment
ed because the 1994 General Plan circular
EIR Tiering cannot be us old).
formation is outdated(10 Y a because(a)finding alone,those EIRs offer
(Margarita,
Dalidio)are inadequate certain other traffic factors are
Newer EIRs(Maw oral, geographical context and(b) zes how the Prado Road traffic
incomplete analysis in a regi or example,neither EIR am for an additional
recent EIRs'.. as the need Costco EIR of
ignored in either of those EIRS. (F ��identified in the draft
ate other problems identified in other rete
might exacetb for US 101 southbound south of LO
lane within 10 Years the earlier EIR
3!2003)• lemetttal EIR(supplementing
type of Egt would be a suPe other option would be a"Focused
The most appropriatedation element amendment)• An 1999 at p.64•
t a Master EIR. Bass
for the 1994
General ore appropriately used to augmen some additional issues besides
Ew although axe!omental EIR would probably need to addressllution,noise,and
of the supplemental would probably also address air Po
The
example,the supplementalEIR
growth-inducing effects.
b. Proposed resolution of the controversy lemental EIR dressing
mast require preparation of a supe
the City Road to Broad Street. 'fire
My proposed solution is Prado Road Corridor from�Ma arc regional contexto-This—
the traffic analysis of the entire hic area which include ro ected traffic increase
following: LOUR at Foothill(to include p J Road along its
nalysisshould:includea:broadefolloraP St.; Buckley
- study area should encOnS. I gum SL at South St.; South St.to Brow
�or US 101 intersections
on westbound LOVR); S. Rd at Broad St.; all 1 h to Orcutt Road;
Buckley Rd/S•1Bguera St; Buckley Road along its entire length
entire length; o, 101/Madonna); Tank Farm
(lO1/L,OVRt from ad t to the Airport.
Broad Street from South Street traffic,traffic-associated air
!omental EIR should include, at a minimum,
The scope of the supe growth inducing effects*
pollution,traffic-associated noise, and
To City of San Luis 01b4,..rom Michael Sullivan-for.Planning Commission hearing 32Al2004-
regarding Margarita/Airport Area Specific Plan and Environmental.Review . Page 9 of 9
Footnotes
1. Based on staff report of City of SLO Planning Commission for hearing of 25 Feb 2004,Dalidio
Marketplace project.
Attachments
1. (4 pages total)-City of SLO(2003). Final Program Environmental Impact Report(FPEIR).,Figures 3D-
8 (Proposed project),3D-10(Alternative 1),3D-11 (Alternative 2),3D-12(Alternative 3).
2. (3 pages total) City of SLO(2004). Planning commission staff report for hearing of 11 Feb 2004.
Margarita/Airport specific plan and final program environmental impact report Figure 1 -Major planning
documents discussing Prado Road alignment.
References
Bass,R.et al(1999). CEQA Deskbook. (with 2001 supplement).Point Arena,CA: Solano Press.
Curtin,D.and Talbert,C.(2003). Curtin's California Land Use and Planning Law. (23rd ed.) Point.Arena,
CA: Solan Press.
Remy,M.et al(1999). Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act. (10th ed.). Point Arena,CA:
Solan Press
DOC 1 -City of San Luis Obispo(92003). Final program environmental impact report Airport
area and Margarita area specific plans and related facilities master plans. Volumes 1 and 2. State
clearinghouse number 2000051062.
DOC 2 City of San Luis Obispo(12004). Dalidio/San Luis Marketplace annexation and
development project. Drift Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse number
20030221089.
Ira