HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/01/1992, 4 - CONSIDERATION OF REQUESTS (GP/R 1516, PD 1517) TO DEVELOP A REGIONAL OFFICE CENTER AT THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF PRADO ROAD AND ELKS LANE (40 PRADO ROAD), EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 INCLUDING: I������tl�����Illllllllll�lllllll
city i MEETINGDATE:
o san lues osispo 9--1 - 9a
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director; o
By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner PR
SUBJECT: Consideration of requests (GP/R 1516, PD 1517) to evelop
a regional office center at the northeastern corner of Prado Road
and Elks Lane (40 Prado Road) , east of Highway 101 including:
A. General Plan Amendments:
1. Map Amendment - to change the Land Use Element map
designation of the site from Interim
Conservation/Open Space to Office; and
2 . Text Amendment - to add text to Section C. 5 b. of
the Land Use Element regarding the appropriateness
of office development at the site.
B. Planned Development Rezoning - to change the zoning of
the site from C/OS-10 to O-PD, and to review a
preliminary development plan.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
A. Adopt a Resolution:
1. Amending the Land Use Element Map from Interim
Conservation/Open Space to Office, based on
findings; and
2. Amending Section C.5.b. of the Land Use Element
Text to add language regarding the appropriateness
of office development with ancillary retail uses.at
the site, based on findings.
B. Introduce an Ordinance to print amending the Zoning Map
from C/OS-10 to 0-PD, and approving the preliminary
development plan, based on findings and subject to
conditions.
DISCUSSION —
On July 29, 1992, the Planning Commission voted 4-1-1 (Cross
dissenting and Karleskint absent) to approve the requests outlined
above to enable development of a phased regional office center at
the site. It was moved by Commissioner Peterson, and seconded by
Commissioner Williams, to accept staff's Alternative Recommendation
outlined on Pages 8-10 of the attached Planning Commission staff
report with the following changes under. Part B. , Conditions for the
PD rezoning:
■ Amend Condition #3 to allow incidental and non-customer
serving functions of banks and savings and loans, and
���������►►iI►IIIIIIIiIlIl1� �����lU City Of San L.AISOBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
GP/R 1516, PD 1517
Page 2
credit unions and finance companies, consistent with the
Walter Center PD rezoning (PD 1541) ;
■ Amend Condition #4 from 25% to 30%, regarding the
maximum percentage of gross floor area of proposed
buildings that may be occupied by tenants other than
government offices and private, non-profit social
services offices, consistent with the Walter Center PD i
rezoning (PD 1541) ; and
I
■ Amend Condition #8 to specify that the 50-foot height
limitation includes roof-mounted .equipment.
The Commission also included in their motion that Mitigation
Measure #4 of Initial Study ER 14-91 be modified to: allow Elks
Lane to be developed for a 25 MPH design speed; and to include a
separated and defined pedestrian drop-off point outside of the Elks
Lane right-of-way.
The Commission discussed a range of project-related issues, but
they focussed on land use policy and circulation matters. The
policy debate was centered on the appropriate percentages of public
versus private offices and the amount and type of allowed retail
uses. Circulation issues discussed ' included the Elks Lane
alignment, proposed freeway interchange, future signals and area
street improvements.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the applications as recommended by the Planning
Commission (CAO Recommendation) , modifying the amount of
"other" tenants that would be allowed in project buildings to
50%. This is consistent with Council action on the Walter
Center PD taken August 18, 1992, and also consistent with the
Commission's intent to regulate the two properties in a
similar fashion. Condition #5. in the attached Ordinance has _
been changed to reflect this change.
2. Adopt the Resolution, included as Attachment 3, denying the
requests to develop a regional office complex at the site,
based on inconsistency with the City's General Plan.
3 . Continue with direction to the staff and applicant if the
Council desires further information or analysis to render a
decision.
�f-
����►��►n►►�i�illllllllP�► ���UIII MY Of San LUIS OBISPO -
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
GP/R 1516, PD 1517
Page 3
Attached:
Attachment 1: Resolution approving the LUE map and text
amendments
Attachment 2: Ordinance approving the PD rezoning and preliminary
development plan
Attachment 3 : Resolution denying the project
Attachment 4: Planning Commission follow-up letter
Attachment 5: Draft 7-29-92 Planning Commission Minutes
Attachment 6: Planning Commission Staff Report
i
I
-3
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. (1992 Series.)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT MAP FROM
INTERIM CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE TO OFFICE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 40 PRADO ROAD
AND AMENDING SECTION C. 5.b. OF THE
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT (GP/R 1516)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have
held public hearings on this amendment in accordance with the
California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the amendment comes to the council upon the favorable
recommendation of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the change
have been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council has
determined that the project's Negative Declaration adequately
addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the
proposed general plan amendments, incorporating the mitigation
measures shown on the attached Exhibit "A" into the project.
SECTION 2 . Findings.
1. The proposed general plan amendment will not be
detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity.
2. The proposed general plan amendment is consistent with
the goals and policies of the General Plan.
3 . The proposed amendment will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment, subject . to the
mitigation measures referenced in Section 1, and listed
in Exhibit "A", being included in the project, and the
City Council hereby approves the Negative Decalaration.
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 3. Adoption.
1. The Land Use Element is hereby amended as shown in
Exhibit "B".
2 . The Community Development Director shall cause the change
to be reflected in documents which are on display in City
Hall and which are available for public use.
SECTION 4. Related Action. That the request for the general
plan amendment text change to add text to Section C.5.b. of the
Land Use Element regarding the appropriateness of office
development at the site be approved as follows, based on the
following finding:
An area north of Prado Road and east of Elks Lane, which may
be changed to an urban land-use designation when the flood
hazard is mitigated. The portion of this area abutting Prado
Road is suited for office uses, including government offices,
and some related retail commercial uses specified through
planned development approval. This area shall be considered
as part of the "Social Services pole" for government offices,
which is generally focused on the intersection of Prado Road
and South Higuera Street.
Finding
1. The proposed general plan text amendment is consistent
with the goals and policies of the General Plan, subject
to the area limitations of the planned development.
On motion of seconded
by and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page 3
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
ity A inistrative Officer
rf/Att
e
Community Dev to went Director
EXHIBIT A
Prado Center Environmental Review 22
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ER 14-91
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
& MONITORING PROGRAM
In conformance with AB 3180, the following mitigation measures will be monitored as
indicated below:
1. Banks, real estate offices, financial institutions, medical clinics and doctor offices,
and lawyers offices will not be allowed to be established at this site.
Monitoring:
This restriction on allowed offices at the site shall become a condition of
Preliminary Development Plan approval, and entered in the City's Land Use
Inventory to alert staff of the restriction in its review of business licenses for new
uses established at the site. r^
2. A text amendment to Section C.S.b. of the adopted LUE, which specifically
identifies the site as a part of the Social Services government pole, shall be
approved. Precise language of the text amendment shall be as approved by the
PIanning Commission and City Council.
Monitoring;•
The Planning Commission and City Council will need to review and consider the
proposed modification to the LUE text for appropriateness and consistency with
general plan goals.
3. The applicant shall either install a traffic signal, or alternative traffic control _
measures acceptable to the City Engineer, at the Elks Lane and South Higuera
Street intersection with the development of project Phase 3. Prior to approval of .
the precise plan for Phase 3, the applicant shall submit a report which studies
the feasibility of signal installation and evaluates alternative traffic control
measures available.
Monitoring;
The requirement would be incorporated into planned development approval. The
required report would need to be submitted with the application for architectural
review of Phase 3.
�- 7
Prado Center Environmental Review 23
4. The plan shall be revised to show a realignment of Elks Lane that is designed for
a 25 MPH design speed, including its connection and transition with the existing
street, and include a separated and defined pedestrian drop-off point, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Monitoring:
The City Engineer, by reviewing project plans during precise plan review,
architectural review and building permit plan check, would confirm whether the
street alignment was consistent with City design standards.
5. The southernmost driveway entrance to parking facilities closest to the Elks Lane
and Prado Road intersection shall be designed to allow for adequate sight
distances and minimize conflicts in turning movements. Possible alternatives
include: moving the entrance further to the north; or adding a median in Elks
Lane near the intersection to prevent lett turns out of the parking lot.
Monitoring
The precise plan for the project and architectural plans for Phase 1 shall reflect a
driveway solution acceptable to the Community Development Department and
Public Works Department staffs.
6. The applicant will be required to pay a pro-rata share to the City of the cost of
proposed area-wide traffic improvements as detailed in the traffic study prepared
for the project and dated May 1, 1992.
Monitoring:
Fees would be collected at the time of building permit issuance. A payment
schedule to coordinate with project phasing would be developed.
7. The applicant shall submit a trip reduction program containing a list of actions
to reduce auto use to the Community Development Director for review and
approval. The plan shall include the following components:
a. Designate a Transportation Coordinator to organize ride-sharing and
other trip reduction programs, post and disseminate information to
employees about transportation alternatives, survey employees regarding
preferences, and provide on-going monitoring regarding program success;
b. Provide bicycle parking and lockers and showers in the project to
encourage employees to ride bicycles to work; p.
�f'O
Prado Center Environmental Review 24
c. Coordinate with the City regarding development of a bus turnout,
passenger shelter and transit sign to serve the project;
d. Adopt a goal to increase Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) to 1.5 within 3
years of first building occupancy;
e. With combined employees of 100 or more, sponsor a van pool service.
Monitorine:
City Community Development Department, or Public Works Traffic Division, staff
would monitor the trip reduction program annually until the County APCD sets
up an independent monitoring program.
8. Consistent with the recommendations included in the Seismic Safety Element, a
detailed soils and geology report needs to be submitted at the time of building
permit which considers special grading and construction techniques necessary to
address the potential for liquefaction.
Monitoring
Community Development Department staff would review the report and its
recommendations in evaluating the project plans as part of building permit plan
check.
9. Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.44.270, all graded surfaces shall be
wetted, protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon
any adjoining property or street. The following measures shall constitute the
project's dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of
that project's construction:
a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with
complete coverage of all active areas);
b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
C. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or
transported onsite or offsite;
e. Watering material stockpiles; and
y-9
Prado Center Environmental Review 25
f. Periodic washdowns, or mechanical streetsweeping, of Broad Street and
Rockview Place in the vicinity of the construction site.
g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work.
Monitorings
Grading practices shall be monitored by Community Development Department
staff through field inspections during project construction.
10. The finish floor of project buildings shall be raised to a minimum of 136.5'
elevation to be consistent with the City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations:
Monitoring:
This shall be reviewed by Community Development Department and Public
Works staffs by reviewing project plans during precise plan review, architectural
review and building permit plan check.
11. A qualified archaeologist will be retained to monitor project grading and
trenching activities. If excavations encounter significant cultural materials,
construction activities which may affect them shall cease until the extent of the
resource is determined and appropriate protective measures are approved by the
Community Development Director. The Community Development Director shall
be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that they may be
recorded by.a qualified archaeologist.
12. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American
monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and
remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal
laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on the grading and
construction plans for the project.
Monitoring!Mitigation Measures 11 & 121:
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for Community
Development Department review and approval an archaeological work program
detailing the plan for monitoring and the archaeologist retained to monitor
construction.
13. The existing structures on the site shall be reviewed by the Cultural Heritage
Committee and the Architectural Review Commission. The farm house and water
tower buildings shall be photo-documented prior to their demolition.
�f-/O
Prado Center Environmental Review 26
Monitoring
Community Development Department staff shall monitor by sending demolition
plans to the CHC and ARC. Standards for photo-documentation shall be set by
the CHC.
14. All office buildings and other project facilities shall be located at locations on the
site with magnetic field readings (resultant values) of 1.0 mG or less. A report
needs to be prepared and additional measurements taken to confirm where on the
site that those readings occur. Building footprints may need to be adjusted to
accommodate this standard. -
Monitoring
This shall be reviewed by Community Development Department and Public
Works staffs by reviewing project plans during precise plan review, architectural
review and building permit plan check.
15. If the Community Development Director determines that the above mitigation
measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the
mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures.
GENERAL PLAN MAP AML,JDMENT
EXHIBIT B GP/R1516
_Y
1 I•'•
i �•v — I,
-I yI) • ,,•f• 'r.•r., __ r _ _. i J. {J.. '�J• aj hj!r:':::'�•�S:ti::
Vs
F.
f•y y • '-�;'.ti•_•r_L�. .. •e.;�� -'s'i• a,�`\. .y�1..�.�/:1 T�7. -.�. �J,::.
44
.�� :•r�. �'. )�•:., . 'til� %:.• `'� I. .y.
��,'��,. � .fir.- +•�: .. ., \ 'S��t:':,,i;?•11..,', -'r,�..')•.r y,. .l•�T�1.
+' '' � r:°_t:��\'•'::ate, :;:�: '
a
•'r, -
M~
I _ _
.r
r. a from
Chang om Interim Open Space
to Office
v��../ 'r.lr`../ "nv r',•'_ ::ri!:•: :ti.. 9 sea»e.ees. ^�':::;' ',
-.i v wr.i• yr .._ �• :::y.;:.!:r:-.ai:;tie:. ''"'ee •�'e J, -
,. � y. :•f`t� i•;e;•: :.;: . j'` ; �;cif"[_E`"i':E?i-SEE3::::::::
v "+..•,v./_•"-' f /•wf:: 1 i °».°,°wrw .i.tiY�:::::::::-::::-:e_i?i�:::_:
.i
r�
_ -
T _
_V _
�I r
.r
r+
4
r •J. \
1" = 1,000'
�-ice
Attachment 2
ORDINANCE NO. (1992 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONE MAP
FROM C/OS-10 TO O-PD
AND ADOPT A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 40 PRADO ROAD (PD 1517)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have
held hearings to consider appropriate zoning for the subject site
in accordance with Section 65800 et. seq. of the California
Government Code; and
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Zoning Man Designation. That the site be rezoned
"O-PD" as shown on the map attached marked Exhibit "C" and included
herein by reference.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council
has determined that the project's Negative Declaration adequately
addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the
proposed rezoning, and incorporates the mitigation measures shown
on the attached Exhibit "A" into the project.
SECTION 3. Adoption. The preliminary development plan,
adopted consistent with the O-PD rezoning of the site, is approved, _
subject to the following findings and conditions:
Findings.
1. The proposed rezoning and preliminary development plan
will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare
of persons living or working in the area or at the site.
2 . The proposed rezoning and preliminary development plan
are consistent with the general plan.
�-�3
Ordinance No. (1992 Series)
Page 2
3. The proposed project is appropriate at the proposed
location and will be compatible with surrounding land
uses.
4. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits
by providing child care facilities and related retail
commercial uses that would not be feasible under
conventional office zoning.
5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was certified by the
Community Development Director on July 24, 1992, which
describes significant environmental impacts associated
with project development. The Negative Declaration
concludes that the project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment subject to the
mitigation measures shown in the attached Exhibit A being
incorporated into the project, and the City Council
hereby approves the Negative Decalaration.
Conditions.
1. The applicant shall file a precise development plan for
city approval within six months of preliminary plan
approval for the Phase 1 of the project, Building C. The
Preliminary Development Plan approval shall expire if a
precise development plan is not filed and approved. At
the time of precise plan submittal for Phase 1, a
detailed phasing plan for subsequent project phases shall
be submitted indicating deadlines for submitting precise
plans for Phase 2 (Building A) , .Phase 3 (Building B) and
Phase 4 (Building D) .
2. Project shall be built, maintained and operated in strict
conformance with approved precise development plans.
3 . Banks, real estate offices, financial institutions,
medical clinics and doctor offices, and lawyers offices
will not be allowed to be established at this site; —
however, incidental and non-customer serving functions of
banks and savings and loans, and credit unions and
finance companies shall be allowed.
4. A maximum of 50% of the gross floor area of the office
areas in proposed buildings may be occupied by tenants
other than government offices and private, non-profit
social services offices.
5. Other private offices allowed at the site may occupy a
minimum of 2,500 square feet of building floor area.
Ordinance No. (1992 Series)
Page 3
6. Up to 15% of the floor area of new buildings may be
devoted to commercial uses which are related to offices,
such as, but not limited to, food service, copying and
printing and office supply sales. The Community
Development Director shall approve a range of . allowed
retail uses with consideration of each building's precise
plan based on direction provided by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
7. 2, 000 square feet of the floor area in Building C shall
be reserved for a day care center. A playground area
shall be developed in conjunction with the day care
center and details for its development shall be a part of
the precise plan for Building C.
8. A maximum building height of 50 feet shall be allowed,
including roof-mounted equipment.
SECTION 4. Implementation. A summary of this ordinance,
together with the ayes and noes, shall be published, at least five
(5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram Tribune, a
newspaper published and circulated in said city, and the same shall
go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its
passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of
San Luis Obispo, at its meeting held on the day of
1992, on motion of ,
seconded by and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Ordinance No. (1992 Series)
Page 4
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
ity A inistrative Officer
4Atrn
Community De el ment Director
REZONING MAP
EXHIBIT C
GP/131516 PD1517
� 5-
-J-Lu
c- F c-S
cic C/OS
C-T s _
3C ` -
� C-S-S
1f C-R
-5 5
40,0
04 . c
C-R-PD C/OS-10
s
\ Change from c/Os-10 . ;`:';:::•:..
V J
PF ass
1, = 13000'
EXHIBIT A
Prado Center Environmental Review 22
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWER 14-91
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
& MONITORING PROGRAM
In conformance with AB 3180, the following mitigation measures will be monitored as
indicated below:
1. Banks, real estate offices, financial institutions, medical clinics and doctor offices,
and lawyers offices will not be allowed to be established at this site.
Monitoring:
This restriction on allowed offices at the site shall become a condition of
Preliminary Development Plan approval, and entered in the City's Land Use
Inventory to alert staff of the restriction in its review of business licenses for new
uses established at the site.
2. A text amendment to Section C.S.b. of the adopted LUE, which specifically
identifies the site as a part of the Social Services government pole, shall be
approved. Precise language of the text amendment shall be as approved by the
Planning Commission and City Council.
Monitorin.
The Planning Commission and City Council will need to review and consider the
proposed modification to the LUE text for appropriateness and consistency with
general plan goals.
3. The applicant shall either install a traffic signal, or alternative traffic control
measures acceptable to the City Engineer, at the Elks Lane and South Higuera
Street intersection with the development of project Phase 3. Prior to approval of
the precise plan for Phase 3, the applicant shall submit a report which studies
the feasibility of signal installation and evaluates alternative traffic control
measures available.
Monitoring:
The requirement would be incorporated into planned development approval. The
required report would need to be submitted with the application for architectural
review of Phase 3.
Prado Center Environmental Review 23
4. The plan shall be revised to show a realignment of Elks Lane that is designed for
a 25 MPH design speed, including its connection and transition with the existing
street, and include a separated and defined pedestrian drop-off point, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Monitorine:
The City Engineer, by reviewing project plans during precise plan review,
architectural review and building permit plan check, would confirm whether the
street alignment was consistent with City design standards.
5. The southernmost driveway entrance to parking facilities closest to the Elks Lane
and Prado Road intersection shall be designed to allow for adequate sight
distances and minimize conflicts in turning movements. Possible alternatives
include: moving the entrance further to the north; or adding a median in Elks
Lane near the intersection to prevent left turns out of the parking lot.
Monitorings '
The precise plan for the project and architectural plans for Phase 1 shall reflect a
driveway solution acceptable to the Community Development Department and
Public Works Department staffs.
6. The applicant will be required to pay a pro-rata share to the City of the cost of
proposed area-wide traffic improvements as detailed in the trafrc study prepared
for the project and dated May 1, 1992.
Monitoring:
Fees would be collected at the time of building permit issuance. A payment
schedule to coordinate with project phasing would be developed.
7. The applicant shall submit a trip reduction program containing a list of actions
to reduce auto use to the Community Development Director for review and
approval. The plan shall include the following components:
a. Designate a Transportation Coordinator to organize ride-sharing and
other trip reduction programs, post and disseminate information to
employees about transportation alternatives, survey employees regarding
preferences, and provide on-going monitoring regarding program success;
b. Provide bicycle parking and lockers and showers in the project to
encourage employees to ride bicycles to work;
Prado Center Environmental Review 24
c. Coordinate with the City regarding development of a bus turnout,
passenger shelter and transit sign to serve the project;
d. Adopt a goal to increase Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) to 1.5 within 3
years of first building occupancy;
e. With combined employees of 100 or more, sponsor a van pool service.
Monitoring;
City Community Development Department, or Public Works Traffic Division, staff
would monitor the trip reduction program annually until the County APCD sets
up an independent monitoring program.
8. Consistent with the recommendations included in the Seismic Safety Element, a
detailed soils and geology report needs to be submitted at the time of building
permit which considers special grading and construction techniques necessary to
address the potential for liquefaction.
Monitoring;
Community Development Department staff would review the report and its
recommendations in evaluating the project plans as part of building permit plan
check.
9. Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.44.270, all graded surfaces shall be
wetted, protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon
any adjoining property or street. The following measures shall constitute the
project's dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of
that project's construction:
a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with
complete coverage of all active areas);
b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
C. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or
transported onsite or offsite;
e. Watering material stockpiles; and
�as
Prado Center Environmental Review 25
f. Periodic washdowns, or mechanical streetsweeping, of Broad Street and
Rockview Place in the vicinity of the construction site.
g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work.
Monitorine:
Grading practices shall be monitored by Community Development Department
staff through field inspections during project construction.
10. The finish floor of project buildings shall be raised to a minimum of 136.5'
elevation to be consistent with the City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations:
Monitoring:,
This shall be reviewed by Community Development Department and Public
Works staffs by reviewing project plans during precise plan review, architectural _
review and building permit plan check.
11. A qualified archaeologist will be retained to monitor project grading and .
trenching activities. If excavations encounter significant cultural materials,
construction activities which may affect them shall cease until the extent of the
resource is determined and appropriate protective measures are approved by the
Community Development Director. The Community Development Director shall
be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that they may be
recorded by a qualified archaeologist.
12. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American
monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and
remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal _
laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on the grading and
construction plans for the project.
Monitoring (Mitigation Measures 11 & 12):
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for Community
Development Department review and approval an archaeological work program
detailing the plan for monitoring and the archaeologist retained to monitor
construction.
13. The existing structures on the site shall be.reviewed by the Cultural Heritage
Committee and the Architectural Review Commission. The farm house and water
tower buildings shall be photo-documented prior to their demolition.
Prado Center Environmental Review 26
Monitoring;,
Community Development Department staff shall monitor by sending demolition
plans to the CHC and ARC. Standards for photo-documentation shall be set by
the CHC.
14. All office buildings and other project facilities shall be located at locations on the
site with magnetic field readings (resultant values) of 1.0 mG or less. A report
needs to be prepared and additional measurements taken to confirm where on the
site that those readings occur. Building footprints may need to be adjusted to
accommodate this standard.
Monitoring;
This shall be reviewed by Community Development Department and Public
Works staffs by reviewing project plans during precise plan review, architectural
review and building permit plan check.
15. If the Community Development Director determines that the above mitigation
measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the
mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures.
Attachment 3 -
RESOLUTION NO. (1992 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
DENYING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT
MAP AND ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATIONS FROM
INTERIM CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE (C/OS-10) TO OFFICE (O-PD)
AND DENYING A REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION C.5.b. OF THE
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT
TO ENABLE DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL OFFICE CENTER
AT 40 PRADO ROAD(GP/R 1516, PD 1517)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have
held public hearings on these amendments in accordance with the
California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered public testimony, the
applicants' request GP/R 1516, PD 1517, the Planning Commission's
action, and staff recommendations and reports.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The proposed general plan amendments and rezoning are
inconsistent with professional office and public facility
policies contained in the Land Use Element of the General
Plan.
2 . The proposed general plan amendments and rezoning are
inappropriate as an expansion of the existing Social
services office pole given existing Land Use Element
policies related to government offices (the "tri-polar"
policy) .
3 . The proposal to develop a regional office center at the
site is premature due to the pending adoption of the Land
Use Element and Circulation Element.
4 . The project should be developed in conjunction with other
nearby properties as part of a comprehensive area plan.
SECTION 2. The request for amendments to the Land Use
Element map and zoning map to change designations from Interim
Conservation/Open Space (C/OS-10) to Office (O-PD) for property
located at 40 Prado Road, and the request to amend Section C.5.b.
y a3
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page 2
of the General Plan Land Use Element Text, are hereby denied.
On motion of
seconded by , and on the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of , 1992 .
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
ity A inistrative Officer
C' t rn
Community Dev to ment Director
Attachment 4
city of sAn tuis oBispo
I
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • Sari Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
August 4, 1992
Ms. Maxine Oliver Morosky etal
3008 Bucknell Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93305-1917
Subject: Actions Relating to Property at 40 Prado Road
A. General Plan Amendment & Rezoning GP 1516
B. Planned Development PD 1517
Dear Ms. Morosky:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of July 29, 1992, recommended that the City
Council approve your request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to change
the designation from Interim-Conservation/Open Space to Office, based on the following
findings:
1. The proposed general plan amendment will not he detrimental to the health,
safety or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity.
2. The proposed general plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of
the General Plan.
3. The proposed amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment as documented in the mitigated negative declaration approved for
the application.
The commission also recommended that the City Council approve the Planned
Development Rezoning to change the zoning of the property from C/OS-10 to O-PD,
including approval of the submitted preliminary development plan, based on findings and
subject to conditions:
Fines
1. The proposed rezoning and preliminary development plan will not be detrimental
to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working in the area or at the
site.
2. The proposed rezoning and preliminary development plan are consistent with the
general plan.
Ms. Maxine Oliver Morosky etal
August 4, 1992
Page 2
3. The proposed project is appropriate at the proposed location and will be
compatible with surrounding land uses.
4. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits by providing child care
facilities and related retail commercial uses that would not be feasible under
conventional office zoning.
5. An Mitigated Negative Declaration was certified by the Community Development
Director on July 24, 1992, which describes significant environmental impacts
associated with project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that
the project will not have a siOnificant adverse impact on the environment subject
to the mitivatiun ,h(Mil in the attachod Appendix A being incorporated
into the project.
Conditions
1. The applicant shall file a precise development plan for city approval within six
months of preliminary plan approval for the Phase 1 of the project, Building C.
The Preliminary Development Plan approval shall expire if a precise development
plan is not filed and approved. At the time of precise plan submittal for Phase 1,
a detailed phasing plan for sub>etluent project phases shall be submitted
indicating deadlines for submitting precise plans for Phase 2 (Building A), Phase 3
(Building B) and Phase 4 (Ruildin! D).
2. Project shall he built, maintained and operated in strict conformance with
approved precise development plans.
3. Banks, real estate offices, financial institutions, medical clinics and doctor offices,
and lawyers offices will not be allowed to he established at this site, however,
incidental and non-customer serving functions of banks and savings and loans and
credit unhand finance companies shall be allowed.
4. A maximum of 30�,c of the gross floor area of proposed buildings may be _
occupied by tenants other than government offices and private, non-profit social
services offices.
5. Other private offices allowed at the site may occupy a minimum of 2,500 square
feet of building floor area.
Ms. Maxine Oliver Moroskv ewl
August 4, 1992
Page 3
6. Up to 15% of the floor area of new buildings may he devoted to commercial uses
which are related to offices, such as, but not limited to,'food service, copying and
printing and office Supply sales. The Community Development Director shall
approve a range of allowed retail uses with consideration of each building's
precise plan based on direction provided by the Planning Commission and City
Council.
7. 2,000 square feet of the floor area in Building C shall be reserved for a day care
center. A playground area shall be developed in conjunction with the day care
center and details for its development shall he a part of the precise plan for
Building C.
8. A maximum building height of 50 feet shall be allowed, including roof-mounted
equipment.
The commission also recommended that the City Council add text to Section C.5.b. of
the Land Use Element regarding the appropriateness of office development at the site
be approved as follows, based on the following finding:
r
An area north of Prado Road and east of Elks Lane, which may be
changed to an urban land-use desiumtion when the flood hazard is
mitianted. The nortion of this area ahuttins Prado Road is suited for
office uties including government offices. and some related retail
commercial uses specified through planned development approval This
area shall he considered as part of the "Social Services pole" for
government offices, which isentti erally focused on the intersection of Prado
Road and South Hkzuera Street.
Finding
1. The proposed general plan text amendment is consistent with the goals and
policies of the General Kiln. subject to the area limitations of the planned
development.
The action of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council and,
therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing
before the City Council on September I, 1992. This date, however, should be verified
with the City Clerk's office.
oZ 7
Ms. Maxine Oliver Morosky etal
AuVUSt 4, 1992
Page 4
If you have any questions, please contact Pamela Ricci at 781-7165.
Si cere �,
Arnold B. Jonas, it ctor
velo mentCommunity De
;
cc: Crawford, Multari, Starr
Attachment F
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM#2
BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner P MEETING DATE: July 29, 1992
FILE NUMBER: GP/R 1516, PD 1517
PROJECT ADDRESS: 40 Prado Road
SUBJECT: Consideration of requests to develop a regional office center at the northeastern
corner of Prado Road and Elks Lane, east of Highway 101 including:
A. General Plan Map Amendment - to change the Land Use Element map designation
from Interim Conservation/Open Space to Office;
B. Rezoning - change the zoning of the property from C/OS-10 to O-PD, and to review
a preliminary development plan; and
C. General Plan Text Amendment- to add text to Section C.5.b. of the Land Use Element
regarding the appropriateness of office development at the site.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Continue consideration of the project until completion of the LUE and Circulation Element
updates since proposed policy changes are expected to be more consistent with the submitted
project.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The project site is shown on the city's existing Land Use Element (LUE) map as
Interim/Conservation Open Space. Open space policies contained within the LUE indicate that
the Interim/Conservation Open Space designation is applied to sites where future urbanization
would be appropriate once environmental constraints or circulation and infrastructure deficiencies
are addressed. In the case of the subject site, the LUE specifies that urban land uses may be
considered once the flood hazard is mitigated, but does not anticipate any specific urban
designation. The LUE also stipulates that a development plan must be approved prior to these
sites being urbanized.
The applicant has made application to the City for a general plan amendment and planned
development rezoning to initiate urbanization of the site. The goal of the applications is to
secure City approval of plans to develop a phased regional office complex on the site.
Data Summary
Applicant: Maxine Oliver Morosky, et. al.
Representative: Crawford, Multari and Starr
Existing Zoning: Conservation/Open Space with 10-acre minimum (C/OS-10)
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation: Interim Conservation/Open Space
Proposed Zoning: Office-Planned Development (O-PD)
�'a9
GP 1516, PD 1517
Page 2
Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation: Office
Environmental Status: A Negative Declaration of environmental impact including mitigation
measures was issued by the Director on July 24, 1992.
Project Action Deadline: Legislative actions not subject to processing deadlines.
Site Description
The nearly level site is occupied by a former service station at the southwest comer and a house
near the southeast corner. High-voltage transmission lines on towers cross the northern part
of the site. The remaining area is vacant, and has been used for non-irrigated field crops.
Surrounding uses include the city corporation yard, drive-in theater, a residence, and service-
commercial uses. San Luis Obispo Creek channel lies, at its closest, about 150 feet to the east.
Project Description
The initial phase of the project (Building C), consisting of 21,687 square feet of office space in
one four-story building and 333 parking spaces, would be constructed on the southeastern part
of the site, within one to two years of completion of City processing. Phase 1 would also include
construction of a day care center and play area. All types of offices, including government
agencies, would be allowed. The applicant is also proposing through the planned development
to allow assorted retail uses related to offices to occupy up to 15% of each building's floor area.
Subsequent phases would be built out as demand for new offices warrants their construction.
Building A (35,611 square-foot,four-story building) and Building B (51,905 square-foot, four-story
building) would be built north of Building C and constitute the next two phases of site
development. The phasing plan calls for a new building to be constructed every two to three
years. The final phase (Building D) consisting of 11,997 square feet in a three-story building with
71 parking spaces would be developed in approximately 10 years.
Access would be derived from Prado Road and development of an extension of Elks Lane
through the site. Right-of-way for an enlarged Prado Road interchange with Highway 101 would
be offered for dedication.
Previous Review
The same basic project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 25, 1991.
Staff had scheduled the project for conceptual project review prior to completion of an initial
environmental study. The idea was to get feedback from the Commission on major issues,
primarily the appropriateness of the proposed land use, before requesting more information from
the applicant to complete the environmental document and prepare a detailed project analysis.
Even without the benefit of detailed analysis, the Commission felt that the proposal was
premature and denied the proposed map amendments and preliminary development plan. In
its motion for denial, the Commission cited findings including that the proposal was premature
given that the land use and circulation elements had not yet been updated, the proposal was
inconsistent with current city land use policies and there was a need for an overall area plan.
If 30
GP 1516, PD 1517
Page 3
On October 2, 1991, the applicant filed an appeal to the Council of the Planning Commission's
action for denial. The City Council considered the appeal On November 5, 1991. On a 4-1 vote,
(Roalman voting no), the Council took an action to uphold the applicant's appeal, finding that
the project had merit and that the project should continue to be processed. Specific direction
was given for the Planning Commission to review the request again with the environmental
document and accompanying detailed staff analysis.
EVALUATION
The proposed regional office center raises significant policy issues and the site provides
formidable development constraints. The following paragraphs identify and discuss these issues:
1. General Plan Consistency/Land Use Policy Issues
The attached initial study provides a detailed discussion of the proposed project and its
relationship to policies contained in the adopted LUE. The initial study identifies three distinct
policy issues:
■ Mitigation of the project site's flood hazard (Interim Conservation/Open Space Policies,
Section C.5.b.);
■ Expansion of professional office sites outside of the downtown (Professional Office
Policies, Section C.3.b.1./2.); and
■ Expansion of a designated government office pole (Public Facility Land Use Objectives,
Section CA.).
a. Interim Conservation/Open Space Policies
The main issue identified here is the need for mitigation of the flood hazard. The initial study
indicates that the City will need to accept the applicant's proposed strategy for dealing with
the flood hazard. That strategy includes floodproofing to one foot above the 100-year flood
elevation, and minimizing building footprints.
A mitigation measure is recommended that the finish floor of project buildings shall be raised
to a minimum of 136.5' elevation to be consistent with the City's Flood Damage Prevention
Regulations. The City Engineer has indicated that the project, with the recommendations
included in a report by Keith Crowe of EDA (Appendix E), meets the requirements of the
City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations. The report concludes that the project would
not raise the 100-year storm inundation level across the flood plain. The City Engineer further
recommends that the project be modified to show the grades around the structures raised
to preclude flooding.
b. Professional Office Policies
The thrust of the current LUE professional office policies is the preference is to keep offices
in the downtown and its periphery. Professional Office Policy 2. allows for some limited
dispersion when adjacent residential neighborhoods would not be adversely affected, certain
ff 3/
GP 1516, PD 1517
Page 4
types of offices uses with a close functional relationship to downtown are prohibited, and the
new dispersed offices are based on other office uses within the immediate vicinity.
The initial study concludes that in order to be consistent with these policies that the
prohibition on certain types of offices in Professional Office Policy 2. would apply at this
location. This is suggested by staff as a condition of the planned development and a
mitigation measure included in the initial study.
C. Public Facility Land Use Objectives
Much of the basis for the applicant's request to establish offices at the project site is that it
is a logical extension of the existing government office pole located in the vicinity of South
Higuera Street and Prado Road. That pole was recently expanded with the County's
construction of a new social services center at the southeast corner of South Higuera Street
and Prado Road. The plan is for County Social Services to move their offices from the Walter
Center across South Higuera Street to the new building once that building is completed. This
impending move has caused the City to re-examine the range of public and private offices
that might be allowed in this identified public facility pole. The preceding item on this agenda
is a specific request by Don Walter to expand the types of uses allowed at his office center.
On October 21, 1991, the Council discussed the South Higuera government office pole at a
LUE update study session. The Council indicated support for expansion of the office pole
beyond the area shown in the Planning Commission Draft LUE, in particular requesting
consideration of the area westerly.of the creek in the vicinity of, and including, the subject
property. This meeting occurred shortly after the Commission's denial of the project as
previously presented.
The Draft LUE shows the project site as part of the Social Services pole, acknowledges the
suitability of the site for government agencies' regional offices and also provides the
opportunity for compatible private offices to locate here. The appropriateness of the request,
given this apparent change of land use philosophy, becomes one of timing. The completion
of the LUE EIR is eminent and element adoption is expected to follow early next year. In
staffs opinion, the cleanest approach would be to postpone a final decision on the project
until the Draft LUE is formally adopted. However, since the applicant has requested review
of the project prior to LUE's adoption, staff has prepared conditions and mitigation measures
to mitigate the project's conflicts with current policies. _
Consistent with the recommendations contained in the Walter PD Rezoning report, staff is.
suggesting that any approval for offices at this site should have similar restrictions regarding
the allowed size of private offices and the maximum percentage of private offices per building.
Those restrictions are that:
■ A maximum of 25% of the gross floor area of proposed buildings may be occupied
by tenants other than government offices and private, non-profit social services offices;
and
GP 1516, PD 1517
Page 5
■ Other private offices allowed at the site may occupy a minimum of 2,500 square feet
of building floor area.
The 25% restriction to favor government and non-profit social services offices would allow for
consistency with public facility policies related to the Social Services government pole. The
2500 square-foot minimum space limitation follows from the concern that "leakage" of office
uses from the downtown has a negative impact on the vitality of downtown and compromises
long-standing City policy. The specific size limitation evolved after the City commissioned a
consultant study to evaluate office supply and demand issues. That study prepared by Quad
Consultants in 1986 concluded that the downtown did not provide the facilities to meet the
demand for larger office spaces.
—" 2. Retail Component — LUE Text Amendment Request
Another component of the project application is to allow up to 15% of the floor area of buildings
to be occupied by ancillary or related retail uses. A proposed text amendment to Section C.5.b.
of the adopted LUE is suggested by the applicant as follows:
An area north of Prado Road and east of Elks Lane, which may be changed to an urban
land-use designation when the flood hazard is mitigated. The portion of this area abutting
Prado Road is suited for office uses, including government offices. This area shall be
considered as part of the "Social Services pole"for government offices, which is generally
focused on the intersection of Prado Road and South Higuera Street. Up to 15% of the
floor area of new buildings may be devoted to commercial uses which are related to "
offices. such as, but not limited to, food service, copying and printing and office supply
sales.
The first sentence of this proposed text amendment is a current Interim Conservation Open
Space policy which discusses the potential for development in the geographical area that the site
is contained within. Staff feels that the second sentence may be an appropriate text addition if
the project is supported since it affirms that the project site is recognized by the City as an
extension of the Social Services government pole. However, the last sentence which discusses
the retail use component is probably not necessary as a LUE text amendment. Through the
planned development rezoning process, the retail uses could be allowed with identified
restrictions on the floor area they can occupy and a plan for further City approval of specific
types of retail uses that would be acceptable in project buildings. _
Staff suggests that the text amendment be modified as follows:
- An area north of Prado Road and east of Elks Lane, which may be changed to an urban
land-use designation when the flood hazard is mitigated. The portion of this area abutting
Prado Road is suited for office uses, including government offices, and some related retail
commercial uses specified through planned development approval. This area shall be
considered as part of the "Social Services pole"for government offices, which is generally
focused on the intersection of Prado Road and South Higuera Street.
The applicant has indicated in his PD Rezoning statement that "the type of allowed retail uses
�33
GP 1516, PD 1517
Page 6
would be spelled out in the precise plan for each building." Staff is recommending a condition
which allows the Community Development Director to approve a range of allowed retail uses with
consideration of each building's precise plan. The Commission may want to discuss this further
at the meeting using the list developed by staff for the Walter PD as a starting point, and suggest
types of retail uses included as allowed' uses on the attached C-R zone list that may be
appropriate.
3. Planned Development Findings
In order to approve a planned development, the Commission and the Council must make one
or more of the findings listed in Section 17.62.040 of the zoning regulations (attached). Staff is
suggesting that the project could be found to meet the intent of Finding 6. of Section 17.62.040
by providing "exceptional public benefits". In the case of this project, staff has identified the child
care facilities and related retail uses as the exceptional public benefits not otherwise feasible.
Staff feels that this finding is justified since these types of services reduce vehicle trips, consistent
with goals for traffic management and better air quality, and are a convenience to workers.
Another component of the planned development not previously discussed is the provision to
allow taller buildings on the site. Through a planned development variation to normal standards
may be allowed. Therefore, the applicant's request, to allow buildings up to 60 feet in height in
a zone where the maximum building height is usually 35 feet, can be approved as part of the
planned development without the findings normally necessary to approve a Variance application.
Staff feels that buildings taller than 35 feet in height are appropriate on the site, but that buildings
60 feet in height are excessive. Staff agrees with the applicant's strategy to build up, rather than
out, to minimize building footprints because of the flooding concern. However, 60 foot high
buildings would be taller 'than any buildings allowed by right in any City zoning category.
Currently the tallest buildings allowed in the City would be those in the Central Commercial zone
with a maximum of 50 feet in height.-
Staff is recommending that project buildings be held to a maximum of 50 feet in height. Building
permits indicate that the maximum building height at the Central Coast Plaza was 40 feet.
4. Traffic and Circulation Issues
Given the project's size at build-out and the potential for impacts to area streets and circulation
patterns, a traffic study was prepared. A major component of the report's discussion was the
long range plan to construct a full interchange at Highway 101 and Prado Road with
overcrossing. Development of the interchange is envisioned by the Draft Circulation Element and
is tied to future development of properties like the Dalidio land on the other side of the highway.
A formal application needs to be made to the Federal Highways Administration prior to the
ultimate approval of the planned interchange here. The site plan anticipates development of the
interchange by showing that area of the site that a diamond design interchange would occupy
as offered for dedication (see discussion on Page 13 of the attached initial study).
The report concludes that the proposed project is not dependent on development of a full
interchange at this location, but should contribute a proportional share to the cost of areawide
�f 3�f
GP 1516, PD 1517
Page 7
improvements outlined in the report to address cumulative impacts. Additionally, a trip reduction
program for the project is suggested to mitigate cumulative impacts.
In terms of project traffic, the report concludes that the Elks Lane/South Higuera Street
intersection will experience an unacceptable level of service with the development of Phase 3.
As a mitigation measure and a condition of the PD Rezoning, a traffic signal, or alternative traffic
control measures acceptable to the City Engineer, needs to be installed at the Elks Lane and
South Higuera Street intersection with the development of project Phase 3. Prior to approval of
the precise plan for Phase 3, the applicant shall submit a report which studies the feasibility of
signal installation and evaluates alternative traffic control measures available.
Other mitigation measures included: in the initial study deal with project design issues.
Mitigations would require the Elks Lane alignment through the site to conform with City design
standards, and changes to the southernmost driveway to parking facilities off of Elks Lane to
address sight distance issues and minimize turning movement conflicts.
5. Powerline Easement & Possible Public Health Concerns
The last issue discussed in the initial study is the potential public health issues associated with
the electromagnetic fields (EMFs)that emanate from the powerlines located on the northern part
of the site. There is some evidence from various published studies that long-term exposure to
EMFS can increase the occurrence of diseases. This is an issue that has been widely debated
and become more of a concern in recent years with review of projects near powerlines.
The recommended mitigation measure requires that all buildings on the site be located where
magnetic field readings of 1.0 milligauss (mG) or less occur. This standard was based on what
some studies have described as safer levels of exposure. Based on the magnetic field
measurements done at the site and information regarding the typical strength of fields expected
from a 115 kilovolt (kV) powerline, staff anticipates that the 1.0 mG standard would occur at
distances between 100 and 150 feet from the powerlines. More information is needed before
it can be confirmed where on the site that magnetic field readings at the identified acceptable
standard of 1.0 mG or less occur.
The recommended mitigation measure also suggests that a report needs to be prepared and
that additional measurements need to be taken to confirm where on the site that acceptable
readings occur. The footprint of Building A which is closest to the powerlines is the one that
would most likely be affected by the proposed mitigation. It would be preferable to have the
study done prior to a final action on the project. However, with the proposed phasing of the
project, and Building C, the first building to be constructed, most likely within acceptable
exposure ranges because of its distance from powerlines, the PD Rezoning could be conditioned
that the study be submitted prior to precise plan approval.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The Public Works Department originally suggested that a specific plan be prepared for the area
bounded by San Luis Obispo Creek on the east, Prado Road on the south, Highway 101 on the
west and including the Sunset Drive-in, Elks Lodge and cemetery to the north, to better evaluate
GP 1516, PD 1517
Page 8
area circulation needs, required public improvements and land use. This alternative was not
acceptable to the applicant or supported by previous Council action on the project.
Public Works reviewed the flood analysis and concurred with that report's conclusions. Similarly,
Public Works was actively involved in the review of the traffic analysis and endorsed the
document.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend that the City Council support the General Plan Amendment, PD rezoning and
modified text amendment with conditions.
2. Recommend that the City Council deny the General Plan Amendment, PD rezoning and
modified text amendment based on findings of inconsistency with the adopted General
Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Continue consideration of the project until completion of the LUE and Circulation Element
updates since proposed policy changes could be more consistent with the submitted project.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION
If the Commission feels comfortable with the conclusions of the initial environmental study, and
feels that the change in land use can be found consistent with the General Plan, recommend
approval of the proposed regional office complex as.follows:
A. Recommend to the City Council that the General Plan Map Amendment, to change the
Land Use Element map designation from Interim Conservation/Open Space to Office, be
approved, subject to the following findings:
Fndinos
1. The proposed general plan amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety or
welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity.
2. The proposed general plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the
General Plan.
3. The proposed amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment as documented in the mitigated negative declaration approved for the
application.
B. Recommend to the City Council that the Planned Development Rezoning, to change the
zoning of the property from C/OS-10 to O-PD, including approval of the submitted
-preliminary development plan, based on findings and subject to conditions:
GP 1516, PD 1517
Page 9
Findinas
1. The proposed rezoning and preliminary development plan will not be detrimental to
the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working in the area or at the site.
2. The proposed rezoning and preliminary development plan are consistent with the
general plan.
3. The proposed project is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible
with surrounding land uses.
4. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits by providing child care
facilities and related retail commercial uses that would not be feasible under
conventional office zoning.
5. An Mitigated Negative Declaration was certified by the Community Development
Director on July 24, 1992, which describes significant environmental impacts
associated with project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the
project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the
mitigation measures shown in the attached Appendix A being incorporated into the
project.
Conditions
1. The applicant shall file a precise development plan for city approval within six months
of preliminary plan approval for the Phase 1 of the project, Building C. The Preliminary
Development Plan approval shall expire if a precise development plan is not filed and
approved. At the time of precise plan submittal for Phase 1, a detailed phasing plan
for subsequent project phases shall be submitted indicating deadlines for submitting
precise plans for Phase 2 (Building A), Phase 3 (Building B) and Phase 4 (Building D).
2. Project shall be built, maintained and operated in strict conformance with approved
precise development plans.
3. Banks, real estate offices,.financial institutions, medical clinics and doctor offices, and
lawyers offices will not be allowed to be established at this site.
4. A maximum of 25% of the gross floor area of proposed buildings may be occupied
by tenants other than government offices and private, non-profit social services offices.
5. Other private offices allowed at the site may occupy a.minimum of 2,500 square feet
of building floor area.
6. Up to 15% of the floor area of new buildings may be devoted to commercial uses
which are related to offices, such as, but not limited to, food service, copying and
printing and office supply sales. The Community Devplopment Director shall approve
a range of allowed retail uses with consideration of each building's precise plan based
on direction provided by the Planning Commission and City Council.
GP 151% PD 1517
Page 10
7. 2,000 square feet of the floor area in Building C shall be reserved for a day care
center. A playground area shall be developed in conjunction with the day care center
and details for its development shall be a part of the precise plan for Building C.
8. A maximum building height of 50 feet shall be allowed.
C. Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the General Plan Text
Amendment - to add text to Section C.5.b. of the Land Use Element regarding the
appropriateness of office development at the site be approved as follows, based on the
following finding:
An area north of Prado Road and east of Elks Lane, which may be changed to an urban
land-use designation when the flood hazard is mitigated. The portion of this area abutting
Prado Road is suited for office uses, including government offices, and some related retail
commercial uses specified through planned development approval. This area shall be
considered as part of the "Social Services pole"for government offices, which is generally
focused on the intersection of Prado Road and South Hiauera Street.
Fndin
1. The proposed general plan text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies
of the General Plan, subject to the area limitations of the planned development.
Attached:
General Plan Amendment and Rezoning Maps
City Council Resolution No. 7047 (1991 Series)
City Council Minutes dated 11-5-91
Letter from Dennis Moresco dated 10-17-91
Appeal to City Council dated 10-2-91
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5069-91
PD Findings — Chapter 17.62.040 of the zoning regulations
C-R Zone — list of allowed uses
Initial Study ER 14-91
Appendix A, Summary of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program
�-3�
"The Prado-Elks Regional Center"
Proposed General Plan Map Amendment
r:
r^
T ti
IlEek
-------------
It
r
w C(L•.:.:t.a:r��.1:4..•� i•�rl"�.• .YY\-.�.'.'i. \'�' .:. �j'1:)�• ''i�_Y•�1
•r+r. � ,t:a. :.•'r� �� I ]:+:• :::i �J'r.�., �, •,.tea.J,,���T>
fr,ZrY y,�-!f':� -:�F',rr•.�_ f ! �� 'r,: :�n':,Yl;, : :.T��5�,•;J'�T:�.
.y 7� ( %.�. i ?+:�:•' :•�a '.:':'•:•� is�: r�.-, 1' .1'1 ,• �"`
�JoK`�yi^`%.•.iiri�• : '� I � .'fir ' \�.� �'i;',.Z .',✓•'1-t�.Sr )1.��.;a �:� , J i•1,1',i.• 7
1.+r<<i•7'1,,.1 jar": � •�. ���•� \t�i• . .T�"��..:.. 'L?-�Pte:c\." s�'. .)i.� `Y�:'?
i`'� -''?`1�'•S� a:_� �i{.:f'-�'•-�',,�,i.',�.3:,�J.;9 :•::�j
Z.
Change from Interim Open Space - - ;
to Office
— — _ — Y
_ � .. .: .. _ � �, .y�c� �rr1-c ::•i �€::::iii;:€ir:;1� � °:
v v y�-' v v -.+.- _.. w •^'•�..-'eeee. _4Ap'f,Aq,:::r A:•
-= V _• r !_,. _ — mow.. , - - - -......... _
Y •w.e - ..
.................
yr .. --. l _ r • , .•e..we. _
w .I •./ ..•� ✓` �y ' . ..\j rr R�i-ie S:•.s.e.ee �ii:!ii-ii:i?::i�:i=�::i:�:c:�°
r.r
_w
•�i� Vii. �.
I
.0
"The Prado-Elks Regional Center"
Proposed Zoning Map Amendment
C-T-5
_ 5
V
< C/o s C/OS '
+
C-T
_
<� C-R • cam
e -5 S
foo
a9, w I ` C
I C-R-PD / C/OS-10
+� s
• Change from C/OS-10
J to O-PD 0—S
PF
�ss
�/ C-S ;�
Resolution "B"
RESOLUTION NO. 7047 (1991 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S ACTION
TO DENY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP
AND ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATIONS FROM
CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE (C/OS) TO OFFICE (O-PD)
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF PRADO ROAD
AND HIGHWAY 101 (40 PRADO ROAD)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION I. Findings. That this council, after
consideration of public testimony, the applicants ' request GP/R
1516 and PD 1517, the appellants ' statements, and the Planning
Commission' s action, staff recommendations and reports thereon,
makes the following finding:
1. The proposed project warrants further consideration and
environmental review and detailed project analysis should
be completed.
SECTION 2 . The proposed amendments and preliminary
development plan will continue to be processed by the Community
Development Department. Further processing of the requests will
include review by the Planning Commission.
On motion of Councilyoman Ravoa
seconded by Councilman Reiss , and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Pinard, Rappa, Reiss and Mayor Dunin
NOES: Councilmember Roalman
ABSENT: None
R-7047 ���
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 5th day
of November., 1991.
or Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City 'tClerk Pam Vog�¢
iJ
APPROVED:
City Admi istrative Officer
C' orn y
4communivelopment Director
-135
City Council Meeting Page 2
Tuesday, November 5, 1991 - 7:00 P.M.
Councilwoman Pinard pulled the item and requested it be referred to the Architectual Review Commission.
She was concerned that the City be consistent in what it requires of applicants as well as for the City.
After additional discussion, moved by RaRRY/Dunin to approve the plans and specifications,authorize staff
to advertise for bids,and authorize the City Administrative Officer to award the contract to lowest responsible
bidder within architect's estimate as recommended. Motion failed (2-3 Councilmembers Reiss,Roalman and
Pinard voting no).
Upon general consensus, Council agreed to refer to the Architectual Review Commission for review (5-0).
C4 AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL RE ILLATION SERVICES (File No. 761)
Council considered multi-year agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo for Animal Control and
Spay/Neuter services at a cost of$136,000 for Fiscal Years 1991-93.
Upon general consensus, moved by Reiss/Roalman (5-0) Resolution No. 7046 was adopted authorizing the
Mayor to sign a multi-year agreement (A-164-91-CC) with the County for Animal Control and Spay/Neuter
services as recommended.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS ... ~�
No Council Liaison Reports were offered by Council.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. APPEAL - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING GP/PD 1516
Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal by Dennis Moresco of a Planning Commission action to
deny a request to amend the Land Use Element map and zoning map to change the designation from
Conservation/Open Space to Office and review of a preliminary development plan for a four building regional
office complex for property located at the northeastern corner of Prado Road and Highway 101 (40 Prado
Road).
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director, reviewed the agenda staff report with the recommendation
that Council determine that action on the matter is premature and to continue its consideration until after
acceptance of an updated Draft Land Use Element which would incorporate the changes consistent with Council
action to expand the area to potential government office use.
Mayor Dunin declared the public hearing open.
Mike Multari, of Crawford;Multari, and Starr and representing the applicant, reviewed a letter that he had
submitted to the Council on November 1, 1991 stating the following responses to the Planning Commission's
findings for denial, and why he felt the project should be supported:
1. The proposed project is premature. He felt the City could be pro-active in that this was the proper
location of large regional offices having advantages of them all being located together to utilize transit
ride sharing and other TDM programs, day care, and convenience for customers. Further, with the
City working on a natural gas service station in the vicinity near the site, locating more jobs nearby
could enhance the feasibility of the facility. The project was to be done in phases and also the Council
had previously indicated the General Plan amendments in the urban reserve may be processed while
the update in going on.
4-43
�ur
City Council Meeting Page 3
Tuesday, November 5, 1991 - 7:00 P.M.
2. That the proposed project does not conform to the Tri-Polar Policy regarding government offices,
by practice the City had encouraged all types of government offices to concentrate in this pole. There
are good reasons why larger regional offices both public and private should locate together.
3. The proposed project as a regional business center would be detrimental to the downtown area.
He stated that the project is for larger scale regional services offices,not commercial uses. The larger
offices could not be located downtown and there are no large scale regional offices in the vicinity of
the project The City has explicitedly allowed larger offices outside the downtown when it permitted
it In the CS zone subject to PD approval. .
4. The proposed project is in conflict with the City's goals to maintain County offices in the downtown.
He said that this proposal was not clear how it would effect the County's downtown presence. The
County is already building,with City approval,a new Social Services Office complex near the proposed
site and it is unlikely that the County would move any downtown offices to that center.
S. The proposed project will conflict with the existing and draft policies of the General Plan Land Use
Element He stated that the proposal does differ, that the Commission envisioned this area as open
space or commercial recreational uses. The applicant did not believe that those uses were best fora
location.
6. Tae Commission felt a need to address flood control for the area. The applicant felt there were
three possible ways to address flooding there (1) the land could remain open space which they did in
feel was the best use for this site, (2) the creek could be modified to accommodate flood flows - this
would require massive grading which he did not think the community would support, or (3) not to
disturb the creek and make sure all development is concentrated on small pads to minimize flood
water displacement The applicants support #3.
7. There is a need for an overall plan for the area. He stated that the proposal does provide a long
term master plan for a substantial amount of land. In talking to the neighbors to the north (Sunset
Drive-In),they did not object to the proposal but requested that they not be included in any planning
at this time. They believe that their proposal made sense and urged Council support.
Roy H_anfT,569 Lawrence Drive, urged the Council not to support the request.
Mayor Dunin declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Roalman stated he supported the Planning Commission recommendation and urged continuance
of the application until after approval of the Land Use Element.
Councilwoman Ranna was concerned about how to meet the need for regional offices. She felt this was an
appropriate place for that opportunity and would recommend returning the application to the Planning
Commission with that statement that this is an appropriate rezoning and use and possibly even being
appropriate for a planned development.
After additional discussion, moved by Rama/Reiss, Resolution No. 7047 (Resolution "B") was adopted (4-1
Councilman Roalman voting no) upholding an appeal of a Planning Commission's action to deny a request
to amend the Land Use Element map and zoning map to change the designations from Conservation/Open
Space to Office for property located at the northeastern corner of Prado Road and Highway 101,and referring
the application back to the Planning Commission for continued processing.
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
COPIM TO:
❑• cs Action C3 FYI
'�°�`7 dm°DIR
ILSO 13 SA.DR
Mdl
an
d` ° `W�
7O 1:1 Pacific�CLErj(/o=. C3 MLCECH �
❑ MGM .TEANI ❑ T
'
❑ mDFu C3 urIL Como on
441 -RGUGtA SI. E,
SL;T= 200
October 17, 1991 =�ti LUSS 035=0, G5 93401
805/541-3848
PAX 805/541-9200
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Dear Mayor Dunin-and Council Members,
At the back of your staff report for the October 21 meeting is an "issues paper"
regarding government office locations and the tripolar policy. Also attached is a
memo from Planning.Commissioner Gurnee suggesting changes and
clarifications to the tripolar policy.
We have a particular interest in the tripolar policy. We have been doing
advance planning for the property at the corner of Elks and Prado. We believe
that this is an excellent location for larger scale, regional offices, both for
government agencies as well as private businesses. Our letter to you dated
July 25 summarizes our thinking. Another copy has been attached.
The City has, in practice, encouraged government offices to locate in the three
"poles'. It has been increasingly clear that .larger offices, for which downtown
locations are often impractical, have had difficulty finding space in the preferred
areas. We believe there are advantages to the community in having these
regional-serving offices located in a consolidated area, near to the freeway.
Not only does this approach facilitate multi-purpose trips by clients/customers, it _
also provides opportunities for car pooling and transit, for day care, for support
services to reduce offsite trips, and for the open space and pleasant ambience
of a "campus-like" work environment. Furthermore, by keeping these larger-
scale developments from being scattered throughout the town, traffic impacts on
residential areas can be reduced.
Thus, we agree with the idea that the tripolar policy should be clarified to
encourage other governmental offices serving a regional clientele to locate in
specified areas. We also believe our property is a logical extension of the pole
Mayor and City Co,.,icil
Page 2
which has evolved around Prado and Higuera: Including regional offices for
private businesses would also seem beneficial for the reasons cited above.
We have applied to the City for a General Plan amendment to allow for office
development on this property, in multiple phases over a long period of time.
Our request has been denied by the Planning Commission and we have
appealed their action. You are scheduled to hear our appeal on November 5.
We hope at that time to expand on our thinking, which we believe is sensible
and convincing, that the designation of this part of the City for offices is
beneficial to the community.
If you have any questions, please call me. I look forward to November 5 when
we can discuss our ideas further.
Dennis Moresco
Chief Executive Officer
attachment: July 25 letter
cc: Pam Voges, John Dunn, Arnold Jonas
�►���►�IB�Illlll� �►u�ii►►»iii '
�Illlf Illi Il city ®f .s lues OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code,the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of Planning Commission
rendered on 9-25-91 which decision consisted of the following (Le. set forth factual
situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal. Use additional sheets as needed):
Denial of• a request .for a General Plan amendment (and related PD rezoning)
from, interim open space to office use. Our application also allows for
support commercial uses, day care and a traffic .demand management program
under the PD.
The Commission felt that. consideration of. this change is premature. We
* feel that our request reflects sound long-range planning for this part of
the City. We believe our request will address both a current and long-
term need, to be implemented over several years. Technical issues such as
drainage and traffic impacts will also need to be addressed, but the
fundamental question raised by this appeal :is: what is the best long-term
land use for this area? Additional supporting material will be submitted
Under separate cover.
The undersigned discussed the•decision being appealed with:
Arnold Jonas on 'September 30; 1991
Pam Ricci
DATE-St TIME APPEAL RECEIVED: Appellant:
Dennis. Moresco, applicant
Name/Title
Michael Multari
Representative
IVED
641 Higuera Street, Suite 200 _
OCT - 2 1991 Address San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
e"elaa, 541-3848.
CITY CLERK hone
N LUiS OBISPO.CA
Original to City Clerk
City Attorney
Calendared for. j 6 Copy to Administrative Officer
Copy
to the-following department(s):
�/ ,�e ti's ab
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5069-91
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did
conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chamber of the San Luis Obispo City Hall,
San Luis Obispo, California, on September 25, 1991, pursuant to a proceeding instituted
under applications No. GP/R 1516 and PD 1517 by Maxine Oliver Morosky et al,
applicant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING REQUESTED:
To amend the Land Use Element map and zoning map to change designations
from Conservation/Open Space (C-OS) to Office (O-PD) and a preliminary
development plan for a four-building regional office complex.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
40 Prado Road.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT:
Interim Conservation/Open Space.
PRESENT ZONING:
C/OS-10..
WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and —
studies made by itself, and in behalf and of testimonies offered at said hearing, has
established existence of the following circumstances:
1. The proposed project is premature due to the pending adoption of the Land Use
Element and Circulation Element.
2. The proposed project does not conform to the tri-polar policy contained in the
Land Use Element for government offices.
4-49
Resolution No. 5069-91
General Plan Amendment & Rezoning
GP/R 1516 and PD 1517
Page 2
3. The proposed project as a regional business center will be detrimental to the
downtown area.
4. The proposed project is in conflict with the city's goal to maintain county offices
in the downtown.
5. The proposed project will conflict with the existing and draft policies of the Land
Use Element.
6. There is a need to address flood control for the area.
7. There is a need for an overall plan for the area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED that applications No. GP/R 1516 and
PD 1517 be denied.
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo upon the motion of Commr. Kouralds, seconded by Commr. Schmidt,
and upon the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Kourakis, Schmidt, Karleskint, Peterson, Hoffman
NOES: Commr. Williams
ABSENT: Commr. Gurnee
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Comi
mssion
DATED: September 25, 1991
449
PD Ftn&*r66 -- exc, t from Chas, 17. �2 of ini'4pal Cade
prove the rezoning and the official zone map shall be tots'offices,and lawyers'offices.
amended to indicate approval of the planned develop-
ment. (Ord.941-1(part),1982: prior code-9204.4(C)) 1. The project will be compatible with existing and
allowed land uses in the area.
17.62.040 Requited findings.
2.The project's location or access arrangements do not
A. To approve a planned development, the planning significantly direct traffic to use local or collector streets
commission and council must find that it meets one or in residential areas.
more of the following criteria;
3.The project will provide adequate mitigation to ad-.
1.It provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular dress potential impacts related to noise,light and glare,
occupancy group (such as the elderly or families with and loss of privacy,among others,imposed by commer-
children) which would not be feasible under conven- dal activities on nearby residential areas,by using meth-
tional zoning, ods such as setbacks,landscaping,berming,and fencing.
2.It transfers allowable development,within a site,from 4. The project does not preclude industrial or service
areas of greater environmental sensitivity or hazard to commercial uses in areas especially suited for such uses
areas of less sensitivity or hazard; when compared with offices.
3. It provides more affordable housing than would be 5.The project does not create a shortage of C-S and M
possible with conventional development; zoned land available for service commercial or indus-
trial development.(Ord.1129-I(part),1988;Ord.1087
4.Features of the particular design achieve the intent of - 1 Ex A(2), 1987;Ord.941-1 (part), 1982:prior code
conventional standards (privacy, usable open space, -9204.4(D))
adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood
character, and so on) as well as or better than the 17.62.050 Requirement for development plan.
standards themselves;
No land division maybe undertaken and no construction
S.It incorporates features which result in consumption begunwithin anarea zoned PD until a final development.
of less materials, energy or water than conventional plan hasbeen approved. (Ord.941-1(part),1982: prior
development; code-9204.4(E))
6. The proposed project provides exceptional public 17.62.060 Final development plan.
benefits such as parking,open space,landscaping,public
art, and other special amenities which would not be A. Within six months of approval or conditional ap-
feasible under conventional development standards. proval of the preliminary development plan,the appli-
cant shall file with the community development depart-
B. In order to grant a "density bonus" (as explained in ment a final development plan. At his discretion and for
Section 1750.030), the commission and council must good cause,the director may extend for six months the
find that the proposed development satisfies at least period for filing.
three of the five criteria set out in subsection A of this
section. The applicant shall provide a detailed state- B.The final development plan shall include those items
meat indicating how the development satisfies the ap- from Section 17.62.010(Preliminary development plan)
propriate criteria set out in subsection A of this section. which describe the proposal,including division of land, _
The maximum densitybontsisnotautomatic. Indeter- typeand location of all buildings and improvements,and
mining the allowable bonus,the commission and coun- so on,but it need not include information on existing
cil shall assess the extent to which these criteria are met. conditions.
C To approve a planned development allowing large C The director shall review and take action on the final
professional office buildings which can include multiple development plan within thirty days of filing. He shall
tenants but with no single tenant space less than 2,500 approve it upon finding that it is in substantial compli-
square feet in the CS or M Zone,the planning commis- ance with the preliminary development plan as approved
cion orcouncil must find that it meets each of the criteria or modified by the council. Upon approval of the final
listed below. The following office-related uses are pro- development plan,the director shall add the number of
hibited in the PD in these zones:. banks, real estate the planned development to the official zone map (for
offices, financial institutions, medical clinics and doc- example, PD (9999)). Subsequently, all grading, con-
70 4`� -45Z
This is a summary of provisions governing uses allowed in the Retail-Commercial (C-R) zone. Consult the City of
San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations for additional information.
Date Revised: June 1991 X - may be app ropr;aie a+ f rdCc-+ 61fe
X. RETAIL-COMMERCIAL (C-R) ZONE lJ
1. Allowed Uses:
X • Advertising & related services (graphic design, writing, mailing, addressing, etc.)
• Animal grooming
• Banks and Savings & Loans
• Bars, taverns, etc. (without entertainment facilities)
• Barbers, hairstylists, manicurists
2(. Broadcast studios
Building and landscape maintenance services
_. Catering services
• Churches, synagogues, temples, etc.
x • Computer services
• Construction activities
Contractors - all. types of general and special building contractor's offices
�( • Credit reporting and collection
Credit unions and finance companies
Delivery and private postal services
X • Detective and security services
Dwelling (Director's approval on ground floor; allowed above.)
X • Employment agencies
Florists
X • Insurance services - local
X • Insurance service - regional office
• Laboratories (medical, analytical)
Laundry/dry cleaner - pick-up point or self-service
Libraries
Mortuaries
• Motels, hotels, bed & breakfast inns
• Museums
Organizations (professional, religious, political, labor, fraternal, youth, etc.) offices and meeting rooms
Parks
. Pharmacies
�(. Photocopy services; quick printers
Photofinishing - retail
Photographic studios
• Post office, etc.
Professional offices (attorney's architects, counselors, medical services, accountants, investment
brokers, realtors, appraisers, engineers and industrial design)
Repair services - household appliances, locksmiths, saw sharpening, shoe repair
Residential care facilities - 6 or fewer residents _
• Restaurants, sandwich shops, takeout food, etc.
X Retail sales i •
business, office, a+;-FReeieal equipment stores, saialeg geeds "tele"' supply
• Retail sales - auto parts and accessories except tires and batteries as principal use
Retail sales - building & landscape materials (lumber yards, nurseries, floor and wall coverings, paint,
glass stores, etc.)
Retail sales - general merchandise (drug, hardware• discount, department and variety stores)
- 60,000 sq. ft. or less gross floor area per establishment
X • Retail sales - groceries, liquor, and specialized foods (bakery, meats, dairy items, etc.) of Iirni+ed SCdle
• Retal sales and repair of bicycles
• Retail sales and rental - specialties (shoe stores, clothing stores, toy book/record/video tape stores,to-
stores. stationery stores, gift shops)
• Retail sales - tires and batteries
• Schools - Business, trade, recreational, or other specialized schools
• Secretarial & related services (court reporting, stenography; typing, telephone answering, etc.) `/
• Social service & charitable agencies
X
- Telegram office
X• Ticket/travel agencies
• Title companies
• Utility companies
- Engineering and administrative offices
- Payment drop points
�( • Vending machines
Veterinarians (Animals at veterinarian's facilities must be kept within a building.)
2- Uses Allowed by Director's Aooroval of an Administrative Use Permit:
• Auto repair & related services (body, brake, transmission, muffler shops; painting, etc.)
• Boarding/rooming houses, dormitories
• Caretaker's quarters
• Car wash - self-service
• Christmas tree sales
• Circus, carnival, fair, festivals, parades
• Convalescent hospitals
• Convents and monasteries
• Dwellings (Director's approval on ground floor: allowed above)
• Educational conferences
• Government agency offices and meeting rooms
• Mobile home as construction office
• Nightclubs, discotheques, etc. (Outdoor entertainment or dancing require the director's approval of a
use permit
• Parking (as a principal use - deviations to existing setbacks and building heights are permitted upon
approval of a use permit as required by Section 17.22.010)
• Pool halls, billiard parlors, etc.
• Printing and publishing
• Public assembly facilities (community meeting rooms, auditoriums, convention/exhibition halls)
• Residential care facilities
• Retail sales and rental - auto, trucks, motorcycles, RV's
• Retail sales - general merchandise (drug, hardware, discount, department & variety stores)
- more than 60,000 sq. ft. gross floor area per establishment
• Schools
- Nursery schools, child day care
- Elementary, junior high, high schools for disabled/handicapped
• Service stations
• Temporary sales
• Temporary uses - not otherwise listed
• Theaters
• Trailer rental
• Utility companies - Customer account services (bill paying and inquiries)
3. Uses Allowed by Planning Commission Aooroval of A Use Permit:
• Ambulance services
• Amusement arcades (video games) _
• Athletic & health clubs, gymnasiums, fitness centers, tanning centers
• 'Athletic fields, game courts
• Bowling alleys
• Cemeteries, mausoleums, columbariums
• Feed stores & farm supply sales
• Homeless shelter
• Hot tubs - commercial use
• Mineral extraction
• Photofinishing - wholesale; and blueprinting and microfilming service
• Skating rinks
• Swap meets
• Swimming pools (public)
• Wholesales and mail order houses
4-6A
city o� San lues OBlspo
A!! ; INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION 40 Prado Road APPLICATION NO. 14-91
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Development of a phased office project with
approximately 120, 000 square feet of floor area at. build-out on
about 7 acres of land, north of Prado Rd. , east of Highway 101.
APPLICANT Maxine Morosky
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
4EGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPAREDBY Pam Ricci & Glen Matteson, Associate PlannersDATE 7-22-92
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DAYE
Mmc�l�
SUMMARY OF INITIAL' STUDY FINDINGS
I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
11.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ................................................... MAYBE*
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......................... NONE
C. LAND USE .......................................................................
MAYBE*
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................. YES*
E PUBLICSERVICES ................................................................. NONE
F. UTILITIES........................................................................
NONE*
G. NOISE LEVELS ....................................................................
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS ....................
YES*
MAYBE*
1. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS...:............................................
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ..:..............:... ....................... YES
K PLANT LIFE......................................................................
NONE*
L ANIMALLIFE.................. q. . .. NONE
M. ARCHAEOLOGICAUHISTORICAL.................................................... MAYBE*
N. AESTHETIC ......... _ MAYBE*
O. ENERGriRESOURCE USE .......................................................... NONE
P. OTHER ............................................................................ YES*
Ill.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT -
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY ER 14-91
The Prado-Elks Regional Center
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Initial Study ER 14-91 Summary of Impacts and Study Text
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Summary of Mitigation Measures & Monitoring Program
Appendix B Vicinity Map & Site Layout
Appendix C General Plan Amendment & PD Rezoning Application
Statements
Appendix D Traffic Impact Analysis dated 5-1-92
Appendix E Flood Analysis by EDA dated 2-13-92
Appendix F Archaeological Investigation
Appendix G Massing Study
Appendix H Electromagnetic Field Measurements
NOTE: Technical Appendices D and F are available for review in the Council
reading file.
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY 14-91
The Prado-Elks Regional Center
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The applicant wants to develop a phased office project on the north side of Prado Road,
east of Highway 101 and south of the drive-in theater (see attached Appendix B
including vicinity map and site layout). All types of offices, including government
agencies, would be allowed (see attached Appendix C including General Plan
Amendment and PD Rezoning Application Statements). The applicant is also proposing
through the planned development to allow assorted retail uses related to offices to
occupy up to 15% of each building's floor area.
The initial phase of the project, Building C, consisting of 21,687 square feet of office
space in a 60-foot high, four-story building, would be built on the southeastern part of
the site, within one to two years of planned development approval. Phase 1 would also
include construction of a day care center and play area. Later phases would be built in
accordance with demand for additional office space. The sequence of building
construction following Building C would be: Building A (35,611 square feet, 60 feet high,
four stories), followed by Building B (51,905 square feet, 60 feet high, four stories) and
finally Building D (11,997 square feet, 45 feet high, three stories).
Access would be derived from Prado Road and development of an extension of Elks
Lane through the site. Right-of-way for an enlarged Prado Road interchange with
Highway 101 would be offered for dedication.
A key feature of the proposal is to accommodate development without changing the San
Luis Obispo Creek channel to mitigate flood hazards.
The following city approvals have been requested:
Amend the general plan Land Use Element map, to change the designation of the
6.5-acre site from Interim Conservation/Open Space to Office. _
Rezone the site from Conservation/Open Space with a 10-acre minimum parcel
size (C/OS-10) to Office Planned Development (O-PD). With a planned
development rezoning, the city approves a preliminary development plan for a
specific project along with the zone change, and exceptions to normal property-
development standards may be granted.
Before parts of the project are built, these additional approvals would be needed:
Final development plan under the PD zoning;
Prado Center Environmental Review 2
Architectural review;
Subdivision (if lots are to be created);
Building permits (and water allocation).
The nearly level site is occupied by an old service station building at the southwest
comer. A Victorian farmhouse and several accessory buildings exist in the southeast
comer. High-voltage transmission lines on towers cross the northern part of the site.
The remaining area is vacant, and has been used for non-irrigated field crops.
Surrounding uses include the city corporation yard, drive-in theater, a residence, and
service-commercial uses. San Luis Obispo Creek channel lies, at its closest, about 150
feet to the east.
II. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW
A. Community Plans and Goals:
C. Land Use
1. Adopted Land Use Element
The proposed land use map amendment which would allow both private and
public professional offices at the site needs to be evaluated in relation to three
distinct policy issues:
■ Mitigation of the project site's flood hazard (Interim Conservation/Open
Space Policies, Section C.5.b.);
■ Expansion of professional office sites outside of the downtown
(Professional Office Policies, Section C.3.b.L/2.); and
■ Expansion of a designated government office pole (Public Facility Land
Use Objectives, Section C.4.).
a. Interim Conservation/Open Space Policies
The project site is shown on the city's existing Land Use Element (LUE)
map as Interim/Conservation Open Space. Open space policies contained
within the LUE (Section C.5.b.) indicate that the Interim/Conservation
Open Space designation is applied to sites where future urbanization would
be appropriate once environmental constraints or circulation and
infrastructure deficiencies are addressed. In the case of the subject site,
the LUE specifies that urban land uses may be considered once the flood
hazard is mitigated, but does not anticipate any specific urban designation.
Prado Center Environmental Review 3
The LUE also stipulates that a development plan must be approved prior
to these sites being urbanized.
The applicant's request to change the land use designation of the property
to Office and rezone it O-PD would be consistent with the open space
policy cited above from the standpoint that no specific type of land use was
anticipated and a planned development application has been requested.
The remaining issue then in terms of open space policy is whether the
flood hazard is adequately mitigated.
The applicant's general plan amendment statement (Appendix B) indicates
that their development strategy to address the flooding issue is to raise all
buildings above the flood zone and/or floodproof them. The idea is to
keep the site as open as possible by minimizing building pads and allowing
flood waters to flow as freely as possible across the site. This issue is
discussed in more detail in Section J., Surface Water Flow and Quality, of
this report.
Conclusion:
The City needs to accept the applicant's development strategy in terms of
floodproofing in order for the project to be consistent with this policy. The
City Engineer has endorsed the recommendations included in a report by
Keith Crowe of EDA (Appendix E) as meeting the requirements of the
City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations. The report concludes that
the project would not raise the 100-year storm inundation level across the
flood plain. The City Engineer recommends that the project raise the
grade around the structures to preclude flooding.
b. Professional Office .Policies
Private professional offices would be allowed in proposed buildings.
Professional office policies 1. and 2. contained in Section C3.b. of the
adopted LUE stipulate that office development should take place on the —
periphery of the Central Business District. The rationale behind this land
use-strategy is that offices should generally be located near the
governmental and retail center of downtown and provide a desirable
transition between more intensive commercial development and residential
neighborhoods. Specific criteria exist in policies which stipulate conditions
under which office development outside of the downtown would be
considered.
Prado Center Environmental Review 4
Policy C3.b.2. says:
Continued use and limited expansion of offices areas outside the
periphery of the Central Business District may be provided for only
when such areas:
(1) have direct access from other than residential streets, and will
not require or encourage circulation of commercial traffic through
residential areas,
(2) provide transition between residential and existing commercial
or industrial uses, and
(3) are based on an established group of offices.
Commercial or professional office uses locating in such areas should be
limited to those with ng close functional relationship to medical and legal-
government-financial centers elsewhere in the city. The policy concludes
by stating that:
...the dispersion of banks, real estate offices, financial institutions, medical
clinics and doctor offices, and lawyers offices throughout the city is
prohibited.
Conclusion:
The proposed land use element map change and rezoning could be found
consistent with most of the criteria listed in LUE professional office policy
2 above, for establishment of office uses outside the periphery of
downtown. Establishment of office uses on the site will not add to
commercial traffic traveling through residential areas and the site could be
interpreted to be an extension of the government office complexes on
South Higuera Street and the City facilities on the south side of Prado _
Road. The site is not adjacent to residential uses so it does not provide a
buffer between residential and commercial uses. However, it could be
argued that there are other offices outside of the periphery of downtown
that do not provide such a transition and given the site's location adjacent
to the freeway clearly some type of commercial use is most appropriate.
The specific type of offices called out above that are prohibited from
outlying office areas because of their close ties with the downtown are
normally allowed in the Office zone, therefore, office zoning for this site
would have to include the same prohibition to maintain consistency. -
Prado Center Environmental Review 5
Mitigation Measure:
Banks, real estate offices, financial institutions, medical clinics and doctor
offices, and lawyers offices will not be allowed to be established at this site.
C. Public Facility Land Use Objectives
The City current LUE policy regarding the location of County/public
offices is known commonly as the tri-polar concept. The three poles are:
the County Courthouse; the Health Department and General Hospital on
Johnson Avenue; and the Social Services complex on South Higuera Street.
The consolidated center on South Higuera Street near Prado Road is to
accommodate County Social Services, State Employment Development, and
Federal Social Security. This center has been developed, and the County is
in the process of expanding it by relocating social services to a new
building at the southeast corner of South Higuera Street and Prado Road.
In considering this specific general plan amendment request and the LUE
update, the City Council concluded that there was merit in considering
expanding the public office pole to take in land between the existing center
on South Higuera Street and the project site.
This element is silent on specific locations for such other government
agencies as Caltrans, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Air
Pollution Control District, and Highway Patrol. However, it says
government agencies' location choices should:
(1.) "Remove nonconforming uses from residential neighborhoods."
Conclusion:
This criterion raises no consistency issues.
. (2.) "Foster convenient public access to those uses serving the public
directly."
Conclusion:
This location is close to the "population center" of the city, and its
centrality will increase as the planned major residential expansion areas are
developed. Part of the site is within 1500 feet walking distance of the bus
route on South Higuera Street. Local access is primarily through a
signalized intersection of arterial streets. While the west edge of the site is
T %W
Prado Center Environmental Review 6
about 100 feet from Highway 101, the nearest full access points both north
and southbound are slightly over one mile away (Madonna Road and Los
Osos Valley Road).
Depending on the traffic generation and financial contribution of other
major developments in the vicinity, Prado Road may be extended across
the highway to form a full interchange at this location. This is the only
potential major development site within San Luis Obispo's urban reserve
line which would provide such close highway access.
(3.) "Group related public offices together."
Conclusion:
The site is large enough to accommodate groups of related offices (such as
water quality, air pollution control), though no specific grouping is
proposed.
(4.) "Locate facilities with significant numbers of employees or clients
near complementary non-governmental services (such as restaurants
and convenience shopping)."
Conclusion:
The closest existing convenience shopping and restaurants are about 1500
feet away, on South Higuera Street. Such uses could be developed in
future phases of this project. If Prado Road is extended, parts of Central
Coast Plaza and Madonna Road Plaza would be within 1500 feet walking
distance.
(5.) "Make economical use of land and buildings already owned by
public agencies and minimize the displacement of existing private
businesses or residents."
Conclusion:
There would be no displacement, but the site is privately owned.
2. Draft LUE
As demand for government office space has increased in recent years and
agencies have looked for space outside of the downtown, public facility policies in
the LUTE have been reviewed and discussed extensively. Changes in philosophy
T�f7
Prado Center Environmental Review 7
and the reality of present demand and conditions are reflected in policies
contained in the Draft LUE currently undergoing environmental review. Some of
the proposed policies clarify the questions that have come up regarding office uses
that are suitable outside of the downtown and its periphery and are more specific
about the location of offices for other public agencies.
Policy 11.5, Drive-in Theater Special Design Area, indicates that this area which
includes the project site "would be suitable for government agencies' regional
offices once flooding and access issues are resolved." This policy contains a
reference to Public Facility Policy 5.5 which states that the social services area on
South Higuera Street near Prado Road "should have sufficient space to
accommodate regional offices of state and federal agencies". Policy 5.5 references
Figure 4. which shows the public facilities areas and includes the project site
within the social services area.
Public Facility Policy 5.6 indicates that public offices, with or without a functional
relationship to social services or the regional offices of state and federal agencies,
could be located at the project site. The policy further indicates that other
government and private activities could also be established at the site if they "do
not displace the government functions which should be located in these areas".
Conclusion:
The proposed mix of public and private offices at the project site would be
consistent with policies contained in the Draft LUE since not all types of offices
will be allowed (see mitigation above discussed in Section Lb.).
Summar: Consistency with Existing Office Policies
This policy discussion has reviewed the request in relation to both existing and
proposed LUE policies related to offices. The project would be consistent with —
proposed LUE policies, but is inconsistent with some current LUE policies,
specifically those professional office policies that discourage dispersion of
professional offices outside of downtown and public facility policies that do not
target the project site as an extension of the social services pole or clarify suitable
locations for other public offices.
Conclusion:
Approval of the project should be deferred until the new LUE is adopted to best
address policy consistency issues. As a alternative, a text amendment to the
existing LUE would need to be approved in order for the project to be found
consistent with the general plan. L'
Prado Center Environmental Review 8
The suggested text amendment submitted by the applicant, which would allow a
mix of offices at the site along with related commercial uses, reads as follows:
-An area north of Prado Road and east of Elks Lane, which may be changed to
an urban land-use designation when the flood hazard is mitigated. The portion of
this area abutting Prado Road is suited for office uses including government
offices. This area shall be considered as part of the "Social Services pole" for
government offices which iseg nerally focused on the intersection of Prado Road
and South Higuera Street. Un to 15% of the floor area of new buildings may be
devoted to commercial uses which are related to officessuch as but not limited
to. food service, copying and printing and office supgly sales.
Mitigation Measure:
A text amendment to Section C.S.b. of the adopted LUE, which specifically
identifies the site as a part of the Social Services government pole, shall be
approved. Precise language of the text amendment shall be as approved by the
Planning Commission and City Council.
3. Circulation Element
The adopted Circulation Element indirectly references the Prado Road
interchange with Highway 101. On Page A-13, the Prado Road interchange is
designated as an area to be considered for improvements in the future.
The Hearing Draft Circulation Element dated May 1992 makes specific references
to the widening of Prado Road and the development of a full interchange at
Prado Road and Highway 101. Program 8.10 on Page 20 calls for changes to
Prado Road and related improvements to occur "in a sequence that satisfies
circulation demands caused by area development." Funding and development of
the Prado Road widening and interchange would be dependent on future —
development in the Margarita, Airport and Dalidio Areas.
The proposed project is consistent with planned improvements discussed in the
Hearing Draft Circulation Element as it provides'the right-of-way needed for
future widening of Prado Road and development of a diamond-style freeway
interchange. The applicant has also supplied a traffic analysis which could
provide information and background for the required Project Study Report for
approval of interchange development by Caltrans and the Federal Highways
Administration. The interchange is further discussed in Section DA of this
report.
Prado Center Environmental Review 9
B. Population Distribution and Growth
Given the site's location north of the City's Corporation Yard and wastewater treatment
plant and adjacent to Highway 101, the site is most appropriately developed with
commercial uses. While the site currently has the Interim Conservation/Open Space
land use designation, the LUE anticipates more intensive development of the site with
mitigation of the flood hazard.
The development of offices at the site would presumably create some growth in the
numbers of workers seeking housing in the San Luis Obispo area. The increased housing
demand that the project would generate cannot be precisely estimated without knowing
specific tenants that would be occupying building floor space. Offices for either private
or public firms may or may not draw from the local labor force. Even with local firms
locating in proposed spaces, the spaces they vacate similarly may or may not be occupied
by local workers.
However, a worst case population increase of 770 persons from full build-out of the
project can be determined by calculating jobs generated and using average household
size information (the same methodology used in the LUE EIR). The total of 770
persons amounts to a population increase equal to one to two years of population growth
at the LUE identified 1% growth rate. The project will be developed over a period of
ten years.
Conclusion: Not significant.
Currently the City does not have commercial growth controls in effect or parameters to
measure the impact of new commercial development on housing demand. The
assumption has been that with adoption of commercial and industrial land uses through
the LUE that appropriate services and facilities will be provided to accommodate these
uses.
The phasing of project development over a 10-year period will lessen the impacts to area
housing. By the time later phases are built out, it can be assumed that more housing will
be available for workers with development of planned residential expansion areas.
D. Transportation and Circulation
ettin
The site is bordered by:
Prado Road, designated and used as an arterial street, which has an 84-foot-wide right-
of-way but for most of its length has only two travel lanes. Prado Road connects north-
LL-1
orth- �J
�L
Prado Center Environmental Review 10
bound Highway 101 "on" and "off' ramps with South Higuera Street and nearby agency
and commercial uses.
Elks Lane, designated and used as a local street, has a variable right-of-way width, and is
developed as a narrow, two-lane roadway. Elks Lane runs roughly parallel to the
highway, connecting Prado Road and the highway ramps with South Higuera Street,
about two-thirds of a mile north of the Prado-Higuera intersection.
Access to the proposed project would be derived from Prado Road and development of
an extension of Elks Lane through the site. Right-of-way for an enlarged Prado Road
interchange with Highway 101 would be offered for dedication.,
Bac and
Given the scale of the proposed project at build-out with approximately 120,000 square
feet of office space, it has the potential to create significant traffic impacts and could
require improvements to area streets. In recognition of this and given the potential for a
highway interchange and overpass adjacent to the site, a consultant was retained by the
applicant to prepare a traffic study. The May 1, 1992 version, incorporated into this
initial study by reference as Appendix D was endorsed by both the City and Caltrans.
Minor differences in traffic report recommendations and final project plans are up to the
discretion of the Community Development Director and City Engineer.
Traffic Study Summaa
1. Scope:
The traffic study looks at existing traffic volumes, traffic volumes projected with project
build-out, and cumulative traffic impacts under three possible scenarios. In the
cumulative analysis, the three alternatives evaluated were:
■ The No Prado Road Interchange — assuming no overpass or interchange at
Prado Road/U.S. 101 would be developed;
■ The Prado Road Overcrossing Only -- assuming an overpass with no
interchange; and
■ The Prado Road Interchange with Overcrossing — assuming development
of both an overpass and interchange.
Prado Center Environmental Review 11
2. Project Traffic:
Using Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation data, the proposed project
at build-out will generate 1,910 daily trips, 316 am peak hour trips and 254 pm peak
hour trips. The study concludes that this added traffic will add one additional
intersection to the three intersections in the vicinity of the site that currently exceed the
City's acceptable level of service (LOS D or better). The Elks Lane approach to the
Elks Lane/South Higuera Street intersection is projected to operate at a LOS E with the
traffic generated by the occupancy of the first three project buildings.
The traffic study recommends that a traffic signal be installed at Elks Lane and South
Higuera Street, but notes that the City staff indicates that this is an infeasible mitigation.
However, City Engineering staff has noted that traffic signal installation is probably
feasible, but there may be preferred alternatives to improving the intersection's LOS.
Mitigation Measure:
The applicant shall either install a traffic signal, or alternative traffic control measures
acceptable to the City Engineer, at the Elks Lane and South Higuera Street intersection
with the development of project Phase 3. Prior to approval of the precise plan for Phase
3, the applicant shall submit a report which studies the feasibility of signal installation
and evaluates alternative traffic control measures available.
3. Site Plan Evaluation:
The traffic study points out that the number of reversing curves and the radii of the
curves proposed for the realignment of Elks Lane present safety concerns and do not
meet City design speeds. The other major concern discussed is the proximity of the
southernmost driveway entrance to the Elks Lane and Prado Road intersection and
concerns for conflicts between turning movements and maintenance of adequate sight
distances. _
Conclusion:
Both these issues raise potentially significant safety issues.
Mitigation Measures:
1. The plan shall be revised to show a realignment of Elks Lane that is designed for
a 25 MPH design speed, including its connection and transition with the existing
street, and include a separated and defined pedestrian drop-off point, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. /
*46
Prado Center Environmental Review 12
2. The southernmost driveway entrance to parking facilities closest to the Elks Lane
and Prado Road intersection shall be designed to allow for adequate sight
distances and minimize conflicts in turning movements. Possible alternatives
include: moving the entrance further to the north; or adding a median in Elks
Lane near the intersection to prevent left turns out of the parking lot.
4. Cumulative Analvsis:
Base traffic volumes for the cumulative analysis were based on the traffic volumes
projected in the DKS transportation study (San Luis Obispo City-Wide Transportation
Study, July 1990) and .the City's transportation model. Assumptions were made that
improvements described in the DKS study would be in place for the cumulative analysis.
Given unknowns regarding the intensity of build-out in the Airport area and on the
Dalidio property, traffic projections were made using the most intense land use
alternative under the city's transportation model.
With the cumulative analysis, it was determined that eight intersections would be
operating under an unacceptable LOS under the No-Interchange alternative and seven
would be operating under an unacceptable LOS with the Overpass and Overpass-
Interchange alternatives. To determine the impacts of the project on cumulative traffic
levels, proposed project traffic was added to cumulative projections. The resulting traffic
levels with the addition of project traffic did not cause any new intersections to operate
at an unacceptable LOS. The conclusion was that the intersections identified as
operating under an unacceptable LOS would continue to do so with the project with the
additional traffic generated by the project adding to the delays at those intersections.
Conclusion: May be significant.
Because the addition of the project will not have a significant impact on cumulative
traffic LOS at specified intersections, no specific improvements are needed to the
roadways and intersections included in the traffic study area analysis as a direct result of —
project development. However, to improve LOS at intersections, a variety of
improvements are outlined in the traffic study. The project should contribute to area-
wide improvements in proportion to its incremental share of projected traffic levels as
identified in Table XVIII of the traffic study.
Mitigation Measure:
The applicant will be required to pay a pro-rata share to the City of the cost of proposed
area-wide traffic improvements as detailed in the traffic study prepared for the project
and dated May 1, 1992.
Prado Center Environmental Review 13
S. Highway 101 Interchange:
The cumulative traffic analysis indicated that the project's contribution to area-wide
traffic levels would not be significant, with or without development of an interchange
and/or overcrossing at Prado Road and Highway 101. Two alternatives for the
interchange have been discussed -- one a clover-leaf design, and the other a diamond
design.
As mentioned earlier, the interchange and overpass are recommended as future
circulation improvements in both the DKS study and the Draft Circulation Element.
The preferred design from the applicant's perspective would be the diamond design since
it would result in taking less land. Plans indicate that the applicant is willing to dedicate
the property necessary to accommodate the diamond design, but would expect
compensation for any further taking. The diamond design is also called out in the traffic
study as the preferred design alternative. City staff, as well as Caltrans staff, have
indicated support for the diamond design alternative.
The ultimate decision regarding the design of the interchange rests with the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA). With official application to the FHWA, a special
report called a "project study report" needs to accompany the interchange design plans. .
The FHWA, in order to approve the interchange, will need to also approve the spacing
between this interchange and the Madonna Road interchange to the north because they
are closer than one mile to one another.
6. Project Trip Reduction Program
Since several intersections in the vicinity of the project will have an unacceptable LOS
under the cumulative condition, the project should incorporate a trip reduction program
to encourage shared ridership and alternative modes of transportation. The
recommendations included in the traffic study should:be incorporated into mitigation.
Mitigation Measure:
The applicant shall submit a trip reduction program containing a list of actions to reduce
auto use to the Community Development Director for review and approval. The plan
shall include the following components:
■ Designate a Transportation Coordinator to organize ride-sharing and other.trip
reduction programs, post and disseminate information to employees about
transportation alternatives, survey employees regarding preferences, and provide
on-going monitoring regarding program success;
Prado Center Environmental Review 14
■ Provide bicycle parking and lockers and showers in the project to encourage
employees to ride bicycles to work;
■ Coordinate with the City regarding development of a bus turnout, passenger
shelter and transit sign to serve the project;
■ Adopt a goal to increase Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) to 1.5 within 3 years
of first building occupancy;
■ With combined employees of 100 or more, sponsor a van pool service.
F. Utilities
The normal level of demand for city water exceeds the safe yield of supplies. The city
has responded by adopting measures to limit allocation of water to development, so a
balance between safe yield and normal demand can be reached as new water sources are
developed. These measures would apply to any further development or change of use on
the site, and will mitigate potential water-use impacts.
The city's sewage treatment plant currently violates water quality standards, and operates
at about 86 percent of its hydraulic capacity (based on average dry weather flow before
water rationing). An upgrade which is under construction will improve treatment levels
to meet water quality standards and increase hydraulic capacity by about five percent.
No additional sewer-treatment mitigation is necessary.
G. Noise Levels
The major noise source within the vicinity of the site is Highway 101. The Noise
Contour Map included in the Draft Noise Element (1990) shows existing noise levels at
the site to be 65 decibels (DB) Ldn in the western third closest to the Highway 101, and _
between 60 and 65 DB Ldn in the eastern part of the site. With build-out of the City,
most of the site would be within the 65 DB Ldn.
The most sensitive outdoor noise receptor will be the children's playground area
proposed in the southeastern corner of the site. The proposed location is good as it is
partially screened by Building C and about 500 feet away from any portion of the
planned future highway ramps.
Conclusion: Not significant.
Although projected noise levels at the site in relationship to the location of the play area
do not constitute a significant environmental impact, plans submitted for ARC review
Prado Center Environmental Review 15
should include specific landscaping and fencing details to show how the play area will be
buffered from noise sources.
Proposed buildings will be able to meet interior noise level standards of 45 DB through
standard construction techniques.
H. Geologic & Seismic Hazards & Topographic Modifications:
The site lies in an area identified by the Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan as
being the zone of highest liquefaction potential. As defined in the Seismic Safety
Element, "liquefaction involves a sudden loss in strength of a saturated cohesionless soil
(predominantly fine grain sand) which is caused by shock or strain (such as an
earthquake), and results in a temporary transformation of the soil to a fluid mass."
Liquefying layers near the surface can cause a sinking, "quicksand"-like effect. At lower
levels, liquefying layers can cause a slipping surface for layers above.
Conclusion:
May be significant.
Mitigation Measure:
Consistent with the recommendations included in the Seismic Safety Element, a detailed
soils and geology report needs to be submitted at the time of building permit which
considers special grading and construction techniques necessary to address the potential
for liquefaction.
I. Air Oualft and Wind Conditions
Short-term Impacts
During project construction, there will be increased levels of fugitive dust associated with
construction.and grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated with
heavy duty construction equipment.
Conclusion: May be significant.
Mitigation Measure:
Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.44.270, all graded surfaces shall be wetted,
protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon any adjoining
property or street. The following measures shall constitute the project's dust
Prado Center Environmental Review 16
management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of that project's
construction:
a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with
complete coverage of all active areas);
b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
C. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
CL Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported
onsite or offsite;
e. Watering material stockpiles;
f. Periodic washdowns, or mechanical streetsweeping, of Prado Road and
Elks Lane in the vicinity of the construction site; and
g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work.
Long-term Impacts
The project was referred to the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control Board (APCD).
APCD overall endorsed the plan for: its mixed use concept as a means of reducing
vehicle trips; providing child care facilities on-site; and incorporating transit turnouts into
the project. However, based on the number of vehicle trips generated or attracted by
the project at build-out, APCD felt that there may be significant impacts to air quality.
Conclusion: May be significant.
Mitigation Measure:
APCD indicated that the specific recommendations for a trip reduction program
contained in Section D.6. would provide appropriate mitigation for long-term air quality
impacts.
J. Surface Water Flow and Quality
The site has remained largely undeveloped and in an Interim/Conservation Open Space
land use designation primarily because of flooding concerns. Flooding would be due
primarily to overflow from San Luis Obispo Creek to the east. During heavy storms,
Prado Road and Elks Lane near their intersection act as a levee trapping water on the
site causing ponding.
/`Yo
Prado Center Environmental Review 17
The Flood Insurance Rate Map (revised 7-7-81) shows that the site is within flood zone
"A", subject to flooding between about 1-4 feet during a 100-year storm. The city's Flood
Damage Prevention Regulations will require that finish floors of buildings be at least one
foot above the 100-year flood level (136.5' elevation) and that development not displace
flood water sufficient to raise the flood elevation. These requirements would apply
regardless of land-use zone.
A key feature of the proposal is to accommodate development without changing the San
Luis Obispo Creek channel to mitigate flood hazards. The schematic grading plan
(Sheet C-2) prepared for the project indicates that finish floors of Buildings A, B and C
would be at the 134' elevation and flood-proofed to the 136' elevation.
A flood analysis of the project was prepared by Civil Engineer Keith Crowe in response
to a City request for more specific information regarding flooding impacts associated
with the project. A copy of that analysis is attached as Appendix E and is incorporated
into the initial study by reference.
Conclusion (protection of buildings): Significant.
As indicated in the Crowe analysis, flood-proofing at this location would not be an
acceptable way of complying with the City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations.
Therefore, the finish floors of project buildings need to be raised above the 100-year
flood level.
Mitigation Measure:
The finish floor of project buildings shall be raised to a minimum of 136.5' elevation to
be consistent with the City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations.
Conclusion (secondary impacts to flood plain): Not significant.
Beyond the protection of site buildings because of their location in the flood plain, is the
concern for how development of the site affects the flow of flood waters. The applicant
indicates in the submitted general plan statement that the site plan design strategy is to
nur mite the amount of site area occupied by building pads to keep flood water
displacement relatively insignificant.
The Crowe report indicates that development of the site, which is located in the
backwater of the Prado Road bridge, will not increase the flood elevation. It further
states that when the water surface is at the 135.5' elevation, the full flood flow will pass
through the bridge. With an unrestricted floodway, the 100-year flood can go no higher
once it reaches the 135.5' elevation, regardless of development in the flood plain.
4-71
Prado Center Environmental Review 18
K. Plant Life
The site contains several mature trees in the southeastern part of the site near the
existing farmhouse. Existing trees are not precisely plotted on preliminary plans in
relationship to proposed buildings and improvements. It appears that most existing trees
would be removed to accommodate Building C and the parking lot around it.
Conclusion:
None of the existing trees are rare species, unique specimens, or provide significant
wildlife habitat. However, there are several large and attractive trees including a 20-inch
Black Locust, a 48-inch Eucalyptus and two Cypresses, one 70 inches and the other 36
inches, that the City Arborist has indicated should be retained if possible. These trees
must be plotted accurately on the site plan and their status with development indicated.
The landscape plan shows a variety of trees and shrubs to be planted throughout the site,
with over five trees to replace each tree to be removed. Tree removal will be adequately
mitigated by replacement planting.
M. Archaeological and Historical Resources
The site, near San Luis Obispo Creek, may have hosted Chumash use before European
settlement. For that,reason, the City requested that the applicant contract with a
certified archaeologist to perform a surface survey and prepare a report of findings.
That report is attached as Appendix F and incorporated into the initial study by
reference.
The surface survey performed did not result in finding any remains of Chumash
habitation. Natural changes within the flood plain and soil disturbance from construction
after European settlement have apparently removed or damaged any pre-historic or
cultural materials associated with past uses at the site. However, there may be pre-
historic or cultural materials under the current surface level of the site. Also, the
existing farmhouse structure was built near the turn-of-the-century and is a good example
of the Queen Anne Cottage style of architecture.
Conclusion: May be significant.
Mitigation Measures:
1. A qualified archaeologist will be retained to monitor project grading and
trenching activities. If excavations encounter significant cultural materials,
construction activities which may affect them shall cease until the extent of the
resource is determined and appropriate protective measures are approved by the
Al-P
Prado Center Environmental Review 19
Community Development Director. The Community Development Director shall
be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that they may be
recorded by a qualified archaeologist.
2. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American
monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and
remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal
laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on the grading and
construction plans for the project.
3. The existing structures on the site shall be reviewed by the Cultural Heritage
Committee and the Architectural Review Commission. The farm house and water
tower buildings shall be photo-documented prior to their demolition.
N. Aesthetics
Adverse aesthetic impacts are judged to be not significant. This judgment can be
reversed by the Planning Commission, the Architectural Review Commission, or the City
Council during further project review.
The new.buildings will cause a substantial change in the appearance of the site.
Buildings A, B and C, proposed at 60 feet in height, will exceed the maximum allowed
35-foot height limit by about 25 feet. Building D at 45 feet in height is the lowest of the
four buildings and will be located closest to Highway 101.
The applicant points out in the Preliminary Development Plan Statement that the
proposed buildings will be similar in scale to the Embassy Suites Hotel at Central Coast
Plaza across Highway 101 and the Sunset Drive-in Movie Theater screen to the north of
the project site. A photograph including a computer-simulated model of proposed
buildings gives an idea of the project's massing and appearance from the highway is
attached as Appendix G. _
P. Human Health
Pacific Gas and Electric Company has an 80-foot wide easement across the northern part
of the site. A 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line and one tower structure are included in
the easement on this site. The transmission line, running from Morro Bay, also crosses
through Central Coast Plaza and is located down the center of Margarita Avenue.
High-voltage powei•lines generate electric and magnetic fields (EMFs). The strength of
the fields is dependent on the amount of current flow and.diminish with distance from
the source. The amount of current flow is dependent on energy consumption; and
therefore, varies with the season and time of day.
Prado Center Environmental Review 20
More than forty studies have found a positive association between exposure to EMFs
and disease (usually cancer), although some studies have shown no association. Despite
the indications from the epidemiological studies, the scientific community has not
established any precise threshold for safe exposure to EMFs. The particular aspects of
EMFs that are responsible for the observed higher rates of cancer and other health
effects have also been heavily debated.
Although a safe distance from such fields has not been established, in general, the
distance from a powerline which maintains an average level of less than 1.0 milligauss
(mG) is generally thought safer for long-term exposure. A study performed for a Santa
Cruz County project by Andrew A. Marino in December, 1991, cited evidence from two
studies that the incidence of cancer increased between 28% and 133% for a magnetic
field exposure of 2.0 mG as compared to a field of 0.5 mG.
Most of the land use restrictions related to EMFs and powerlines have applied to school
sites and residential uses. For example, the California State Board of Education requires
new schools to be sited at least 100 feet from the edge of a 100-110 kV powerline right-
of-way. Where standards have been set in other communities, they have been typically
instituted for long-term facilities such as playgrounds, kitchens, or bedrooms where
people-spend a considerable amount of time.
Since there are no standards for safe exposure levels or appropriate setbacks from
powerlines for office buildings or parking lots, the City needs to examine the risk in light
of the current scientific knowledge relying on the best information available. The
absence of regulations makes choosing appropriate standards more difficult, but it does
not preclude the City from making a finding of significant impact under CEQA.
PG&E has conducted measurements of the strength of the magnetic field at the site.
Those measurements are attached and are incorporated into this initial study by
reference as Appendix H. The measurements were taken at four locations on the site. _
The measurements confirm that the magnetic field lessens with distance at the site.
However, additional measurements would need to be done at the peak load time of day
to confirm where on the site that a resultant magnetic field of 1.0 MG or less occurs.
Conclusion: May be significant.
Parking spaces would be located directly under the existing powerlines. Employees and
visitors to the site would experience short-term EMF exposure while parking and walking
to and from their cars. Of greater concern would be long-term EMF exposure
to office workers and others using site facilities.
Based on information contained in the Marino report referenced above, readings of 2.0
mG can be expected at a distance of about 100 feet from a 115 kV powerline.
Prado Center Environmental Review 21
Therefore, magnetic fields of 1.0 or less would be expected to occur at distances greater
than 100 feet from the powerlines.
Buildings B, C and D would all be located more than 100 feet away from the centerline
of the powerline easement. However, without the confirmation of additional
.measurements, it cannot be substantiated that the magnetic field at these buildings will
be below 1.0 mG.
The outdoor play area for the child care center is located on the far side of Building C.
Of greatest concern would be Building A, which at about 70 feet from the centerline of
the easement, is closest to the powerlines.
Mitigation Measure:
All office buildings and other project facilities shall be located at locations on the site
with magnetic field readings (resultant values) of 1.0 mG or less. A report needs to be
prepared and additional measurements taken to confirm where on the site that those
readings occur. Building footprints may need to be adjusted to accommodate this '
standard.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that a negative declaration be prepared for this project with noted
mitigation measures incorporated into the project. If the Community Development
Director determines that the mitigation measures outlined in this initial study are
ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the mitigation to meet
the intent of the original measures.
At 750
Prado Center Environmental Review 22
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWER 14-91
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
& MONITORING PROGRAM
In conformance with AB 3180, the following mitigation measures will be monitored as
indicated below:
1. Banks, real estate offices, financial institutions, medical clinics and doctor offices,
and lawyers.offices will not be allowed to be established at this site.
Monitoring_
This restriction on allowed offices at the site shall become a condition of
Preliminary Development Plan approval, and entered in the City's Land Use
Inventory to alert staff of the restriction in its review of business licenses for new
uses established at the site.
2. A text amendment to Section C.S.b. of the adopted LUE, which specifically
identifies the site as a part of the Social Services government pole, shall be
approved. Precise language of the text amendment shall be as approved by the
Planning Commission and City Council.
Monitoring;
The Planning Commission and City Council will need to review and consider the
proposed modification to the LUE text for appropriateness and consistency with
general plan goals.
3. The applicant shall either install a traffic signal, or alternative traffic control
measures acceptable to the City Engineer, at the.Elks Lane and South Higuera
Street intersection with the development of project.Phase 3. Prior to approval of
the precise plan for Phase 3, the applicant shall submit a report which studies
the feasibility of signal installation and evaluates alternative traffic control
measures available.
Monitoring
The requirement would be incorporated into planned development approval. The
required report would need to be submitted with the application for architectural
review of Phase 3.
4-?6
Prado Center Environmental Review 23
4. The plan shall be revised to show a realignment of Elks Lane that is designed for
a 25 MPH design speed, including its connection and transition with the existing
street, and include a separated and defined pedestrian drop-off point, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Monitoring
The City Engineer, by reviewing project plans during precise plan review,
architectural review and building permit plan check, would confirm whether the
street alignment was consistent with City design standards.
S. The southernmost driveway entrance to parking facilities closest to the Elks Lane
and Prado Road intersection shall be designed to allow for adequate sight
distances and minimize conflicts in turning movements. Possible alternatives
include: moving the entrance further to the north; or adding a median in Elks
Lane near the intersection to prevent left turns out of the parking lot.
Monitorine:
The precise plan for the project and architectural plans for Phase 1 shall reflect a
driveway solution acceptable to the Community Development Department and
Public Works Department staffs.
6. The applicant will be required to pay a pro-rata share to the City of the cost of
proposed area-wide traffic improvements as detailed in the traffic study prepared
for the project and dated May 1, 1992.
Monitoring:
Fees would be collected at the time of building permit issuance. A payment
schedule to coordinate with project phasing would be developed.
7. The applicant shall submit a trip reduction program containing a list of actions
- to reduce auto use to the Community Development Director for review and
approval. The plan shall include the following components:
a. Designate a Transportation Coordinator to organize ride-sharing and
other trip reduction programs, post and disseminate information to
employees about transportation alternatives, survey employees regarding
preferences, and provide on-going monitoring regarding program success;
b. Provide bicycle parking and lockers and showers in the project to
encourage employees to ride bicycles to work;
J4- 77
Prado Center Environmental Review 24
c. Coordinate with the City regarding development of a bus turnout,
passenger shelter and transit sign to serve the project;
d. Adopt a goal to increase Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) to 1.5 within 3
years of first building occupancy;
e. With combined employees of 100 or more, sponsor a van pool service.
Monitoring:
City Community Development Department, or Public Works Traffic Division, staff
would monitor the trip reduction program annually until the County APCD sets
up an independent monitoring program.
S. Consistent with the recommendations included in the Seismic Safety Element, a
detailed soils and geology report needs to be submitted at the time of building
permit which considers special grading and construction techniques necessary to
address the potential for liquefaction.
Monitoring;
Community Development Department staff would review the report and its
recommendations in evaluating the project plans as part of building permit plan
check.
9. Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.44.270, all graded surfaces shall be
wetted, protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon
any adjoining property or street. The following measures shall constitute the
project's dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of
that project's construction:
a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with
complete coverage of all active areas);
b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
C. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or
transported onsite or offsite;
e. Watering material stockpiles; and
�� I d
Prado Center Environmental Review 25
f Periodic washdowns, or mechanical streetsweeping, of Broad Street and
Rockview Place in the vicinity of the construction site.
g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work.
Monitorine:
Grading practices shall be monitored by Community Development Department
staff through field inspections during project construction.
10. The finish floor of project buildings shall be raised to a minimum of 136.5'
elevation to be consistent with the City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations.
Monitoring:,
This shall be reviewed by Community Development Department and Public
Works staffs by reviewing project plans during precise plan review, architectural
review and building permit plan check.
11. A qualified archaeologist will be retained to monitor project grading and
trenching activities. If excavations encounter significant cultural materials,
construction activities which may affect them shall cease until the extent of the .
resource is determined and appropriate protective measures are approved by the
Community Development Director. The Community Development Director shall
be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that they may be
recorded by a qualified archaeologist.
12. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American
monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and
remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal
laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on the grading and
construction plans for the project.
Monitoring (Mitigation Measures 11 & 121:
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for Community
Development Department review and approval an archaeological work program
detailing the plan for monitoring and the archaeologist retained to monitor
construction.
13. The existing structures on the site shall be reviewed by the Cultural Heritage
Committee and the Architectural Review Commission. The farm house,and water
tower buildings shall be photo-documented prior to their demolition.
Prado Center Environmental.Review 26
Monitorings
Community Development Department staff shall monitor by sending demolition
plans to the CHC and ARC. Standards for photo-documentation shall be set by
the CHC.
14. All office buildings and other project facilities shall be located at locations on the
site with magnetic field readings (resultant values) of 1.0 mG or less. A report
needs to be prepared and additional measurements taken to confirm where on the
site that those readings occur. Building footprints may need to be adjusted to
accommodate this standard.
Monitorings
This shall be reviewed by Community Development Department and Public
Works staffs by reviewing project plans during precise plan review, architectural
review and building permit plan check.
15. If the Community Development Director determines that the above mitigation
measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the
mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures.
Appendix
Vicinity map & Site Layout
KC/�S-U5
I \ \� •_�
r CC-51 �.7 --
r IG/05-10 _-1 '. . -
f 1r' I
_L
+ ^ l_J._
r �. DRIVE-IN ��\
' v � I 11111111 .� •fl r] C�`,'.i � i I
PD
tx
i / f
w•ti• ( �l/ rr •••:'?�. � .iC-5/ = Imo={ �1.,
L
e ON
LIR 3 ��•-
°.
SITE ••••••••••• �::1� � ¢ M4q�A.ilTq
yA 5 0•• ��f. 0 9_2
F:v S-S
WA fi{t- ROjHERS CENTE q F. ; r•
t(rFFF f .
11111 ; IL IrG _�,
_.CORPOR YARD .� S ' I 7.PF AQ
ooh• {{,. ��
II i
SCALE i i ry. G-S-s J 1
400
I ��I OUNTY SOCIAL I•
J/.//•i SERVICES L
P
G-
\� I
VICINITY MAP 40 PRADO ROAD NORTH
PG 1516, PD 1517
►A. >
i
3
0
r
,
3
t
e
• •PO�Mt Y tw�w. ��
��1 i.♦ I — I I vi ! i0F�i t131
..,� f.. `
U.
r a
tmrs �=1 �: Y 1 •`! A ....:: 4.11 '
i ` �'✓®'Y`��'r f ti'
fir
. Q.� VVV ••��iRa; 6i �
I L)<�;>;��a 1 I ! I III � �� .,..: .;:..•. � :::. �::
1 ,
1
I r7
�-P3
Appendix C
General Plan Amendment & PD Rezoning
Application Statements
General Plan Amendment Application
"The Prado-Elks Regional Center"
Request
1) Amend the General Plan Land Use Element Map for the subject property
from Interim Conservation/Open Space to Office. This would be
implemented through an O-PD zone. See the corresponding PD Re-
zoning application materials.
The property is proximate to land already designated for office to the east
of this site and near the Higuera-Prado intersection, which is one of the
"poles" designated for government offices in the City. It is also across
Prado from the City Corporation Yard and its related offices.
2) Amend the text of the Land Use Element to allow up to 15% of the square
footage of the buildings in this area to be used for commercial activities
which relate to and support the offices. These could include food service,
copying and printing, office supplies, etc.
Suggested text additions are shown underlined, below.
Add to Section C.5.b. (p. 22):
Other areas reserved for urban use include:
- An area north of Prado Road and east of Elks Lane, which may be
changed to an urban land-use designation when the flood hazard is
mitigated. The portion of this area abutting Prado Road is suited for office
uses includingaovernment offices This area shall be considered a part of
the "Social Services Dole" for government offices which is cenerally
focused on the intersection of Prado and Hinuera Ug to 15% of the floor
area of new buildings may be devoted to commercial uses which are
related to offices such as (but not limited�to) food service, copying and
printina. and office suooly sales.
The format of the LUE is likely to change in the update, which is currently
being considered. We request that the intent of this proposed amendment
be incorporated into the new format/language of any update of the LUE.
�b�
General Plan Am&,.,ment
Application Statement
General Plan Amendment Statement
How the amendment carries out existing_policies of the General Plan.
The:general plan designates the subject property as "interim
conservation/open-space". This site (the area north of Prado Road and east of
Elks Lane) is specifically reserved for urban use; the land use designation may
be changed to allow urban development if the flood hazard is mitigated.
The proposal mitigates the flood hazard by allowing for all buildings to be
raised above the flood zone and/or flood proofed. Development will be
concentrated into a few buildings; most of the site will remain in open space.
By limiting development to a few, relatively small building pads, the amount of
water displaced by the raised pads is insignificant relative to expected volumes
during flood times.
The site is proximate to one of the three government "poles" called out in the
General Plan. Recently, the City has received several requests to allow
expanded government office locations. The City has generally directed that
these should continue to concentrate at the three designated areas, including
the South Higuera/Prado Road node. The subject site is part of the logical
' extension of the government office uses currently allowed on the northwest side
of Higuera and Prado, across the creek to the east from this location.
The site is also directly across'from a significant concentration of City offices
and facilities including the corporation yard, sewer treatment plant, transit
center, and related offices, training rooms, and similar uses.
The site is immediately adjacent to a freeway interchange, which will facilitate
easy access not only for employees, many of whom will be from outside the
area, but also for the public served by these offices. Many government offices
have a regional nature and serve a much larger community than just San Luis
Obispo proper. Thus, the convenient freeway access is an attractive component
of this plan.
The proposed amendment would also allow some related commercial
development to serve the workers in the new offices and in the nearby City,
County and other office complexes. This will help achieve goals related to
reduce dependence on the automobile by locating mutually supporting uses
proximate to one another.
A designation that affords the flexibility to allow office and some related
commercial is the preferred one for this location. Because of its proximity to the
freeway, the site is not suitable for residential purposes. There are no nearby
residential neighborhoods which could be affected by an office project in this
location.
Crawrard Multarl & Starr planning • architecture • public policy
2
14
General Plan Ame...ment
Application Statement
How the proposed change relates to other General Plan elements.
The most important element besides land use which has bearing on this
proposal is the Circulation Element. A draft revised element contemplates the
extension of Prado over the freeway. The subject site is sufficiently large to
accommodate the likely overpass/interchange design. If the proposed over-
freeway link is built, the argument for office use at this location is strengthened.
With appropriate mitigations, there will be no flood hazard or other safety
concerns; noise impacts from the freeway can be readily mitigated for the
proposed non-residential uses.
No other element directly affects this site or this project.
Cru%%rurd Multarl S Starr planning • architecture • public policy
3
4-n
PD Rezoning Application (updated June, 1992)
"The Prado-Elks Regional Center"
Request
Rezone the property (see attached map).from C/OS-10 to O-PD. The General
Plan Amendment application includes a discussion of how this proposed
change carries out existing LUE policies and suggests text amendments to
clarify the intent for this area.
Preliminary Development Plan
A. Legal Description.
See attached.
B. Statement of Objectives.
The principal objective is to transfer this property from interim open space
to urban uses, specifically, a phased office development, including
offices for public agencies. The PD will be developed in phases as
demand for office space, particularly in the public sector, increases. The
site is a logical extension of the government office node designated at
Prado and Higuera: it is proximate to and can be easily linked with the
existing office facilities; it is directly across from the City offices and
facilities at the Corporation Yard, transit center and sewer treatment
plant; it has immediate freeway access for employees and for office
clients; it is not proximate to any residential neighborhood which could
be disturbed by traffic associated with office uses; the site is not suitable
for residential development due to proximity to the freeway and the over-
crossing of transmission lines.
Some commercial development in conjunction with the offices would be —
preferred. The commercial uses would be intended to serve the workers
in the offices on the subject site, at the City facilities across Prado Road,
and in the other government offices existing and contemplated at the
intersection of Prado and Higuera. The PD, with the accompanying
General Plan text amendment, provides the flexibility to accommodate
some related commercial uses with the offices.
The intent is to create a more campus-like environment by developing'
large landscaped setbacks along the street frontages and around the
buildings. The buildings will surround and focus on a large central plaza.
PD Re-zoning
Preliminary Development Plan
The proposed project also includes 2000 square feet reserved for a day
care center in Phase One (Building C). Note the adjacent play area,
which would be protected by a solid wall or fence.
The site also includes areas for transit pick-up and drop-off (for example,
see the turn-out in front of the fountain and plaza).
Pedestrian access to Higuera-Prado will be achieved by sidewalks along
Prado (secondary pedestrian access to the Walter Brothers Center may
be possible over the creek; there is currently an intervening parcel
between the subject site and the creek).
The attachment of the PD suffix allows the City to review and approve a
preliminary development plan at this time, which can address the
preliminary land use mix, circulation patterns and development
standards for the property.
See also the General Plan Amendment Statement for further discussion
of objectives and intent.
C. Schedule.
Building C would be the first phase of the project. It would be constructed
in approximately one to two years from approval of the Planned
Development. This building will include the day care center and play
area.
Later phases would be built as demand for additional office space
increases. Buildings A and B would constitute the next two phases. A
likely scenario would be development of one additional building every
two to three years. Total build-.out would occur over a period of 10 years
or so.
D Sales/Lease of the Property.
No definite plans on the further sale or lease of the property has been
determined. The option for sale or lease will largely depend on the
needs of the end users.
E. Project Statistics.
See attached site plan.
Crawford Multari & Stan planning •architecture •public policy
2
441
PD Re-zoning -
Preliminary Development Plan
F. Variances.
A height exception is proposed for all the buildings. The usual height
limit in the O district is 35 feet (with approval of a minor use permit). The
following heights are proposed for each building:
Building A: 60 feet (four stories)
Building B: 60 feet (four stories)
Building C: 60 feet (four stories)
Building D: 45 feet (three stories)
These limits will allow three to four story buildings with some roof line
variety. The additional height also allows the building footprints to be
more compact, reducing the area which needs to be raised out of the
flood zone.
The same floor area can be developed by designing lower, more spread-
out buildings. The preferred approach will make the pads smaller,
increasing the landscaping around each building to create a more open
environment, oriented around a large plaza.
A four story building will be of comparable scale with the hotel which is
almost directly across the freeway from this site and with the drive-in
movie screen on the adjacent property.
G. Site Plan and Maps.
See attachments.
H. Nearby Land Uses._
Q
t of the property is Highway 101. North is the drive-in theater. South
is the City corporation yard facility. East is another narrow parcel which
is largely vacant, San Luis Obispo Creek, and across the creek, the
"Walter Brothers" office complex.
As noted elsewhere, the proximity to the Higuera-Prado government
office node, the existing City facilities, and to the freeway all argue that
this is a logical expansion of office opportunities here.
The drive-in theater site will likely transition to new uses some time in the
future. The owners are currently not interested in including this property
in this plan.
Crawford Multari& Starr planning - architecture -public policy
3
PD Re-zoning
Preliminary Development Plan
The site is capable of accommodating the proposed uses and the
freeway overpass/interchange if that is necessary. The applicants will
offer to dedicate adequate area for the interchange.
A new road is proposed extending from Prado Road which would provide
access to the newly created buildings and parking lots. This road will
align with one of the main entrances to the corporation yard.
Other Information.
1. Uses
The proposed building area is approximately 122,000 s.f. total (all
phases). Of this all would be devoted to offices except 2000 s.f. for a day
care center and up to 15% of any building which may be used for
commercial uses related to the offices. We propose that the type of
commercial uses be spelled out in the precise plan for each building.
2. Land for the Interchange and Road.
The applicants propose to offer to dedicate land necessary for a future
interchange/overpass and to develop and offer to dedicate the road that
serves the project itself (the re-routing of Elks). Dedication of the land for
the interchange and the new road would be offered to the City, unless the
City indicates that they would prefer the interchange dedication be made
directly to CalTrans.
3. Common area and reservations.
Approximately 248,000 s.f. or 87% of the site remaining after roadway
dedications will be reserved as common open space. See site plan for
break down between parking/drives and landscaping/plaza areas.
4. Archaeology Report.
An archaeology/history report for the property has been prepared and is _
attached.
5. Traffic Study.
A traffic study has been prepared and was submitted separately.
Crawford Multari & Starr planning-architecture - public policy
4 �� I
Appendix E
Flood Analysis by EDA Dated 2-13-92
��►����►i ►►►IiP►fi11111�111IIIIIIIf►►��°1°°►i►I Ihll or SAn tuiS oBispocity
955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
February 21, 1992
Warren Hamrick
Studio Design Group
641 Higuera Street, Suite 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: Flood Analysis by EDA for 40 Prado Road
Dear: Warren,
The letter report prepared by Keith Crowe of EDA (dated 2-3-92)
analyzing the effects on a proposed project at 40 Prado Road is
acceptable as to meeting the requirements of the City' s Flood
Damage Prevention Regulations. The results indicate that the
project would not raise the 100-year storm inundation level
across the flood plain.
As indicated earlier, the City Engineer has recommended that the
project be required to raise the grade around the structures to
preclude flooding, as opposed to simply raising the structures
above existing grade. This will serve to protect the structures
and contents from flooding and "eliminate" the requirement for
costly flood insurance, under Federally guaranteed loans per FEMA
regulations.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me
at 781-7194 .
Yours very truly,
WAYNE A. PETERSON
CIT ENGINEER
Gerald W. Kenny
Supervising Civil Engineer
Attachment: EDA letter (2-3-92)
c: K Crowe (EDA)
K Bruce/P Ricci
HB/MB file
P: \jerry\40PradFl.wp
4-93
EDARECEI VES
ENGINEERING
DEVELOPMENT , '(� FEB 6 1992
ASSOCIATES /� EI.G❑,Ee;;InG 0n-ISION
CITY OF LU,S O=_,Sao
February 3 , 1992 7 ' EDA #201251
Jerry Kenny
Department of Public Works
City of San Luis Obispo, CA
955 Morro
San Luis Obispo, Ca, 93401
RE Flood =latus. At 40 Prado Road
Dear Jerry;
As we discussed the other day, I am providing this statement of the
flood status, effect of the 100 year flood on the proposed project
and the effect of the project on the 100 year flood. As required
by City Ordinance the basis of the following information is the
Flood Study for the City of San Luis Obispo. Discussion related to
another study follows the required analysis.
Existina Flood Status
According to the Flood Information Rate Map for the City of
San Luis Obispo, the site is lochted in a flood zone. The
flood elevation shown on the map is 135 over the entire site.
The creek profiles published with the FIRM map indicate the
flood level to be 135. 5.
The flood profiles indicate that the site is in• the backwater
of the flow restriction caused by the Prado Road bridge. The
backwater extends about 650 feet upstream of Prado Road. The
site extends about 550 feet upstream of Prado Road.
Effect of Floodina on Pro- ect
Because the site is inundated by the 100 year flood the
proposed buildings must be protected from flood damage. The
first element of protection is to design the structures so
that the contents and occupants are protected. This is done
by designing the structure so that the finish floor of the
structures are at least one foot over the flood level. In the
case of commercial and industrial buildings floodproofing to
the same level is generally acceptable in lieu of the raised .
floor. However, city staff has indicated that flood proofing
is not acceptable for this project.
For this project the finish floors of residential structures
` should be at a minimum elevation of (135. 5+1) = 136. 5 feet.
P L A N N 1 N G C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G L A N D S U R V E Y I N G
1320 NIPOIJIO ST. ■ SAN LUIS O5ISPO, CA 93401 • 605-549-8658 • FAX 805-5494704
744 0AK ST . ■ PASO R0BLES , CA 9 344 6 • 605-237-1033 • FAX 805-_237-3797 41+
The second element of protection is to design the structure to
resist hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads imposed on the
structure by the flood water.
When specific site and building configurations are generated
then these loads can be determined. If building pads are
raised to or above the flood level hydrostatic and
hydrodynamic loads are nonexistent.
Effect of Prosect on Flood Levels
Because the project is located in the backwater of the Prado
Road 1-,ridge.- infill. of the flood`plai-a will nut increase the
flood elevation. Since the rate of flow through the bridge is
dependent on the elevation of the water surface just upstream
of the bridge, when the water is at elevation 135 . 5 the full
flood flow will pass through the bridge. Regardless of
development of the flood plain, as long as the floodway is not
restricted, once the 100 year flood reaches elevation 135 . 5 it
can go no higher.
Consideration of Nolte Study
A more detailed study of this area of San Luis Creek was
completed by Nolte and Associates. The study indicates a
slightly more complicated pattern to the flow of the 100 year
flood.
According to this study flow breaks out of San Luis. Creek
downstream of the Elks Lane Bridge. The resulting "sheet
flow" then flows toward Elks Lane and continues to the
northwesterly corner of the City Corporation Yard.
The study indicates that in a 100 year. flood the project area
is surrounded by sheet flow on the west and creek overbank
flow on the. east. If the mitigation measures...suggested above
are implemented and 'applied to the flood information' from the
Nolte Study then the project will meet all flood hazard
mitigation criteria.
If I can answer any questions or provide further information please
call.
�Q pPOFESS/O�,q(
sincerely; �`�Q \CNV• ORO
Engineering Development Associates ¢ No.
4- -/V- �. 1V4T l
Keith V. Crowe
sr� clV11,E.-
ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES J4 -4S
1320 NIP01A0 ST. • SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA 93401 ■ 805-549-8658 • FAX 805-549-8704
744 OAK ST . • PASO ROBLES , CA 93446 • 805-237-1033 • FAX 805.237-3797
Appendix G
Massing Study
4 -%
� ' /
� , . .
,.;
x . ,�'
,•� �Tr s �^'� . r _�!�S.g�9A1 �f f .._., } ' ems{, .f � �� r `�5 i
_ , �
c � .. ��
� � � � a�
y ' 'r I �✓� ai ��,J� rf d' .' 'y�j fY^'^^gfAY,�„�6.X nL�- �� i., n�tF� � q
`„°�''x,.ar 4� �. �rw�� v 'g`w c*�? rc �° r��N to"�3��':cr * �`tr� `'� �J��'�� + ;'� z +i.
as °�'$ R �Jr�✓" +�.tir.��Cr is r+ a. a Yi � J 'G-�a 1 -> < .. ry."�t �..q ,:" y �'�'��
tli����•3J � .,a,�� � ,� +� �h t < � K a.,.> �...�,�..a-�,tlsf�'�%�.ZYc � e �� -,.,.
��
� `
1 T T � 1� lL
i� ��1-
a� _
�^ ���
�������-
Appendix H
Electromagnetic Field Measurements
�F-�g
Pacific GIiIC G3S aIIG Eli:Clfi-- ..q iii;; ^� ... .. .. .. .... -
RECEIVA-1
u„ 1992
(805) 546-5270
June 23, 1992
Mr. Warren Hamrick
Studio Design Group
641 Higuera Street
Suite 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Electromagnetic Fields (EMF)
Dear Mr. Hamrick,
Here are the results of our EMF measurement survey taken at
40 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo. It was a pleasure meeting with
you and discussing the field characteristics. At this time we do
not have a scientific basis for determining what public risks, if
any, are associated with this type of exposure and there are no
health based guidelines for safe exposure levels.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or
comments concerning EMF.
Sincerely,
TIM BLUNT
Los Padres Division
EMF Coordinator
TAB:kw —
Enclosure
PG&E
60 HZ RESIDENTIAL MAGNETIC FIELD MEASUREMENT DATA SHEET - OUTDOOR
LP 195
CUSTOMER: Warren Ilamri cl; CONTACT: LOG #:
ADDRESS: Northeast Corner of Ells Lane and Prado Road
FREE-HAND PLOT PLAN: YARD,HOUSE,AND PG&E FAMMES
7 /Vtav+o�•� -Sav L.�.i si z I i5 Kv
11 1 � 7 �pY�0 l7Jr•�
Y �
I1
�L ;
r
J
On
Ji tL
I t.
- �hloT TO SCALE� I
# TIME, DESCRIPTION X Y Z RESULTANT
milliGauss
1 12:08 North to south 10' east of tower
2 12: 15 North to south 75' east of tower
3 12:20 North to south 150' east of tower
4 12:30 East to west, 30' south of lines
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'n,above musaremesas are re ptesentative of the aadidms m ibis pmucnLr day and time. 7be magnme fiaid may be Wtb=or Iowa a aha tares dgmidmg
on the tarns[flow in an of the soot=&
7bem it no scitaa5c beds upon winch to advise the public rhes n"if a y.am aasodamd wish this type of measmemoct and them am no hntrh-based gwdc1mcs
with which so caapare the above mad-atgs A vaderyof stndiea am mdaray.bon it msy be a ntmba of ymn befom science his a dire aruwa mgsrding
paratdal hnhh eSeas of mggnmc field:
NM77-R- EFM 116 Plus ❑ STAR/VANA ❑X ❑
DATE: June 22, 1992 AM PM
MEASURER Tim Blunt PHONE: 546-5270
Rev-3 123/91 4_00
raj i i i .--tea iY rbc •—a'F._if
Lai �i e-r cm
i=ce V}t f--i
= _° t
_ a _ i i •= _i
a �• _ p
i = i
til ' f .i � _ _ • � � _ _ _ �-
1=4 •� E
LL—
D---d
_ •_—
I--- ''.
it — — —
-C,: i s�—
ia7 --•e
•"f �t T 4 0 •7 T i
a=tl �Ci _.J t a a t bra — t 9I i _� �
4�1
--^�cj
CQ
=L4 Xlm
L.&6-
C%63IML4 r l 1
■•moi h• tr i ■.� .4(=
■ _ ■ ■ 7 _ _ __ �_;
J
cfta
• jt ti -
�— • ,1• Yt _til■- •
i` L 1
C%a co
4'ioa.
1�4=).g::>4D. a Ca CJ
J t}�?C3 1�.��• 1 �-
1 i 1 cis .�r� ez
1��C�••a f V Cti. cm cs;l
1 1 = 1 +•-•i C�7 i int
— — — — — — — — — — — — —
1 -1, 1~ _ 1 '-i
{a =
a� ��• •- 1~ -_ � •moi/
r a
cw r.3
• r _
er
a _ i
�� Ila •"•� of= 9i Cw-ml
;.-
U-11 ti V J � ,y
J �I
�. T1
u i_J I = 1-J _t Ia
�rl�
MAGNET I r FIELD - MILLICAUSS
e�
� e-Y 1-x-9
OD
aD
� t t
k , T
• ! e—re
a • i
Cx d ;
1•—+
f �
a a • f
� -9-- 13D f---C e S"rt
+-mss ey--,__• �� �, 1�
i � a•'t7'�41 aT••{
I�
DATE ITEM
M cUand
Pacific
Buil '
Corpo Ion
641 HIGUERA STREET
SUITE 200
COP[FSTO: SAN LUIS OBISPO, CF. 93401
❑•Denotes Action ❑ FYI 305/541-3848
9f CDD DFIL FAX 305/541-9250
CAO ❑ FIN.DUL
e ACRO ❑ ME CHIS
August 24, 1992 VATtMNV ❑ FW DIB.
&rCLERK/01UC. ❑ PWaCH
Honorable Mayor and City Council ❑ MGMT'TEAM ❑ R6CDIR
City of San Luis Obispo 0 TR_FTADME Q' �FiLDIR
990 Palm street RECEIVED
San Luis Obispo,CA 93403
RE: Case Nos: GP 1516 and PD 1517 AUG 2 5 1992
CITY COUNCIL
Dear Mayor Dunin and Council Members, MN LUIS OBISPO,C1
First of all,we would like to thank the staff and Planning Commission for their assistance
and timely review of our request for a general plan amendment and PD preliminary plan for
the office complex at Prado and Elks ("The Regional Center"). At their meeting of July 29,
the Commission recommended approval of our request subject to various conditions. We
appreciate this support for the concept. We continue to believe that our project provides
advance planning to best accommodate the City's long term needs for larger offices in an
appropriate location. It provides opportunities for such features as onsite day care, traffic
demand management and mixed uses which the City has called for in new development to
reduce congestion and air pollution while accommodating jobs and services.
For the most part,we agree with the conditions recommended by the Commission. There
are a few changes we ask that you consider.
Condition#3. We would like to change the wording to allow lawyers offices if they are
larger than 4000 square feet in size. We appreciate the concern to keep most law offices
near the Courthouse and downtown. However, we do not think that very large law offices
would be able to locate there and, thus, allowing them at our center would not detract from
the downtown. We would suggest the following wording:
"Banks,real estate offices,financial institution, medical clinics, and doctors
offices, and lawyers offices less than 4000 square feet in size, will not be
allowed..."
Condition#3.We think that a automatic teller machine would be a good feature for this
kind of center. It would surely cater primarily to the employees at the center,providing
them with a valuable convenience. We have discussed with staff the interpretation of
Page 2
"incidental" functions of banks and they agreed that a teller machine could be allowed under
that provision. To avoid any future confusion, we would suggest the following:
"...however, incidental uses (such as an automatic teller machine)...shall be
allowed."
Condition#4: This is one significant disagreement we have with the recommended
conditions. Our concept of this project is a long-range,master planned center which
provides space to regional serving offices. Our request was for a base zoning district of
"O" ("office")which would allow both private-sector tenants as well as public offices
under provisions of the PD. This remains our preference. Condition#4 limits the amount
of private office space in the center. Based on our concept, we would prefer that this
condition be deleted.
-However,if the Council feels that some restrictions on the amount of private offices is
appropriate in this center,we concur with the current staff recommendation and Condition
#4 as written is acceptable.
Condition#8. We originally requested a height limit of 60 feet. The Planning Commission
recommends a limit of 50 feet. We can accept this lower limit, although it does constrain
design options to some extent. Under the zoning ordinance, in any zone,screened
mechanical equipment is allowed above the usual limit up to a maximum of 10 feet. The
Planning Commission's wording eliminates this usual flexibility. Considering that our site
is already constrained by the freeway ramp dedication and the setback from the high voltage
wires (which will be based on a study of electromagnetic emissions), and that we need to
raise the building pads above the flood line, we may need this height flexibility. Thus,we
suggest the following modification:
"A maximum building height of 50 feet shall be allowed;the usual 10-foot
allowance for screened roof eouigment may be permitted subject to ARC approval."
With these changes,we are in agreement with the Planning Commission and staff
recommendations. Please consider them in your deliberations. Thank you. We look
forward to presenting our project at the Council meeting.
ESin
f
oresco
cc: John Dunn,Pam Voges, Arnold Jonas and Pam Ricci
Dwr PC, 1'YIW IT6's RECEIVED "FETING AGENDA
P.C. Minutes 1991 __,TE 2-1-M ITEM #r
6
July 29, 1992 AUG 2
Page 4 CITY COUNCIL
srw Lues OBISPO,CA
Commr. Hoffman agreed o the addition of finding 2-c. In regard
to the percentage of f oor. area allowed for non-governmental or
non-profit social sere cos uses , he said one-third of the gross
floor might be more ap ropriate than 30 percent .
Commr. Williams agreed with Commr. Hoffman.
Commr . Settle felt 30ercent was a logical maximum that provided
enough flexibility for the applicant , but he said if the other
Commissions preferred 33 percent , he would be willing to modify
his motion.
Commr. Hoffman said to protect the tri-polar concept , maybe it
would be best to keep he 30 percent limitation because projected
occupancies are not al ys accurate.
Commr. Cross pointed o t that condition 2 refers .to "gross lease
space" instead of "gro s floor area, " and questioned if the same
wording should be cons stent .
After discussion it w s agreed that the wording "gross floor
area" should be used n the motion and in condition 2 .
Commr. Settle clarifi d that the 30 percent gross floor area
limitation remained s part of his motion.
VOTING: AYES - ommrs . Settle, Hoffman, Cros$ , Peterson, and
illiams .
NOES - one.
ABSENT - ommr. Karleskint .
The motion passed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Item 2 . Actions Relatina to Property at 40 Prado Road. A
request to amend the Land Use Element map and zoning
CoPT0. --nap to allow development of a regional office center;
❑.� � /OS zone; Maxine Oliver Morosky, applicant . (Project
onceptually reviewed and denied on September 25, 1991 )
9 Go ❑ FIN,DIX k General Plan Amendment and Rezonina GP 1516. A
❑
(�a'/►cno MMcH F request to amend the Land Use Element map to
Cdn77ottNEY ❑ twDm change the designation from Interim
Va.>aWomc. ❑ POLKICTL Conservation/Open Space to Office.
❑ MCUT.'lFAM ❑ xscDIX B. Planned Development PD 1517 . A request to amend
' �c��0 F� the zoning map to change the designation from
C/OS-10 to 0-PD and review of the preliminary
development plan for a regional office center.
C. General Plan Text Amendment . A request to add
-------text toSectionC. 5.b of the Land Use Element.
------ ---- --------------------------------
P.C. Minutes
July 29, 1992
Page 5
Pam Ricci presented the staff report indicating that the Planning
.Commission and the City Council had reviewed a similar request to
develop a regional office center at Prado Road and Elks Lane last
year. She explained that Building C would be constructed first
and would include a 2 , 000 square-foot day care center. She said
staff believes restrictions on the types and sizes of allowed
offices are needed for consistency with Land Use Policies --
that private offices should be limited to a minimum of 2 , 500
squarefeet and be restricted to a maximum percentage of the .
gross floor area. (She recommended 30 percent to be consistent
with the previous Planning Commission decision for the Walter
Brothers Center, PD 1541 ) . She explained that a component of the
project was to allow 15 percent of the gross floor area of
buildings to be occupied by retail uses to provide services on-
site for employees . She indicated that the Planning Commission
would need to recommend approval of an amendment to the Land Use
Element text to enable the retail uses . She explained that staff
believes a continuation of the request until the Land Use Element
Update is completed would be most appropriate. However, since
time is an issue for the applicant , a complete analysis of the
proposal was prepared. The alternative recommendation for
approval with conditions and mitigation measures would allow the
project to precede the General Plan updates . She advised that
she, Jeff Clark, the traffic engineer, Mike Multari , and Dennis
Moresco were available for questions .
In answer to a question by Commr. Settle, Pam Ricci said she was
recommending that the Commission consider the alternative
recommendations on Pages 8-11 .
Arnold Jonas explained that staff was not withdrawing its
recommendation for a continuance, but realized that there were
reasonable arguments for earlier action, and therefore
information for that alternative had been provided.
Commr. Settle expressed concern about policy considerations if
action was taken before the LUE and the Circulation Update were
completed because of the message sent to the general public.
Pam Ricci said the proposal is actually more consistent with
proposed LUE policies than it is with current office policies in
the adopted' LUE. She said the City Council had expanded the
South Higuera pole to include the site and explained that there
were no consistency problems between the proposal and the adopted
or draft Circulation Elements .
Commr. Hoffman expressed concern that the retail component of the
project was more than what would be needed to serve only the
employees at the site.
Pam Ricci said staff felt that 15 percent of the site for retail
uses was an appropriate percentage to serve the employees of the
P.C. Minutes
July 29, 1992
Page 6
project . She explained retail uses were subject to the
discretion of the Community Development Director to ensure that
the uses did not draw customers from outside the project .
Arnold Jonas said if the Commission was concerned with the square
footage of retail , it could be changed.
In answer to a question by' Commr. Hoffman, Pam Ricci explained
there were two different designs being considered for an
interchange.
Commr. Hoffman expressed concern about the safety of pedestrians
crossing Elks Lane near Prado Road. He asked about the status of
Elks Lane as a through street .
Arnold Jonas explained Federal funds for 80 percent of the cost
of the Elks Lane bridge were available. He said the Fire and
Police Departments wanted Elks Lane to remain open for access
reasons .
Commr. Hoffman said he did not feel that parking lots should be
calculated as common open space in project statistics.
Commr. Cross asked . about potential land use impacts because the
general area was becoming an employment center. He expressed
concern about the location becoming a major employment center
because of the flight path from the airport and hazardous
chemicals used at the Corp Yard sewer treatment plant and other
area uses .
Arnold Jonas explained that an advantage of this site was its
future proximity to the community' s first compressed natural gas
fueling facility, which would be located at J.B. Dewar down the
street . He said chlorine was the most dangerous chemical used at
the sewer treatment plant and that the plant was downwind from
this site.
Pam Ricci said the proposal was referred to the Airport Land Use
Commission and no response was received.
In answer to a question by Commr. Cross , Arnold Jonas said an
impact fee for-: affordable housing was not included as a project
condition because it is not appropriate to require a fee when the
City has not adopted an enabling ordinance.
In answer to a question by Commr. Cross , Pam Ricci said a bus
stop was required as part of the trip reduction mitigation
measures . She said Henry Watson had said the site would be
appropriate for additional future transit facilities .
Commr . Cross expressed concern about the proposal blocking the
view from Highway 101 , and about runoff from the parking lot .
P .C . Minutes
July 29 , 1992
Page 7
Pam Ricci said an additional culvert would be required and would
be a condition of the tentative map.
Commr. Williams felt that the conditions relating to retail uses
should clearly state that the retail uses would only serve the
facility.
Vice Chairwoman Williams opened the public hearing.
Mike Multari , 641 Higuera Street , applicants ' representative,
said he believed the City Council supported continued processing
of the project because it was consistent with the current and
proposed General Plan. He said large offices were appropriate at
the site because it is near the current government office pole,
employees would not need to drive through residential areas to
get to work because it was adjacent to the proposed freeway
interchange, it was near the city' s proposed first natural gas
fueling site, and it could meet large office needs that are not
available downtown. He said tenants would be required to have
carpooling programs , and on-site day care would be provided as
trip reduction measures . He said the requested 15 percent retail
use would be for ancillary-type uses for workers and would
further reduce trip generation . In response to the concern
mentioned by Commr. Hoffman, Mike Multari said most of the 87
percent open space indicated on plans was parking lot , but about
40 percent of the site would be landscaped. He explained why the
alignment for Elks Lane was appropriate for traffic flow. He
felt that raising buildings and minimizing building pads for
flood prevention was more appropriate then modifying the creek .
He said the proposal is not dependent upon the proposed freeway
interchange. He said the applicant was willing to pay a
percentage of the cost of future traffic improvements needed
because of cumulative traffic impacts . He said the applicant
disagreed with staff ' s recommendation for a continuance, because
the City Council had voted to support the proposal . He said that
the applicant preferred an office zone without size limits, but
understood the reasoning for the limitation. He said the
applicant generally agrees with prohibited uses suggested by
staff , but feels that certain uses , like large legal offices and
automated teller machines, would be appropriate. He explained
the applicant ' s intent was to allow private offices without
restrictions , and asked that the Commission reduce the percentage
of required public offices . He said that the proposed Elks Lane
alignment was designed to reduce traffic speed and to be more
pedestrian-friendly. He said when the specific plan was
prepared, some height modifications might be requested if
portions of buildings had to be eliminated to conform with EMF
mitigation. He asked the Commission to recommend to the City
Council approval of the project with changes to the conditions
and mitigations recommended by staff to allow large law offices
in excess of 4 , 000 square feet , with the deletion or modification
of conditions 4 and 5 to allow a greater percentage of the total
P.C. Minutes
July 29 , 1992
Page 8
square footage for private offices , and the deletion of
mitigation 4 related to the alignment of Elks Lane. He requested
that if the Commission felt the proposal was not timely, it deny
the request , with or without prejudice, rather than continue it .
In answer to a question by Commr. Settle, Arnold Jonas explained
the condition requiring 75 percent of the project to be occupied
by government tenants was being recommended by staff to be
consistent with the designation of the area as a tri-polar area
for social service, non-profit , and government agencies and
consistent with the restrictions placed on the Walter Brothers
Center .
Jeff Clark, project traffic consultant , 17124 Alioto Drive, Grass
Valley, CA, responding to a question by Commr. Hoffman, explained
how the S-curve could be modified so that Elks Lane would have a
30 mile-per-hour design speed. He said some of the curves had
been modified, but felt further straightening of curves would
reduce pedestrian safety. He discussed other street improvements
and the proposed passenger unloading area.
In answer to a question by Commr. Settle, Mr. Clark said the
applicant would agree to pay a percentage of the cost of a signal
at the freeway on-ramp if and when the interchange was built . In
answer to a question by Commr. Hoffman, Mr. Clark explained a
diamond interchange would reduce stacking of cars on Prado Road
between the traffic signals at the freeway on-ramp and Elks Lane.
Commr . Cross expressed concern that residential traffic from
minor streets funneling onto South Higuera was not . considered in
the study.
Mr. Clark said that traffic from those streets would be
adequately served by the widening of South Higuera Street and a
center left turn lane. In answer to a question by Commr. Cross,
Mr. Clark explained that a signal at the intersection of Elks
Lane and South Higuera is feasible, but not desirable because of
intersection spacing and the geometrics of the intersection.
Mike Multari said it was feasible to install a signal at that
intersection but he questioned why it would be needed. He said
the proposed project by itself , does not adversely impact traffic
on South Higuera Street .
In answer to a question by Commr. Cross , Mr. Clark said Prado
Road would need to be widened to four lanes if only an overpass
was constructed, and six lanes if the freeway interchange was
also constructed.
Mr. Multari said the applicant would dedicate whatever land would
be needed for widening Prado Road. He said the applicant was
asking for office zoning because residential use would not be
P .C . Minutes
July 29, 1992
Page 9
appropriate at this site and because discussions with staff and
council members have indicated retail uses were not appropriate.
Vice Chairwoman Williams closed the public hearing.
Commr. Peterson moved to approve the Alternative Recommendation:
with the findings listed under A; with the findings and
conditions listed under B, with a change to Condition 3 allowing
incidental and non-customer serving functions of banks, savings
and loans , credit unions, and finance companies ; and Condition 4 ,
allowing a maximum of 30 percent of the gross floor area to by
occupied by tenants other than government offices or non-profit
social service offices consistent with the Walter Center PD
Rezoning; and with the finding listed under C.
Commr. Williams seconded the motion.
Commr. Settle felt that less floor area should be allowed for
commercial uses , the maximum 50-foot building height should
include air conditioning and heating equipment on the roof , that
some participation for the signalized intersection be included,
and that the mitigation measures included in Appendix• A should be
referenced in the motion. He felt that because the City Council
had made its position on the project clear, it would be awkward
for the Commission to find the proposal premature.
Commr. Cross said that when that the Commission first heard this
proposal and denied it , he was not convinced it was a good use
for the site, and he felt it was the Planning Commission' s
function to make land use recommendations to the City Council .
He said the proposal was premature.
Commr. Settle said the proposed use did have some merit ,
particularly because of its proximity to the proposed freeway
interchange.
Commr. Cross felt it would be more appropriate for there to be a
specific plan for the entire interim conservation open space
area. He said he could not make the finding that there are.
exceptional public benefits from this proposal .
Pam Ricci explained that the basis for the suggested finding was
that requested retail uses could not be achieved without a PD
overlay, and on-site retail uses and a day care facility would
reduce trip generation and could be seen as a public benefit.
Commr. Hoffman expressed concerned that the turn out or "knuckle"
needed to be enhanced so that it did not appear as if it was part
of the street .
Pam Ricci said the City Traffic Engineer had recommended a more
defined drop-off area and a 30 mph speed limit .
P.C. Minutes
July 29 , 1992
Page 10
Commr. Hoffman asked if Commr. Peterson would consider amending
the first mitigation measure on Page 11 of the Initial
Environmental Study to include a 25 mph design speed with a
defined drop-off area.
Commr. Peterson agreed to the suggested change to his motion.
Vice Chairwoman Williams reopened the public hearing.
Dennis Moresco, 641 Higuera Street , said the applicant did not
object to paying a fair share of the cost of the freeway overpass
or area signals provided credit is given for the value of
property that the applicant is dedicating to the City.
Commr. Settle expressed concern about the 18 , 000 square feet of
retail uses allowed.
Commr. Hoffman said a condition could be added specifying that
the retail square footage be .divided among the different
buildings and that individual tenants would be limited in size.
Mr. Moresco explained that 18 , 000 square feet is approximately
the ground floor square footage of one of the buildings. He said
the intent was to provide retail uses for employees on site and
near the site such as a cafeteria, or even a fitness center.
Vice Chairwoman Williams closed the public hearing.
Arnold Jonas suggested the Commission consider if it wanted the
entire 18 ,000 square feet of retail to be part of the first phase
of construction or developed incrementally with the buildings.
Commr. Settle felt it was not that important to determine how the
retail use was distributed.
Commr. Williams agreed with Commr. Settle.
Commr. Williams suggested that mitigation measure 1 on Page 11 of
the Initial Environmental Study be replaced with wording stating
that Elks Lane be designed for a 25 mph design speed or less , and
with a separated and defined drop-off point .
Commr. Peterson amended his motion to include Commr. Settle' s
suggestion that the 50-foot building height limit include air
conditioning and heating equipment , and with Commr. Williams
suggested wording for mitigation measure 1 on page 11 of the
Initial Environmental study.
Commr. Cross said he would not be supporting the motion because
he believed the proposal was premature. He felt a specific plan
was needed for the entire area.
P.C. Minutes
July 29, 1992
Page 11
Commr. Settle said the timeliness of the project could be argued,
but that it seemed consistent with the manner in which the area
was evolving.
Commr. Hoffman said he felt the project was premature last
December when the Planning Commission considered the proposal and
still believed it might be premature, but because the City
Council had given direction to the Planning Commission for
approval of the project , he would besupporting the motion.
VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Peterson, Williams , Settle, and
Hoffman.
NOES - Commr. Cross .
ABSENT - Commr. Karleskint .
The motion passed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Item 4 . Use Permit U 60-92. Are uest to allow a new
restaurant in the Crossro ds ; 3165 Broad Street ; C-S-PD
zone; Bill Portzell , app ;cant .
---------------------------------- ------------------------------
Pam Ricci presented the staff rep rt and recommended the
Commission approve the use permit with findings and subject to
conditions .
Commr. Peterson pointed out that the staff .report stated expected
hours of operation to be from 10 : 00 a.m. to 9 : 00 p.m. , but the
hours recommended in Condition were 7 : 00 a.m. to 9 : 00 p.m.
Arnold Jonas explained that 7 : 0 a.m. was suggested in Condition
1 because the previous health lub use was allowed to open at
7 : 00 a.m. , and because it was compromise, between staff ' s
recommendation and the applic nt ' s request, for the operating
hours to be from 6: 00 a.m. to 11 : 00 p.m.
Vice Chairwoman Williams ope ed the public hearing.
Rob Strong, One Buena Vista applicant ' s representative, said the
owner and prospective opera or of the proposed restaurant were
present to answer question He said this part of the building
was the farthest away from the residential units . He explained
the applicant does not int nd to serve breakfast in the
beginning, but because he ight want to do so at a later time, he
was requesting a 6 : 00 a.m opening time. He asked that the
restaurant be allowed to a open until 10 : 00 or 11 : 00 p.m.
because other tenants of the Crossroads are open until 11 : 00 p.m.
He said the applicant wo Id agree to a compromise in operating
hours of 7 : 00 a.m. to 10 00 p.m.
' k-w-ING AGENDA
DATE 9. PA ffEM O
Appendix D
Traffic Impact Analysis Dated 5-1 -92
1
i
i
• i
i
i
i
i
•
i
i
i
TRAFFIC HWPACT ANALYSIS
FOR THE PROPOSED
REGIONAL CENTER AT 40 PRADO ROAD
Prepared By:
PACIFIC TRAFFIC and TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
101 Alioto Drive
Grass Valley, California 95949
(916) 274-3808
�e�ypFESS/0,�!
QSOFESSIO,,, ��c towAllpc
JEFFREY EDW D � t 1080
x'0406051 s'
31,1995 * � Q
- s�q
CIVIL ��� OF CF+L��'��r
0.CAU�� May 1, 1992
19-91-0001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment and Rezone for 9.26 acres
from C/OS-10 to O-PD. The planned land use is 125,200 square feet of office space with
a 2,000 square foot day care center, in four buildings. The project is located in the San Luis
Obispo suburban area of the city of San Luis Obispo. It is generally bounded by Prado
Road, Elks Lane and the Sunset Drive-in. Access to the project is planned off of Elks Lane
via a realignment of the street.
TRIP GENERATION
Using trip generation rates from Trip Generation. 5th edition. Institute of Transportation
Engineers, 1990 it was determined that the proposed project would generate 1,910 daily
trips, 316 am peak hour trips and 254 pm peak hour trips.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
An analysis of the Existing Condition traffic volumes indicated that three intersections, in
the area surrounding the proposed project, currently exceed the city of San Luis Obispo
acceptable level of service criteria (LOS D or better). The intersections were:
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp-Calle Joaquin
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps
Madonna Road/Higuera Street
The project traffic was added to the existing traffic based on the proposed phasing of the
development. The addition of the proposed project traffic, from any project phase, to the
existing traffic adds one new intersection to the three intersections identified under Existing
Condition as exceeding the City's acceptable Level of Service D criteria. The Elks Lane
approach to the Elks Lane/South Higuera Street intersection is projected to operate at an
unacceptable LOS E in the Existing with Project Condition.
To determine the future traffic levels a cumulative analysis was used. The base traffic
volume information was obtained from the unconstrained traffic volumes projected in the
San Luis Obispo City-Wide Transportation Study, DKS Associates, July 1990 and the city
of San Luis Obispo transportation model. Three Cumulative Condition alternative
circulation networks were evaluated: no overpass or interchange at Prado Road/U.S. 101,
an overcrossing at Prado Road/U.S. 101 with no interchange and an overpass and
interchange at Prado Road/U.S. 101. Both- alternatives assumed higher intensity
development in the airport area. Ali
It was assumed that roadway improvements presented in the San Luis Obispo i1y-Wide
Transportation Study would be in place for the cumulative and cumulative with project-
Prado Road interchange alternative analysis. For all three alternatives it was assumed that
the intersection lane configurations would remain the same as the existing lane
configurations.
The development of lands around the San Luis Obispo Airport at a more intense level than
currently shown on the city or county General Plans could have'a profound rffect on.the
transportation system in the study area. Currently studies are evaluating the options for use
of the lands around the airport. Both industrial and residential alternatives have been
discussed,but specific plans have not been finalized. The same goes for the Dalidio property
southwest of the Central Coast Mall.
Due to the uncertainty regarding the land use plans for these areas, traffic projections for
the "most intense" land use have been used as part of this study. The traffic data came from
the city of San Luis Obispo city-wide transportation model. As specific plans for the airport
and Dalidio area are finalized and the city adopts a new General Plan the traffic projections
could change, but at the time of the writing of this report the data used in the traffic
analysis was the best available.
The analysis of the traffic volumes for the no Prado Road interchange alternative indicated
that eight intersections would be operating at unacceptable levels of service. The
intersections were:
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off ramp-Calle Joaquin
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps
Madonna Road/Higuera Street
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps
Prado Road/South Higuera Street
Prado Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps-Elks.Lane
Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street
Elks Lane/South Higuera Street
For the Prado Road overcrossing only alternative, seven intersections were projected to be
operating at unacceptable levels of service. The intersections were:
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off ramp-Calle Joaquin
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps
Madonna Road/Higuera Street
Madonna Road/U.S.-101 southbound ramps
Prado Road/South Higuera Street
Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street
Elks Lane/South Higuera Street
For the Prado Road interchange alternative, seven intersections were projected to be
operating at unacceptable levels of service. The intersections were:
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off ramp-Calle Joaquin
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps
Madonna Road/Higuera Street
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps
Prado Road/South Higuera Street
Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street
Elks Lane/South Higuera Street
To determine the Cumulative with Project Condition traffic impacts, the proposed project
traffic was added to the Cumulative Condition traffic volumes. The resulting traffic levels
did not cause any new intersections to operate at an unacceptable level of service. Seven
intersections identified for the no Prado Road interchange alternative analysis and the seven
intersections identified for the Prado Road interchange alternative analysis that were
operating at unacceptable levels of service for the Cumulative Condition will continue to do
so, with the additional project traffic adding to the delay & the intersections.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The installation of the Prado Road/U.S. 101 interchange and extension of Prado Road to
Madonna Road or installation of the extension of Prado Road from U.S. 101 to Madonna
Road would reduce the delay at one intersection to acceptable levels (Prado Road/U.S. 101
northbound ramps).
Without the interchange, the following intersection improvements would be needed to
accommodate projected future traffic for this alternative:
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp-Calle Joaquin:
Widen Los Osos Valley Road to four lanes from South Higuera Street to Madonna
Road. Add a third through lane to the westbound Los Osos Valley Road approach
to the intersection. The through lane would be carried through the intersection and
terminate west of the intersection.
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps:
Widen Los Osos Valley Road to four lanes from South Higuera Street to Madonna
Road and add a second left turn lane to the U.S. 101 off-ramp northbound approach.
Prado Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps:
Install a traffic signal.
Prado Road/South Higuera Street:
Add a right turn lane to the westbound Prado Road approach.
Add a second northbound left turn lane on the South Higuera Street approach.
Restripe the existing right turn lane to a thru/right turn lane on the Prado Road
eastbound and westbound approaches.
Madonna Road/Higuera Street:
Add a two left turn lanes on the northbound Higuera Street approach.
Add a third through lane on the southbound Higuera Street approach.
Note: These improvements are considered infeasible give the existing land uses and
intersection spacing between Madonna Road/Higuera Street, Higuera Street and
South Street and Madonna Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps.
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps:
Add through and right turn lane on the eastbound Madonna Road approach.
Add a left turn lane and a through lane on the westbound Madonna Road approach.
Add a left turn lane and convert the thru/left turn lane into a through lane on the
northbound U.S. 101 ramp approach. Note: this improvement may be infeasible due
to the proximity of existing land uses and would necessitate the widening of the
structure over U.S. 101.
Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street:
Add a left tum lane to the southbound South Higuera Street approach.
Add a through lane and a right turn lane to the northbound South Higuera Street
approach.
Add a through lane and restripe the existing left/through lane to a left tum lane on
the westbound Tank Farm Road approach.
Elks Lane/South Higuera Street:
Install a traffic signal. Note: Discussions with city of San Luis Obispo staff indicates
that this is an infeasible mitigation.
The intersections of Madonna Road/Higuera Street, Elks Lane/South Higuera Street and
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps are still projected to be operating at
unacceptable LOS due to the lack of feasibility of providing adequate mitigations to relieve
projected traffic congestion. Thus, the intersections experience traffic impacts that are
significant and unavoidable.
With construction of an overcrossing of U.S. 101 by Prado Road and removal of the existing
ramps,the following intersection improvements would be needed to accommodate projected
future traffic for this alternative:
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp-Calle Joaquin:
Widen Los Osos Valley Road to four lanes from South Higuera Street to Madonna
Road. Add a third through lane to the westbound Los Osos Valley Road approach
to the intersection. The through lane would be carried through the intersection and
terminate west of the intersection.
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps:
Widen Los Osos Valley Road to four lanes from South Higuera Street to Madonna
Road and add a second left turn lane to the U.S. 101 off-ramp northbound approach.
Prado Road/South Higuera Street:
Add a right turn lane to the westbound Prado Road approach.
Add a second northbound left turn lane on the South Higuera Street approach.
Restripe the existing right turn lane to a thru/right turn lane on the Prado Road
eastbound and westbound approaches.
Madonna Road/Higuera Street:
Add a two left turn lanes on the northbound Higuera Street approach.
Add a third through lane on the southbound Higuera Street approach.
Note: These improvements are considered infeasible give the existing land uses and
intersection spacing between Madonna Road/Higuera Street, Higuera Street and
South Street and Madonna Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps.
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps:
Add through and right turn lane on the eastbound Madonna Road approach.
Add a left turn lane and a through lane on the westbound Madonna Road approach.
Add a left turn lane and convert the thru/left turn lane into a through lane on the
northbound U.S. 101 ramp approach. Note: this improvement may be infeasible due
to the proximity of existing land uses and would necessitate the widening of the
structure over U.S. 101.
Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street:
Add a left turn lane to the southbound South Higuera Street approach.
Add a through lane and a right turn lane to the northbound South Higuera Street
approach.
Add a through lane and restripe the existing left/through lane to a left turn lane on
the westbound Tank Farm Road approach.
Elks Lane/South Higuera Street:
Install a traffic signal. Note: Discussions with city of San Luis Obispo staff indicates
that this is an infeasible mitigation.
The intersections of Madonna Road/Higuera Street, Elks Lane/South Higuera Street and
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps are still projected to be operating at
unacceptable LOS due to the lack of feasibility of providing adequate mitigations to relieve
projected traffic congestion. Thus, the intersections experience traffic impacts that are
significant and unavoidable.
To aid in the overall reduction in am peak hour (7:30-8:30) and pm peak hour (4:30-5:30)
single occupancy vehicle trip generation in the San Luis Obispo area it is recommended that
the City adopt a city-wide TSM program that would reduce peak hour trip generation by
employers. The city of Pleasanton has adopted such program that has a goal to reduce peak
hour travel by 45 percent within 4 years (15 percent in the first year and increasing 10
percent per year for the next three years).
The following intersection improvements are necessary to mitigate the intersection LOS for
the Prado Road interchange alternative to acceptable levels:
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp-Calle Joaquin:
Widen Los Osos Valley Road to four lanes from South Higuera Street to Madonna
Road.
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps:
Widen Los Osos Valley Road to four lanes from South Higuera Street to Madonna
Road and add a second left turn lane to the U.S. 101 off-ramp northbound approach.
Prado Road/South Higuera Street:
Add a right turn lane to the westbound Prado Road approach.
Add a second northbound left turn lane on the South Higuera Street approach.
Restripe the existing right turn lane to a through lane on the westbound approach
and to a thru/right turn lane on the eastbound approach to Prado Road.
Madonna Road/Higuera Street:
Add a two left turn lanes on the northbound Higuera Street approach.
Add a third through lane on the southbound Higuera Street approach.
Note: These improvements are considered infeasible give the existing land uses and
intersection spacing between Madonna Road/Higuera Street, Higuera Street and
South Street and Madonna Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps.
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps:
Add a through turn lane on the eastbound Madonna Road approach.
Add a left turn lane and a through lane on the westbound Madonna Road approach.
Add a left turn lane and convert the thru/left turn lane into a through lane on the
northbound U.S. 101 ramp approach. Note: this improvement may be infeasible due
to the proximity of existing land uses and would necessitate the widening of the
structure over U.S. 101.
Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street:
Add a left turn lane to the southbound South Higuera Street approach.
Add a through lane and a right turn lane to the northbound South Higuera Street
approach.
Add a through lane and restripe the existing left/through lane to a left turn lane on
the westbound Tank Farm Road approach.
Elks Lane/South Higuera Street:
Install a traffic signal. Note: Discussions with city of San Luis Obispo staff indicates
that this is an infeasible mitigation.
The intersections of Madonna Road/Higuera Street, Elks Lane/South Higuera Street and
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps are still projected to be operating at
unacceptable LOS due to the lack of feasibility of providing adequate mitigations to relieve
projected traffic congestion. Thus, the intersections experience traffic impacts that are
significant and unavoidable.
The proposed project traffic impacts did not cause any of the ten study area critical
intersections, that were not already operating at unacceptable levels of service, to operate
at unacceptable levels for the Cumulative Condition for the no Prado Road interchange
alternative,Prado Road overcrossing only alternative or Prado Road interchange alternative.
Thus, there are no new physical improvements or mitigation measures that need to be
recommended to the roadway intersections surrounding the project. The project should
contribute to a fund that would provide the funding for the improvements recommended for
the roadways and intersections in the study area. The contributions should be based on the
projects share of the total traffic on the facility (see Table XVIII).
To help reduce single occupancy vehicle travel and peak hour congestion it is recommended
that the project should be required to install the following TSM measures: a bus stop on
Prado Road at the project frontage, bicycle storage lockers, showers and lockers, a
pedestrian connection to the existing office park on South Higuera Street, preferential
parking for carpool and vanpools, have an annual survey to determine the employee mode
choices, housing locations and possible transit improvements.
To aid in the overall reduction in am peak hour (7:30-8:30) and pm peak hour (4:30-5:30)
single occupancy vehicle trip generation in the San Luis Obispo area it is recommended that
the City adopt a city-wide TSM program that would reduce peak hour trip generation by
employers. The city of Pleasanton has adopted such program that has a goal to reduce peak
hour travel by 45 percent within 4 years (15 percent in the first year and increasing 10
percent per year for the next three years).
Two alternatives were evaluated for the Prado Road northbound ramps. The alternatives
were: a diamond design and a design similar to the southbound Madonna Road/U.S. 101
ramps (Type L-8). The diamond design would accommodate the projected traffic with the
least amount of improvements. The diamond ramp configuration accommodates the
projected heavy northbound U.S. 101 to eastbound Prado Road movement in a right turn
move. The location of the northbound on-ramp for this alternative provides a longer
weaving distance on U.S. 101 between the Prado Road interchange and the Madonna Road
interchange.
Alternative two would require the northbound U.S. 101 to eastbound Prado Road movement
would have to be accommodated in a left turn move,which adds to delay at the intersection
and requires the construction of additional lanes at the intersection. Also, the alternative
two design extends the location of the northbound on-ramps merging point with U.S 101
further north and closer to the Madonna Road/U.S. 101 northbound off-ramp diverging
point. This would reduce the weaving distance between the two interchanges.
Based on the data evaluated in this report the diamond design for the northbound ramp at
the Prado Road/U.S. 101 interchange recommended.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
EXISTING CONDITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
TRIP GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
TRIP DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
TRIP ASSIGNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
SITE PLAN EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
CUMULATIVE CONDITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT CONDITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
EXISTING CONDITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
CUMULATIVE CONDITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
No Prado Road Interchange Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 ..
Prado Road Overcrossing Only Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Prado Road Interchange Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT CONDITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE I VICINITY MAP ................. .................... ........... ............... .......... .... 2
FIGURE2 SITE MAP ..... ................. ... .................... ..... ........... ........... . ..... ... 3
FIGURE 3 ZONING MAP ........................
.......................................... ... .. .. .. ... 4
FIGURE 4 CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS 3
FIGURE 5 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES 11
FIGURE 6 DISIRMUTION ............................................................... ............. 15
FIGURE 7 EXISTING WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC(PHASE 1) ....................... ................ ......... 16
FIGURE 8 EXISTING WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC(PHASE I &2) ....................................... .. .... 17
FIGURE 9 EXISTING WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC(PHASE 1,2&3) .............................. .............. 18
FIGURE 10 EXISTING WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC(FULL PROJECT BUILD-OUT) ............................... 19
FIGURE 11 SITE PLAN EVALUATION ................................................................. 24
FIGURE 12 FUTURE CIRCULATION NETWORK IMPROVEMENT'S-PRADO ROAD DMMCHANGE
ALTERNATIVE . ........... ... ................ . ....... .. . .... . .. . .. . ... .. . . .. .. .. . .. 30
FIGURE 13 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUMES-NO PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVE ............. 31
FIGURE 14 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUMES-PRADO ROAD OVERCROSSING ALTERNATIVE ....... .... ... .. 32
FIGURE 15 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUMES-PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVE ................. 33
FIGURE 16 PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVES ............ ...... . .. .. ................. .. .. .. .. 34
FIGURE 17 CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES-NO PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE .... .. .. ..... 37
FIGURE 18 CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES-PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE . ........... .... 38
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE SUMMARY OF LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR INTERSECTIONS ........... ........................... 6
TABLE Il SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA ..... ... . ............ ............... 8
TABLE III CAPACITY OF A TWO-BY-TWO FOUR-WAY STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTION FOR VARIOUS
DEMANDSPLITS ..................................................................... 9
TABLE IV CAPACITY OF A FOUR-WAY STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS WITH 50150 DEMAND SPLIT
FOR VARIOUS APPROACH WIDTHS ........................................... ......... 9
TABLE V LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS . ............. .. .. . .... .... 9
TABLE V1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS:EXISTING CONDITIONS . ....................... 10
TABLE VII RELATIONSHIP OF AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC TO LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SURFACE
STREETS ..................................................................... .. ... 12
TABLE VIII LEVEL OF SERVICE AT STUDY AREA ROADWAYS:EXISTING CONDITIONS ... ... ......... ...... 12
TABLE IX TRIP GENERATION RAM.......................................... .. .................... 13
TABLE X TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS ................................... ........................ .. 14
TABLE XI INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS: EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITION ... . .. ... .. 21
TABLE X11 LEVEL OF SERVICE AT KEY STUDY AREA ROADWAYS:EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITION . . . 22
TABLE XM INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS.CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ............. ....... 27
TABLE XIV LEVEL OF SERVICE AT STUDY AREA ROADWAYS: CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ........ ..... ... 29
TABLE XV INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS:CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT CONDITION . ...... 40
TABLE XVI LEVEL OF SERVICE AT STUDY AREA ROADWAYS: CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT CONDITION ... 41
TABLE XVII INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS. MITIGATED CONDITION-EXISTING ............. 52
TABLE XVIII PERCENT PROJECT IMPACT To STUDY AREA CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS........... .. . . . .. .... 53
TABLE XIX INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS.MITIGATED CONDITION ........... .. .. . .. .. .. . 54
TABLE XX LEVEL OF SERVICE AT STUDY AREA ROADWAYS:- CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT CONDITION-
MITIGATED........................ .. ......... ....... . ..... ................ . ...... . 55
INTRODUCTION
The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment and Rezone for 9.26 acres
from C/OS-10 to O-PD. The planned land use is 125,200 square feet of office space with
a 2,000 square foot day care center.The project is located in the San Luis Obispo suburban
area of the city of San Luis Obispo (see Figure 1). It is generally bounded by Prado Road,
Elks Lane and the Sunset Drive-in (see Figure 2). Access to the project is planned off of
Elks Lane via a realignment of the street. The project is planned to be constructed in four
phases.
The land uses that surround the project include: the city of San Luis Obispo corporation
yard, the Sunset drive-in, service commercial, shopping center, office space and warehouse
uses. Figure 3 shows the existing zoning for the land uses surrounding the proposed project.
The major roadways surrounding the project are: Prado Road,a two-lane east/west collector
road, South Higuera Street north-south arterial, Elks Lane a two-lane north-south roadway,
and U.S. Highway 101 a four-lane grade separated freeway. The critical intersections
identified in this study were:
-Madonna Road and Higuera Street
-Madonna Road and U.S. 101 northbound ramps
-Madonna Road and U.S. 101 southbound ramps
-Prado Road and U.S. 101 northbound ramps
-Prado Road and South Higuera Street
-Elks Lane and South Higuera Street
-Tank Farm Road and South Higuera Street
-Los Osos Valley Road and U.S. 101 southbound ramps
-Los Osos Valley Road and U.S. 101 northbound ramps
-Los Osos Valley Road and South Higuera Street
Figure 4 shows the location of the critical intersections.
The object of this study is to analyze the traffic impacts of the proposed change in land use,
for the project site, on the surrounding roadway network and critical intersections. Daily, am
peak hour (7:00 to 9:00) and pm peak hour (4:00 to 6:00) time periods were used in the
analysis. Existing, Existing with Project, Cumulative and Cumulative with Project Conditions
were evaluated.
To identify the project impact in a qualitative manner a level of service ranking scale was
used. This scale identifies transportation impacts as a relationship of projected or existing
traffic volumes verses roadway capacity and assigns a letter value to this relationship. The
letter scale goes from A to F with level of service (LOS) A being the least congested or free
flowing conditions to LOS F being the most congested or jammed conditions. LOS B, C, D
and E represent roadway and intersection operating conditions between free flow and
—� IJ r,
ter, s > 31
c�serr lamr mwo I dk. ' ,. i• �
,spy 6, l��+j,�'� �[ .� .•�+�.` •r:J J r . '�
f I
W
,,s�pOa
sea
i' SAN LUIS OBISPO
�. um.. c nus'
v.1 `` i A S or --R °•.' �-7 ..r
%-0 ... ;
Un
' i/%,/r >•� : `r ;�'.� �;'� PROJECT LOCATIONVP
`.
'. We
" Win'': . �.•' 4 r•I� :! `�//y i ee.o�iain
T..4 ) s• rr<w u.w
j3e 1 sronrs
1-01
.ii ��.a-.m• 1; y�. y 1 � .r
I 9 9
Jii
S-J �
N
•� Vicini Ma '� T FIG` M
,TRANS tY P 7 H �``
- 1
2
---- ^...�••rr�wa _ —... �_� 7-7
Jt:L; 1L ! 1111J.IIitiJl � i : :l � llii ! II �
a
PLAY
sw
� �•�' ' - � uuu 1 ffu
� I Y
--
It
l ■ ; 1 I I. .�+t �I I i
i'
■orror■ oosoa • ._ _ miu um '. .
�ara o worw . o.wIII,II,,&no." ^.
Map Not To Scale
INO
P.;TRANS Site Map •►J T �` �cux>;
_= 2
3
i vT [5 �_ S �
�• W '
CO/0 C/OS - 40 I
C-T °°++
� C c-s-Po
C-R C-S-S
AS
R-2-PD
•
�o g
Zo t a
0
C
C-R-PD R-2 �"
f•� i
PAOJECf LOCATION / C/OS IO t j r
R-1
/ O 7-S
S�- R 2-S
o,eU 1
C
/
PF cis R� 2
.� C-S t I
W
f / Y,G4ETT LR
C Ii �S, qcq
4 Cry 1
c -s r-e.co- n Cr""'T _
N
-TRANS Zoning Map T r�� uxE
a a av R 3
4
1
2
3
io
s �
o�
4
a�
.y�
d Tank Farm Rd
8 9
7 o�
5
6 LEGEND
Map Not To Scale
OCr1t1Ca1
Intersection
MANS
A1\S Location of Critical r�cu>E
�••: O
y "" Intersections 4
5
jammed conditions. Table I presents a description of the six level of service categories
operating conditions for intersections.
Public Transit service is not directly provided to the project area, although SLO Transit
Route 3 traverses Prado Road. Currently, the closest bus stop is on South Higuera Street
near Margarita Avenue.
To aid in this analysis a number of sources of information were consulted. A listing of all
the sources is included in the Appendix of this report, but the major sources used were the
Draft San Luis Obispo Citi--wide Transportation Study,DKS Associates,July 1990, Highway
Capacity Manual, Uecial Report 209.3rd ed.,Transportation Research Board, 1985,Interim
Materials on Highway Capacity, Circular 212, Transportation Research Board, 1980, and
Trip Generation, 5th edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1990.
TAME I SUMPAARY OF LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR.IIJrERSECnONS
LEVEL TYPE OF FLOW DELAY MANEUVERABILrIY V/C
OF RATIO'
SERVICE
A FREE FLOW Very slight or no delay.if signalized Turning movements are easily 0.00-0.60
conditions are such that no made,and nearly all drivers find
approach phase is fully utilized by freedom of operation.
traffic and no vehicle waits longer
than one red indication.
B STABLE FLOW Slight delay.If signalized,an Vehicle platoons are formed. 0.61-0.70
occasional approach phase is fully Many drivers begin to feel
utilized. somewhat restricted within groups
of vehicles.
C STABLE FLOW Acceptable delay.If signalized a few Back-ups may develop behind 0.71-0.80
drivers arriving at the end of a turning vehicles.Most drivers fell
phase have to wait through one somewhat restricted.
sigaal cycle.
D APPROACHING Tolerable delay.Delays may be Maneuverability is severely limited 0.91-0.90
FLOW substantial during short periods,but during short periods due to
excessive back-ups do not occur. temporary back-ups.
E UNSTABLE Intolerable delay.Delay may be There are typically long queues of 0.91-1.00'
FLOW great—up to several signal cycles. vehicles waiting.Upstream of the
intersection.
F FORCED FLOW Excessive delay. Jammed conditions.Back-ups VARIES
from other locations restrict or
prevent movement.Volumes may
vary widely,depending principally
on the downstream conditions.
'In general,V/C ratios could not be greater than 1.00. However,if future demand projections are considered for analytical purposes,a
ratio greater than 1.00 might be obtained,indicating that the projected demand could exceed the capacity.
REFERENCE.HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL,SPECIAL REPORT NO.209 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD.1985.
6
EXISTING CONDITION
The existing roadways that surround or serve the proposed project site include: Prado Road,
South Higuera Street, Elks Lane, U.S. Highway 101, Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley
Road. A general description of each follows:
Prado Road: This roadway is currently a minor east-west two-lane collector street
that starts at U.S. Highway 101 and terminates east of South Higuera Street. It has
a partial interchange (northbound movements only)with U.S. Highway 101. The long
range plans for this roadway include widening to four-lanes and extension from
Madonna Road to Broad Street and construction of a full interchange with U.S.
Highway 101.
South Higuera Street: This roadway is a two- to four-lane north-south road. On the
north end it is a southeast one way street. It connects downtown San Luis Obispo
with the growing residential/industrial/office area south of Madonna Road. South
Higuera Street is planned to be widened to four-lane arterial standards.
Elks Lane: A minor north-south two-lane roadway that connects South Higuera
Street with Prado Road.
Madonna Road: A four- to six-lane east-west arterial that provides access to the
Central Coast Mall, Laguna Lake Park, hotels/motels and commercial and
residential land uses in west San Luis Obispo. It begins west of Los Osos Valley
Road and ends at Higuera Street. It has an interchange with U.S. Highway 101.
Los Osos Valley Road: A roadway that varies in width from two-lane to four-lanes
and provides access to Baywood Park, Los Osos, Cuesta College and Morro Bay. It
also connects to South Higuera Street. Land uses along the road vary from .
commercial/tourist/residential to agricultural.
U.S. Highway 101: This facility is a major regional north-south roadway. In the
vicinity of the project it is a four-lane grade separated freeway. To the north it
provides access to downtown San Luis Obispo, Atascadero, Paso Robles and other
locations throughout northwest California.To the south it provides access to southern
San Luis Obispo County, Santa Barbara County and the Los Angeles area. Access
to the study area is provided via full interchanges with Madonna Road, South
Higuera Street and Los Osos Valley Road and partial interchange (northbound
movements only) at Prado Road.
Existing traffic control at the critical intersections is provided through traffic signals at:
Madonna Road/Higuera Street, Madonna Road/U.S. Highway 101 northbound ramps,
Madonna Road/U.S. Highway 101 southbound ramps, Prado Road/South Higuera Street,
Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street, Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off-
7
ramp-Calle Joaquin, Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps and Los Osos
Valley Road/South Higuera Street. The Prado Road/U.S. Highway 101 ramps intersection
is controlled by STOP sign installations on all of the approaches. The Elks Lane/South
Higuera Street intersections is controlled by STOP signs on the Elks Lane approach to the
intersection with the South Higuera Street approaches uncontrolled. The existing
intersection lane configurations are shown in the Appendix.
Existing traffic operations at the study area intersections have been estimated using am peak
hour and pm peak hour turning movement counts conducted by DKS Associates, the city
of San Luis Obispo and PacTrans. The existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 5.
Traffic signal phase and cycle timing data was provided by Caltrans District 5 and city of
San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works.
The level of service evaluation of the existing signalized intersections was accomplished
using the planning method of analysis presented in the Highway Capacity Manual. Special
Report 209.Transportation Research Board, 1985.A description of the operating conditions
versus Level of Service is shown in Table 11.
TABLE II SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
LEVEL OF SERVICE STOPPED DELAY PER VEHICLE (sec.)
A <5.1
B 5.1 to 15.0
C 15.1 to 25.0
D 25.1 to 40.0
E 40.1 to 60.0
F >60.0
ounce: Highway Capacityanual: Sj&cial Repgrt 209, Transportation Research Board, 1985.
The level of service evaluation of the multi-way STOP sign controlled intersections was
completed using the method of analysis presented in Highway Capacity Manual, Special
Report 209. Transportation Research Board, 1985. This method assumes the capacity of a
four-way STOP sign controlled intersection to be a function of the total intersection
approach volume, the directional split of the approach volume and the number of approach
lanes. Table III shows the capacity of a two-by-two approach lane intersection for various
directional splits. Capacity of a four-way STOP controlled intersection is greatest when the
approach volumes are evenly split (50/50) and lessens as the directional split varies from
that value. The number of approach lanes also affect the capacity of an intersection. Table
IV shows the capacity of a four-way intersection at a 50/50 demand split for various
approach lane configurations. For 'T' intersections with three-way STOP sign control it was
8
assumed that the capacity of the intersection would be 3/4ths.of the capacity of a four
legged intersection.
TABLE 111.CAPACITY OF A TwO-BY-TWO FOUR-WAY STOP cONTROLLED INTERSECTION FOR VARIOUS
DEMAND SPLITS
DEMAND SPLIT CAPACITY(VPH)
50/50 1,900
55/45 1,800
60/40 1,700
65/35 1,600
70/30 1500
otal Capacity,all approach legs.
TABLE IV CAPACITY.OF A FOUR-WAY STOP-CONTROLLED.INTERSECTIONS WITH 50/50 DEMAND SPLIT FOR
._.VARIOUS APPROACH WIDTHS' ..
INTERSECTION TYPE CAPACITY(VPH)
2-LANE BY 2-LANE 1,900
2-LANE BY 4-LANE 2,600
4-LANE BY 4-LANE 3,600
Total panty,all approach legs.
The Level of Service for unsignalized intersections were determined using methods
documented in the Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report 209,Transportation Research
Board, 1985. The procedure for calculating the level of service at an unsignalized
intersection is based upon determining the"reserve capacity"for each intersection movement
which must yield the right-of-way to another movement. Reserve capacity is a function of
the volume of conflicting traffic, major street operating speed, and type of control (STOP
or Yield). Therefore, unlike a signalized intersection where the overall traffic operation is
described by one level of service grade, a level of service is calculated for each movement
which must yield the right-of-way at an unsignalized intersection. Table V shows the
relationship of level of service to reserve capacity.
TABLE V LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS.
RESERVE CAPACITY(PCPH)1 LEVEL OF SERVICE EXPECTED DELAY TO MINOR STREET TRAFFIC
400(OR MORE) A Little or no delay
300-399 B Short traffic delays
200-20909 C Average traffic delays
100-199 D Long traffic delays
0-99 E Very long traffic delays
< 0 F Extreme delays
Source: Hi¢hway Capacity Manual,Special Report 209,Transportation Research Board, 1985.
1 = Equivalent Passenger Cars Per Hour.
9
Table VI presents the results of the level of service analysis for the Existing Condition at
the critical intersections in the study area. Evaluating the results of the analysis indicates
that the following three intersections are currently operating at LOS E or worse during the
pm peak hour (City of San Luis Obispo defines traffic operations which exceed level of
service D as unacceptable).
-Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp-Calle Joaquin intersection
-Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps
-Madonna Road/Higuera Street
An analysis of the roadway links for the major roadways surrounding the project indicates
that all of the roadway segments surrounding the project are currently operating at
acceptable levels of service.Table VIII shows the results of the roadway link level of service
analysis. It should be noted that in urban areas, generally the constraint to capacity is at
intersections, not roadway links.
TABLE VI rMBRSECPION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS.EXISTING CONDITIONS.
Intersection Existing Condition
AM Peak PM Peak
DelayLOS Delay LOS
(�) (sec)
Madonna Road/Higuera St 23.3 C F
Madonna Road/U.S.101 NB ramps 10.6 B 12.5 B
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 SB ramps 33.6 D 53.1. E
Ella Ln/So.Higuera NB Left 538 A 462 A
sti
Elks All 206 C 130 D
Prado Road/U.S.101 NB ramps2 0.22 A 0.40 A
Prado Road/So.Higuera St 14.2 B 14.8 B
Tank Farm Road/S.Higuera St 26.8 D 17.7 C
Los Osos Valley Rd/U.S. 101 SB ramps 29.0 D F
Los Osos Valley Rd/U.S. 101 NB ramps 21.6 C 313 D
Los Osos Valley Rd/So.Higuera St. 11.4 B 11.1 B
otes = ratio greater than
1 = Minor street STOP controlled interception-Reserve Capacity
2 = Multi-way STOP controlled intersection-V/C ratio
10
2
�.VA
s �o
�a 4
o'
ti
tg� Jg. •
'Pv
TadcPaem Rd
t
6 ■Cnvwm
Yy Na 7b and.
AM Peak Hom'haffio
WI*Peak Elam Traffic
1 Madonna Rd - 2 Madonna Rd - 3 Madonna Rd - 4 Mguera Street-
Higuem Street US 101 NB Ramps US 101 SB Ramps Prado Road US 101 NB Ramps
� S �rr
X q��o�91 N J ry,�'t'� «)33
601),50S y
'910 vzzy,
m I 'Y�o ,yy r r N >�f�J J J
g
N
SO
V
6 S. Hlguem St - 7 Los Osos VaUcy - cy - 9 S. kiiguera st - ILO S. kitgucra bt -
Los Osos Valley Rd US 101 NB Ramps US 101 SB Ramps Tank Farm Rd Mrs La
ti % or h
(4721330 (30)50
230(280)
6scr9o> O n,
'ai
` V
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes: "
0
a FIGURE
.. TRANS Existing =, g
TABLE VII RELATIONSHIP OF AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC TO LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SURFACE STREETS
Roadway Level of Service
Level of Service A Level of Service BLevel of Service C Level of Service D Level of Service E
v/c=0.00 to 0.60 v/e=0.61 to 0.70 L v/c=0.71 to 0.80 v/c=0.81 to 0.90 v/c=0.91 to 1.00
24ane Arterial 0 to 9,150 9,151 to 10,500 10,501 to 12,000 12,001 to 13,500 13,501 to 15,000
4-lane Arterial - 0 to 18,300 18,301 to 21,000 21,001 to 24,000 24,001 to 27,000 27,001 to 30,000
6-lane Arterial 0 to 27500 27501 to 31,500 31,501 to 36,000 36,001 to 40500 40,501 to 45,000
4-lane Freeway 0 to 42,000 42,001 to 49,000 49,001 to 56,000 56,001 to 65,000 65,001 to 70,000
6 lane Freeway 0 to 60,000 60,001 to 70,000 70,001 to 62500 82,501 to 95,000 95,001 to 100,000
source: Hizhway Carhacityanus al ReoortTransportation Research Board, 1
Note:Apply Level of Service F when V/C>1.00.
TABLE VIII LEVEL OF SERVICE AT STUDY AREA ROADWAYS: EXISTING CONDITIONS
Roadway No.of Location ADT Volume Level of
Lanes (Veh/Day)* Service"
Prado Rd 2 U.S.101 to S.Higuera 4,000 A
S.Higuera St 4 Madonna to Prado 14,400 A
S.Higuem SL 2/4 Prado to Los Osos Valley 13,300 D
U.S. 101 4 North of Madonna 48,000 B
U.S. 101 4 Madonna to Prado 40,000 A
U.S. 101 4 Prado to Los Osos VaOey 40,000 A
U.S. 101 4 South of Los Osos Valley 42,000 A
Madonna Road 6 Higuera to Los Osos Valley 33,000 C
Los Osos Valley Road 2 Madonna to US.101 12,000 C
Los Osos Valley Road 2 U.S. 101 to S.Higuera 10,000 B
Volumes are Total Vatly lraffic,both directions.
'• See Table VII for Level of Service criteria.
12
EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment and Rezone for 9.26 acres
from C/OS-10 to O-PD. The planned land use is 125,200 square feet of office space with
a 2,000 square foot day care center. The project is located in the San Luis Obispo suburban
area of the city of San Luis Obispo (see Figure 1). It is generally bounded by Prado Road,
Elks Lane and the Sunset Drive-in (see Figure 2). Access to the project is planned off of
Elks Lane via a realignment of the street. The project is planned to be built in four phases.
The land uses that surround the project include: the city of San Luis Obispo corporation
yard, the Sunset drive-in, service commercial, shopping center, office space and warehouse
uses. Figure 3 shows the existing zoning for the land uses surrounding the proposed project.
TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation for the proposed project has been determined using trip generation rates
from Trip Generation. 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1990. Table IX
shows the trip generation rates used in this analysis. Trips from the project have been
projected for daily, am peak hour (7:00 to 9:00) and pm peak hour (4:00 to 6:00) time
periods.
TABLE:DC<TRIP GENERATION RATES
LAND USE DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Total In Out Total n Out
OFFICE' 13.99 TE/KSF 2.23 1.98 0.25 1.75 0.30 1.45
TE/KSF TE/KSF TE/KSF TE/KSF TE/KSF TE/KSF
DAY CARE2 7916 TE/KSF 19.0 105 85 175 8.0 95
TE/KSF TE/KSF TE/KSF TE/KSF TE/KSF TE/KSF
lurce: I = Trip Generation,5th edition'
. titute of Transportation Engmeers, 1990.-
2 = T]KM Transportation Consultants-Feld Research
Notes: TE = Trip End
KSF= 1000 square feet of net building area.
Results of the trip generation analysis are shown in Table X. The trip generation data was
separated into the planned construction phases. The square footage of each phase was:
phase 1-33,040 square feet,phase 2-38,160 square feet,phase 3-40,280 square feet and phase
4-15,650 square feet. The project is planned to be constructed over a ten year period.
13
TABLE X TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS
LAND USE DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Total In Out Total In Out
PHASE 1
OFFICE 434 1 69 1__61 8 54 9 45
DAY CARE 159 38 21 17 35 16 19
TOTAL 593 107 82 25 89 25 64
PHASE 2
OFFICE 534 85 76 9 67 11 56
TOTAL (PHASE 1 & 2) 1127 192 158 34 156 36T 120
PHASE 3
OFFICE 564 90 80 10 70 12 58
TOTAL (PHASE 1, 2 & 3) 1691 282 238 44 226 48 178
PHASE 4
OFFICE 219 34 30 4 28 5 23
GRAND TOTAL 1910 316 268 48 254 53 201
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Trips from the proposed project were distributed to the roadway network surrounding the
project based on the trip distribution pattern developed for the Draft San Luis Obispo City-
wide Transportation Study, DKS Associates, July 1990. The distribution was based on the
location of local and regional existing and future land uses, relationship of the project to
regional transportation facilities. Figure 6 shows the trip distribution used in this analysis.
TRIP ASSIGNMENT
Traffic from the proposed project was assigned to the roadway network by phase using the
results from Table X and the trip distribution pattern shown in Figure 6. The Existing with
Project Condition traffic volumes were determined by adding the project traffic to the
existing traffic volumes (Figure 5). Figures 7 thru 10 show the Existing with Project
Condition traffic projections for each of the project phases.
14
osos
A MI D 30% r7 r•}L a91XI-
\` i{NNAM017 � •y! J W �S✓a MS`S �+ �� ��
J J lT T
SAN LUIS OBISPai FLORI
n
101 _ !u? i NOUN
F sT
AVI
i• q -w SOUTH -m
sr am y
LAGUNA ,`� I w sm 9
1 I MIAppY!
``% 0% 1I 7 't i Mil
LAR[ `` v owl eNlt>_G' P CQ`IWj Ay_
owl
2 J .: t oTT1 r�r�
` MIOtI,, , r CurULL
' S% 40% _ ^gFrFfl' . G
eupc/"
PARRI}I Oho � er_
r,y ! ,,IIS• 3 ��YY / w i��UNYLN
0 CF w
4y C? II. l0%, roNoi°e CI v r�8.
I•v aa\cJy�J , +oL� 1096 50%am
:�
p/0-Al �sT� �G � W s I r�ds1
. ►� �,J' S •`� ��v 11A" z
40% bAor
PARK
N► y ``,jU<I. ,R r/ ` CAUL LUfIIA
gr; [ oar 6, L i
W�\t'=~•4 i l ` .S SOob. 10`!0 n%y .`
• P •,r
r 3
s Ora$�a d g'•r 10% RANCHO fA I JLW
$V•I� ?/ �0% 1% Swam All
fepBNE alf M
!g / _ - ---- -...- --
�• 4AWO
g9 / //�, r'4 1096 1
! \! su ran a
•!,'/rte '`!S ' WISSWN —LN
IJ;UArt - J.ana NWO
f:
10% lo AOR. % �
1s i 10% r fq, m TANK •FARM Ne
0 � 8,.. r'
[P V
11f
0%
1V7O/ [MS• fOL
'10%
y 20% 15%
r
Wr
oum 6.
1• 4
10%
IN
• , FIGURE
e• Distnbution •►J A
.��TRANS 6
�►
15
s
4e 1
s q
o'
R° 'het Fam Rd
e
s LEd$7D
Hq No Te a..
AM Peat Hoffa TYafe
CPbA Peak HaOC TnMC
1 Madonna Rd - 2 Madonna Rd - 3 Madonna Rd- 4 Hlguera Street - 5 Prado Rd-Elks -
Mguera Street US 101 NB Ramps US 101 SB Ramps Prado Road US 101 NB Ramps
X 1 r+`J yti�a1`�y'1 nb
340 ^SR�jJ \yV/�/ �)a) �� N
� 1 , �T ea �1�63 4
ao? 3 //. \- ty�
� ��11'(�.� �� 11 61 h C���1aa���rr� lfej
^./� � Tl 1* /- �j� JJ
w
6 S. Mguera St - 7 Los Osos Valley - ey - v zi. khgucra St - IV 5. Mgucra bt -
Los Osos Valley Rd US 101 NB Ramps US 101 SB Ramps Tank Farm Rd Ella Ln
%
�l. IG c5)10
''° mak\
`• +�
4
II
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes: "
i FIGURE
son
�1i ANS r
" ` "' Existing With Project (1) 7
16
z
9A 10
S A
o'
4
*° rmc Faom Ad
6 L LEND
14w No To iW
AM Peak Hoe Tie
0?%0 Peak Floe Traffic
1 Madonna Rd - 2 Madonna Rd - 3 Madonna Rd - 4 Htguera Street - 5 Frado Rd-E= -
Higuera Street US 101 NB Ramps US 101 SB Ramps Prado Road US 101 NB Ramps
5(4M OJJW�
Q Cims�, ,�azol %% a 5S Z
�` � m � �'�'� �-��•� dry
m
S
6 S. Higuera St 7 Los Osos vaucy - 8 Los Osos Valley - 9 S. Higuera St - IU N. kUiguera St -
1 os Osos Valley Rd US 101 NB Ramps US 101 SB Ramps Tank Farm Rd Elks Ln
* � O
w %�2 I
L)\V �y L , �30)o��y 23oC2e0)
Q'u° �� /J
(S)IO� �6s(L90) ��z�'e
pp�T cp►�,�, h 5iy� �T� ea
t � v
hA v
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes: " T��
w • n A i'LGViVi
ij.1 R >.i ,V T
Existing With Project (M 8
17
ti
3
9A io
t� 401 •
Tank F. Rd
6 +�
Ylp)Ii lb 30b
AM POak Hot Tuffic
axio Peak Hot'haffio
1 Madonna Rd - 2 Madonna Rd - 3 Madonna Rd- 4 Higuera Street - 5 Prado Rd-Elks
Higuera Street US 101 NB Ramps US 101 SB Ramps Prado Road US 101 NB Ramps
P lc
Xg ,y� " rye y� ,
rcj 14 3(40)
k4i as
�M4 Or
C 07, dig
J 1
w
v
6 S. jig=St - ry - 11 Los Osas ValFe-y-- 10 3. Miguera bt - lu 5. kliguem St -
Los Oso s Valley Rd US 101 NB Ramps US 101 SB Ramps Tank Farm Rd ffilcs Ln
r7 n^ s� • �� ,1�C
C47.6)342 ay y �y IGy po)so���z3o(zeo) ,
(1010-5.
10)10 2(10)
(5)10 �T65090) 4.
LIT
pp
EV �
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes: "
�GETis vTRZNU
Existing With Project (III) 9
18
'Rsis
"
s �o
o'
l�� Jy. •
-rmc Poem Re
6 LECWND
Yy No 7b iol.
AM Peak Hour Mr!
WM)Peak How TrafMc
1 Madonna Rd - 2 Madonna Rd - 3 Madonna Rd- 4 kliguem Street - 5 Prado Rd-F-I'm -
Higuera Street US 101 NB Ramps US 101 SB Ramps Prado Road US 101 NB Ramps
I � P ,
a�
^ +dale ry ���1 • a �'�
cgD';o s-ze x40
� �o'c oli $+z
se
a
6 S. Higuera St - 7 Los Osos VaLLcy-- 8 LAM Osw valley - Y 5. Higuem St - IV b. ki1guera St -
Los Osos Valley Rd US 1011 NB Ramps US 101 SB Ramps Tank Farm Rd Elks Ln
r
.'.� r
Ob (30)50
(Q� �� J�� r`�50
Ly Yui + (10)10---> 2(10) lALn
�+a 1'
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes:. �.
IN R\ FIGURE
Existing With Total Project 10
19
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
An analysis of the projects impacts on the existing roadway network was completed using
the traffic volumes shown on Figures 7 to 10, the existing intersection lane configurations
shown in the Appendix and the level of service analysis methods described in the Existing
Condition section of this report. The traffic signal phase and cycle timing was assumed to
remain the same as the timing used in the Existing Condition analysis.
Table XI shows the results of the level of service evaluation for the critical intersections
identified for this study. The table shows a comparison between the Existing Condition and
Existing with Project Condition levels of service at the ten critical intersections for each of
the project phases. Evaluating the results of the analysis indicates that the following three
intersections are projected to be operating at LOS E or worse during the pm peak hour
(City of San Luis Obispo defines traffic operations which exceed level of service D as
unacceptable).
-Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp-Calle Joagt7in intersection
-Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps
-Madonna Road/Higuera Street
With the completion of Phases 1, 2 & 3 and with complete buildout of the proposed project
the Elks Lane approach to the Elks Lane/South Higuera Street intersection is projected to
be operating at an unacceptable level of service (LOS E).
An analysis of the roadway links for the major roadways surrounding the project indicates
that one of the roadway segments, South Higuera Street from Prado Road to Los Osos
Valley Road, surrounding the project is projected to operate at an unacceptable level of
service. Table XII shows the results of the roadway link level of service analysis. It should
be noted that in urban areas, generally the constraint to capacity is at intersections, not
roadway links.
The proposed project would add 570 trips per day to Elks Lane. This could have an impact
on the existing land uses on Elks Lane (mobile home park) and the additional traffic could
cause a degradation of the pavement on Elks Lane.
The buildout of the proposed project would add 100 trips per day to northbound U.S. 101
that enter the freeway at Prado Road and exit at Mad'onna Street and 50 trips per day to
northbound U.S. 101 that would enter the freeway at Los Osos Valley Road and exit at
Prado.Road.
20
.� 0 m w a w a m U A m
Yq
Y
a
m^ m a oa So m en ey
r m
0
C Y
en
7nou N e�f O ,O "pt .moi N e�e1 N
.goy
Y
L R
^ ^ m fr 00 q m N r
m
L
E
.goo
m � y v m A a A a m A A U m
C Z Y
a
U 42 Li
a.
d
Y
o a _
EN � =° �
a p ..
5
y
Av Q
co j O y w m w Q A Q m U w
C6 u
O a
Q 6. C � n e -• o �J �. ' M
O en.
u y y
e�y] 1•�Laf a
O y C
00
vi
pC C_
U
0
.J O y U m A Q U Q m A A U m Q
w Y
0 1^yY emer� Nq N�p0 pO. �O
v N M h O .�. N N
V
_ Y
V Y Z Y
9 �
e a` Rt cm L° E L° iviviS
O OZ Oy
�
Vf O e O Y 07 '8 0D 'B V7
go m .. 'o a vS a ?o " E � E
s
21
c ;
/ / K f I $ $ 7 3 \ $ $
§ §
96
k / - V) <
rz
. _ . ..
§ ;_
en $ } . } f f
3
§ k
/ /
§ 2 �
`
In « < c < « < < u c =
k
� M K f K A § A K A A K )
§ ( \ - _ - ■ a s _ R _ cr
_ § �
� \ k
§ § % oc go go 22 � �
� � � \ } .00� � � � \ / \ � m \
u i � C6o k � � o ko ƒo , a
� ! 3
k ~ - \ - - - - - " ~ § k
■ % 3 - § ; § ■
2 = ,61 ) j o ° f ° ƒ .
} & ) ) > ! ;
2
• h
SITE PLAN EVALUATION
An evaluation of the site plan for the proposed project was completed. The evaluation
included review of driveway locations, parking lot circulation and improvements and
realignment of Elks Lane. Figure 11 shows the proposed site plan and the areas of analysis.
Elks Lane Realignment-The number of reversing curves and the radii of the curves
proposed for the realignment of Elks Lane could present a safety problem for
motorist using Elks Lane (See Figure 11-Location 1). At a minimum a 25 MPH
design speed should be used in designing the realignment of Elks Lane. In addition,
the number of curves on the realignment of Elks Lane should be limited to three
curves. It is acknowledged that the Sunset Drive-in and possible U.S. 101 northbound
on-ramp alignment could make a 25 MPH design speed difficult to obtain. Two
options are possible: one, would be the design of the first two curves north from
Prado Road at 25 MPH design speed with the connection to the existing Elks Lane
alignment at a substandard design speed until such time that the Sunset Drive-in
property redevelops and the final Elks Lane alignment is built and two, a knuckle is
installed at the location of the first curve north of Prado Road.
Project Entrance - The project is proposing an area at the entrance to the courtyard
area to the project to install a location that could be used for employee drop-off and
as a transit stop (See Figure 11-Location 2). In discussions with the project developer
this area would be constructed using textured concrete to provide a distinct transition
from Elks Lane. To further reduce any possibility of driver confusion the curb radii
into and out of this area should be reduced.
Driveway Location Evaluation - The location of three of the driveway locations
appear adequate. Care should be taken in location of landscaping at the driveway
locations to ensure that adequate sight distance is maintained. One driveway location
is close to the Elks Lane/Prado Road intersection (See Figure 11-Location 3). The
location of the driveway could cause conflicts between vehicles in the queues at the
Elks Lane/Prado Road intersection and vehicles wishing to turn left out of the
driveway. To reduce this possible conflict a right turn in-and-out-only access is
recommended.
Parking Lot Analysis - The parking lot for the building on the west side of Elks Lane
(See Figure 11-Location 4) should be converted into a one-way circulation pattern,
with the eastern driveway should be the entrance and the western driveway being the
exit. This improvement would reduce the possibility of conflicts between vehicles
entering and exiting the lot. The other parking lot appears to be adequate. The
number of parking stalls were determined by the project architect based on the city
of San Luis Obispo parking code.
23
I Fr 6�IItlJ � II II I ;.' �•.'
4
Itl 17-
111111-It-1'"IJIII111il ! II401�
E
n.y.uNE 2' C
_
DUO.C
4 I `
- r
(03
'or l
et _ III IIII 11111 '..
wwOtdo' ! % -. .
1 O�r..r er•er+ ..
I
FWADO ROAD
LEGEND
- Analysis Location = See Site Plan Evaluation Section for Discussion
• .. Site Map R FIGURE
�:;TR ANS Traffic Analysis 7 H
w
�� ll
24
CUMULATIVE CONDITION
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
To determine the impacts of the proposed project on future (year 2010) traffic conditions
it is appropriate to examine the traffic impacts of the build-out of the existing city of San
Luis Obispo General Plan in the vicinity of the proposed project. The determination of the
cumulative traffic conditions was accomplished in the Draft San Luis Obispo City-wide
Transportation Studv. DKS Associates,July 1990.In that study,future traffic conditions were
determined using a city-wide traffic model. Additional traffic data was supplied by the city
of San Luis Obispo staff. The traffic volume information provided by the city-wide traffic
model was presented as daily (24 hour) traffic volumes. The data was converted to am peak
hour and pm peak hour turning movements by using existing peak hour percentages and
balancing of traffic expected to enter and exit an intersection.
In the Draft San Luis Obispo City-wide Transportation Stu dX it was assumed that the
proposed project site would be built out as an office land use. Thus, the project traffic was
subtracted from the traffic projections to obtain the Cumulative Condition traffic levels.
The development of lands around the San Luis Obispo Airport, at a higher intensity level
than currently shown on the city or county General Plans, could have a profound affect on
the transportation system in the study area. Currently studies are evaluating the options for
use of the lands around the airport. Both industrial and residential alternatives have been
discussed, but a specific plans have not been finalized. The same goes for the Dalidio
property southwest of the Central Coast Mall.
Due to the uncertainty regarding the land use plans for these areas, traffic projections for
the "most intense" land use have been used as part of this study. The traffic data came from
the city of San Luis Obispo city-wide transportation model. As specific plans for the airport
and Dalidio area are finalized and the city adopts a new General Plan, the traffic
projections could change, but the information presented in this report represents the best
data available at this time.
Three Cumulative Condition alternative circulations were evaluated: no overpass or
interchange at Prado Road/U.S. 101, removal of the existing freeway access ramps and
extension of Prado Road west over U.S. 101 to Madonna Road and construction of an
overpass and interchange at Prado Road/U.S. 101 interchange. All of the alternatives
assumed more intense development in the airport area.
For cumulative alternative analysis it was assumed that the roadway improvements presented
in the San Luis Obispo Ci1y-Wide Transportation Stud X would be in place for the cumulative
and cumulative with project-Prado Road interchange alternative analysis. However, for all
of the alternatives the existing intersection lane configurations were used in the intersection
u
level of service analysis. See the appendix for the assumed intersection lane configurations.
The Draft San Luis Obispo City-wide Transportation Study presented improvements needed
to the roadway network throughout San Luis Obispo and in the project area (see Figure 12).
Highlights of these improvements in the project area include:
-Widening of South Higuera Street to four-lane arterial standards from Madonna
Road to Los Osos Valley Road.
-Widening of Los Osos Valley Road to four-lane arterial standards from Madonna
Road to South Higuera Street.
-Extension and widening of Prado Road from Madonna Road to Broad Street.
Included is the construction of a full interchange and over-crossing of U.S. Highway
101.
-Upgrade of the Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. Highway 101 interchange.
-Upgrade of the Elks Lane bridge over San Luis Obispo Creek. The construction of
the bridge will cause the closure of Elks Lane during construction.
Figures 13, 14 and 15 show the Cumulative Condition am peak hour and pm peak hour
traffic volumes for the no Prado Road interchange alternative and Prado Road interchange
alternative, respectively.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
An evaluation of the critical intersections within the study area was completed using the
peak hour turning movements shown in Figures 13, 14 and 15 and the intersection critical
movement analysis methods for signalized intersections, multi-way STOP intersections and
unsignalized intersections described in the Existing Condition section of this report. The
traffic signal phase and cycle timing was assumed to remain the same as the timing used in
the Existing Condition analysis.
The analysis of the traffic volumes for the no Prado Road interchange alternative indicated
that eight intersections would be operating at unacceptable levels of service (See Table
XIII). The intersections were:
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off ramp-Calle Joaquin
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps
Madonna Road/Higuera Street
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps
Prado Road/South Higuera Street
Prado Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps-Elks Lane
26
Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street
Elks Lane/South Higuera Street
For the Prado Road overcrossing only alternative, seven intersections were projected to be
operating at unacceptable levels of service (See Table XIII). The intersections were:
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off ramp-Calle Joaquin
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps
Madonna Road/Higuera Street
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps
Prado Road/South Higuera Street
Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street
Elks Lane/South Higuera Street
TABLE XIII.WrERSEMON LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS:CUMULATIVE CONDMONS .. .
Intersection No Prado Road Interchange Prado Road Overcrossing Prado Road Interchange
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay L Delay L Delay L Delay L Delay L Delay L
(Sec) O (Sec) O (Sec) O (Sec) O (Sec) O (Sec) O
S S S S S S
Madonna Road/Higuera St F F F F F P
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 12.6 B 19.3 C 12.5 B 23.0 C 115 B 17.0 C
NB ramps
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 SB F , > FF 86.1 F: 63.1 : F 85.9 F
ramps
Elks In/S. NB Left 2% C 261 C 2% C 261 C 230 C 257 C
Higuera St1
Elks All 54 E 38.. E 54 E 38. E 53, IS. ...:38. E
Prado Road/US. 101 NB 0.892 D 0.972 E. NA3 — NA3 — 10.63 B 9.23 B
ramps
13.74 B 13.64 B
Prado Road/S. Higuera St F F F F F F
Tank Farm Rd/S.Mguera F F F F F 26.1 D
St
Los Osas Valley Rd/U.S. F F F F P F
101 SB ramps
Lot Osos Valley Rd/U.S. 35.8 D :LB
22.9 C F 24.2 C F
101 NB ramps -
Las Osos Valley Rd/S. 14.0 B :14:6 14.4 B 14.7 B 13.1 B 14S B
Higuera St.
Notes I = Minor street contro a rntersecnon- eserveCapacity
2 = Multi-way STOP controlled intersection-V/C Ratio
3 - Diamond interchange(See Figure 16)
4 = Type L-8 interchange(See Figure 16)
5 = No ramps with U.S. 101
27
For the Prado Road interchange alternative, seven intersections were projected to be
operating at unacceptable levels of service (See Table )aII). The intersections were:
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off ramp-Calle Joaquin
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps
Madonna Road/Higuera Street
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps
Prado Road/South Higuera Street
Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street
Elks Lane/South Higuera Street
Table XIV presents an analysis of the major roadway links that surround the project. For
the no Prado Road interchange alternative the following roadway segments are projected
to be operating at unacceptable levels of service:
South Higuera Street-Prado Road to Los Osos Valley Road
U.S. 101-North of Madonna Road
U.S. 101-Prado Road to Madonna Road
Madonna Road-El Mercado to U.S 101 southbound ramps
For the Prado Road overcrossing only alternative the following roadway segments are
projected to be operating at unacceptable levels of service:
Prado Road-U.S. 101 to South Higuera Street
U.S. 101-North of Madonna Road
Madonna Road-El Mercado to U.S 101 southbound ramps
For the Prado Road interchange alternative the following roadway segments are projected
to be operating at unacceptable levels of service:
Prado Road-U.S. 101 to South Higuera Street
U.S. 101-North of Madonna Road
U.S. 101-Prado Road to Madonna Road
Madonna Road-El Mercado to U.S 101 southbound ramps
28
o•
r
e
v •
C o• '
@ > C 2X rS a
y
Z
O
E
e
5 � .
u
C6
o•
O U R [t7 w p p R U U
a m
ky
0
a �
s
H
e
O
..1 e
0
3
vi e O
y Q�
C T� � �.+
O^ Cl
. . . C° og9g � g a II II
ir I '- N
LH
29
s
f
www ,
a
9
e
� faewr Y.e '•
010,11106 or ` wr• as
t
S
D
TO t +°•f.
SR 1 ✓
A11(a) „rte
A11(b) �N �+�•, ;
t °
v
04"
A3 {0°"{' Al2 �
9v Wc.n e1
A2
A14 eg q
A10
•r�ea
Al
•e* A9
r
Lr Farm ad
w
A7
QA8 4e.rr me
A
Future Circulation Network Imp. o
R FIGURE
°o n i'• TA 1\T(� T
itCilrJ Prado Road Interchange Alt. 12
30
3
vA �o
o'
D�
Tank Prem sa
a
0�
s LSaP.LdD
b&v"a Te some AM Pest Hoa 7Wrw
. (PAD Peek Hoon ThMe
1 Madonna Rd - 2 Madonna Rd- 3 Madonna Rd - 4 Hlguera Street - 5 Prado Rd-F"&m -
Higuera Street US 101 NB Ramps US 101 SB Ramps Prado Road US 101 NB Ramps
yon�
�(1 _TLLr
lag° �iasoi1055)
f77r G>
6 S. Higuera St - 7 Los Osos VaLLey - 8 L4w Osos Valley - Y S. m1guera st - 10 S. fliguera St -
Los Osos Valley Rd US 101 NB Ramps US 101 SB Ramps Tank Farm Rd Ella Ln.
m^-sc•
n< ft7F l ,� ' �� N (30)50 �y 350(670)
160)90 "S
c �� .'6¢
tl �
yv
`Ni V.r
Cumulative Traffic Volumes "
A FIGURE
■s . T
`�T�NS No Prado Road Interchange 13
31
i
Tack Fa Rd
h�
a
LEGEND
MW Net Sb so"
AM Peak Hour 7WM
Mbe Peak Now TMMC
1 Madonna Rd - 2 Madonna Rd - 3 Madonna Rd- 4 Fiiguera Street- 5 PradD Rd-Elks -
Higuera Street US 101 NB Ramps US 101 SB Ramps Prado Road us 101
J
v1 I
CJ
6 S. Hignera St - 7 LOS Osos VaUCY - 3 Loos OsM Wley - 9 S. kuguera St - 10 5. Higuera
Los Osos Valley Rd US 101 NB Ramps US 101 SB Ramps Tank Farm Rd Elks La
'1942 (30)50
MS7 )M670)
c5)10 q ,L;Ew5so) too N�
v V
Cumulative Traffic Volumes "
O\
FIGURE
r r. T
a a MC RA \V
Overcrossing Only ` 14
32
2
7
10
o�
4
Rv
Tank Peon Rd
g�
MW HM Tbs.W.
s IBGIIVD
AM Peak Hoag Tkaffie
M.0 Pack Haut T=MC
1 Madonna Rd - 2 Madonna Rd - 3 Madonna Rd - 4 Higuera Street - -
Higuera Street US 101 NB Ramps US 101 SB Ramps Prado Road US 101 NB Ramps
IZO)
1i 1«50) �"10(30) ' �� y
Z
QyMtoyE1TI>.G ,Sot.
3D o,� �Z' `5J' �y
6 S. Higuern St - ey - 8 Eos osos valley - 9 S. kliguera st - lu S. kftguera st -
Los Osos Valley Rd US 101 NB Ramps US 101 SB Ramps Tank Farm Rd Elks L 2
N j J IG yn� (I300)500�W35 6000)
(Qo�so .1P CS)10 10)
Car 8
J
v"
Cumulative Trafflc Volumes
ALR
�GI
w • M
ll\VPrado Road Interchange 15
33
i .
I
TYPE L-2
TYPE L-8
Prado Road Interchange �0 ^
O
... .., R 'FIGU
r r i T
. ,TRANS Alternatives �� 16
34
CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT CONDITION
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The determination of the Cumulative with Project Condition traffic levels was accomplished
by adding the proposed project trip generation to the roadway network surrounding the
project using the trip distribution pattern shown on Figure 6. No Prado Road interchange,
Prado Road overcrossing of U.S. 101 and Prado Road overcrossing and interchange with
U.S. 101 alternatives were evaluated. Figures 17, 18 and 19 show the results of this exercise.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
An analysis of the project impacts on the cumulative operating conditions was completed
using the traffic volumes shown on Figures 17, 18 and 19, the intersection lane
configurations for Existing Conditions shown in the Appendix and the intersection level of
service analysis methods described in the Existing Condition section of this report. The
traffic signal phase and cycle timing was assumed to remain the same as the timing used in
the Existing Condition analysis.
Table XV shows the results of the critical intersection level of service analysis. The table
presents a comparison of the Cumulative Condition and Cumulative with Project Condition
levels of service for the ten study area critical intersections. The results indicate that the
proposed project does not cause any additional intersections, not identified in the
Cumulative Condition section, to exceed the city of San Luis Obispo acceptable level of
service of LOS C. In addition, the construction of the proposed project improves the level
of service at the Prado Road/U.S. northbound ramps-Elks Lane intersection by removing
the Elks Lane approach to the intersection from the intersection.
The analysis of the traffic volumes for the no Prado Road interchange alternative indicated
that seven intersections would be operating at unacceptable levels of service. The
intersections were:
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off ramp-Calle Joaquin
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps
Madonna Road/Higuera Street
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps
Prado Road/South Higuera Street
Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street
Elks Lane/South Higuera Street
The addition of the proposed project traffic adds to the delay at these intersections.
For the Prado Road overcrossing alternative, seven intersections were projected to be
operating at unacceptable levels of service. The intersections were:
35
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off ramp-Calle Joaquin
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps
Madonna Road/Higuera Street
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps
Prado Road/South Higuera Street
Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street
Elks Lane/South Higuera Street
The addition of the proposed project traffic adds to the delay at these intersections.
For the Prado Road interchange alternative, seven intersections were projected to be
operating at unacceptable levels of service. The intersections were:
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off ramp-Calle Joaquin
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps
Madonna Road/Higuera Street
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps
Prado Road/South Higuera Street
Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street
Elks Lane/South Higuera Street
The addition of the proposed project traffic adds to the delay at these intersections.
Table XVI presents an analysis of the major roadway links that surround the project. For
the no Prado Road interchange alternative the following roadway segments are projected
to be operating at unacceptable levels of service:
South Higuera Street-Prado Road to Los Osos Valley Road
U.S. 101-North of Madonna Road
U.S. 101-Prado Road to Madonna Road
Madonna Road-El Mercado to U.S 101 southbound ramps
For the Prado Road overcrossing alternative the following roadway segments are projected
to be operating at unacceptable levels of service:
South Higuera Street-Prado Road to Los Osos Valley Road
U.S. 101-North of Madonna Road
Madonna Road-El Mercado to U.S 101 southbound ramps
36
to
o,
4v Tank Poem Rd
■
6 i CUEb n
MW Mal To some
AM Peak Hula'haeme
MVV Peak now Traffm
1 Madonna Rd - 2 Madonna Rd - 3 Madonna Rd - 4 Higuara Street - 5 Prado Rd-Wim -
Higuera Street US 101 NB Ramps US 101 SB Ramps Prado Road US 101 NB Ramps
x
90 y
to1 r X150 N
zT�
� gs, 1,0,� � �,�� �200 V5,y
6 S. Higuera St - y - 8 Las Osos Valley - 9 S. H19uCrR St -
Los Osos Valley Rd US 101 NB Ramps US 101 SB Ramps Tank Farm Rd Ells Ln
XL
J
173O�o N y N c30>50-I.Ly 3socs m
d�y IGy c10(10),0-->foo
�o5 J cs�to ,LZsocsso> OPA
if
hT
Cb
(=a rg 7r� os g
Cwnulative With ProjectA FIGURE
. C.TRANS r
No Prado Road Interchange H17
37
vA e0
s y�
o�
s
00 Jg
Taok.Fam PA
s
e�
s LEKOWD
*om Ms m aar
AM Peak Hour TMffio
a"Peak How Traffic
1 Madonna Rd - 2 Madonna Rd - 3 Madonna Rd - 4 Ffiguera Suvet - 5 Prado Rd-EHM -
Higuera Street US 101 NB Ramps US 101 SB Ramps Prado Road US 101
's Si
c-'14,,�lo(5o) ,.to) �yy� 44'320 �, �►
c9° �T 10(23) 6ovepi ��'°` �1,�Jl `� !.
,'�'�;�' '�,�
L a �3 ` o.°
6 S. Higuera St - - 8 Los Osos Valley - Suers t - 10 S. kilguera
Los Osos valley Rd US 101 NB Ramps US 101 SB Ramps Tank Farm Rd Elle La
16'16JlqU <-J \� N�03�1 F// (30)50 355(671) ` I
rho a `�iso � y LJ (IO)IO--> �s(1o) iy,z T y
,P K r�10 �w(sso) L5Q,
0
Lai
gg
Q mulative With Project o /��}�p�.
r r^T7��( e ''VTC R FIIJU'�""
1 1 11\V T
y ` �v Overcrossing Only � 18
38
2
� 4e ,o
s y
4°
Tank PDQ Rd
D LHdE M
!.y 1401b D.Y.
AM Pak Roe'LYaffie
O)bo Pak Roe Madit
1 Madonna Rd - 2 Madonna Rd - 3 Madonna Rd - 4 Htguera Street - 5 Prado Rd-EUM
Higuera Street US 101 NB Ramps US 101 SB Ramps Prado Road US 101 NB Ramps
J,y l0(so) 4ti0) v/� A l01 <.l
hT� .3S
Qa v
6 S. Higuera St - L.Os OSOS Valley - os Valley - 9 5. ruguera St - 1U N. kLIgUera
Los Osos Valley Rd US 101 NB Ramps US 101 SB Ramps Tank Farm Rd Elle Ln
s v
�^ o
fit
(30)30 �y 3«600) ,L
-P
y" fC (�10 L 10)
. (1lam' S'Q�
<-7 A� ��
' 3 .° 'row h
v
C=x&tive With Project o
. . FIGURE
` . R�T�N`� Prado Road Interchange 19
_.
39
R U R m m R Q R R m
Em ^ O P N M N m r m
t �' (� • ^ .n N N P N
y •j O V2 R m R Q w m m R R R . U m
m 3
W ° Ln m
e
e
O h U R U w m m R O R R m
C 4
4 �+ 4 Q. .Y • rz Y� Vf P1 N rl • `� • e
v f V �•+
Z
O .4 O h R m C. U w m m m 4 R Q m
U y
^ Y
d m
h N b N C Z
C •] O rA R Q R U w I R C• R R
P N N 11 • • C .
a0
F O f ..70N R m R U w 1 R R R U $
U E
FS ' Z
c ;
�• U m N
L Y � • ^ • � .� Q • • • N ti
V m
C
L
U w I R R R
C a c
a N u
A.
U
EG
U Q. m R. U w 1 Cl. R R m
U Q
4 E
CYrz
n a
N
ZZ � -7 O VJ C. U C. U C. Q C. C. fi C. U
96 6 RT V r N � app a T
:3J 4 y Y • • N pp • • • • y� �•
m .] O N R m R U w U R R R.
L�
> r 4
T /
Y U 0 • ^ • G • • • f�1 .�• C ;
C
F B
ce Y .J O y R U R U w w R R R m U
4 c
Z 4 u • ^ • �. • • • � Q S
cm
.q
Q " c 820
C
8 vi
U rn R m R U w Q R R R Q m C6
Q �
'/�' T�..• . C4
C • • • V] (P0 i
o
Z
`co co L° moi° C: Cao �I �o SSL° vee
UL
O Y C ^ N 0 " y Y O Z 6 Q
E of E �' �0 L• E Ln ao em �o Y! m y
f2 f � C � � E ft7S 4 � @ a. 2 F2 > 7
40
o•
� � � w m R m ❑ ❑ w a a
vq
O u•
eC E r Q Q Q Q Q
ZO v°r- 00
> a LS ZS 25 ZS a 25
.04
S
u m u n. ❑ ❑ ❑
C6
e° o•
u u u w ❑ ❑ w u u
Oa v
c Z oz a h
a
a a �
Q� Z
y
r
e _
`o = e
O
O O
C.
D r0 O O
T a.�
9 A G C .�
w L
a a e e m B B eSL �
S _ .,
v o 0 0 0 0 0 Com0 , y � CM
C 2 T vi ui vi vi 'm m E
n u
41
For the Prado Road interchange alternative the following roadway segments are projected
to be operating at unacceptable levels of service:
South Higuera Street-Prado Road to Los Osos Valley Road
U.S. 101-North of Madonna Road
U.S. 101-Prado Road to Madonna Road
Madonna Road-El Mercado to U.S 101 southbound ramps
Prado Road-South Higuera Street to U.S. 101
The proposed project would add 570 trips per day to Elks Lane. This could have an impact
on the existing land uses on Elks Lane (mobile home park) and the additional traffic could
cause a degradation of the pavement on Elks Lane. Construction of the Prado Road
extension to Madonna Road and interchange with U.S. 101 will reduce the traffic using Elks
Lane to 430 vehicle per day.
The buildout of the proposed project would add 100 trips per day to northbound U.S. 101
that enter the freeway at Prado Road and exit at Madonna Street and 50 trips per day to
northbound U.S. 101 that would enter the freeway at LoS,Osos Valley Road and exit at
Prado Road. Construction of the Prado Road extension to Madonna Road and interchange
with U.S. 101 will reduce traffic using northbound U.S. 101 from Prado Road to Madonna
Road to 25vehicles per day and the traffic on northbound U.S. 101 from Los Osos Valley
Road to Prado Road to 15 vehicles per day. Construction of just an overcrossing of U.S. 101
with no ramps with U.S. 101 would eliminate the possible weaving problem between vehicle
entering or exiting U.S. 101 between Prado Road and Madonna Road.
INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Two alternatives were evaluated, in this study, for the Prado Road northbound ramps. The
alternatives were: a diamond design and a design similar to the southbound Madonna
Road/U.S. 101 ramps (Type L-8) (See Figure 15). Based on the projected traffic volumes,
the diamond design would accommodate the traffic with the least amount of improvements.
With the diamond ramp configuration the projected heavy northbound U.S. 101 to
eastbound Prado Road movement is accommodated in a right turn move. Alternative two
accommodates the movement in a left turn move, which adds to delay to the intersection
and requires the construction of additional lanes at the intersection. Also, the alternative
two design extends the location of the northbound on-ramp merge point with U.S. 101
further north and closer to the Madonna Road/U.S. 101 northbound off-ramp diverging
point. This would reduce the weaving distance between the two interchanges.
As part of the analysis it was assumed that the Prado Road over-crossing would have four
through travel lanes. The intersection lane configurations included a left turn, a right turn
lane and two through lanes on the Prado Road approaches and a left turn and a right turn
lane on the U.S. 101 ramp approaches. Both intersections were assumed to be signalized.
42
Based on the assumptions,the LOS for the intersections were calculated. For the alternative
one (northbound diamond) the LOS was:
Peak Hour Delay L2
Prado Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps am 3.9 A
pm 13.8 B
Prado Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps am 10.6 B .
pm 9.3 B
For alternative two (northbound Type L-8) the LOS was:
Peak Hour Delay
Prado Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps am 3.9 A
pm 13.8 B
Prado Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps am 14.5 B
pm 13.8 B
The preliminary layout for the northbound off-ramp for Alternative one (diamond option)
is likely to necessitate the taking of some land and the moving of one small building on the
city of San Luis Obispo Corporate Yard.
The project has proposed dedication of the right-of-way needed for the northbound on-ramp
for alternative one (diamond option).
Additional study will be required to determine if an interchange would be allowed at Prado
Road. If the study determines that a full interchange with U.S. 101 and Prado Road was
allowed additional data would need to be developed as to the type of facility and location
of interchange ramps. The study process will be influenced by the proposed project and
development plans for the Dalidio property. As a specific plan is formulated for the Dalidio
property then traffic volumes for the area can be projected. After determining the land uses
in the interchange area and accompanying traffic projections a Project Study Report (PSR)
can be prepared in accordance with Caltrans guidelines. The PSR would be circulated for
review to the FHWA, Caltrans, County of San Luis Obispo, city of San luis Obispo and
other agencies. With an approved PSR the project can be included in the State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and a Project Development Cooperative
Agreement and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)be prepared. With the completion and
certification of the EIR then detailed Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) and a
Construction Cooperative Agreement can be prepared. From there construction can
commence.
43
FINDINGS AND RECOMDENDATIONS
EXISTING CONDITION
Three intersections are currently operating at unacceptable levels of service during the pm
peak hour. The intersections are:
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp-Calle Joaquin
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps
Madonna Road/Higuera Street
The following mitigations are needed to mitigate the level of service at the intersections to
an acceptable level. However, at two of the intersections mitigations are considered not
feasible due to right-of-way constraints. Table XVII shows the results of the intersection
level of service with mitigations. At the intersections with no feasible mitigation measures
an option to achieve an acceptable level of service would be through peak hour traffic
reductions via Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies.
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp-Calle Joaquin:
Add a second through lane on the westbound Los Osos Valley Road approach.
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps:
Add a right turn lane to the eastbound Madonna Road approach. Note: This
improvement is considered infeasible due to existing land use and right-of-way
constraints.
Madonna Road/Higuera Street:
Add a second left turn lane to the northbound Higuera Street approach.
Note: This improvement is considered infeasible given the existing land uses and
intersection spacing between Madonna Road/Higuera Street, Higuera Street and
South Street and Madonna Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps.
EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITION
_ Four intersections are projected to be operating at unacceptable levels of service during the
pm peak hour with the addition of project related traffic. The intersections are:
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp-Calle Joaquin
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps
Madonna Road/Higuera Street
Elks Lane/South Higuera Street (Phase 1, 2 & 3 and project buildout)
The following mitigations are needed to mitigate the level of service at the intersections to
an acceptable level. However, at two of the intersections mitigations are considered not
44
feasible due to right-of-way constraints. Table XVII shows the results of the intersection
level of service with mitigations.
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp-Calle Joaquin:
Add a second through lane on the westbound Los Osos Valley Road approach.
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps:
Add a right turn lane to the eastbound Madonna Road approach. Note: This
improvement is considered infeasible due to existing land use and right-of-way
constraints.
Madonna Road/Higuera Street:
Add a second left turn lane to the northbound Higuera Street approach.
Note: This improvement is considered infeasible given the existing land uses and
intersection spacing between Madonna Road/Higuera Street, Higuera Street and
South Street and Madonna Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps.
Elks Lane/South Higuera Street:
Install a traffic signal. Note: Discussions with city of San Luis Obispo staff indicates
that this is an infeasible mitigation.
Table XVIII shows the projects share of traffic at each of the critical intersections.
Recommended improvements to the site plan are:
Reduce the number of curves on the realigned Elks Lane to a maximum of three.
Also increase the minimum curve radius on Elks Lane to a 25 mile per hour design
speed.
Convert the first driveway north of the Elks Lane/Prado Road intersection on the
east side of Elks Lane to right turn in-and-out-only access. This would eliminate
conflicts between vehicles queued up at the Elks Lane/Prado Road intersection and
vehicle wishing to turn left from the driveway onto Elks Lane.
Install textured pavement and decrease the curb radius at the project entranceibus
stop on Elks Lane. This would reduce the possibility of vehicle driving into this area
thinking it is part of Elks Lane.
Convert the parking lot for the building on the west side of Elks Lane to a one-way
circulation pattern.
45
CUMULATIVE CONDITION
No Prado Road Interchange Alternative
Eight intersections would be operating at unacceptable levels of service. The intersections
were:
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off ramp-Calle Joaquin
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps
Madonna Road/Higuera Street
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps
Prado Road/South Higuera Street
Prado Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps-Elks Lane
Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street
Elks Lane/South Higuera Street
The installation of the Prado Road/U.S. 101 interchange and extension of Prado Road to
Madonna Road or installation of the extension of Prado Road to Madonna Road, with no
interchange with U.S. 101 would reduce the delay at one of the intersection to acceptable
levels (Prado Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps).
Without the interchange, the following intersection improvements would be needed to
accommodate the projected traffic for this alternative:
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp-Calle Joaquin:
Widen Los Osos Valley Road to four lanes from South Higuera Street to Madonna
Road. Add a third through lane to the westbound Los Osos Valley Road approach
to the intersection. The through lane would be carried through the intersection and
terminate west of the intersection.
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps:
Widen Los Osos Valley Road to four lanes from South Higuera Street to Madonna
Road and add a second left turn lane to the U.S. 101 off-ramp northbound approach.
Prado Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps:
Install a traffic signal.
Prado Road/South Higuera Street:
Add a right turn lane to the westbound Prado Road approach.
Add a second northbound left turn lane on the South Higuera Street approach.
Restripe the existing right turn lane to a thru/right turn lane on the Prado Road
eastbound and westbound approaches.
46
Madonna Road/Higuera Street:
Add a two left turn lanes on the northbound Higuera Street approach.
Add a third through lane on the southbound Higuera Street approach.
Note: These improvements are considered infeasible give the existing land uses and
intersection spacing between Madonna Road/Higuera Street, Higuera Street and
South Street and Madonna Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps.
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps:
Add through and right turn lane on the eastbound Madonna Road approach.
Add a left turn lane and a through lane on the westbound Madonna Road approach.
Add a left turn lane and convert the thru/left turn lane into a through lane on the
northbound U.S. 101 ramp approach. Note: this improvement may be infeasible due
to the proximity of existing land uses and would necessitate the widening of the
structure over U.S. 101.
Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street:
Add a left turn lane to the southbound South Higuera Street approach.
Add a through and right turn lanes to the northbound South Higuera Street
approach.
Add through lane and restripe the existing left/through lane to a left turn lane on
the westbound Tank Farm Road approach.
Elks Lane/South Higuera Street:
Install a traffic signal. Note: Discussions with city of San Luis Obispo staff indicates
that this is an infeasible mitigation.
Table XIX shows the project intersection delay and level of service with the feasible
recommended improvements. The intersections of Madonna Road/Higuera Street, Elks
Lane/South Higuera Street and Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps are still
projected to be operating at unacceptable LOS due to the lack of feasibility of providing
adequate mitigations to relieve projected traffic congestion.
Prado Road Overcrossing Only Alternative
Seven intersections would be operating at unacceptable levels of service. The intersections
were:
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off ramp-Calle Joaquin
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps
Madonna Road/Higuera Street
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps
Prado Road/South Higuera Street
Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street
Elks Lane/South Higuera Street
47
With construction of just an overcrossing with no interchange, the following intersection
improvements would be needed to accommodate the projected traffic for this alternative:
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp-Calle Joaquin:
Widen Los Osos Valley Road to four lanes from South Higuera Street to Madonna
Road. Add a third through lane to the westbound Los Osos Valley Road approach
to the intersection. The through lane would be carried through the intersection and
terminate west of the intersection.
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps:
Widen Los Osos Valley Road to four lanes from South Higuera Street to Madonna
Road and add a second left turn lane to the U.S. 101 off-ramp northbound approach. .
Prado Road/South Higuera Street:
Add a right turn lane to the westbound Prado Road approach.
Add a second northbound left turn lane on the South Higuera Street approach.
Restripe the existing right turn lane to a thru/right turn lane on the Prado Road
eastbound and westbound approaches.
Madonna Road/Higuera Street:
Add a two left turn lanes on the northbound Higuera Street approach.
Add a third through lane on the southbound Higuera Street approach.
Note: These improvements are considered infeasible give the existing land uses and
intersection spacing between Madonna Road/Higuera Street, Higuera Street and
South Street and Madonna Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps.
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps:
Add through and right turn lane on the eastbound Madonna Road approach.
Add a left turn lane and a through lane on the westbound Madonna Road approach.
Add a left turn lane and convert the thru/left turn lane into a through lane on the
northbound U.S. 101 ramp approach. Note: this improvement may be infeasible due
to the proximity of existing land uses and would necessitate the widening of the
structure over U.S. 101.
Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street:
Add a left turn lane to the southbound South Higuera Street approach.
Add a through and right turn lanes to the northbound South Higuera Street
approach.
Add through lane and restripe the existing left/through lane to a left-turn lane on
the westbound Tank Farm Road approach.
Elks Lane/South Higuera Street:
Install a traffic signal. Note: Discussions with city of San Luis Obispo staff indicates
that this is an infeasible mitigation.
48
Table XIX shows the project intersection delay and level of service with the feasible
recommended improvements. The intersections of Madonna Road/Higuera Street, Elks
Lane/South Higuera Street and Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps are still
projected to be operating at unacceptable LOS due to the lack of feasibility of providing
adequate mitigations to relieve projected traffic congestion.
Prado Road Interchange Alternative
Seven intersections were projected to be operating at unacceptable levels of service. The
intersections were:
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off ramp-Calle Joaquin
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps
Madonna Road/Higuera Street
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps
Prado Road/South Higuera Street
Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street
Elks Lane/South Higuera Street
The following intersection improvements are necessary to mitigate the intersection LOS to
acceptable levels:
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp-Calle Joaquin:
Widen Los Osos Valley Road to four lanes from South Higuera Street to Madonna
Road.
Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps:
Widen Los Osos Valley Road to four lanes from South Higuera Street to Madonna
Road and add a second left turn lane to the U.S. 101 off-ramp northbound approach.
Prado Road/South Higuera Street:
Add a right turn lane to the westbound Prado Road approach.
Add a second northbound left turn lane on the South Higuera Street approach.
Restripe the existing right turn lane to a through on the westbound approach and a
thru/right turn lane on the eastbound approach to Prado Road.
Madonna Road/Higuera Street:
Add a two left turn lanes on the northbound Higuera Street approach.
Add a third through lane on the southbound Higuera Street approach.
Note: These improvements are considered infeasible give the existing land uses and
intersection spacing between Madonna Road/Higuera Street, Higuera Street and
South Street and Madonna Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps.
49
Madonna Road/U.S. 101 southbound ramps:
Add a through turn lane on the eastbound Madonna Road approach.
Add a left turn lane and a through lane on the westbound Madonna Road approach.
Add a left turn lane and convert the thru/left turn lane into a through lane on the
northbound U.S. 101 ramp approach. Note: this improvement may be infeasible due
to the proximity of existing land uses and would necessitate the widening of the
structure over U.S. 101.
Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street:
Add a left turn lane to the southbound South Higuera Street approach.
Add a through and right turn lanes to the northbound South Higuera Street
approach.
Add through lane and restripe the existing left/through lane to a left turn lane on
the westbound Tank Farm Road approach.
Elks Lane/South Higuera Street:
Install a traffic signal. Note: Discussions with city of San Luis Obispo staff indicates
that this is an infeasible mitigation.
Table XIX shows the project intersection delay and level of service with the feasible
recommended improvements. The intersections of Madonna Road/Higuera Street, Elks
Lane/South Higuera Street and Madonna Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps are still
projected to be operating at unacceptable LOS due to the lack of feasibility of providing
adequate mitigations to relieve projected traffic congestion.
CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT CONDITION
The proposed project traffic impacts did not cause any of the ten study area critical
intersections, that were not already operating at unacceptable levels of service, to operate
at unacceptable levels for the Cumulative Condition for either the no Prado Road
interchange alternative, Prado Road overcrossing only or Prado Road interchange
alternative. Thus, there are no new physical improvements or mitigation measures that need
to be recommended to the roadway intersections surrounding the project. Table XIX shows
the level of service at each of the study area critical intersections with the mitigation
measures recommended in the Cumulative Condition section. The project should contribute
to a fund that would provide the funding for the improvements recommended for the
roadways and intersections in the study area. The contributions should be based on the
projects share of the total traffic on the facility. Table XVIII shows the projects impact to
the critical intersection in terms of percentage of future traffic at each intersection
However, given the large number of intersections and roadways identified in this report and
in the San Luis ObisQo City-Wide Transportation Study, DKS Associates, July 1990 as
operating a unacceptable levels of service it is apparent that either additional roadway
improvements are needed or am peak hour and pm peak hour trip generation within the
so
San Luis Obispo area need to be reduced.This reduction could be done two ways: reduction
in land use intensity or to reduce peak hour travel and increase peak hour transit and non-
vehicle modes of travel.
To that end it is recommended that within the San Luis Obispo area that all existing and
new employers with 50 or more employees, including commercial uses, be required to
develop a TSM program to reduce their peak hour single occupancy vehicle trip generation.
The City and County of San Luis Obispo should seriously look into a TSM ordinance and
program. This would include providing staff to evaluate yearly surveys and coordinate TSM
programs.
A reduction in the am peak hour (7:30-8:30) and pm peak hour (4:30-5:30) single occupancy
vehicle trip generation, through increased off peak travel and increased transit use could
reduce traffic impacts to all of the intersections within the San Luis Obispo area. This in
turn could reduce the need for costly roadway improvements. The City and County should
adopt a fixed goal percent reduction in peak hour single occupancy vehicle use for all
employers with 50 or more employees.
To help reduce single-occupancy vehicle volumes from the and reduce peak hour congestion
it is recommended that the project should be required to install the following TSM
measures: a bus stop on Prado Road at the project frontage,bicycle storage lockers, showers
and lockers, a pedestrian connection to the existing office park on South Higuera Street,
preferential parking for carpool and vanpools have an annual survey to determine the
employee mode choices, housing locations and possible transit improvements.
The diamond type interchange is recommended as the best alternative for the design of the
northbound ramps at the future Prado Road/U.S. 101 interchange.
51
aOv, o m W a m a m u ❑ ❑ m
y
Ko
pQ�U m ❑ Q ❑ Q m ❑ ❑ U m
e y
fn
4 Q a N .. Hf ^ C .�+ N
v
..1 O h m m W a Is7 Q m U ❑ ❑ m
y
m e
y m
En
L;
0.
L ^ m^ 00 O� 00 00 'p N �.
� � ❑ v N Y
L
N ffi
m
-joy u m ❑ a ❑ a m ❑ a u m
m ` d y
a �
z m a`6.
c r
G
`� � Ovr r. m w a o a m v ❑ ❑ m o
❑
W y
< a
C E N 0.
L ❑ v
.goy u m ❑ a ❑ Q m ❑ ❑ u m
C 0. y C
v L Y
VOD N ^ r
U ❑ v N ^' M N
5O
En in�. m m a ❑ a m V inCL. o m
O
�7 0
.o a e�f e o ao r r •• �
E a p 5S h e o ^ u
Z a =
OC
yUm too. U m ❑ 6 ❑ a m ❑ ❑ U m
6
� � ❑Y � N O^ � Vj .p. p .a. � N N '� Y
v
s
0
eO _
V Y
.� 0 U m In a u a m ❑ ❑ u m 8
E
a
Qv Y
E
V
vj yf o Vl
_
fA h
OC d a'C E E ,� a `m —N dp > u
cA m O 9 E C
c cmc e @ a E Y iz. @ �6 vivi �n
O e O z O N V1 Y V E '4 � y Y O \ L \ 6 O vi
m m m -� .2go mm S c 9_0 pp E o f Yt o w
fS � � L � ti732N 06 icS FS 3C L° � a @ 3oG e
52
a
n.
C9
5 h pippp
96
Z
O
s Z
0 4
2 �
r O
?c z
�n a
� f
� U v
Z
o �
Cd
a c
N es'f v4 e r esn w�i m
A. Z a
Z
� o v
Z caC a Kl
as a "e9
v
m m 4 y y Q O q D Q
2 N Vl
s SS o �f o 20 _� o�° c e o
O ^ O ^ o u p ^ ted ^ o
14 = .3V vi0.
53
. . jOy R U -r 6. U R m m U m p U iL
L 4 � � • N S � N � .fin � H N w �
P
.0
00 R m R Q 61 m m m m U m m
� � y � • $ 2S �O ^ ^ O f�`• P Pf Pf
C
9
R U m m m U m O U m
o y
v _
1� • ^ � a0
ON
p v pd:3. f1 ; M + ..� N ...� w•
m
UR U iG m m m m U m m
S m
z � Y � • e� M p Ai ,�, N .P. .�. � r
O p ,,, .-. '� .. of ..� .• �
pE aEQ
R' U W 1 m U U
a _
a r
d o = sad F
C7 E B
o Y goy R n R U C7 1 n m U m U c
z
y c E u u
c
m
v y .4 O y R U RU W 1 R
Cl.
0 cm co
R m R U 67 1 R m U m m
E
a E $
= s
u n
m r+
R U Ck U C G V v U V v
Z uCL.
N
u
R m R U f27 U U m U m m Z O
ra. .. m .. N
d' .l O y R U R U G1 67 U U
G
@ � u
a
7 V1
..1 O y R m R U W O U m U m m C6
U " _
s
s 75 @
2z
c q m m u u u
CCC.
o ^ g o o \ o e u Y u O Y o g O Y o g O Y@ s F
.� m vi E vm wi E Al
54
TABLE XX LEVEL OF SERVICE AT SIVDY AREAROADWAYS CUMULATIVE W1TH PROJECT CONDITION-MITIGATED
Roadway Location No Prado Road Interchange Prado Road Overcrossing Prado Road Interchange
No.of ADT Level of No.of ADT Level of No.of ADT Level of
Lanes Volume Servicer lanes VO0 me Service11 Innes Volume Service
(Vch/Day)' (Veh/Day) (Veh/Day)
Prado Rd U.S. 101 to S. 2 11300 C 4 23,000 C 6 32,9002 C
Higuera
S.Higuera St Madonna to Prado 4 23,600 C 6 29,000 B 6 29+� B
S.Higuera St Prado to Los Osos 4 23,000 C 4 23,000 C 4 19,0002 B
Valley
U.S. 101 North of Madonna 6 79,000 B 6 79,000 B 6 79,000 B
U.S.101 Madonna to Prado 6 66,000 A 4 59,000 D 6 70.000 A
U.S. 101 Prado to Las Osas 4 62,000 D 4 59,000 D 4 62,000 D i
Valley
U.S.101 South of Los Osos 4 62,000 D 4 62,000 D 4 62,000 D
Valley
Madonna Higuera to Los 6 50.000 F. 6 48,000 F 6 45,000 E
L
Osos Valley
Madonna to U.S. 4 24,000 C 4 18,000 A 4 18,000 A
101
U.S.101 to S. 4 18,000 C 4 18,000 A 4 15.000 A I�
Higuera "
are o[ at Traffic, dtrecnous
•• See Table VII for Level of Service criteria.
55
-APPENDIX
REFERENCES
Carlton, Austin, Caltrans District 5, conversation, July 26, 1991.
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, Initial Study of
Environmental Imp, January 10, 1986.
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, Council Agenda Report,
June 1986.
City of San Luis Obispo, Department of Public Works, Traffic Volumes, July 1991.
DKS and Associates, Draft San Luis Obispo City-Wide Transportation Studv, July 1990.
Heath, W.P. San Luis Obispo Social Services Center Supplemental Traffic Report, May 5,
1986.
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation. 5th Edition., 1990.
Jay Farbstein & Associates, Inc., Social Services Building: Pedestrian Linkage Study,
June 8, 1986.
SLO Transit, Bus Schedules, September 1990.
Rawles, John, Engineer, City of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works,
conversation, July 25, 1991.
Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual Special Report 209 3rd ed. ,
1985.
Transportation Research Board,Interim Materials on HighwU CaRacity Circular 212, 1980.
EXISTING CUMULATIVE EXISTING CUMULATIVE
Higuw4bdonna Los osos Valley/
Same as Existing US 101 SB Ramps Same as Existing
Madonma/US 101 Los osos Valley/
Northbound Ramps US 101 NB Ramps Same as Existing
Same as Existing g
Madonna/US 101 Los osos Valley/
Southbound Ramps South Higuera
--71 � Same as Existing � J I Same as Existing
--�, ) TT
Prado/South Higuera Tank Farm/S. Higuera
I l Same as Existing �„�,� Same as Existing
Prado/US 101 With Project Elks/Higuera
Northbound Ramps stop Same as Existing
stop
Ir
SWP TT
_ Intersection Lane LR FIGURE� A �Tr T NSConfigurations A-1
EXISTING WITH PROJECT EXISTING WITH PROJECT
HigueraJMadonna Los Osos Valley/
Same as Existing US 101 SB Ramps Same as Existing
J4 —4ki � t—
Madonna/US 101 Los Osos Valley/
Northbound Ramps US 101 NB Same as Existing Ramps Same as Existing
—4 F—
4
Madonna/US 101 Los Osos Valley/
Southbound Ramps South Higuera
—71 �� Same as Existing Same as Existing
Prado/South Higuera Tank Farm/S. Higuera
Same as Existing ��,Lj Same as Existing
—71
7
Prado/US 101 Ellcs/Higuera
Northbound Ramps
stop stop °I stop �, �, Same as Existing
S"
Mitigated Intersection Lane H
QTR ANS Configurations: Existing and T FIGURE
a av Existing With Project A-2
No Interchange Alt. Interchange Alt. No Interchange Alt. Interchange Alt.
Higuera/Madonna Los Osos Valley/
► AIL Same as No US 101 SB Ramps
� Interchange Alt. �' �•
t� le
Madonna/US 101 Los Osos Valley/
Northbound Ramps US 101 NB Ramps
Same as No Same as No
- t.
Interchange Alt. Interchange Al
Madonna/US 101 Los Osos Valley/
Southbound Ramps South Higuera
�� Same as No � � � Same as No
Interchange Alt. Interchange Alt.
V TT
Prado/South Higuera Tank Farm/S. Higuera
1�r— Same as No Same as No
Interchange Alt. Interchange Alt.
�TT �
Prado/US 101 Effigf iguera
Northbound Ramps
,L Same as No
Interchange Alt.
MA
Mitigated Intersection Lane R i~IccrRE
�TRaivs
` ` .. ConfigmtionS: Cumulative A-3
r
Appendix F
Archaeological Investigation
PARKER & ASSOCIATES
2131 Sunset
Morro Bay, CA. 93442
(805) 772-0117
PSR C H E O L O G = C A L I N V E S T = C A T I O N
of Parcel #
053 - 041 - 034
S a n L u i s Obispo , C a l i f o r n i a
Prepared at the request of :
Michael Multari
Crawford Multari & Starr
641 Higuera St. Suite 202
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
1991
Certified
FIELD AND RESEARCH ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES
SUMMARY
On April 11 , Michael Multari requested that the author conduct an
archeological investigation of a parcel located at the corner of
; Prado Rd. and Elks Ln, San Luis Obispo. The purpose of the
investigation was to locate, describe, and evaluate any
archaeological or historical resources which may be present on
the property. In addition, The author was to assess the impact
which might occur as a result of the proposed development of
office buildings on the parcels .
The result of this analysis indicated that no prehistoric
archaeological resources exist on the surface of the parcel . A
historic ranch house complex was found to exist on the parcel ,
however, preliminary - research indicated that the standing
structures are not "unique" as outlined in CEQA (Section
21083 . 2 ) . Significant historic artifacts may exist underground
in buried trash pits , abandon well fill , and filled privy pits .
It is recommended that the proposed project be approved as
planned with the provision that an archaeologist be retained to
monitor demolition, grading and trenching and to record and
recover significant bultural items which may be unearthed by
these activities ( see Conclusions and Recommendations Section for.
details) .
INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND
The field work carried out as part of this study was conducted by
John Parker. Mr. Parker holds a Masters Degree in Anthropology,
is a PhD Candidate in Archeology, and is certified by the Society
of Professional Archeologists . The field work took place April
14 , 1991 .
The parcel investigated covers 9 acres of land and is located at
the northeast corner of the intersection of Prado Rd. and Elks
Ln. , between San Luis Obispo Creek and Hwy 101 at the south end
of San Luis Obispo. The property is depicted on the San Luis
Obispo 7 . 5' USES topographic map as existing in NE 1/4 of the NW _
1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 3, T31S, R12E ( see attached map) .
Soil across the parcel consisted of a rich dark gray/brown
alluvium which is likely the result of overbank deposits from the
flooding of San Luis Obispo Creek. The property has supported
agricultural crops and grazing for the past 200+ years . From the
late 1800 ' s , till 1940 , the parcel fronted the Pacific Coast
Railroad [where Elks Ln . and Hwy 101 now sit] (Krieger 1988 ,
Sanborn Insurance Maps 1900 , Henderson 1890 , Harris 1874) . The
existing historic ranch house, barn and out-buildings are
oriented toward the rail bed to the west and it is probable that
a road extended from the house to the rail line -before the
construction of Prado Rd.
Prior to European settlement, the project area would have been
controlled by the Obispeno subdivision of the larger Chumash
cultural group. The Obispeno are believed to have controlled a
territory which extended from the Pacific Ocean eastward to the
Carrizo Plain and from Morro Bay south to Pismo Beach (Greenwood
1978 ) .
The proposed project calls for the demolition of all structures
currently on the parcel as well as grading and trenching for
foundations, utilities, and access roads to enable new
development .
FIELD METHODS
Prior to the field inspection, a record search was conducted at'
the Regional Archaeological Information Center (Dept. of
Anthropology, U. C. Santa Barbara) . This records review revealed
that the parcel had not been the subject of an archaeological%
inspection in the past. However, one prehistoric archaeological
site had been previously recorded within 500 feet of 'the project
area.
The field work consisted of an intensive surface examination of
all portions of the property. This inspection was conducted by
walking transects across the property at 5 to 8 meter intervals .
Although spring vegetation was well developed, open patches
between plants allowed complete inspection of the ground surface '
over the entire area. Special attention was given to examining
the ground around the historic structures for traces of previous
buildings , trash deposits, etc . The structures were also
examined in an effort to determine their use, style and period of
construction.
The only area where ground inspection was not possible was the
southwest corner of the study area. A service station is
constructed atop fill in this area and the entire corner is
covered with asphalt ( see attached map) .
Following the field inspection, historic documents were examined
in an effort to determine the significance and age of the
historic structures .
STUDY RESULTS
No prehistoric cultural materials were encountered during the
field inspection, However, due to soils morphology in the area,
there is the potential for buried archaeological remains .
Farm House
Upon inspection, the farmhouse turned out to be a simple
rendition of a Victorian Queen Anne Cottage . This style was one
of the favorites in the San Francisco Bay area in the late 1880 ' s
and throughout the 1890 ' s . The style is characterized by a showy
front gable which is usually filled with textured shingles ,
stained glass window, etc. Front porch and window areas oftexi
contain turned supports, gingerbread trim, etc. It is safe to
assume that the house was constructed sometime between 1890 and
1910 . The house and water tower were both constructed with bevel
siding suggesting the two were constructed at the same time. The
house was later covered with a second layer of siding ( it no
longer resembles the water tower) .
Additions to the house include internal plumbing and electrical ,
and the addition of a rear utility porch. Internal plumbing and
electrical probably occurred shortly after construction ( 1906-
1915) as evidenced by exterior vent pipes and sewer line. The
back porch was constructed prior to the installation of the new
exterior siding. The interior of the structure didn' t show any
signs of wall or room additions or demolition. With the
exception of paint; wallpaper, and floor covering, the interior
is as it was when the house was first constructed.
Out Buildings
Standing structures included a garage (facing Prado Rd. ) , a hay
barn with side shed-roofed areas to store tack, a fuel shed,
water tower, pump/well house, chicken coup, two other small
sheds , and fence lines .
The garage was likely built following the construction of Prado
Rd.
There were no period indicators associated with the Barn, fuel
shed, chicken coup, or smaller sheds . The pump house and new
well appeared to be a relatively recent addition with electric
pump and pressure tank.
It will be possible to determine the age of these -structures by
recovering associated cultural items during the demolition and
grading of the area.
Other Features
Non structural features included the remains of the original
brick-lined well , two areas of historic artifact concentration, a
concrete slab and clothes line setup, and several pieces of
agricultural equipment (plow, discing machine, etc. ) .
The brick-lined well is likely to be filled with progressive
layers of historic cultural material . Such features are often
used by their owners as an almost bottomless garbage can. When
excavated, their contents can provide an excellent insight into
the daily life of the people who owned them.
Similar historic materials are likely to be recovered from old
privy pits and trash pits . These features will often not be
obvious from surface examination, but may show up as
concentrations of broken glass , pottery, . etc. on the surface.
Through documentation, the agricultural equipment can be compared
with equipment from different areas and different time periods to
provide information on the independent development of new
techniques and ideas for tillage, planting, harvesting, etc.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Prehistoric Archaeological Resources
No surface remains of Native American habitation were observed.
Though it is unlikely that buried prehistoric materials exist on
the parcel , the soil morphology indicates that there is a remote
possibility that buried cultural material might not have been
apparent during the surface inspection.
It is recommended that an archaeologist be retained to monitor
grading and trenching. In the unlikely event that significant
materials are encountered, equipment should be temporarily
directed to work on other areas of the parcel while these remains
are documented and removed. In the event that prehistoric Native
American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor
should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document
and remove the items .
Farm House
Although this structure is a good example of the Queen Anne
Cottage style of the 1890' s , there are several structures of this .
style in and around the city if San Luis Obispo which are being .
well maintained by their owners . It is recommended that photo-
documentation be conducted prior to demolition.
Out Buildings
The water tower should be photo-documented prior to demolition.
The other utility buildings don' t represent any significant style
azid do not require any special treatment prior to demolition.
An archaeologist should be on hand to monitor demolition of all
structures and record and collect any significant historical
materials or cultural artifacts which may turn up as a result of
this work.
Other Features
The abandon brick-lined well and areas of surface concentration
of broken glass are likely to contain quantities of buried
historic artifacts . In addition, there. . is a high probability
that buried trash pits and privy pits exist on the property.
. It is recommended that an archaeologist be retained to monitor
. the grading and trenching in and around the farm house complex.
If significant concentrations of historic materials are.
encountered, the archaeologist should work closely with the
backhoe operator to carefully expose, record and remove such
. materials during the grading and trenching phase . of project.
; development.
General
If the recording and recovery of historic materials becomes
necessary during the grading and trenching phase of the project, _
such work should be conducted alongside, and in concert with,
earth-moving activities to avoid any unnecessary costs or time
delays during construction.
In the area of the ranch house complex, one archaeological
monitor should be '. on site for each piece of earth moving
equipment used.
Throughout the rest of the property, only one archaeological
monitor is necessary, regardless of the amount of equipment used.
Bibliography
Greenwood Roberta
1978 "Obispeno and Purisimeno Chumash" Handbook of North
Amer .�annian_S, Vol . 8 , Smithsonian Institute, Washington,
D. C.
Harris, R.R.
1874 "Map of San Luis Obispo County" , copy on file at the
San Luis Obispo. County Government Center.
Henderson, Chas
1890 "Map of San Luis Obispo County" , copy on file at the
San Luis Obispo County Government Center.
Krieger
1988 San..__Luis Obispo_County__�Lopi �n.g_ .aG_kN.axd...i.n. o_t.he
Mddle_._..K�ng.d.c2m, Windsor Publications Inc, Northridge, CA.
Sanborn Insurance Maps
1900 "San Luis Obispo Street Maps" Microfilm on file with
the San Luis Obispo County Library.
GENERAL PROJECT LOCATION
` 11 S_ II II._
f!_NNb_IIJh- �. GCPnIIr •. `: ,l '1 ' lS Cr6 1l
I I.I. 1 � I•u 1 'ti �•%\�'.'.�• '•1 ••I;�K•
' ``IIII • : '. _. -11-IUM \,` ._.��SJL_JI— —_.—
OIDrN1LLlU�_'ll BLVD
'•: I{, +.. 1\-•14{ ,— I —I 1 11 I/ •o
I(I Y f• IIIr•�li�.\ r••�` •i{'O ��f jRE,O�(`ICK's _I.-lir J I,I �I\I
aarONl _ORl(`II•�, �I_ I I: 11 ,If'��� ,7 •.ILy. - II r I I I�� ntY \I
....II , Slerra'vi la. '.. 1 ..
_b I __ �o
1 I-. I� pII 1 ,
`0, TA nMIrI \', n.-T l''II. al � I
✓ •< I, I---� F31 OM h ,1<0 l /r :�' \h•/ LI lT1'I7 '�`''
L 'Sarila Ros 262
/1.t .�� :I •��O �I1tp_lla I . Park •.J� +';`� I•. 'r, .I ( r •n
r J--_— . •I•• IO. • I` �-a s !•� 11- ' � �t•Y ,.V I I
-ter
1 r
InF e? v 12-� I � 1
•Watc:r?71\l I r/ \ `�I��pJ .. zya);y -•• + v o 2eor•rQ� .1 1f�) 'rl '-�� '.�• ��.o�C
V
lank \, I '• 1I.�i�\�,-.�.71 $ '�f .?=r ( IS
Q .
�• :, i I tn til �� 1!\(ho ,� .� \' 1 L .!%\. :
v L (KS[T'r-IVJ \f' '
\ P� / + I :(Ilich
'./�1.2 f7.,• r' 1 ,' \ 1 •:�•i \ .sem`J�� \ ,{(f•1 25✓ I � '1'II`� 1'.\
iso•' SdII�U S 0�iS O •i1 i �I � '. °%: IsalG Ir� .6 I ...0
I+,rn 1 a ti'} fl y , v d' d y
I'•. ;, '/ .'r, / "I��( f]r Ili .�l•h' . 1 ± 'I:i ;1•I.\
1 .
1�1 II' ./ Niaei.a '1(:e111 nr1 aun•f.0 Rh�.lw.rf•« nlwlf 4811 el L` '' i •.`'. � I
\� 1 J �)•' -/ I'I ' IliKh vh., •.�/ V. N ,�l�'�n„ 0ohc :.�, l\ _ ( 'I. :;1�•)�'
_a"" __ .1 dCis:ioll:Plar�`-'.- /_f Q�� ,( 31 ilcfl2 _ ;,may. _•`�•.y' rl. -r �'1'- -7 .
I S
. o ;Hark o Park
�} C. Falk
At D5 +`>• :� �\�. r I I111� \ `I(I
.� .I � 1� l �• r •I 1
✓; .xa � ` t
y (f
I-J' I / �s' S. r9z) -'•a` \/r�
I P �::.
.�, ,• ��� � . .246,
,•, . I /,p/,I n ,•s' 'r
$anon•/ I
•ra ("n _\ ;. ) -� •'l.. :a , \
I i I I�. / X0;1i 3�1I/I g/ .< --��•' I. ;
r I - f1f4 7Pt>• ji� 5J%' YO•�Y• I I '1\' ,'..� < \I'flqa/IL:y',':••••:':i(` 1\
l nu
�•%�' F� II•� I f er ace
� .t
.3r{I' "•' ' t`q\c `c ;;+: `' I
3/! I � .Ny % '1?. ! Hill oe
i[, ! ► c �`�' x;35 ^' I I ,J,... �,• ;'':
\,n Jlr: .1" irr0ir • ,I5 r \ y,/ "fit` ; •\ -tea..,
`� ' %•��� `r I II'Iwtlurrllr r7 \ \ !✓ .•�. :••,
\. I I
OL. r II_�.,��11 d .b 5,•11 CI„�, - r GII•. •: �•••:• :v
�y 1- i':' 1. •II ii;:” 1..r,.••r '.
Isourlll ,Grel.... .... r _ �z�rivb�i I;' :I•'i :="':'::. 1r?: If.:• '
� Mc:l'1r4v II�Q.r' \ \ -p I•:�:..•:, JOIIIISuI\'••::•
Ir Jrai cr 1 -,.�� a b p•
Racho Tower. '-- I , '(1\Z ) I. 5inahulmrr\\1 Park 4�
� ?\�l 1:. .I 1 Sell / - !
' so
(KATY) _ �� a t+...
-v •In II n F� 1 - .��, Park .:.' 1•' •i,
/ l A sinsheimer l
,,� I t0 �.` TI)bl�ll^ z'i�^gin r l si/I '.�.WC1, / Water'."IV
: ,h
.l.�po• in ��.�/ II _B _i2lriaielL . / 'Tank I.'.-SOL
- - - - (�(•
A,
- ---1-=- ,� +_T I I.- �l 'Day 5x11
I\ f a(rk :s]< I � -_ `�v• / 1�vIT.` p�:
Vi
�-�
:�(?.. P•\ //'' I. .1''.' I 'f•a. \'. 221 - II• I� �•IPTrai
r1 I II I,•li \ ' RM !•'. l� Parl
`� I• /� I it 11 ilk I �. S
r •Urivl•u• }— h'flaticr II . 1 'l, •'\
Well• rt ll, .r —N .NrR `l, `. I .1� ,\9 , `. ,( X
4 !�!9 •11. Il ltnller
Sewa(re II I'4rk •II �- ,1 ,
:i•ll �' .Y 'y •Illsllu3al '. I ',Ia r �• '+!1 �. 'I ) \' �` V.
V it
1111,9
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF.
35120-CG-TF-024
1955
PHOTOREVISED 1979
AREA INSPECTED
. . ... ........... ._......ti,. ...... .... ... ......J .-���..��- ——
ca
s ` y , J- .•_l.• Bey.
nv ,
2,g
J zj
y 9. a4
• `ry O 22 , n••o•<f ��•
.r.as.10.... m
r
e.le
F ae
,p 4
,
j.
400
h•.
�8
/•�i • 41 I ti
Im•I
r 1
'30o� J2ADIVh " ; ;~
: Y
4 �
� 4
,•T Jyv/. ,
4`
.P e
DETAIL OF RANCH HOUSE COMPLEX
I
i
Iw
DI.41( I
a� EW_
SN�b \
SPOD
or
o•nrr�fi� r,w
I, tA�T •)
r•N
• , � u�7(� .,(� /tel fti'/r �f ' �\ � 1
Ca�Vc�/rRA-Tia^��• � / O . , , ; :: ..�
MAT�RigL //� Lam..,""' _�\ \•xxx�a �•�;� '.�� � � •
i io• :o•E ^1 i i
i
Wig' a
3c• 5`
1 1z ' b8-
GE
�.
rA
TSN
S+CD
i ur.
e