HomeMy WebLinkAbout6561-6573J J
Resolution No. 6573 (1989 Series)
A Resolution of the City Council of San Luis Obispo Authorizing a Sole
Source Vendor and the signing of a contract with Motorola Communications
and Electronics to replace and install existing Communications Center
equipment.
WHEREAS, the City has a combined Police, Fire, EMS Communications Center;
and
WHEREAS, the equipment in the Center has been in use for nearly ten years
and has undergone numerous custom changes and modifications; and
WHEREAS, Motorola Communications and Electronics has responded to the
requirements of the City and the Communications Center in a professional
and competent manner with a high regard.for integrity and performance;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of San Luis Obispo to:
1. Award as a sole source, Motorola Communications and Electronics,
for replacement and installation of materials and goods in the San
Luis Obispo Public Safety Communications Center.
2. Authorize the City Administrative Officer to sign a contract with
Motorola Communications and Electronics.
3. Authorize a total not to exceed of $159,126.41 for this phase of
the Communications Center project and authorize the City
Administrative Officer to approve the expenditure.
On motion of Councilwoman Rappa , seconded by Councilman Reiss
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Rappa, Reiss, Pinard, Settle and Mayor Dunin
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 7th day of February
, 1989.
ATTE
CITY CLERK PAM 71 S
6573
i
Resolution No. 6573 - Page 2
APPROVED:
CI Y ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
CITY ATTORNEY
CHIEF OF POLICE
7'
FIRE CHIEF
d.
i
Resolution No. 6572 (1989 Series)
A Resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
Disapproving the Final Draft of the San Luis Obispo County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan (November, 1988)
WHEREAS, Chapter 1504 of the Government Code requires the County of San Luis
Obispo to prepare a Hazardous Waste Management Plan and facility siting
procedures and
WHEREAS, the County of San Luis Obispo with input from the Waste Management
Commission has prepared a final draft of the County Hazardous Waste Management
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the County of San Luis Obispo has also completed a draft Hazardous Waste
Management Plan Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan shall be approved by a majority
of the cities within the county which contain a majority of the population of the
incorporated areas before February 1, 1989; and
WHEREAS, if a city does not act within the 90 day time period, the city will have been
deemed to approve the plan; and
WHEREAS, the County of San Luis Obispo has requested approval of the County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan from incorporated cities within the county; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed, commented and forwarded questions to the
Waste Management Commission preliminary draft of the County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, Section 15096 of the CEQA guidelines requires the City to consider an
Environmental document when considering the CHWMP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo to:
Disapprove the final draft of the San Luis Obispo County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan (Nov. 1988) based on the following:
a) the EIR of the CHWMP is not complete and will not be available
until after 2/7/89.
b) State law requires action on the plan before 2/1/89.
2. The City will reconsider the plan when a final EIR is available.
3. Direct City Clerk to send a copy of this resolution as executed to:
G.B. Rowland, M.D., Health Agency Director
Department of Public Health
P.O. Box 1489
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
v25 -(6)
R6572
�.I
Resolution No. 6572 (1989 Series) continued
On motion of Councilman Settle seconded by Councilwoman Pinard
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Settle, Pinard, Rappa and Mayor Dunin
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Reiss
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _17th day of
January , 1989.
FAVOR RON DUNIN
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
CITY AD INISTRATIVE OFFICER
/Zy- /1-tv
v
CITY ATVbRNEY
FIRE CHIEF
v25 -(6)
Fi
G�. z5 . w�
S �
1
RESOLUTION NO. 65,1. (1989 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FORWARDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONCERNING THE PREPARATION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE AIRPORT AREA
WHEREAS, the City and the County have been cooperatively working on a long -range plan
for the 1,700 -acre airport area that adjoins the City of San Luis Obispo; and
WHEREAS, the Airport Area Planning Team has prepared a "concept plan" and planning
principles for the airport area;
WHEREAS, the planning team has reviewed the concept plan with the City and County
Planning Commissions, the Airport Land Use Commission, and with area property owners; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the concept plan and
planning principles be approved with specific amendments, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has met on three occasions to review the concept plan, take
public testimony, consider the Planning Commission's report, and discuss a variety of
issues raised by the various commissions, staff, and area property owners.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council supports the concept plan and planning principles for
the airport area, with amendments to the planning principals as shown on attached Exhibit
A.
The concept plan should be considered a starting point for conducting detailed
environmental and implementation studies. These studies will test the fiscal and
environmental feasibility of the concept plan and will consider planning alternatives
that avoid significant environmental impacts and better 'meet community needs.
SECTION 2. The City Council recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize Phase
II of the work program -- preparation of a Specific Plan and comprehensive EIR -- to
proceed. Phase II of the work include should include the evaluation of the issues
described on attached Exhibit A.
6571
Page 2 -- Resolution No. 6571 (1989 : Series)
SECTION 3. The City Council has reviewed the specific items presented in a Major
Issues Report prepared by the airport area planning team and recommends that each issue
be addressed as described of in attached Exhibit B.
SECTION 4. The City Council continues to support the cooperative efforts of the
city, county and area property owners in developing a long -range plan for the airport
area.
On motion of Councilperson Settle
and on the following roll call vote:
seconded by Councilperson Rappa
AYES: Councilmembers Settle, Rappa, Pinard and Mayor Dunin
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Reiss
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 17 day ofJanuary
AYOR Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
AA
ITY CLERK
amela Voges
APPROVED:
CIT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
John unn
CITY ATT NEY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Michael Multari
1989
v
EXHIBIT A -- RESOLUTION NO. 6571 (1989 Series)
The following principle should be added to the concept plan for the Airport Area:
1. Residential development will incorporate mitigation measures needed to ensure
compatibility with airport operations.
The following major issues should be addressed as part of Phase II of the preparation of
a Specific Plan and comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the airport area:
2. It is essential that the planning team address the major issues listed on pages 3
and 4 of attached Exhibit B. The resolution of these issues may lead to changes .in
the concept plan's land use designations and planning principles.
3. The EIR must assess circulation impacts both for the specific plan area and
cumulative in the region.
The planning team should address the need to establish transportation programs that
minimize local and regional impacts on traffic and air quality. A broad range of
programs should be considered included but not limited to road improvements within
and outside the area, mass transit, ride sharing and van pooling programs involving
area employers, other traffic demand management programs, and bicycles..
4. In preparing the specific plan, especially considering a greenbelt /open space
programs, the reservation of vacant, undeveloped land with Class I and II soils for
agriculture should be analyzed. The impact of the loss of prime agriculture land to
urban uses on these sites should be evaluated by the plan's EIR.
5. The adequacy of land to provide for visitor- serving and related support activities
for airport patrons should be further evaluated.
6. The EIR for the specific plan should evaluate the individual and cumulative
effects of serving development in the airport area with septic systems.
7. The Planning Team should further analyze the impacts of establishing community
service systems on future annexations in the airport area and develop appropriaie-
service strategies. A specific strategy should be developed that defines how the
management of sewer and water systems will transition from county to city
jurisdiction.
8. The Planning Team should evaluate the feasibility of locating a "fraternity row"
within the airport planning area.
9. Affordable housing issues will be addressed as part of the city's Land Use
Element update program and as part of Phase II of the Airport Specific Plan work
program (preparation of the specific plan and EIR).
10. The Planning Team will continue to consider TDR (Transfer of Development Rights)
as an implementation tool for the airport area as part of Phase II of the Airport
Specific Plan work program.
C.AIBIT "B" -- RESOLUTION NO. 0. (1989 Series)
Department of Planning and Building
San Luis Obispo County
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo
California 93408
(805) 549 -5600
JULY 15, 1988 Paul C -. Crawford, AICP
Director
TO: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN TEAM
SUBJECT: MAJOR ISSUES AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED
CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN FOR PHASE ONE OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SUMMARY
This report was requested by the county Planning Commission and is intended
for presentation to the various- public bodies at a series of public
hearings before the county Board of Supervisors authorizes proceeding with
phase two of the specific plan process, which is preparation of the actual
specific plan and.environmental impact report (EIR).
The, report- is -organized into four sections: - -- --
Section I is a summary of the background and basic reasoning behind the
proposed concept land use plan.
Section II is a list of major issues to be addressed during preparation
of= -the draft specific plan and EIR.
Section III consists of brief analyses of major issues ready for
prelimi -nary consideration, with recommendations by the planning team
and blanks for recommendations by the public bodies as they become
available.
Section IV is an itemized summary of all correspondence received, again
with brief analyses and recommendations, cr reference to one or more
major issues.
RECOMMENDATION
Review this report, discuss each of the issues presented in Sections III
and IV,. and provide specific recommendations to the county Board of
Supervisors.
o. o
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July.15, 1988
Page 2
SECTION I: BACKGROUND AND REASONING BEHIND CONCEPT LAND USE PLAN
This report is intended to complete phase one of the San -Luis Obispo County
Airport Area Specific Plan preparation process, and to solicit
recommendations from the various city• and county public bodies for
consideration by the county Board of Supervisors prior to authorizing phase
two (preparation of the actual specific plan and EIR). Phase one has
consisted of preparation of technical studies to determine needs for
services and improvements, as well as environmental constraints, involved
with future development of about 1,800 acres of land located between the
South Street Hill, South Broad Street, the county airport, and South
Higuera Street. In December of 1987, once preliminary information from
these phase one studies was available, the San Luis Obispo County Airport.
Area Specific Plan Team (the planning team), consisting of planning staff
of the city, the county, and RRM Design Group (on behalf of the property
owners), prepared a conceptual land use plan. and planning principles for
the area. The concept land use .plan and planning principles then provided
the basis for a summary of the findings of the technical studies, entitled
Preliminary Specific PLan Analysis For The San Luis Obispo County Airport
Area Specific Plan-, April 1988, referred to in this report as the "phase
one summary report"). That report, along with the individual technical
studies, was released for public review in March 1988:
On May 26, 1988, the county Planning Commission directed staff to prepare
-- this report to identify major issues and individual requests by property
owners and other interested persons regarding the concept land use plan.
County staff prepared a rough draft of the report, which was then reviewed
and revised by the planning team. The report is intended to enable each
public body to make specific recommendat -ions on how the concept land use
plan should, or should not, be modified before phase two begins.
The proposed concept land use` plan represents an increase in overall
development potential from what is presently allowable under the county
Land Use Element, but it does not designate all land within the boundary of
the plan for .highly intensive commercial development. The planning team
attempted to balance county, city, and property owners' interests, as well
as environmental and resource constraints, when formulating the concept
land use plan. The team recognized the need to designate enough land for a
Variety of future land uses, as well as the desirability of recognizing
established land use patterns to avoid creating nonconforming uses.
Clearly defined land use policies were also considered an important goal by
the team. However, these needs must be balanced with other needs. For
example, it is important to promote efficient land use patterns by focusing
urban developments in defined areas with adequate and cost — effective
services. The amount of permitted development must be set at a level which.
C1 C1,
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
Page 3
can be supported by (existing or future) available resources, particularly
water. There is also a need to promote housing for new employees, a need
for recreational areas to serve the community and the region, and a need to
preserve hillsides as scenic viewsheds. The team also considered land use
compatibility, for example, designating areas under extensions of airport
runways or adjacent to the airport property for uses which should not
threaten the continued operation of the airport, but instead complement it.
All members of the planning team agreed that such competing needs should be
balanced within the specific plan, to the extent feasible, and not left to
other future planning efforts.
It is important to recognize that the overall land use intensity reflected
in the concept land use plan is predicated on the city providing water
supply and sewage disposal services for a substantial portion of the area.
The phase one studies revealed that groundwater alone cannot support the
potential development, due to quality and quantity limitations. Only by
extension of city systems and imported surface water (possibly combined
with groundwater), can ultimate build —out occur. This is one of the reasons
the planning team proposed that development prior" to annexation be
permitted only at intensities lower than after annexation.
SECTION II: MAJOR ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The following issues cannot be- -resolved until the draft EIR is prepared,
since more detailed information about environmental impacts, and needed
resources, facilities, and their costs must be developed. These issues are
identified now to focus work on the EIR. Comments from the public, the
various public bodies, and other agencies will probably identify more
issues that fall into this category.
1. How can potential conflicts between airport operations and land uses
within the plan be avoided?
2. How can adequate water supply be provided?
a. Using groundwater only? (on —site and /or community systems)
b. Using groundwater for landscape irrigation and extending city
system (imported water) for domestic uses?
C. Using only imported water via city system?
3. How should sewage be disposed?
a. On —site septic systems?
0 0
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
Page 4
b. Expanding the city plant or creating new community systems?
C. Combination of a. and b.?
4. Will it be feasible (physically and economically) to build an adequate
road system?
5. How should areawide improvements and services be financed?
6. In what sequence should areas be scheduled for annexation and
development?
7. How will full development within the plan affect area air quality?
8. How will full development within the plan affect the local and regional
jobs — housing balance?
SECTION III: MAJOR ISSUES READY FOR PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION
The following issues are appropriate for public consideration before the
phase two work on the specific plan and EIR is authorized. However,
decisions on these issues may not be final, since information produced as
part of the subsequent EIR may lead to more changes during phase two. A map
of the project area is attached as Exhibit - "A ", with — locations --of
individual requests for changes to the concept land use plan noted by
number (where appropriate).
Issues List:
1. Requests to change land use categories shown in the concept land - -use
plan.
A. Damon /Garcia Ranch property.
B. Strasbaugh Property.
C. Cook, et al Business Park.
2. Expansion of the specific plan boundary.
3. Residential development in the specific plan.
4. Permitted intensities of development prior to city annexation.
5. Conversion of productive farmland.
6. Agriculture as an interim designation.
7. Protecting visual aspects of major roadways.
B. Allowable uses table.
C
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
Page 5
Detailed Discussions:
i 1
1. Land use categories depicted in concept land use plan. (See
correspondence items 1 A3a and A7), RRM Design Group; 3, Terry Simons;
4, Ben Maddalena; 5, Althea Cook; 6, Rob Strong; 10, Bert. Forbes)
Should the areas of land proposed for the various land use categories
in the concept land use plan be modified in response to the individual
requests received?
A. Damon /Garcia Ranch Property (See correspondence item 3)
Terry Simons, the representative of the owners of this
approximately 195 -acre ranch located south of the South Street
Hill and west of South Broad Street, has submitted a request for
major intensification of the land use categories designated for
the ranch property in the concept land use plan. Should the
request be accommodated, in whole or in part?
Analysis:
The owners' proposal would change the concept land use plan by
nearly eliminating the Recreation (Rec) and Open Space (OS)
designations, replacing them with Agriculture (Ag), Commercial
Service (CS), Commercial Retail (CR), Commercial Visitor- Serving
(CVS), and Business Park (BP). The ranch property acreages in each
land use category are shown below, under the present Land Use
Element, the concept land use plan, and the owners' proposal.
The owners prefer that the South Street Hill portion of their
property be designated Ag instead of OS. They are concerned that
the OS designation in itself would convey or imply -public rights
to access or other uses, and might preclude the owners' use of the
property more than the Ag designation. They also oppose any
easements which would allow public access to their property.
However, they do recognize the value of the hill as a scenic
viewshed.
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
Page 6
Table 1
Approximate Acreages of Existing and Proposed Land Use Categories
for the Damon /Garcia Ranch Property
(APN 76- 391 -04 & 05)
Category
Present LUE
AASP
Owners Proposal
Open Space (OS)
-0-
57 ac
8
Agriculture (Ag)
73 ac
-0-
49 ac
Recreation (Rec)
-0-
74
4
Residential Rural (RR)
74
-0-
-0-
Residential Single Family (RSF)
48
62
32
Residential Multi - Family (RMF)
-0-
3
31
Business Park (BP)
-0-
-0-
49
Commercial Service (CS)
-0-
-0-
11
Commercial Retail (CR)
-0-
-0-
3
Commercial Visitor - Serving (CVS)
-0-
-0-
6
The concept land use plan designates the hill as OS to preserve
its value as a scenic viewshed and habitat for native plants and
animals. The concept plan also proposes that public access for
hikers be provided through easements, and that structures, roads,
above - ground utilities, significant grading, or removal of
vegetation not be allowed on the hill. The team is.concerned that,
without these precautions, the scenic value of the hill could be
damaged and soil erosion (and downstream siltation) could result.
With these restrictions, an Ag designation would accomplish the
same result as an OS designation. In fact, it may be possible to
designate the hill Ag initially, to be changed to OS if and when
agreement with the owners is reached regarding potential public
uses.
The ranch owners further propose that the southerly portion of the
ranch property designated Rec in the concept land use plan be
instead designated a mixture of BP, CR, RMF, CS, and__CVS. The
remaining four acres of Rec land would, according to the owners'
representative, be adequate for neighborhood parks serving only
the residential developments on the ranch property. Additional Rec
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
Page 7
land could be designated if the need were demonstrated and the
owners compensated in terms of increased development potential
elsewhere on the ranch.
One of the concepts incorporated into the concept land use plan is
that a balance of land uses should be established within the
boundary of the plan, but not necessarily within each property
ownership as the Damon /Garcia Ranch owners have proposed. For
example, there should be enough housing within the plan for the
new jobs created, but not necessarily within, every property
ownership. Some areas of land are appropriate for commercial
development, but not for residential. Apparently, the owners of
the ranch property have proposed that developments on their -
property be balanced, without addressing the need for balance
within the entire plan.
The potential connection of the South Street Hill Open Space area
with the Recreation area (accommodating a variety of private and
public recreation uses) led to the present concept land use plan
layout. For example, horseback riding stables could be established
in the Recreation area, with tiding trails extending throughout
the Open Space areas of the hill. The Recreation area also would
act as a buffer between residential (RSF & RMF) and commercial
areas (BP).
Replacing -nearly -"all- of the Recreation- category with higher
intensity urban uses would substantially increase the potential
environmental and service impacts of the plan. Demands on water,
sewer, and road systems would increase,. and there would not be
enough housing within the overall specific plan for the number of
new employees. The owners recognize that their proposal would
accommodate only enough housing to support the commercial
development on the ranch property itself. Adding an add:it onal-60
acres of CS and BP categories would add to an already - generous
supply of land in these categories and block efforts to meet other
community needs (which are identified in Section I of this report)..
Alternatives:
1. Change the concept land use plan as requested by the
Damon /Garcia Ranch owners.
2. Allow for partial conversion of the Recreation area to
Business Park or Commercial .Service if, after a specified
period of time (perhaps 15 years), it has not been committed
to recreational uses.
0 0
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
Page 8
3. Increase the total number of permitted residences shown for
the RSF category on the ranch property from 300 units (about
5 /acre) to 500 units (about 8 /acre).
4. Change the designation for the hillside areas_ from Open Space
to Agriculture until agreement with the owners regarding
potential public uses is reached.
5. Do not change the concept land use plan.
Planning Team Recommendation: Alternative 3
County Planning Commission_ Recommendation: Alternative 3
Airport Land Use Commission: Do not increase. residential areas
City Recommendation: Alternative 3
B. Strasbaugh property. (APN 76- 061 -046; see correspondence items
1A7, 4, and 6
Should this 20 -acre parcel be
Commercial .Service in recognition
for the site?
Analysis:
changed from Agriculture to
of an approved Development PLan
RRM Design Group, Ben Maddalena, and Rob Strong have requested
that this 20 -acre parcel be changed from Agriculture (Ag) to
Commercial Service, (CS), since the county has approved a
Development Plan (D870087D) for the site. This approval permits
establishment of. a "machinery manufacturing" use which would
become nonconforming if the site was designated Ag in the plan.
The planning team designated the site Ag in 1987, before the
Development Plan application was accepted for processing by the
county. The present county Land Use Element designates the site as
Industrial.
The planning team has reevaluated the site in light of the recent
development approval, and recommends that the entire 20 -acre site
be designated CS. This will prevent the approved development from
becoming a nonconforming use.
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
Page 9
Alternatives:
1. Change the concept land use plan by redesignating this
20 -acre parcel (APN 76- 061 -046) from Agriculture to
Commercial Service.
2. Redesignate only the portion of the site to be developed
under the county approval to Commercial Service.
3. Do not change the concept land use plan.
Planning Team Recommendation: Alternative 1
County Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternative 1
Airport Land Use Commission: Alternative 1
City Recommendation: Alternative 2
C. Cook, et al, Business Park. (See correspondence items IA3a, 5)
Should all or a portion of this 40 -acre Business Park area be
redesignated Commercial Service?
Analysis
RRM Design Group and Althea Cook have requested that all or a
portion of this 40 -acre Business Park (BP) area located on the
north side of Tank Farm Road near South Higuera Street be changed
to Commercial Service (CS) in the concept land use plan. They
requested this change because some of the land uses being
established on Althea Cook's 5 -acre site under Development Plan
D870099D would become nonconforming in the BP category. Similar to
the previous Strasbaugh case, the planning team designated the
site BP before a Development Plan application was processed by the
county. The site is designated Industrial under the present county
Land Use Element.
Upon reevaluation of this BP area, the planning team agreed upon a
preferred alternative configuration of land use categories.
Rather than converting the entire 40 -acre BP area to CS, the team
supports converting only the 20 acres which front on Tank Farm
Road to CS. The other 20 acres would remain in the BP category,
allowing for - better... integration with the adjacent business park
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
Page 10
located in the city. Also, the team recommends that a master plan
be required to coordinate infrastructure to the extent feasible
for the entire 40 acres in conjunction with the business park
within the city.
The team does not support converting the entire 40 acres to CS,
since there is already an abundant supply of CS land in the
concept land use plan, and a limited supply of BP land.
Alternatives:
1. Modify the concept land use plan by converting this entire
40 -acre Business Park area to Commercial Service.
2. Convert only the 20 acres of this Business Park area fronting
on Tank Farm Road to Commercial Service, while requiring a
master plan for the entire 40 acres to coordinate
infrastructure with the adjacent business park located in the
city.
3. Do not change the concept land use plan.
Planning Team Recommendation: Alternative 2
County Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternative 2
Airport Land Use Commission: Alternative 2
Alternative 2. Development in the Commercial Service
City Recommendation: area should be well designed and sensitive to Tank
Farm Road and a major community street corridor waranting special treatment.
2. Expansion -of _the _specific plan boundary (see correspondence items 2,
Flank -and Manuel Avila; and 4, Ben Maddalena).
Should the specific plan boundary be expanded to include properties
where the owners have requested inclusion?
Analysis:
The proposed concept !and use plan would promote development within
defined areas where adequate services could be provided in a
cost — effective manner. Scattered development patterns result in either
inadequate or costly services; - due to the larger distances over which
the services must be extended. This is true not only for water and
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
Page 11
sewer service, but for police and. fire as well. The owners requesting
inclusion in the plan have indicated that they would prefer some type
of industrial classification for their properties. However, the market
study conducted as part of the phase one studies concluded that the
present concept land use plan designates ample land for industrial and
commercial uses. It may be more appropriate to consider adding these
properties in the future, once a substantial portion of the plan is
developed; since expanding it now could lead to more scattered
development.
The present boundary of the proposed specific plan was established by
the county Board of Supervisors in 1983 after years of negotiations
between the area property owners, the county, and the city. It
corresponds to the city limits to the north and the city's urban
reserve line to the south, an area of sufficient size to accommodate
urban growth for about twenty years. Expanding the boundary beyond the
urban reserve line at this time appears premature.
Expanding the boundary also could further complicate efforts to avoid
inequities regarding, the amounts individual property owners are paying
for preparation of the plan, since many owners have already paid for
work completed to -date.
Alternatives:
1. Expand the--boundary of the-concept land use plan - where - requested -
by the individual property owners.
2. Establish a planning principle in the concept land use plan
stating that additional properties may be added in the future once
the specific plan area is largely developed, and the need for
additional land in specific land use categories is demonstrated.
3. Do not expand the boundary of the concept land use plan.
Planning Team Recommendation: Alternative 2
County Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternative 2
Airport Land Use Commission: Alternative 2,.for commercial /industrial
City Recommendation: Alternative 3
3. .Residential development in the specific plan. (See correspondence item
no. A4, W Design Group)
C O
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
Page 12
Does the present concept land use plan propose too much housing, due to
potential airport conflicts,, or is more housing needed, due to an
existing shortage of housing in the area?
Analysis:
Commercial developments within the specific plan will require many new
employees, who will need housing-. There is an existing undersupply of
housing for employees working in and around the city of San Luis
Obispo. In 1980, the city was the .location of 40 percent of all the
jobs in the county, but only 20 percent of the housing. Consequently„
many employees must find housing in other communities and commute to
work. This causes increased traffic, air pollution, consumption of
gasoline, and cost to the employees in terms of fuel and maintenance
for their vehicles. Ideally, there should be housing available and
affordable for employees within a short. distance of work, perhaps even
close enough for them to walk or ride a bicycle.
However, locating housing near airports can cause conflicts. Aircraft
operations subject nearby lands to high levels of noise and potential
for accidents. Accordingly, state law requires local governments to
adopt airport land use plans to minimize such conflicts, principally by
identifying geographic areas around airports where housing or other
land uses involving human occupancy of buildings should not be
established or should be subject to special construction - standards for
reducing noise levels inside buildings. The existing San Luis Obispo
County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) establishes six different ALUP
zones for this purpose. ALUP zones 1 and 2 correspond to the airport
itself, where housing should not be located. ALUP zone 3, "Approach and
Climbout Extensions ", covers a broad area within the AASP, includ -i_ng
the. area designated for a future golf course. The ALUP allows homes in
zone 3 if they are at a density -of one dwelling per five acres and are
soundproofed. The concept land use plan shows a corner of the
Residential Single Family (RSF) category in this zone, which probably
should be changed before the phase two work is authorized. This area
may be appropriate for the Recreation category, to accommodate a
potential park serving nearby residential areas. Other than this site,
the present concept land use plan does not appear to conflict with the
ALUP.
the ALUP is in the process of being updated, which could result in
changes to the areas restricted by the ALUP. Once the ALUP is updated,
more revisions to the RASP may be appropriate. It should be noted,
however, that the planning team used updated noise information
developed by PRC Engineering in 1986 (see Figure 22 in the summary
report) to help locate residential areas. This noise information would
0 0
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
Page 13
have to significantly change before planned residential areas are
affected by adverse noise levels. Nevertheless, special construction
standards for homes in the entire specific plan area could be
appropriate to minimize airport noise concerns, based on the ultimate
projected airport noise levels.
The planning team attempted to designate an amount of land for
residential development which could accommodate roughly the number of
new employees generated by commercial development in the plan. If the
concept land use plan is modified prior to phase two by increasing the
area designated for commercial development, then it may also be
appropriate to increase the potential for residential development.
Simply increasing the allowable density of areas already designated RSF
is probably the best solution, since current market conditions do not
appear to favor much more high density housing (RMF) and since
increasing the area designated for residential development, would cause
potential conflicts with either the airport or proposed commercial
developments.
The planning team would support increasing the net residential density
for areas already designated RSF in the concept land use plan, perhaps
from about 5 units /acre (the present RSF density shown in the concept
land use plan) to 8 units per acre, allowing a mixture of single - family
and multi - family housing as established by the required "Master
Development Plans." This corresponds to the team recommendation under
major issue number lA (for -the Damon /Garcia Ranch property). The team --
also would support special construction standards in the plan to reduce
noise problems within dwellings.
Alternatives:
1. Increase the area proposed in the concept land use plan for
residential development. -
2. Convert some of the Residential Single Family areas to Residential
Multi- Family.
3. Increase the overall net density for areas designated Residential
Single Family in the concept land use plan to 8 units /acre.
4. Change the portion of the Residential Single Family category in
Airport Land Use Plan zone 3 to Recreation.
5. Require special construction. standards- for residential development
in the concept land use ,plan to mitigate the effects of the
ultimate projected noise levels.
C:� O
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July 15' ' 1988
Page 14
6. Do not change the proposed residential development from what is
shown in the present concept land use plan.
7. Reduce the potential residential development shown in the concept
land use plan.
8. Eliminate residential development from the plan.
Planning Team Recommendation: Alternatives 3, 4, and .5
County Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternatives 3, 4, and 5
Airport Land Use Commission Recommendation: Alternatives 4, 5, and 7;
place residential farther away from airport
City Recommendation: Alternatives 3, 4, and 5
4. Permitted intensities of development prior to city annexation.
Should the permitted intensities of development under county
jurisdiction be increased if the city is unable to annex and serve such
areas within a set time frame?
Analysis:
The concept land- use plan proposes that- residential development be
permitted prior to annexation by the city at a relatively low density.
If not annexed and served by the city by 1993, the permitted density
would increase, still using on –site services. A similar concept could
be applied to the BP and CVS areas. The present concept plan proposes
that development of a portion of the ultimate potential of these areas
be permitted prior to annexation. It might be appropriate to consider
increasing this limit if the city is unable to annex and-.serve ,these.
areas within a set time frame.
The specific plan could include a schedule, or phasing plan, for
certain areas to be annexed and served by the city. After annexation,
the permitted intensity of development would increase, as proposed in
the present concept land use plan. If the city is unable to annex and
serve an area within the time frame specified in the phasing plan, then
the — permitted development intensity could increase, but not to the
level permitted after annexation. This concept has already been
proposed in the concept land use plan for the RSF areas.
G
SLO County Airport Area
July 15, 1988
Page 15
Specific Plan
M
Community water supply and sewage. disposal systems may be necessary to
support increased development intensity prior to annexation, since
on -site systems require larger areas of land to operate properly. If
such community systems are permitted, the team recommends that they be
operated by public entities to minimize resistance to future
annexation. They also should be designed to facilitate future
connection to city systems.
One potential problem in this concept is that once an area is largely
developed, the owners "may not want to be annexed if they are not yet
interested in using their remaining development potential. Another
problem could result if available groundwater is not adequate for
areawide needs, leading to quantity or quality deficiencies with water
supply. In light of these potential problems, the planning team
recommends that the precise levels of increased . interim development, as
well as the scheduled dates for annexations, be established during the
phase two work on the specific plan and EIR.
Alternatives:
1. Change the planning principles in the concept land use plan to
increase permitted intensity for rural commercial development if
the city is unable to annex and serve an area according to a
phasing plan established as part of the specific plan.
2. Permit community water supply and sewage disposal systems to be
established to serve rural commercial development, operated by
public or private entities.
3. Permit community water supply and sewage disposal systems to be
established to serve rural commercial development, but only if
operated by public entities:
4. Do not change the present concept land use plan.
Planning Team Recommendation: Alternatives 1 and 3
County Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternatives 1 and 3
Airport Land Use Commission: No position
City Recommendation: support Alternative 3 as
amended"-to- read, - "Permit community water supply and sewage disposal
systems to be established to serve rural commercial development, but
only if operated by public entities and only if phased out upon
annexation or when a new city water source is available."
c o
SLO County Airport Area. Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
Page 16
5. Conversion of productive farmland.
The concept land use plan designates a few properties Business Park
which are currently in crop production. Should these properties be
designated for urban commercial development, or should they be
designated for continued agricultural use?
Analysis:
Two property ownerships designated in the concept land use plan as
Business Parks are currently producing row crops. In a county with
relatively little prime agricultural soils not already encroached upon
by development, it may be appropriate to preserve this remaining
resource. One approach might be to designate properties without
substantial amounts of Class I or II soils for urban development, while
retaining Class I or II soils in the Agriculture category..
However, adjacent developments tend to undermine the economic viability
of agriculture. Adjacent development can interfere with normal
agricultural practices, since dust and pesticides can be hazardous and
disturbing to people living or working nearby. Nearby residents may
cause problems by removing or damaging crops or equipment. Even moving
farm equipment between fields can be difficult on roads with high
levels of traffic.. -
The county Land Use Element designates these properties as Industrial,
which is similar to the Business Park category proposed in the concept
land use plan. Surrounding properties are also designated for
commercial /industrial development, either by the city or the county
general plans. These existing general plan designations reflect
previous decisions by the' city -and -the - county to promote
non - agricultural land uses in this area..
In sum, these properties within the interior of the specific plan
comprise "islands" of agricultural land surrounded by developing urban
areas. Their development with urban uses can be prevented by
restrictive land use policies, but. their continued agricultural use
cannot be assured.
Alternatives:
1. -Change the -- concept land use plan. to designate all Class I or II
soils as Agriculture.
C'
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
Page 17
2. Designate only Class I soils as Agriculture.
3. Do not change the concept land use plan.
Planning Team Recommendation: Alternative 3
County Planning Commission Recommendation: New alternative IA - retain
Vacant class I and II soils in the Agriculture land use category
Airport Land Use Commission: No position
City Recommendation: support Alternative 1 as
amended to read, "Change the concept land use plan to designate all
undeveloped or vacant Class I or II soils as agriculture."
6. Agriculture as an interim designation. (See correspondence item A3b)
Should areas presently designated Agriculture in the concept land use
plan be redesignated to some other interim category?
Analysis:
Properties designated Agriculture in the concept land use plan are
intended for conversion to other land use categories after other areas
in the plan have developed. They do not contain Class I or II soils,
and are not currently producing crops. It has been pointed out that
some other interim designation may be appropriate, particularly since
it is possible that a future county growth ordinance may prevent
conversion of the Agriculture category (until annexed into the city).
An alternative to the Agriculture category -could be. established, such
as a new category called "Interim Agriculture ". These areas also could
be designated for their ultimate uses, with restrictions applied
preventing their development until the other areas in the plan are
developed. The team supports an "Interim Agriculture" designation which
would allow conversion to categories found to be needed in the future.
Alternatives:
1. Change the concept land use plan by redesignating properties from
Agriculture to other categories, with restrictions preventing
their development until the other areas are largely developed.
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
Page 18
2. Change the Agriculture designation to Interim Agriculture, to be
converted to other categories once the other areas are largely
developed.
3. Do not change the Agriculture designation.
Planning Team Recommendation: Alternative 2
County Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternative 3
Airport Land Use Commission: Alternative 2
City Recommendation: Alternative 3
7. Protecting visual aspects of major roadwa s. (See correspondence items
nos. Al, 1B1, 1B2, 1D, 1G, RRM Design Group
How should the visual aspects of major roadways be protected?
Analysis
ri The present concept land use plan suggests that visual aspects of major
roadways should be protected through a combination of special
development standards and limits on the types of uses permitted. Some
property owners have commented that they would prefer uses not be
restricted, but instead that special development standards be applied..
They contend that such standards could be effective in preventing
unattractive development along roadways without limiting the owners'
options for developing their properties.
While there is some merit to the owners' request, the planning team is
concerned that some land uses have unattractive qualities which do not
lend themselves well to screening. For example, concrete batch plants
are often tall enough to interfere with an otherwise scenic view from a
roadway, in spite of any screening or setback standards. Auto salvage
yards also are not easily screened, as wrecked vehicles are stacked and
screening or walls deteriorate over time.
An alternative suggested by the owners is to designate some areas where
uses with visual problems might be permitted. Such areas could be
designated Industrial, so that it would be apparent where those uses
would be permitted. If this alternative is chosen, the most appropriate
areas to be designated Industrial would be along portions of Santa Fe
Road and Suburban Road.
C;
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
Page 19
Alternatives:
-J
1. Employ special development standards, rather than prohibiting uses.
2. Designate adequate portions of the CS areas along Santa Fe Road
and Suburban Road as "Industrial," where the less attractive uses
would be permitted under the plan, with proper development
standards, while retaining the design standards along the major
roadways.
3. Prohibit the less attractive uses and employ special. development
standards along the major roadways, as called for in the present
concept land use plan.
Planning Team Recommendation: Alternative 2
County Planning Commission Recommendation: Alternative 2
Airport Land Use Commission: No position
City Recommendation: Alternative 2
8. Allowable uses table. (See correspondence items nos. 1B, 1C, 5)
Should the allowable uses table in the concept land use plan be changed
to allow the following:
A. "Amusements & recreational facilities" in BP areas?
B. "Churches" in BP areas?
C. "Participant sports & active recreation" in BP areas?
D. "Chemical products" in BP areas?
E. "Eating 4 drinking places" in CS areas?
F. "Business support services" in CVS areas?
G. "Public safety facilities" (including ambulances) in CS, BP, and
Public. Facilities (PF) areas?
0 0
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
Page 20
Analysis:
A. "Amusements and recreational facilities" in BP areas.
This use includes a variety of indoor recreational facilities such
as arcades, card rooms, pool halls, bowling alleys, skating rinks,
dance halls, and health and athletic clubs. The present concept
land use plan lists the use as allowable in the Rec, CS, CVS, and
PF areas, but not BP. The use was excluded from the BP areas in
order to reserve the limited BP areas for other uses, since there
is an abundant supply of CS areas for this use. The planning team
does not support adding this use to the BP category on an
unlimited basis. However, the team does support permitting only
health and athletic clubs in the BP areas, since they could serve
the employees of the firms located in these areas.
B. "Churches" in BP areas.
The concept land use plan lists "churches" as allowable in the Ag,
RSF, RMF, and CS areas. The use was not proposed for the BP areas
because most -of the BP areas lie within Airport Land Use Plan zone.
3, which discourages large concentrations of people due to
potential aircraft accidents and high levels of airport related
noise. However, a portion of the BP areas lie outside of the
restrictive ALUP zones, and churches are typically most busy
outside of normal working hours (Sundays and evenings). Thus,
potential conflicts with other BP uses for vehicle parking and
traffic would be minimal. Churches are often accompanied by
schools, which operate during normal working hours and could
conflict with the other BP uses. Therefore, the planning team
recommends that "churches" be added as allowable in BP areas
(where not conflicting with the Airport Land Use Plan), but
without schools.
C. "Participant sports & active recreation" in BP areas.
This use consists of a variety of outdoor recreational activities,
which would conflict with the intended character of the BP areas.
Uses in BP areas should be enclosed within buildings designed and
landscaped for an attractive appearance. This use is more
appropriate in the Rec, OS, and CS areas, where the concept land
use plan currently allows them.
D. "Chemical products" in BF areas.
This use involves the manufacture of basic chemicals or other
products by chemical processes. It was not proposed for the BP
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
Page 21
areas because it may produce odors, fumes or gases which would be
hazardous or unpleasant for the employees of other firms located
in the BP areas. However, some of the smaller scale manufacture of
chemical products would not produce such conflicts, and would be
related functionally to other uses located in the BP areas.
Therefore, the planning team recommends that "chemical products"
be added as allowable in the BP areas, but with size, type, or
performance limitations drafted during the phase two work on the
specific plan to avoid potential problems.
E. "Eating & drinking places" in CS areas.
This use is listed in the concept land use plan as allowable in
the Rec, Commercial Retail (CR), CVS, and BP areas, but not in the
CS areas. This is due to the concern that a number of the uses
allowable in the CS category would cause conflicts with nearby
restaurants, due to heavy truck traffic, noise, vibration, dust,
smoke, or odors. However, CS areas along major roadways would
probably be protected from uses that would cause most of those
potential problems, so restaurants may be appropriate in these CS
areas.
F. "Business support services" in CVS areas.
As the name implies, Commercial Visitor- Serving areas are intended
for uses which directly serve the traveling public, either by the
airport or Highway 227. The limited amount of CVS areas designated
in the concept land use plan are not intended for uses providing
support services for firms located in the CS or BP areas, although
some offices for airport - related businesses would be allowed.
Accordingly, the team recommends that this use not be added to the
CVS areas.
G. "Public safety services" (including ambulances) in CS, BP, and PF
areas.
This use was inadvertently omitted from the concept land use plan.
The planning team fully supports adding it to the CS, BP, and PF
areas.
H. "Public assembly and entertainment" in CS areas.
This includes facilities for indoor public assembly and group
entertainment such as auditoriums, theaters, and meeting halls.
Hours of operation would largely occur outside of normal - business
hours for most commercial operations in the CS areas, so traffic
and noise conflicts should be minimal. However, this use would
O O
SLO County Airport Area.Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
Page 22
not be appropriate in some CS areas,
runway extensions. The planning team
CS areas, where not conflicting w
airport.
Alternatives: A. B.
Planning Team Recommendation: yes yes
County Planning
Commission Recommendation: yes yes
for example, under airport
supports adding the use for
nth safe operation of the
C. D. E. F. G. H.
no yes yes no yes yes
no yes yes no yes yes
Airport Land Use
Commission Recommendation: (yes, if consistent with new ALUP)
City Recommendation:(1) Yes Yes* No Yes Yes No Yes Yes **
(1) special standards and in some cases use permits should be required.
*churches with day care facilities should be allowed in BP areas as
"conditional" uses.
** auditoriums and theaters should not be allowed while meeting hails
are acceptable.
SECTION IV: CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED
1. Victor Montgomery, A.I.A., RRM Design Group, May 4, 1988:
RRM Design Group, acting as liaison with the area property owners under
contract with the county, submitted this request for numerous changes
to the concept land use plan. Items from their letter which involve
major issues are addressed in the major issues discussions referenced,
and minor issues are briefly discussed under each of the items listed
below.--
A. Concept land use plan (map).
1. Design standards along major roadways: See major issue no. 7
2. Building coverage standards: The 20% limit for BP areas refers
to building footprint, not total building area, so the team
recommends that this limit not be raised.
3. Land use designations:'
a. BP area on north side of Tank Farm Road near South Higuera
Street (Althea Cook, et al): See major issue no. 1C
C,
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
Page 23
b. Interim Agriculture designation: See major issue no. 6
4. Amount of residential development in concept land use plan: See
major issue no. 3
5. Extension of Suburban Road eastward to Santa Fe Road: The
planning team does not support this proposal because it would
pass through the area proposed for a full size golf course. An
alignment not dividing the future golf course site is possible,
but that would promote intensification of additional
Agriculture lands presently outside the plan boundary.
6. Additional north -south connection between Prado Road and Tank
Farm Road: A possible connection seems appropriate, but this
and other future roadways are expected to be proposed in the
actual specific plan and EIR. The team recommends that the
present concept land use plan map not be changed yet, but that
direction be given to the land use planning firm preparing the
plan to consider this potential roadway.
7. Redesignate the 20 -acre Agriculture parcel on Buckley Road with
an approved Development Plan for industrial development to CS:
The team supports this request, as indicated in the discussion
under major issues nos. 1B.
B. Permitted uses table: See major issue no. 8 for items 2 -A through
2 -E, 2 -H, and 2 -I.
1. (RRM item 2 -F) Underline "Stone and cut stone products ": This
was intended to have been underlined, which means the use
should not be located along major roadways. (Also see major
issue no. 7)
2. (RRM item 2-G) Underline "Structural clay and pottery
products ": Same as 2 -F above.
C. Allow "Public safety facilities" (including ambulances) in the CS
and BP areas: See major issue no. 8G.
D. Protecting visual aspects of major roadways: See major issue no. 7.
E. Water needs for irrigating Agriculture areas: The team agrees that
the- concept land use plan_ incorrectly assumes that Agriculture
areas would be irrigated pasture or row crops. This sentence
should be stricken, and the water consumption estimates should be
reevaluated.
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
Page 24
F. Planning principles:
1. Clarify that CS areas can be fully developed prior to city
annexation: The team concurs.
2. Add "irrigation" and "storm water detention" to the definition
of "on -site services ": The team concurs.
3. Appropriate entities for operation of community service
systems: See major issue no. 4.
G. Protecting visual aspects of major roadways: See major issue no. 7.
H. Clarify the term "urban uses" to mean "urban commercial and urban
residential developments" (see definitions): The team concurs.
2. Manuel F. Avila, Jr. and Frank W. Avila, May 10, 1988:
This is a request to expand the AASP boundary to include the Avila
ranch property, with an industrial land use designation. The planning
team does not support the request. See major issue no. 2.
3. Terry Simons, Complete Development Services, Inc., May 10, 1988:
Mr.- Simons submitted this request on behalf of the Damon /Garcia ranch
property owners. The request involves major intensification of land
uses on the ranch property; therefore, it is discussed as major issue
no. 1A.
4. Ben Maddalena, Central Coast Engineering, March 22, 1988:
Mr. Maddalena requests that the concept land use plan be modified to
redesignate a 20 -acre parcel on Buckley Road from Agriculture to an
industrial classification, since a Development Plan is being processed
for the site which would allow industrial uses. The team supports the
request, as indicated in the discussion under major issue no. 1B.
However, the team .does not support Mr. Maddalena's request to expand
the specific plan boundary to include additional properties south of
the airport, as discussed in major issue no. 2.
5. Althea Cook, March 25, 1988:
Ms. Cook requests that the BP area on the north side of Tank Farm Road
near South Higuera Street be redesignated to CS. This is because a
Development Plan has been approved for the site which would allow uses
not permitted in the BP category under the present concept land use
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
Page 25
plan. The team supports the request, but only for the 20 acres fronting
on Tank Farm Road, as indicated in the discussion under major issues
no. 1C. Ms. Cook also requests that ambulances, truck terminals, and
farm supply be allowed at her site. The team supports these requests,
which would be accommodated by changing the land use category to CS.
(See also major issues no. 8G.)
6. Rob Strong, A.I.C.P., The Planning Mill, April 27, 1988:
Mr. Strong requests that the 20 -acre parcel on Buckley Road (same
parcel as cited in correspondence item no. 4) be redesignated in the
concept land use plan from fig to CS. The team supports the request, as
discussed under major issues no. 1B.
7. Grant P. Gridiron, Pastor, House of Prayer, February 25, 1988:
Mr. Gridiron asks that the plan permit "churches" at the the present
location of the House of Prayer. It is now a nonconforming use under
the county Land Use Element. The concept land use plan designates the
site Commercial Retail (CR), in which "churches" would not be allowed.
Staff recommends that the permitted uses table for the concept land use
plan be changed to permit "churches" in the CR category, rather than
changing the category applicable to the site.
8. Mike Sparrow, Assistant Pastor, Agape Christian Fellowship, May 19,
1988: -
Mr. Sparrow requests that "churches" be allowed in the plan, even in
areas affected by Airport Land Use Plan zone 3. The concept land use
plan already would allow "churches" in the CS category, which applies
to the site in which he is interested. Approval of such a use in ALUP
zone 3 is no direct issue for this specific plan, it pertains more to
the ALUP.
9. Marshal.Rothman, July 31, 1986:
Mr. Rothman requests that "offices" be permitted on his property at
4211 Broad Street. The present concept land use plan would permit this
without any changes.
10. H.W. Muehlenbeck, May 4, 1988:
Mr. Muehlenbeck requests that the concept land use plan be revised so
that the northwesterly edge of_ his property (east of South Broad
Street) is not shown 'as a roadway or "linear park ". The planning team
concurs with this requested change.
l
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
Page 26
11. Bert E. Forbes,.Ziatech Corporation, June 16, 1988:
Mr. Forbes requests a number of changes to the concept land use plan,
some of which have already been incorporated into it.
He proposes that, in general, land designated for CS or BP development
not be limited, in order to keep the price of such land down. The
planning team does not agree with this request. The discussion in major
issue no. 1 seems to address this issue adequately.
Mr. Forbes also requests that electronic equipment manufacturing be
allowed. This request is already accommodated under the concept land
use plan (for BP and CS areas).
He suggests that residential uses should be located away from the
airport. In this regard, residential uses have been located outside of
any restrictive ALUP zones. Major issue no. 3 addresses this issue.
He also suggests that determining how costs of areawide improvements
will be allocated should include consideration of potential use of area
roadways by traffic merely passing through the area, and should be
subject to careful public scrutiny. Determining a "fair share"
allocation system for costs of_ areawide improvements will occur after
the draft EIR is prepared. The allocation framework will then be
reviewed publicly before being adopted.
Mr. Forbes suggests that large employers should not be asked to help
mitigate housing impacts caused by their employees.. He also believes
that new jobs should not be limited in order to avoid aggravating the
existing undersupply of housing. The existing city and county policies
regarding housing will be evaluated during preparation of the specific
plan and EIR to determine how they may be relevant to the plan. At this
time, no changes to the concept land use plan appear to be called for
by this comment.
He states that the golf course and parks should be eliminated in order
to free up water supply for commercial development. However, the
concept land use plan proposes that these areas would be irrigated
largely with groundwater and treated effluent from the city sewage
treatment plant, allowing the higher quality city water to serve other
needs in the plan. The planning team does not support any changes in
the concept land use plan in response to this request.
Mr.-Forbes questions the traffic generation factors used in the concept .
land use plan for offices. The phase one studies used generally
accepted factors for projecting traffic loads, but better information
will be available for the traffic analysis prepared as part of the
subsequent EIR.
i
SLO County Airport Area Specific Plan
July 15, 1988
Page 27
J
He notes that the Prado Road extension to South Broad Street should be
redrawn to avoid passing through an existing hill. This needed change
has been noted; the roadway layout was intended only to show
approximate locations. County staff will alert the firm chosen to
prepare the plan and EIR of this issue.
The need for the Orcutt Road railroad crossing was questioned by Mr.
Forbes, since very few freight trains pass through the area now.
However, it is possible that train traffic may increase in the future.
Also, even occasional blockage of this crossing could have serious
implications if a city fire department crew is prevented from
responding to a major emergency somewhere in the area. The need for a
grade separation at this crossing should be programmed in the plan, the
timing for which can be addressed through the phase two work on the
plan and EIR.
Mr. Forbes also notes that a traffic light and turn lanes are needed at
Capitolio Way and South Broad Street. These improvements have already
been identified and programmed by the city.
12. Arnold N. Applebaum, June 28, 1988:
Mr. Applebaum requests that his 5.36 acre property (APN 76- 511 -15),
located on the east side of Highway 227 across from Buckley Road, be
redesignated in the concept plan for- industrial _or commercial uses.
The site is presently designated in the concept plan as "Agriculture."
The planning team does not support this requested change because the
concept plan already includes an apparent oversupply of land for future
industrial or commercial uses (CS).
DL /cl/8403 -1/153
7 -14 -88
--"T LAND USE PLAN
IOCATIONS or iNDivi, REQUESTS FOR CHA14CES TO THE CO'
g�-
it
•
k
��N,4 � O
��� -
RESOLUTION NO. 6570 (1989 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECISION
CONDITIONALLY APPROVING PARKING LOT AND LANDSCAPING CHANGES AT THE
MADONNA ROAD PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER, 221 MADONNA ROAD(ARC 88 -173)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission on December 19, 1988 considered the
application by Madonna Road Plaza Shopping Center for approval of parking lot
improvements, including repaving, restriping and landscaping changes; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission approved the proposed parking lot
improvements subject to the conditions that: 1) Three additional irrigated landscape
planters shall be installed along the El Mercado street frontage, and 2) The existing
south driveway onto El Mercado shall remain; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed that decision to the City Council, the Council
has considered the testimony and statements of the applicant, records of the
Architectural Review Commission's actions, and the evaluation and recommendation of
staff: and
WHEREAS, the Council determines that the action of the Architectural Review
Commission was not appropriate, and that the proposed parking lot improvements include
sufficient landscaping to meet city parking lot standards, given the lot's limited public
use and visibility;
NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves to uphold the appeal and approve the parking lot
improvements as shown in ARC final approved plans dated December 19, 1988.
On motion of Councilman Settle ,seconded by Mayor Dunin
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmember Settle, Mayor Dunin, Councilmembers Pinard and Rappa
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Reiss
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 17thday of January . 1989.
Mayor
6570
0
Resolution No. 6570 (1989 Series)
Page 2
APPROVED:
City A inistrative Officer
City A
Community Development Director
jh3 /ccappeal
1 1
RESOLUTION NO. 6569 (1989 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING CON MISSION'S ACTION IN APPROVING
A HOMELESS SHELTER AT 750 ORCUTT ROAD,
AND DENYING AN APPEAL OF THAT ACTION (U1423)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findines. That this council, after consideration of the Planning
Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations and reports thereon, and both written
and oral testimony by citizens, makes the following findings:
The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons
living or working on the site or in the vicinity.
2. The use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses.
3. The proposed use conforms to the general plan and meets zoning ordinance
requirements.
4. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed use will not have
a significant effect on the environment and has granted a negative declaration of
environmental impact.
5. The nearby R -1 and R -2 neighborhoods are adequately buffered from possible impacts of
the shelter.
SECTION 2. Conditions. That the approval of the use permit U1423 for a homeless
shelter be subject to the following conditions:
Management:
1. The operator of the shelter shall be the Economic Opportunity Commission, unless
otherwise approved by the City Council and the Board of Supervisors.
2. The applicants or operators shall submit a management program to the Community
Development Director for approval, prior to occupancy. The plan must include at
least the following items:
* The name(s) of the organization(s) operating the shelter.
* The anticipated number of persons who will live on -site.
* A program description, including provision of qualified supervisors at the rate
of one for the site, plus one for each ten persons beyond twenty, as well as all
daytime activities and services, including type;of activity or service, service
provider, and estimated number of clients. f
R6569
Resolution No. 6569 (1989 Series)
Page 2
i Site plan showing the proposed locations of the modular buildings precisely.
• The uses of all buildings on site.
• Arrangements for transportation of residents to and from the site, and
monitoring of access to the site and surrounding areas during daytime hours.
Failure to comply with the approved plan may be grounds for revocation of this
permit.
Parking and occupancy:
3. Parking spaces shall be provided at a rate of two, plus one per six occupants.
4. The maximum occupancy of the site is 72 persons. (Occupancy beyond 54 will be allowed
only if additional parking spaces are provided that meet the requirement in condition
3.)
Fire protection:
5. A fire hydrant and an automatic fire -alarm system shall be installed, to the
satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. Additional fire protection methods may be required
by the Fire Department, depending on the final locations of the modular buildings and
the adequacy of the buildings for the use.
Architectural and building division review:
6. Improvements to the site, including installation of the modular buildings, is subject
to approval by the Architectural Review Commission.
7. Installation of the modular buildings must meet all building code requirements,
including handicap accessibility.
Creek protection:
8. A setback along the creek averaging 20 feet from the top of bank, and in no case less
than 10 feet from the top of bank, shall be maintained along the creek to restore and
protect riparian habitat. The precise location of the setback line shall be approved
by the Community Development Director prior to the placement of any new structures on
the site.
9. A temporary fence must be installed between the buildings and the top of bank, to
protect the wildlife habitat, if buildings are placed less than 20' from the top of
bank. Such fence design, landscaping, and location is to be submitted to the
approval of the Community Development Director.
10. The property owner must provide an access and maintenance easement over the creek
area, to the approval of the Public Works Department.
11. A riparian restoration plan to enhance the creek habitat, including planting native
vegetation, shall be submitted to the Community Development. Director for approval.
Plants and any other features shall be installed pursuant to the approved plan within
C 1:)
Resolution No. 6569 (1989 Series)
Page 3
one year of the approval of this permit. If the facility closes within one year, the
revegetation plan must be installed to the approval of the Community D_ evelopment
Director at the time of closing.
Tree Removals:
12. All trees at the rear of the site shall be staked and numbered, and listed by species
and size, to the approval of the city arborist: No trees shall be removed except
those approved by the Architectural Review Commission, and each tree removed that is
over IV in diameter shall be replaced with two trees. The type, size, and location
of replacement trees shall be determined by the city arborist. All trees to be
retained shall be safety- pruned and protected from damage during installation of the
modular buildings. The protection method must be approved by the city arborist.
Water:
13. The shelter shall require an allocation an provided in the Water Allocation
Regulations, in an amount determined by the Community Development Director. The date
of Planning Commission action on this use permit shall be the date the allocation is
assigned.
Review of use permit:
14. The use permit shall be reviewed in 6 months. At any time the Planning Commission
may review the use permit if written complaints from citizens or the Police
Department are received by the Community Development Department. The Planning
Commission may add, delete or modify conditions of approval or may revoke the use
permit.
Trail easement:
15. The applicant shall record an offer of an easement for public access within the creek
setback area to the approval of the Community Development Director and City
Attorney. The city should not accept said offer until the Parks and Open Space
Element is updated and only if in that element this site is deemed an appropriate
location for said access.
Resolution No. 6569 (1989 Series)
Page 4
On motion of Councilman Settle seconded
by Mayor Dunin . and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Settle, Mayor Dunin, Rappa and Pinard
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Reiss
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 17t�ay of January 1989
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATT
City Jerk Pam Vo s
APPROVED:
Community Development Director
JL4;u 1423res
&t*7 e �,
0
RESOLUTION NO. 6568 (1989 Series)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING THE APPLICATION.FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR
THE PER CAPITA GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
WILDLIFE, COASTAL, AND PARK LAND CONSERVATION
OF 1988 FOR THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS:
Rehabilitation of playground equipment areas in Throop, Meadow,
Santa Rosa, Mission Street, Laguna Lake Parks and Johnson Playground.
Lighting tennis courts at Sinsheimer Park.
Rehabilitation of driving cage and Pro Shop at Laguna Lake
Municipal Golf Course
WHEREAS, the people of the state of California have enacted the
California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land Conservation Act of 1988,
which provides funds to the State of California and its political
subdivisions for acquiring and /or developing facilities for public
recreational and open space purposes; and
WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been
delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within
the state, setting.up necessary procedures governing application by local
agencies under the program; and
WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Department of Parks
and Recreation require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval
of application(s) before submission of said application(s) to the state;
and
WHEREAS, the application(s) contain assurances that the applicant
must comply with; and
WHEREAS, the applicant will enter into an agreement with the State of
California for acquisition or development of the project(s);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
San Luis Obispo
HEREBY:
1. Approves the filing of an application for the Per Capita Grant Program
under the California. Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land Conservation Act
of 1988 for state grant assistance for the above projects(s); and
2. Certifies that said applicant understands the assurances and
certification in the application form; and
3. Certifies that said applicant has or will have sufficient funds to
operate and maintain the project(s); and
RESOLUTION NO. 6568 (1989 Series)
T .
I
Page 2
4. Appoints the Director of Parks and Recreation as agent of the City of
San Luis Obispo to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all
documents including, but not limited to applications, agreements,
amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the
completion of the aforementioned project(s).
On motion by Councilwoman Rappa seconded by Councilwoman
Pinard and passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Rappa, Pinard, Settle and Mayor Dunin
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Reiss
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 17th day
of January 1989.
al�yor, Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
I
City C1 trk, Pamela Voges
City A*inistrp-tive Officer
City Atfarney // � Director of'/Public Works
Parks and Recreation
c
J
N
/1
Resolution No. 6567 (1989 Series)
A Resolution of the City Council of San Luis Obispo Authorizing the
Negotiation and Signing of a Contract with Nitram Associates for Technical
Services in Radio Facilities Evaluation and Recommendation
WHEREAS, the City has radio communication deficiencies for Police, Fire and Public
Works emergency needs; and
WHEREAS, technical support is needed to facilitate recommendation to correct these
deficiencies;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of San Luis Obispo to:
1. Authorize negotiations of a contract with Nitram Associates, Westlake Village,
California for technical support services in the amount of $12,850 not to
exceed $15,000.
2. Authorize the CAO to sign contract subject to successful negotiations.
On motion of Councilwoman Rappa seconded by Councilwoman_Pinard
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Rappa, Pinard, Settle and Mayor Dunir.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Reiss
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this
January . 1989.
ATTEST:
CITY ERK PAM Ir ES
APPROVED:
17th
day of
IL
�' OR RON DUNIN
CITY A MINISTRATIVE OFFICER
R6567
Resolution No. 6567 (1989 Series)
Page 2
/1. ' V '-
F! p C
iI ilG.�IZGL-
AMENDMENT 1
TO
AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
BETWEEN CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AND BROWN AND CALDWELL FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to the Engineering Services Agreement dated
February 23, 1988, between City of San Luis Obispo, hereinafter
referred to as "Owner ", and Brown and Caldwell, a California
corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Engineer,�' is made and
entered into this 17th day of January, 1989.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on February 23, 1988, Owner and Engineer entered into an
agreement for engineering services; and
WHEREAS, in Article IIB of said Agreement, Owner and Engineer
agreed that certain of the work contemplated to be performed by
Engineer could not be sufficiently defined at the time of execution
of the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, during the detailed engineering design of the improve-
ments, it became apparent that additional facilities were required
for a functional facility; and
WHEREAS, Owner has requested changes in the scope of work;
NOW THEREFORE, Owner and Engineer agree to amend the Agreement as
follows:
I. SCOPE OF PLANNED ENGINEERING SERVICES
The scope of work as described in Exhibit B of the original
Agreement is amended to provide the following additional
engineering services
1. Prepare a supplement to the
(WMP) summarizing all the
adoption of the WMP by the
address the steps taken by
N /AGR :000026 -1
Wastewater Management Plan
developments since the
City. The supplement will
the City to meet discharge
Page 1 of 3
i
requirements including: adoption of the WMP,
provisions for stream enhancement and water reclamation
facilities, and adoption of the full compliance option
for the treatment and disposal of the wastewater
2. Provide design improvements to the existing earthen
sludge drying beds. The beds will be designed to
facilitate sludge spreading and sludge cake collection.
3. Design improvements to the existing plant utility
system. The design will include the following
utilities
a. Plant -wide service air system
b. Plant -wide instrument air system
C. Plant -wide reclaimed water (3w) system
d. Plant - wide.non- potable (2W) water system
4. Design new primary sludge pumps and make changes in
piping to use existing primary sludge pumps for pumping
primary scum. The new primary sludge pumps will be
located in the existing abandoned chlorine contact
pond. The design will also include modifications to
the existing chlorine contact pond.
5. Assist the City in determining the lead source in the
waste sludge and advise regarding disposal of the
stockpiled sludge. This task will include:
a. Preparation of a letter
investigation to date
identify and control the
report summarizing the lead
and activities planned to
lead source.
b. Preparation of an application to the Department of
Health Services (DHS) for a "non- hazardous"
determination for the sludge. This task will
include consultation with DHS, meetings with City
staff and DHS officials, and coordinating
laboratory work needed for getting the waste
classification. Laboratory work is not included in
this task.
C. Assist the City in disposing the stockpiled
sludge. This will include consultation with the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) the
City staff, and landfill Owner /Operators.
Page 2 of 3
N /AGR:000026 -1
6. Development of a workplan for the pilot study. The
work plan will include: objective of the pilot study;
description of the treatment systems; sequencing
experimental design, preliminary sizing of the,
equipment; preparation of cost estimates; and
preparation of the final workplan.
II SCHEDULE
Engineer was authorized to proceed with the modified scope of work
effective on The modified scope of work
shall be completed by July 1, 1989.
III. COMPENSATION
Compensation for the services provided under Article I of this
Amendment. shall be calculated on the same basis as in the original
Agreement. The labor hours and cost estimates for completing the
work defined in this Amendment are shown in Attachment A. The cost
ceiling for the work done under this Amendment is $ 122;750 which
increases the total cost ceiling under the Agreement to
$ 1,055,285. The fixed professional fee for the work done under
this Amendment is $ 15,060 which increases the total fixed
professional fee to $ 129,560.
All other terms and conditions of the Agreement dated February 23,
1988 remain unchranaed.
BROWN AND
Signature
Printed Name Pervaiz Anwar
Title Vice President
Date ( (!&,
N /AGR:000026 -1
OWNER
Signature
Printed name -RDA) bLA)jAj
Title M14yo /Z
Date
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
Task No.
Task Description
1
Prepare supplement to the
Wastewater Management Plan
2
Design improvements to the
the existing sludge drying
beds
3
Design Improvements to the
existing plant utility system
a. Service air
b. Instrument air
c. Reclaimed water
d. Non - potable water
4
Design a new primary sludge
pumping station
5
Assist the City in getting
"non- hazardous" determina-
tion for the sludge
6
Develop a workplan for the
pilot study
Total cost ceiling
Fixed professional fee
N /AGR:000026A.
Labor
230
64
171
171
263
164
230
196
344
Cost ceiling,
dollars
16,000
4,450
11,600
11,600
17,900
11,200
15,000
13,000
22,000
122,750
15,060
Attachment A
Page 1 of 1
December .12, 1988
C a Q
RESOLUTION NO. 6566' (1989 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES BETWEEN THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND BROWN AND CALDWELL FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the City has adopted a Wastewater Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Wastewater Management Plan identifies a specific
program for the implementation of the Wastewater Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City has retained the consulting firm of Brown and
Caldwell to provide assistance; and
WHEREAS, since initiating of the design of these projects,
additional items came up that require additional work by the
consultants and therefore a scope change; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of these additional.tasks is $137,810 and
sufficient funds are available in the Sewer Fund to cover these
costs;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor is authorized to
approve Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement for Engineering Services for
Implementation of Wastewater Management Plan, and authorize the
consultant to proceed with these tasks for a total cost of $137,810.
On motion of Councilwoman Rappa seconded by Councilwoman Pinard ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Rappa, Pinard and Mayor Dunin
NOES: Councilman Settle
ABSENT: Councilman Reiss
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 17thday of January
1989.
86556
o
Resolution No. 6566
Page 2
PffYOR RON DUNIN
ATTEST: (/
V .
CITY CIJERK PAMELA VO
APPROVED;
Utilities Director
bcengamd /n
(1989 Series)
�� • •
�-,,,�
�r��
r. �. '.
. i ..
T
i ,i
.. i
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WREN RECORDED RETURN TO:
CITY CLERIC'S OFFICE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
P.O. Box 8100
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93403
RESOLUTION NO. 6565 (1989 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ACCEPTING
A ROAD DEED FROM KARL AND JULIA KUNDERT FOR LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
BETWEEN HIGUERA STREET AND U.S. HIGHWAY 101
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo received an offer of dedication
for the extension of Los Osos Valley Road between Higuera Street and U.S.
Highway 101 which was recorded in Volume 1827 at Page 520 of Official
Records in the Office of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder on May 24,
1974 from Karl and Julia Kundert, and
WHEREAS, that certain parcel of land was needed for the construction
of Los Osos Valley Road under a joint project with Cal Trans and said
project is complete and accepted.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that said deed is hereby accepted by the
City of San Luis Obispo. The City Clerk shall cause this resolution to be
recorded in the office of the County Recorder.
On motion of Councilwoman Rappa, seconded by Councilwoman Pinard
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Rappa, Pinard, Settle and Mayor Dunin
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Reiss
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 17th day of
January
• ATTE�Ta � �'
i .
:.7T:I,TY'GL RK' Pam Voges
1989.
MAYOR Ron Dunln _Ron DuJn \in
DOC. No.. 6244
OFFICIAL RECORDS
SAN LUIS OBISPO CO., CA
JAN 3 1 1989
FRANCIS M. COONEY
County Clerk- Recorder
TIME 4:-2 0 PM
c'
R6565
UOL JZfic)PAGE 46
n
i -
Resolution No. 6565 (1989 Series)
Page Two
APPROVED:
City Administrative Officer
Public Works Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
��ity Attor y
N /jkdolezol
j
VOL 3263 PAGE 461
F1
0 0
RESOLUTION NO. 6564 (1988 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO APPROVING THE ATTACHED TRAFFIC ORDERS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
The attached Traffic Work Orders for the period of October 1, 1988 through
December 31, 1988 are hereby approved.
On motion of Councilwoman Rappa seconded by Councilwoman Pinard
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Rappa, Pinard and Settle
NOES: Mayor Dunin
ABSENT: Councilman Reiss
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 17th day of January
�M11AYOR Ron Dunin
ATTEST: %
lJ
CITY CLE K Pam Voges
APPROVED:
ty A in_il rgtive Officer
City Attorney
City Engineer
bl6 /wrkord
lib3 /wr1
by
R6564
.tp •.r
w,_-
w ��
�''� /���r, --c,C`
���
%';
,.
RESOLUTION NO. 6563(1989 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH GRANT PEDERSEN PHILLIPS ARCHITECTS
TO PROVIDE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE CIVIC CENTER INPRO VEIVIENTS PROJECT
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
1. To enter into an agreement with Grant Pedersen Phillips Architects titled "Agreement -
Architectural Services for the Civic Center Improvements Project ".
2. To authorize the mayor to execute the agreement for the city.
3. To direct the city clerk to furnish copies of this executed resolution and the fully
executed agreement to finance department, public works department and:
Grant Pedersen Phillips Architects
1435 Anacapa Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
ATTN: Fred Sweeney
On motion of Mayor Dunin , seconded by Councilman Settle ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Dunin and Councilmembers Settle, Rappa and Reiss
NOES: Councilwoman Pinard
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 3rd day of January , 1989.
Attest:
2'�( )rvo
CitV Clerk Pamela Nlo es
ssstsss�s
Approved:
City torney
Public Works Director
R6563
1i7
0
AGREEMENT
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
FOR THE CIVIC CENTER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
This agreement is made this 3rdday of January 1989 by and between the City of San
Luis Obispo ( "the City ") and Grant Pedersen Phillips Architects ('the Architect ").
SECTION I. RECITALS
The City and the Architect recognize and acknowledge the following circumstances:
A. The San Luis Obispo City Facilities Master Plan_ adopted by the City Council recom-
mends that the City build a 28,000- 38,000 square foot office building on the site next to
city hall occupied by the old city /county library building, which will be vacated in
spring 1989.
B. Along with a new office building the City anticipates other related civic center con-
struction such as renovating the existing city hall. office building, building various site
improvements and relocating the bus transfer point.
C. All civic center improvements must respect and fit the historical, cultural and architec-
tural context of the civic center, which is defined as the properties facing or related to
the three block stretch of Palm Street between Santa Rosa and Chorro Streets.
P. The City needs professional architectural services to 1) prepare alternative architec-
tural
programs and 2) prepare designs and construction documents for a selected program if
the City elects to proceed with those steps.
E. The Architect has demonstrated through its written resume and subsequent oral interview
that it has the best combination of qualifications, experience and resources for perform-
ing the needed architectural services.
SECTION II. GENERAL STIPULATIONS
A. PROJECT STAFF
1. The City's Project Manager. The City's project manager shall be David Elliott, who
shall represent the City for all purposes under this agreement, supervise the progress
and execution of this agreement, and approve all work products submitted by the Archi=
tect.
2. The Architect's Project Architect. The Architect's project architect shall be Fred
Sweeney, who shall represent the Architect for all purposes under this agreement and
shall supervise the day -to -day project work, work closely with and report to the
City's project manager, make necessary presentations to the Planning Commission,
Agreement - Architectural Services for the Civic Center Improvements Project
page 2
Architectural Review Commission and City Council, and stay with the project from start
to finish. The Architect's project architect shall not change without the City's
prior written approval.
3. Subcontractors. The Architect shall retain the following subcontractors which are
approved by the City:
a. Structural Engineering:
Peter W. Ehlen & Associates
1119 Garden Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Peter Ehlen, Principal
b. Mechanical Engineering:
Archer - Spencer Engineering Associates, Inc.
1505 Chapala Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93010
James McKenzie, Chief Mechanical Engineer
c. Electrical Engineering:
Archer - Spencer Engineering Associates, Inc.
1505 Chapala Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93010
Mas Okamoto, Chief Electrical Engineer
d. Civil Engineering:
Penfield & Smith, Civil Engineers
III East Victoria Street (P.O. Box 98)
Santa Barbara, CA 93102
Kenneth Kules, Land Development Engineer
e. Landscape Architecture:
SEDES
849 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
David Foote, Principal
The Architect shall not change subcontractors or retain additional subcontractors with-
out the City's prior written approval.
B. THE ARCHITECT'S DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Work to be Performed. The Architect shall perform all the work particularly de-
scribed in Section III of this agreement.
2. Laws to be Observed. The Architect shall-
a. procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices
which may be necessary to lawfully perform the work required under this agreement
C
Agreement - Architectural Services for the Civic Center Improvements Project
page 3
b. keep itself fully informed of all existing and proposed federal, state and local
laws and regulations which pray affect its performance under this agreement
c. at all times comply with and cause all of its employees and subcontractors to com-
ply with all applicable laws and regulations
d. immediately report to the City's project manager in writing any discrepancy or
inconsistency it discovers in applicable laws and regulations which may affect its
performance under this agreement, particularly its preparation of construction
documents.
3.. Release of Work Products. Any reports, plans, specifications or other work products
received. or prepared by the Architect under this agreement shall be the property of
the City and shall not be released by the Architect to any individual or organization
without prior written approval of the City's project manager.
4. Copies of Work Products. If the City requests additional copies of reports, plans,
specifications or other work products beyond what the Architect must furnish in speci-
fied quantities as part of its work under this agreement, the Architect shall provide
the additional copies requested, and the City shall reimburse the Architect for its
direct costs to prepare the copies.
5. Quality of Work. The Architect shall be responsible for the professional quality,
technical accuracy, timely completion, and coordination of all work performed by the
Architect and its subcontractors under this agreement. Without additional compensa-
tion the Architect shall ensure correction of any errors, omissions or other deficien-
cies in its work or its subcontractors' work. The City's approval of work or payment
for work shall not relieve the Architect of its resporisibility for the quality of all
work performed under this agreement. The City's approval of work or payment for work
shall not be construed as a waiver of the City's rights or the Architect's responsibi-
lities under this agreement.
6. Accuracy of Final Construction Cost Estimate. The Architect shall be responsible
for the accuracy of the final construction cost estimate completed in the construction
documents step. If the lowest. responsible and acceptable bid on the construction con-
tract exceeds the final construction cost estimate (including contingencies) by more
than five percent, the City may require the Architect to revise without additional
compensation the construction drawings and specifications so that subsequent. construc-
tion contract bids do not exceed the final construction cost estimate (including con-
tingencies) by more than five percent. If the City requires the Architect to revise
construction drawings and specifications, the City shall co6perate in recommending and
accepting project modifications and deletions.
7. The Architect's Liability. The Architect shall be liable under applicable law for
all damages to the City caused by the negligence, errors, omissions or deficiencies of
the .Architect or its agents, officers, employees or subcontractors. The Architect
shall not be liable for damages caused by negligence,. errors, omissions, or deficien-
cies attributable to the City. The Architect shall not be liable for a) the City's
use of incomplete work products bj the City's modifications to work products or c) the
City's use of work products for a project other than the project. contemplated in this
agreement. The Architect shall not be responsible for delays in the project's pro-
gress caused by circumstances beyond The Architect's control.
Agreement - Architectural Services for the Civic Center Improvements Project
page 4
8. Errors, Omissions and Deficiencies. "Errors, omissions, and deficiencies" shall b_ e
defined as instances of failure to meet standards of practice normally observed in
performing similar professional services. Nothing contained in this agreement shall
expand or increase the responsibilities of the Architect beyond the responsibility
imposed by law.
C. THE CITY'S DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
1. General Duties and Cooperation. The City shall cooperate with the Architect to a
reasonable extent in order to help the Architeci complete all the work described in
this agreement. The City shall take the lead role during the construction, furnishing
and closeout phases.
2. Work to be Performed. The City shall conduct site surveys, contract for soils analy-
sis, contract for materials testing, apply for all required reviews and permits, com-
pile and distribute invitations to bid, issue purchase orders for the furnishings
procurement, inspect building construction, and inspect the furnishings installation.
D. AUTHORITY TO PROCEED
1. Phased Completion. The Architect shall conduct its work in the following consecu-
tive steps: programming, conceptual design, schematic design, design development,
construction documents, construction, furnishing, and closeout. Section III of this
agreement presents the scope of work and fees for these steps.
2. Programming. The Architect may proceed with programming upon receiving written
authorization from the City's project manager.
3. Conceptual Design through Closeout. The Architect may proceed with successive steps
upon receiving written authorization from the City's project manager. This authoriza-
tion shall be based on approval by the City Council of the preceding steps, successful
negotiation of scope of work and fees, and execution of an amendment to this agreement
citing scope of work and fees.
E. TIME FOR COMPLETION OF WORK
1. Time Specified. The Architect shall complete each step or portion of a step within
the time specified in Section III of this agreement.
2. Time Extensions. The Architect may apply to the City for time extensions needed
because of delays caused by circumstances beyond the Architect's control. The City's
project manager must approve any time extensions in writing. After receiving a time
extension for a step or portion of a step, the Architect shall not earn a bonus for
early completion of that step or portion of a step.
Agreement - Architectural Services for the Civic Center Improvements Project
page 5
F. TERMINATION
1. Right to Terminate. The City and the Architect retain the right to unilaterally
terminate this agreement for any reason by notification in writing 14 days before
termination.
2. Compensation after Termination. If this agreement is terminated by the City, the
City shall pay the Architect an amount equal to the total compensation due for all
work completed less any progress payments. If this agreement is terminated by the
Architect or because of the Architect's default, the City shall pay the Architect only
for the portion of the Architect's work which benefits the City. If the City and the
Architect cannot agree on the amount of final compensation after termination, they
shall mutually appoint an arbiter, who shall make a final decision_, binding upon both
the City and the Architect.
3. Surrender of Work Products upon Termination. Upon termination the Architect shall
immediately surrender to the City any reports, plans, specifications or other work
products, completed or not, which have been received or prepared by the Architect
under this agreement. In order to receive these work products, the City shall have
paid the Architect reasonable compensation for them. Such work products shall become
the City's permanent property. The Architect shall not be liable for a) the City's
use of incomplete work products b) the City's modifications to work. products or c) the
City's use of work products for a project other than the project contemplated in this
agreement.
G. INSPECTION OF WORK AND MATERIALS
The Architect shall furnish the City with every reasonable opportunity for the City to
determine that the Architect is performing its services according to the requirements and
intentions of this agreement. All work performed and all materials furnished shall be
subject to inspection and approval of the City's project manager. Inspection and approval
of work performed and materials furnished shall not relieve the Architect of any obliga-
tions under this agreement.
H. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS
All original reports, plans, specifications and other work products prepared or received
by the Architect under this agreement shall become the City's permanent property and shall
be delivered to the City on demand, provided the City has paid the stipulated fee for
completion of the work products.
I. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT
Failure of the City to agree in judgment with the Architect's independent findings, conclu-
sions, or recommendations as required under this agreement shall not be construed as a
failure of the Architect to perform the work required.
Agreement - Architectural Services for the Civic Center Improvements Project
page 6
J. ASSIGNMENT
The Architect shall not assign this agreement to another party without the City's prior
written consent. The Architect shall not assign work under this agreement to subcontrac-
tors other than those listed in paragraph A of this section without the City's prior writ-
ten consent.
K. NOTICES
All notices required under this agreement shall be given in writing and submitted by certi-
fied mail, postage prepaid and addressed as follows:
To the City: City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 -8100
ATTN: David Elliott
To the Architect: Grant Pedersen Phillips Architects
1435 Anacapa Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
ATTN: Fred Sweeney
L INDEMNITY
The Architect shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City and its agents,
officers and employees from and against any and all claims asserted or liability estab-
lished for damages or injuries to any person or property, including injury to the Archi-
tect's employees, agents or officers which arise from or are connected with or are caused
or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of the Architect and its agents, officers
or employees in performing the work under this agreement, and all expenses of
investigating and defending against such claims or liability. The Architect's duty to
indemnify and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liability arising from the
established sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City and its agents, officers and
employees.
M. WORKERS COMPENSATION
The Architect shall be aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of Califor-
nia which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers compensation
or to undertake self - insurance according to the provisions of that code and shall comply
with those provisions before performing work under this agreement.
I
I
Agreement - Architectural Services for the Civie Center Improvements Project
page 7
N. INSURANCE
1. Public Liability and Property Damage. The Architect shall pay for and maintain
public liability and property damage insurance which shall protect the City and its
employees against loss from liability imposed by law from damages on account of bodily
injury, including death resulting from bodily injury, suffered or alleged to have been
suffered by any person, resulting directly or indirectly from the negligent actions
(other than professional errors, omissions and deficiencies) of the Architect or any
subcontractor to the Architect. This insurance shall also protect the City and its
employees against loss from liability arising out of the use and operation of
automobiles, trucks, and other mobile equipment. All required public liability and
property damage insurance shall run for the period of performance under this
agreement. The amounts of this insurance coverage shall not be less than the
following:
public liability - $1,000,000 single limit
property damage - $1,000,000 single limit
2. Professional Errors and Omissions. The Architect shall pay for and maintain pro-
fessional errors and omissions insurance in the amount of $100,000 minimum which shall
protect the City and its employees against loss from liability imposed by law from
damages on account of the Architect's professional errors, omissions and deficiencies.
O. ENFORCEMENT COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES
The prevailing party in any action between the parties to this agreement brought to en-
force the terms of this agreement may recover from the other party its reasonable costs
and attorney's fees spent in connection with such an action.
P. ENTIRETY AND INTEGRITY OF AGREEMENT
This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the City and the
Architect and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either
written or oral. This document may amended only by written instrument, executed by
both the City and the Architect. All provisions of this agreement are expressly made
conditions. This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.
SECTION III. SCOPE OF THE ARCHITECTS WORK
A. GENERAL
1. The Architect shall conduct its work in the following consecutive steps: program-
ming, conceptual design, schematic design, design development, construction documents,
construction, furnishing, and closeout.
Agreement - Architectural Services for the Civic Center Improvements Project
page 6
2. The scope of work and fee for conceptual design shall be incorporated into this
agreement by written amendment after completion of programming if the City elects to
proceed with that step.
3. The scope of work and fees for schematic design and design development shall be
incorporated into this agreement by written amendment after completion of conceptual
design if the City elects to proceed with those steps.
4. The scope of work and fees for construction documents through closeout shall be
incorporated into this agreement by written amendment after completion of design devel-
opment if the City elects to proceed with those steps.
B. PROGRAMMING
1. Tasks
a. Introduce the civic center improvements project to the Architectural Review
Commission and review project objectives with the commission
b. Prepare a functional program which
(1) describes current and possible future activities at city hall and its site
(2) lists possible building and site improvements to accommodate selected
activities and promote adopted building goals: productive work environments,
safe and energy- efficient spaces, a positive image for the city, and maximum
service life
(3) clearly differentiates between needed and desired improvements
c. Prepare four to six alternative architectural programs showing different site
arrangements, building sizes, phasing strategies, improvement levels and
construction /furnishing costs
d. Prepare sketches of site plans and building configurations depicting the
alternative architectural programs
e. Compare the advantages, disadvantages and feasibility of each alternative
architectural program
£: Present the findings and products of tasks a through a to the City Council
g. Obtain City Council approval of one architectural program and authority to proceed
with conceptual design
2. Required Meetings in San Luis Obispo
a. Site inspections
b. Interviews with building users
c. Meetings with the City's project manager /building committee
d. One Architectural Review Commission meeting
e. One City Council meeting
3. Compensation
a. Fee: $25,000.00 plus $650.00 for each additional City Council or commission meet-
ing not listed in Section III.B.2
b. Progress Payments. By completing tasks a through IF the Architect shall earn
$22,000.00. By completing task g the Architect shall earn $3,000.00. No oftener
than once each month the Architect may submit a progress payment request for pro-
gramming work completed. Before a progress payment request may be submitted, the
Agreement - Architectural Services for the Civic Center Improvements Project
page B
Architect's project architect and the City's project manager shall agree on the
percentage of the programming completed and the fee earned. Within 14 days of
receiving a progress payment request the City shall issue payment for the fee
earned.
4. Time for Completion
a. Tasks a,b,c d and e: 49 calendar days after the Architect receives written
authorization to proceed from the City's project manager
b. Tasks f and g: as scheduled
This agreement is executed by the following authorized representatives:
FOR THE ARCHITECT: FOR THE CITY:
Grant Pedersen Phillips Arch.
A C orni Corporation
Leo R, Pedersen AIA v-�ay5r Ron Dunin
12,20,88 �, 4
date date
Attest =L
City Jerk Pam Vo
l
� \ J
RESOLUTION .NO. 6562 (1989 SERIES)
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION DENYING USE PERMIT U1390 TO ALLOW A NEW
BUILDING ADDITION AT 3396 JOHNSON AVENUE
WHEREAS, the applicant requested a use permit to allow a new building
addition /outreach center at the above address; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the. request at its November 30, 1988,
meeting and denied the use permit based on the finding that proposed development does not
provide sufficient parking on or off -site to meet the demands of the use nor does it
comply with the minimum number of parking spaces required for a public assembly facility
in the city's Zoning Ordinance and;
WHEREAS, the proposed development does not conform to the general plan nor does it
comply with Zoning Ordinance requirements and the proposed use could affect the welfare
of persons living or working on the site or in the vicinity;
WHEREAS, on December,9, 1988, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's
action to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on January 3, 1989, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the testimony of the appellant and other interested parties;
NOW, THEREFORE, the council of the City of San Luis Obispo upholds the appeal and
approves use permit U1390 for the building addition subject to the following findings and
conditions:
Findinits
1. The project is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses.
2. The project conforms to the general plan and complies with zoning ordinance
requirements.
3. The project is granted a negative declaration of environmental impacts.
4. The project will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons
living or working on the site or in the vicinity.
R6562
u
Resolution No. 6562(1989 Series)
Page 2
5. The scale of use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses.
6. The parking management plan for the Nazarene Church site as submitted adequately
controls parking demand during regular operation of the Sanctuary, Fellowship Hall,
Outreach Center and school and will minimize parking impacts on the surrounding
neighborhood.
7. The parking management plan for the Nazarene Church site as submitted meets the
intent of the city's parking regulations by limiting occupancy of the Nazarene
Church site.
Conditions
1. An activity schedule of the Nazarene Church site (Sanctuary, Fellowship Hall,
Outreach Center and School) shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building occupancy permit for
the outreach center. The schedule shall consider noise impacts on the adjoining
residential properties. Although exceptions may be made for.occasional special
events, operation of the center shall be restricted to the following schedule:
Monday through Friday: 7:30 to 10:00 P.M.
Saturday and Sunday and Legal Holidays: 9:00 A.M. to 10:00 PAL
2. The project's lighting shall be designed so as not to subject neighboring properties
to undue glare. Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall submit a
revised lighting plan with photo- metric information and graphics which delineates
light dispersion on the site for review and approval by the Community Development
Director. Light standards shall incorporate more efficient down light fixtures to
minimize light glare onto adjoining properties or the public right of way.
3. A minimum four foot high screening fence shall be constructed and landscaping
installed along the property perimeter between the parking area and Flora Street.
Fence openings may be allowed for pedestrian access to the church facility from
Flora Street.
4. Prior to building permit issuance for the outreach center the applicant shall submit
to the Community Development Director for review, approval and recordation a
covenant agreement which runs with the land to restrict maximum combined occupancy
of the Outreach Center, Sanctuary, fellowship hall and school, without special
permission from the Community Development Director, to 612 persons. The applicant
shall conform at all times to the Parking Management Program, labeled Exhibit E and
incorporated herein by this reference.
5. All trees shall be retained except for the pine tree proposed for removal. The
Canary Island Pine is to be relocated as a street tree along Flora or Southwood.
Additional street trees shall be planted along Johnson Avenue to the satisfaction of
the City Arborist.
Resolution No. 65621989 Series)
Page 3
6. The Planning Commission may review the use permit at any regular meeting after the
Community Development Department receives a reasonable, written complaint. During
such review,.the Planning Commission may add, delete, or modify conditions of
approval or it may revoke the use permit.
7. A new fire hydrant shall be installed at the corner of Johnson and Southwood Drive
to to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
8. The applicant shall provide for installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk and street
pavement on Flora Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
9. The applicant shall pay water frontage charges.
On motion of Councilman Settle . seconded by
Councilwoman Pinard . and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Settle, Pinard, Rappa, Reiss and Mayor Dunin
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 3rd day of January
1989.
• Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City C k Pam VogesU
Resolution No. 6562 (1989 Series)
Page 4
APPROVED:
er
Community Development Director
`D
�� !
F /„�,,�
�� n
RESOLUTION NO. 6561 (1989 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ACCEPTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT NO. 1181
2221 KING STREET (GANN INVESTMENTS, SUBDIVIDER)
WHEREAS, the City Council made certain findings concerning Tract No. 1181
and as contained in Resolution No. 5624 (1985 Series), and
WHEREAS, all conditions required per Resolution No. 5624 (1985 Series) have
been met, and
WHEREAS, all subdivision improvements have been constructed to City
standards,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the public improvements (water main and
appurtenances) are hereby accepted and the surety is hereby released in
accordance with the subdivision agreement..
On motion of Councilwoman Rappa, seconded by Councilwoman Pinard,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Rappa, Pinard, Reiss, Settle and Mayor Dunin
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 3rd day of
January 1 1989
ATT
V
CI Y CLERK Pam ges
01
on unin
R6561
Resolution No. 6561 (1989 Series)
Page Two
APPROVED:
\ c
City Ad inniis�trative Officer
Public works Director
Community Development Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
//L-�
City At rney
N /jkt1181
j
irl /'7
N