HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/01/1994, 3 - GP/R ANNX 54-93: CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/PREZONING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ANNEXATION OF A 22.05 ACRE SITE ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH HIGUERA STREET BETWEEN TANK FARM ROAD AND SUBURBAN ROAD. '�����►���IIII@ ll�l�l City of San LUIS OBISPO - MEETING°arE: '
Memo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
From: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Directo6l t;.. A5
Prepared by: Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: GP/R ANNX 54-93: Consideration of a General Plan Amendment/Prezoning
in conjunction with the annexation of a 22.05 acre site on the east side of South Higuera
Street between Tank Farm Road and Suburban Road.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
a) Adopt a resolution concurring with the mitigated negative declaration of
environmental impact, and amending the General Plan Land Use Element Map to
change the designation for the project site from Rural Industrial to Service-
Commercial/Light Manufacturing as shown in Exhibit A, and
b) Pass to print an ordinance prezoning the annexation area Service-Commercial (C-S)
and Service-Commercial Special Consideration (C-S-S).
c) Adopt a resolution recommending that LAFCo approve the annexation.
REPORT IN BRIEF
This application for annexation and prezoning of roughly 22 acres along South Higuera
Street was reviewed by the Council on December 7, 1993. Discussion focused on C-N versus
C-S prezoning; open space requirements; impacts on the neighborhood of possible future
land uses, including uses with a regional draw. Six members of the public commented on
the project. The Council continued action on a vote of 4 to 1 with direction to staff to work
with the applicant regarding C-S rather than C-N zoning and provision of open space.
Minutes of the Council meeting are attached.
Two aspects of the project have been revised. The applicant is no longer asking that
roughly 12 acres along the South Higuera Street frontage be prezoned Commercial-
Neighborhood. Instead, a base zoning of Service-Commercial is proposed for the entire site.
Secondly,the project has been revised to include an$88,000 in-lieu contribution to the City's
park lands fund to comply with the General Plan annexation policy requiring minor
annexations to provide open space.
The project involves annexation and prezoning only, although a conceptual development
plan has been submitted for preliminary comments. Further subdivision and site
development will be reviewed separately upon receipt of appropriate applications. Because
approval of annexation and prezoning is a legislative act, the project must be accepted or
rejected as it's proposed. Approval cannot be conditioned.
3-1
�luh�►l►i►�Illlllllil� lllllll city or San WIS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TK Annexation
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Data Summary
Applicant: M. Timm Development, Inc. and Larry Kreutzkampf, a partner
Representative: Dean Benedix, RRM
General Plan: Rural Industrial
Environmental Status: A draft initial environmental study was approved for publication by
the Director on November 12, 1993. It has been amended to reflect insignificant project
changes related to requested zoning designation and compliance with open space policies.
Project Action Deadline: Legislative actions are not subject to processing deadlines.
Project Scope
The applicant is requesting that the 22.05 acre site be annexed into the City and prezoned
Service-Commercial, consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element update. Roughly
35 acres of the site is currently developed with ministorage warehouse buildings; the
remaining area is vacant. No site development is proposed at this time in conjunction with
the annexation and prezoning request. In lieu of a development plan, the applicant is
requesting Special Consideration overlay zoning for the undeveloped portions of the site,
which would allow the Planning Commission to review all future use and site development
proposals.
Planning Commission Review
On November 17,the Planning Commission reviewed the annexation and prezoning request
and is recommending: 1) Council approval of the annexation; 2) project compliance with
City annexation policy requiring provision of open space; and 3) prezoning the entire site
Service-Commercial,with a Special Consideration overlay applied to portions of the site not
yet developed. Minutes of the meeting are attached.
Most of the public discussion centered around developing a shopping center along the South
Higuera Street frontage. Two people spoke in favor of the project and four people spoke
against it. The primary objections to a possible shopping center development were
increased traffic and related problems such as noise and reduced air quality. Those
objecting indicated that development similar to the new Telegram-Tribune building and the
.Hind building at South Higuera Street and Granada Drive would be more compatible with
existing residential neighborhoods. Commissioners indicated that these concerns will be
addressed again when an application for a subdivision and/or a specific site development
plan are submitted to the City for review.
3-�
city Or San LUIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TK Annexation
Page 3
Annexation
1. Process
The San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCo) authorizes annexation.
In this case, LAFCo proceedings were initiated by the applicant. City and LAFCo policies
require that the Planning Commission and City Council determine the appropriate general
plan land use designation and zoning for the site to be annexed. LAFCo review will resume
once Council acts on the general,plan amendment and prezoning. Final Council action is
taken on the site zoning after LAFCo review. Preliminary discussions with LAFCo staff
indicate they plan to support the annexation because of the project's location and availability
of utilities and services, providing City Council approves the General Plan amendment and
prezoning, and agrees to commence tax revenue negotiations.
2. Timing
The Planning Commission concurred with staff's recommendation that this annexation
request be considered now rather than at a later date in conjunction with the larger airport
area annexation proposal. The Commission is recommending approval of the annexation -
providing the Council finds the open space in-lieu fee adequately meets General Plan policy
requirements - because of the site's adjacency to the current city limits, and because the
property can'easily be served by extensions of existing utilities and by existing police and fire
protection.
3. Consistency with General Plan Open Space Policies
The project is a "minor annexation" as defined by the Land Use Element. As such, it is
required to include a provision of open space equivalent to four times the size of the area
to be developed, or provide some other compensating public benefit. Applying the 4 to 1
ratio to this project results in an 88-acre open space requirement. A smaller open space
area may be considered sufficient if the area to be dedicated or otherwise preserved is of
high community value. Examples include areas with prominent visual or aesthetic features,
sensitive habitat areas, areas with special recreational potential, areas with sensitive
historical or archaeological features, or areas especially vulnerable to imminent
development. In lieu of providing 88 acres, or less, of dedicated land for open space, the
applicant is proposing to contribute $88,000 to the City's park lands fund (88 acres X
$1000).
3-3
��un �IIIVIIIII�I��1n�uN����`I city of San WIS OBISpo
= COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TK Annexation
Page 4
For annexation approval to be consistent with the General Plan, the City Council must:
1) Find that the in-lieu fee contribution proposed as part of this project adequately
meets the minor annexation policy objective of open space provision; or
2) Make findings that identify how the annexation results in other compensating public
benefits; or
3) Document the reasons that provision of open space in accordance with minor
annexation policies is not relevant in this case.
At its December 7 meeting, the Council did not indicate support for either option 2 or 3.
Therefore,. the only question remaining is whether or not the proposed in-lieu fee
contribution is adequate.
To determine whether the proposed in-lieu fee is reasonable, the applicant's representative,
Mr. Dean Benedix from RRM Design Group, contacted other similarly sized cities, local
realtors, and the Land Conservancy. Letters from both Mr. Benedix and the Land
Conservancy are attached, which discuss the difficulty of determining an appropriate in-lieu
fee contribution. The research concludes that $1000 per acre is not sufficient to purchase
full fee ownership of 88 acres inside city limits or in the City's greenbelt. It may be
sufficient to purchase a less than fee (easement) interest in 88 acres or full fee ownership
of property less than 88 acres in size.
Since the applicant is proposing to contribute a fee, the actual choice of property will be at
the discretion of the Council, and land that is of high value to the community, but less than
88 acres in size, could be purchased. This would be consistent with the City's minor
annexation policies regarding open space provision.
If the proposed in-lieu contribution is not satisfactory, the Council could deny the General
Plan amendment and prezoning, finding the project inconsistent with General Plan open
space policies, and/or more appropriate for consideration together with the larger airport
area annexation.
Prezoning/Land Use
The Planning Commission recommends C-S as the base zoning for the entire site, consistent
with the City and County general plan updates. Both the City's Land Use Element update
and the County Area Plan update designate this site for service-commercial uses. Located
immediately to the south of Higuera Commerce Park, the site is a logical extension of the
service-commercial uses allowed there.
3-�
���N�► ►�fIIII�I�in ��Ill city of San LUIS OBISpo
djj% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TK Annexation
Page 5
Although no additional site development is being proposed as part of this application, the
layout of the preliminary development plan is based on certain ideas regarding future land
uses. As described to staff, the developer envisions a commercial shopping center on
proposed lots 1 and 2, with a grocery store, drug store, bank, restaurant, and ancillary retail
stores. Remaining lots would be individually developed with commercial service and office
uses.
Reservations were expressed by Commissioners and members of the public regarding the
appropriateness of this site for a 12-acre shopping center project. The Commission
concluded that endorsement of the shopping center proposal would be premature without
first reviewing a more specific site development plan.
Environmental Impacts
The initial environmental study (ER 54-93) concludes that most of the potential
environmental impacts will be associated with future site development rather than a direct
result of the annexation and prezoning. A summary of recommended mitigation measures
is attached to this report.
The most significant impacts resulting from projected future development of the site would
involve traffic and circulation issues. The traffic study prepared for this project by ATE and
Associates estimates that future site development, as envisioned by the developer, could
generate between 7,000 and 8,000 average daily trips. The report concludes that with road
widening, restriping, and signalization, the adjacent streets could handle the additional
traffic. The initial study recommends a list of mitigations to help offset associated impacts
related to air quality. Related noise impacts will need to be addressed with specific
development plans.
Preliminary Development Plan
The applicant did not want to incur the full expense of a detailed development plan prior
to having the Council act on the annexation request. Instead, the applicant has submitted
a "preliminary development plan" and is informally requesting pre-application comments
from the Council. Staff has considered various aspects of the preliminary development plan,
such as lot size and orientation, and site access and circulation, and recommends that plans
for any future tract map application be revised as follows:
Provide a least one other large lot (3 to 5 acres) outside the area proposed for a
shopping center to help ensure adequate land area for new or expanding light
industry. A 4-acre minimum lot size is required in the southern 30 acres of Higuera
Commerce Park Informal conversations with local manufacturers indicate a shortage
��S
���N�► i�IIIIIII�P gip�ll city of San lui s OBISPO
Whigs COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TK Annexation
Page 6
of available land sufficient in size to accommodate new or expanding, larger
manufacturing and service-commercial businesses. Currently there are 7 vacant
parcels zoned C-S inside city limits, only 1 of which has a minimum area of 4 acres.
* Orient the long side of lots less than one acre in size within 30 degrees of south to
allow future buildings to maximize use of natural daylighting, consistent with the
City's subdivision standards.
* Eliminate direct access from South Higuera Street, or provide an alternative driveway
location acceptable to the City Engineer.
Align the .northern end of the internal street with Long Street across Tank Farm
Road, or install improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, consistent with
the master circulation plan approved by the County.
CONCURRENCES
Public Works staff are concerned about the possible traffic impacts resulting from. the
proposed intensity of future site development. Public Works, Fire, and Utilities have
recommended that the developer install or dedicate land for improvements to roads and
utility systems as conditions of future site development and subdivision. The County Airport
Manager notes that allowed uses should be compatible with the airport operations. The
APCD has submitted a list of possible ways to mitigate air quality impacts associated with
increased traffic. Comments from other departments and affected agencies are available
in the Community Development Department for review.
FISCAL IMPACT
City costs and revenues resulting from annexation will be analyzed in detail by staff before
final Council consideration. City and County negotiation for transfer of property tax
revenue will be part of the LAFCo review process. A preliminary recommendation
regarding property tax disbursement is attached. The estimated property tax revenue
generated by the property in fiscal year 1993-94 is approximately $26,000.00. Based on
initial discussions with LAFCo staff, it is anticipated that the County's current policy
regarding property tax allocations upon annexation will continue. The County will retain
its existing share of "base" property revenues (about $6000 annually) and the City will
receive its "normal" share of property tax revenues from properties currently in the City
(about 15%) from any future "increment" (increase from the base of $26,000) in property
tax revenues in this area. Presumably future site development would yield additional
''��""i�►►�IIIIIIINJI ���JII city of San LUIS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TY, Annexation
Page 7
revenue to the City from sales tax and utility user fees. The cost of supplying water would
be offset by impact fees and through required plumbing retrofitting.
Public costs of annexation include electricity for street lighting and traffic signals,
maintenance of water and sewer delivery systems, street maintenance (including sidewalks,
street trees, and signals), public transit operations, and police and fire service.
As conditions of future site development or subdivision, the developer will be required to
install improvements to adjacent roads, signalization, street lighting, and utility service lines.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may deny the application. This action may be appropriate in either of two
cases:
a. If the Council determines the proposed in-lieu fee for purchase of open space does
not adequately meet the intent of the General Plan annexation policies; or
b. If the Council determines that annexation of the project site is premature and should
be considered together with the entire airport area annexation.
3-
�u i�i►►�Illll��� ����ll city or San IDIS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TK Annexation
Page 8
Attachments
Vicinity map and site plans
Draft resolution amending the General Plan LUE map
Draft ordinance for prezoning
Draft resolution supporting annexation
Draft resolution denying the General Plan amendment and prezoning
Exhibit A - Land Use Element Map
Exhibit B - Prezoning Designations
Exhibit C - Summary of Environmental Mitigation
Exhibit D - Airport Area Context Map
Exhibit E - Metes and Bounds Property Description
Minor annexation open space policies
Letters from RRM and Land Conservancy
Planning Commission and Council meeting minutes
The Council packets contain full-size plans and the initial environmental study. These
documents are available to other persons for reference at the Community Development
Department.
A supplemental reading rile in the Council Office contains:
traffic study prepared by ATE and Associates (October 1993)
project trip generation estimates, showing proposed land uses
proposed street striping plans
planning commission staff report and minutes
comments from other dept's and agencies
comparison of uses allowed by the County and in the City's C-S and C-N zones
Special Consideration zoning regulations
Miguera Commerce Park development guidelines
29
� a1•d i I
ol
V` r.
- .......
TANK FARIA ,
r
o �
I
�•J
I
to
o rc[•r i000 :000 sono
VICINITY MAP 154 SUBURBAN NORTH
53
ANNX 4-
GP/R and 9
m _
6
O' f
a
ca
a 3
II• I I I �, ' 70
3-/O
Figure 2
�®
y
- C t'1
AAL
t>IL
.� SY
z I j e ANN
' -7 !
1
•-t�u-.-
£ 7
O
r
1 '= I o
~ 1 Y
MITI '
LCD='
l
I I
11 + ra
m I :i ! I s , Q
CL
0 L� - - - - -- - 0
*0001
Figure 4
RESOLUTION NO. (1994 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT MAP FROM
RURAL INDUSTRIAL TO SERVICE-COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
FOR A 22.05 ACRE SITE AT 154 SUBURBAN ROAD
(GP/R/ANNX 54-93)
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 with a favorable recommendation
from the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the change have been evaluated
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City
Environmental Guidelines.
BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination, The City Council hereby approves a
negative declaration(ER 54-93),based on a determination that the project will not have any
significant adverse environmental impacts, provided that mitigation measures, attached as
Exhibit C, are incorporated into the project.
SECTION 2. Findings. Approval of the general plan amendment is based on the
following 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, including minor annexation open space policies, since the project
includes an in-lieu fee contribution to the park lands fund for the purpose of open
space acquisition.
3. The proposed amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment, and has been granted a negative declaration of environmental impact
subject to the mitigation measures outlined in the environmental initial study report
(ER 54-93), and listed in Exhibit C.
SECTION 3. Map Amendment. The General Plan Land Use Element Map is
hereby amended from Rural Industrial to Service-Commercial/Light Industrial, as shown
on Exhibit A. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected
on maps displayed and published by the City.
3'/0�
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 1994.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
i Att e
wml-reso\54-93
ORDINANCE NO. (1994 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
TO PREZONE APPROXIMATELY 18.5 ACRES C-S-S
AND APPROXIMATELY 3.5 ACRES C-S
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 154 SUBURBAN ROAD
(GP/R/ANNX 54-93)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held hearings to
consider appropriate zoning for the proposed annexation area in accordance with Section
65800 et. seq. of the California Government Code ;
WHEREAS, the prezoning comes to the Council with a favorable recommendation
from the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the change have been evaluated
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City
Environmental Guidelines.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1: Zoning Map Designation. The annexation area shall be prezoned
Service-Commercial (C-S) and Service-Commercial with Special Consideration (C-S-S) as
shown on the attached map marked Exhibit B and included herein by reference. This
prezoning becomes effective upon the date of the final action by the City Council on the
annexation.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council hereby approves a
mitigated negative declaration (ER 54-93), based on a determination that the project will
not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment, provided that mitigation
measures, attached as Exhibit C, are incorporated into the project.
SECTION 3. Findings. The prezoning designations are based on the following
findings:
1. The proposed prezoning 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 prezoning is consistent with the general plan.
3. The proposed prezoning is appropriate at the proposed location and will be
compatible with surrounding land uses.
4. The prezoning will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and has
been granted a negative declaration subject to the mitigation measures identified
above being included in the project.
5. Application of a Special Consideration overlay is appropriate to ensure:
■ consistency with City policies regarding neighborhood commercial centers and
the location of specialty retail uses;
■ preservation of view sheds, where feasible, consistent with the Scenic
Highways Element;
■ the establishment of minimum site development standards and architectural
guidelines by the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review
Commission; and
■ compatibility with surrounding uses.
SECTION 4. Publication and Implementation. A summary of this ordinance,
together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at
least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published
and circulated in said city, and the same shall go into effect upon the date of final action
by the City Council on the annexation.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo at its meeting held on the day of 1994, on motion of
seconded by and on the following roll call
vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Mayor
3-/5
1
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
i tto ey
RESOLUTION NO. (1994 Series)
A RESOLUTION BY THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
REQUESTING THAT THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
APPROVE SLO COUNTY ANNEXATION # 40
AT 154 SUBURBAN ROAD
(City File No: GP/R/ANNX 54-93)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have held hearings on the
proposed annexation; and
WHEREAS,the potential environmental impacts of annexation have been evaluated
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City
Environmental Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, on recommendation of the Planning Commission and as a result of its
deliberations, the Council has amended the General Plan Land Use Map and is proceeding
with prezoning of the annexation property, as required by the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCo); and
WHEREAS, the proposed annexation is compatible with the City's General Plan;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1: Findines.
1. Annexation is appropriate since the site is contiguous to the City on its north
and west sides.
2. Annexation of the site is a logical addition to the City due to its location and
availability of services.
SECTION 2: Annexation Area Described. The TK Annexation shall consist of that
area,covering approximately 22 acres along South Higuera Street between Tank Farm Road
and Suburban Road, assigned an Assessor's Parcel Number of 76-352-054, as shown in the
vicinity map attached as Exhibit D and described in metes and bounds in attached Exhibit
E.
SECTION 3: Council Recommendation: The City Council hereby recommends that
LAFCo approve the annexation subject to compliance with City requirements regarding
environmental mitigation as described in the project's negative declaration, and attached in
summary as Exhibit C.
SECTION 4: Implementation. The City Clerk shall forward a copy of this resolution,
General Plan and prezoning actions, the negative declaration of environmental impact, and
all pertinent supporting documents to LAFCo.
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 1994.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
Qlz OW
7tto
3-/8
RESOLUTION NO. (1994 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING A REQUEST FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND PREZONING
FOR A PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF 22.05 ACRES
AT 154 SUBURBAN ROAD (GP/R ANNX 54-93)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of a request to change
the Land Use Element Map from Rural Industrial to Service-Commercial/Light Industrial
and Neighborhood-Commercial, and to prezone the proposed annexation site C-S, C-S-S,
and C-N; and after consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff
recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings:
(Council specifies Cndings ao„beused)
SECTION 2. Denial. The request for approval of the general plan amendment and
prezoning described above is hereby denied.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
3-�9
GP/R/ANNX 54-93
Resolution for denial cont'd
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _day of 1994.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
o
�-a o
ecce• J - -' - - - '�-°i•'':::
..... ... ...... ::
_ _ •.•a :. :/•,r• _ J i �.�.:�:',:�::�r.'.::•�'�.tip'.moi''`"''�:::.� •.:,.
i •ter _ _ -- - - � �• '-� _ •V.t`II �Y:N:�-.1y�'�:::•J•:)��.• .�•1•:•:•::•:•�, ••�•�•
DA
.. ! +, .ice •�. -•' .J. \�•.• •�. ,.•:
� �v - V y. �/ X11�'•:%f, ^''_�.".. .... . ... N-
............
/ ���•:'!J'�::.•::':::��lt.':'•::
�� �ire...� -:-.1-�/,: ��++��••
-''% j' a from Rural industrial to '
: . . .
..�..�1r',•:,�.. :��'r:�i•. .a.�S� r merci.aLl•/L•�ig..L�h.t1:..::Industria ;
Xi,
�,fS2rvlceCom . i
.
�M�:d:rh••..T'�rli�y'i w n�1^.y 'y ' �i��a.•t...'::::':':::::�:'i :, !:E,:: � r' ...
t ; , l,.• �.r vra tt.�4• J
a w rv'•.{• .�n r .F.. :'t a L •tel
'•... '� �:�r=,V;r}•'r I� III '7 •i��~ .,
,GRAPHIC SCAL=:
i0 SOD 1,000 2,000 3,000'. .
•N V.
1•
LEGEND Tourist Commercial `C?j'J PuSIie,Somipvblie
--.:L•::�:?':, Low 0ansi.bR
r osidon:lal 'a,,•,••„•u Neighborhood Commerciali'�ii Pa:k
Medium Density Roslden:lal ® Retail Commercial Conservation/Open spate
lloel_r.,•High Conslly Rosldort Elm Service-Commorclal,'Llght Ind. las. /i Interim Consorv.;Opon space
PM High Donalty Sosidentlala`.»�-:-:-'•� Office �'•_ Rural Indus:ial
(■`Urban Rosonve Une "j Devolopmenl Unit Uns t.!ejor Es;:snslcn ea
VICINITY MAP I LAND USE ELEMENT MAP "C;T
ANNEX & GP/R 54-
93
EXHIBIT A ��oZ
r'
II C- C•S•PO \
zR?� C-R yl, C-s-s
'll;
r
i
� c
C-R-PD
1 R-z
C/0 S-1 0 _
C-S-mu I
o-PD
—S O -`{{
S. R-2-S
PF
/y Vx I
j� i
i
� C SOs„'Ti
CZ �
`s ``` •C- � SPS
-- -------- _-------------- ----
/ kc-S.Sp- p ----
R - 2 - S
- I
M.-S P I
tics-20:
s.
. . prezone C-S-S
R- ^..'
� ,, •••-•- prezone. C-S
wa eay Cyt g�e�! .
•O�e
s-
o .
R-2 PD
GP/R/ANNEX 54-93
a�
EXHIBIT B 3�,
TK Annexation Mitigation
ER 54-93
Page 1 EXHIBIT C
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
TK ANNEXATION
GP/R/ANNX 54-93
March 1994
Annexation
■ For annexation approval to be consistent with the General Plan, the City Council will
need to: 1) require provision of off-site open space, consistent with the Land Use
Element, or 2) make findings that:
a. document the reasons that provision of open space in accordance with minor annexation
policies is not relevant in this case; or
b. identify how the annexation results in other compensating public benefits.
Land Use Element Consistency
■ To avoid inconsistency with the General Plan, C-N zoning should be limited to about
5 acres, or C-S (Service-Commercial) zoning could be applied to the entire site.
■ If specialty retail stores are deemed desirable to serve nearby residential neighborhoods,
a cap on the amount of square footage allocated to specialty retail uses should be
established to avoid conflict with City policies which favor concentrating specialty retail
stores in the downtown and in the shopping centers on Madonna Road.
■ A Special Consideration or "S" overlay zone should be applied to the undeveloped
portions of the site to ensure consistency with City policies regarding Neighborhood-
Commercial Centers and the location of specialty retail uses.
Airport Compatibility
■ Future site development must incorporate design measures that will limit the interior
noise level of all residential units to 45 dba, in accordance with FAA standards, to the
satisfaction of the Chief Building Official.
■ The use of materials - especially in the roof- shall be nonreflective to reduce glare. The
use of mirrored or reflective glass shall be prohibited.
■ Prior to further subdivision or site development, developers of property within the
project site must record an avigation easement to the satisfaction of the Airport Area
Land Use Commission.
.�-a3
TK Annexation Mitigation
ER 54-93
Page 2
■ Any master list of allowed uses established for the project site must be consistent with
the Airport Area Land Use Plan or its successor. (Completion of a draft specific plan
for the airport area is scheduled for mid-1994.)
Agricultural Compatibility
■ At the time of sale or lease, the applicant should disclose to prospective buyers and
tenants the consequences of existing and potential intensive agricultural operations on
nearby parcels including but not limited to dust, noise, odors, agricultural chemicals, and
the County's Right to Farm Ordinance. A copy of such disclosure should be submitted
to the Community Development Director for review, approval, and recordation prior to
any further subdivision or site development. .
Traffic and Circulation
■ To offset a potentially significant reduction in the level of service for nearby roads and
intersections, to minimize hazards for pedestrians, and to provide for a logical circulation
system, future site development and subdivision projects should incorporate:
Road widening along South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road.
Signal installation at the intersection of Suburban Road and South Higuera Street.
' Synchronization of signals along South Higuera Street.
' Bus turn-out northbound on South Higuera Street and eastbound along Tank Farm
Road.
' Right turn lane from South Higuera Street onto Tank Farm Road.
Contributions to the cost of off-site improvements necessitated by cumulative traffic
impacts.
' Crosswalk striping, islands, and signs for pedestrian safety.
' Elimination of direct access from South Higuera Street, or provision of an alternative
driveway location acceptable to the City Engineer.
• Aligning the northern end of the internal street with Long Street across Tank Farm
Road, or installing road improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,
consistent with the master circulation plan approved by the County.
TK Annexation Mitigation
ER 5493
Page 3
Public Services
■ When traffic signals are installed or relocated, emergency preemption devices shall be
required to expedite emergency access.
Utilities
■ Future site development or subdivision should include a 30' x 30' easement at the
southeasterly corner of South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road to accommodate a
future sewer lift station.
Air OualiIy
■ Future site development should include measures to minimize negative impacts to air
quality, such as:
' Extensive tree planting in the parking areas to reduce evaporative emissions from
automobiles.
A carpool/rideshare/public-transit information bulletin board installed in a visually
prominent and easily accessible location.
' Weatherproof and lockable bicycle storage, as well as short-term bicycle parking racks.
' A plan for dust control during construction.
Bicycle parking and shower and locker facilities for employee use.
' "Clean-fueled" or electric shuttle service to link the neighborhood-serving aspect of the
project to nearby residential development.
' Bus turnouts along South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road.
' Shared-use parking reduction.
' Designated carpool parking.
' OA-site food facilities to encourage employees to stay on site during the lunch hour.
Plant Life
■ All Monterey cypress trees to remain shall be protected during any future construction
to the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
3'o�i5
TK Annexation Mitigation
ER 54-93
Page 4
■ The subdivider shall dedicate street right-of-way along South Higuera of sufficient width
to accommodate street widening and a sidewalk located so as to avoid unnecessary tree
removal to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Archaeological Resources
■ If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation, all earth-work within
150 feet of object(s) shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist. Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist
shall be evaluated by the . Community Development Director, and upon Director
approval, implemented by the applicant.
Aesthetic Resources
■ An "S" (Special Considerations) overlay zone should be part of the prezoning
designation(s) so the Planning Commission and the ARC can establish adequate site
development standards to ensure that future site development will be compatible
internally and with surrounding development, and that view sheds are preserved where
feasible.
Energy/Resource Use
■ To encourage efficient use of energy and natural resources, newly created lots which are
less than one acre in size should be oriented so that their longest side is within 30
degrees of south.
■ To protect solar exposure for likely locations of future collectors, any trees planted along
the southern side of proposed buildings should be deciduous.
■ Future construction projects shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling
discarded materials,such as concrete,sheetrock,wood,and metals,from the construction
site. The plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator or
the Community Development Director, prior to building permit issuance.
■ Future site development should incorporate:
' Skylights to maximize natural daylighting.
Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
° Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
Facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling.
3-a�
TK Annexation Mitigation
ER 54-93
Page 5
Soil Contamination
■ No buildings, septic systems, or other structures shall be constructed above the
approximate area of contamination.
■ Wells for domestic or non-potable use shall not be located near known areas of soil
contamination. Well location and use shall be subject to approval of the City Council.
3-a�
n
�0 O
CD me
vocti.0 Lofts
> z
c U? J
V^ CD
0 � •� L
n I O
v
must• = nCO
e �
- legY N --
CD •e Y '° \
-
r
CD
T H � 1f1111
X _ ZR
aj
O 1'
i_
lit
•� i � gil � ;I ,/
y /
" O O
u ^ _j , so
o i
t �
a a
po
EXHIBIT D ��a8
Being a portion of Lots 1, 2 , and 3 of the subdivision of Lots
24, 26, 31, the North half of Lots 18 , 23 , 27, 30, and the
South portion of Lot 17 of the Harford and Chapman subdivision,
in Township 31 South, Range 12 East, Mount Diablo Base and
Meridian (now lying within the Vachell Tract) , in the County of
San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map thereof -
filed February 6, 1893 in Book 1, Page 4 of Record of Surveys,
being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 3 ;
Thence along the east line of said Lot 3 South 20. 00 feet to
the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence continuing along said line South 972.06 feet to the
North right-of-way line of Suburban Road (having a fifty
foot right-of-way width) ;
Thence along said line West 1226.49 feet to the southeasterly
right-of-way line of South Higuera Street (having a sixty-six
foot right-of-way width) ;
Thence along said line North 26. 15 ' East 1087 .71 feet to the
South right-of-way line of Tank Farm Road (having a forty foot
right-of-way widty) ;
Thence along said line South 89045 ' East 739. 14 feet to the
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Contains 22.05 acres.
n
Alan L. .Volbrecht l .S. 5201 (exp. 6-30-95)
LAN
v�
• ALAI, •
• e
VOLE ECH7
L.S 5201 •:
'•' •Q
�p CAO
EXHIBIT E 3
R R M D E S I G N G R O U P
�riilirr r:c': Ilan:: •E' ,^r_ m: Ir:'irar> Larata:ri :1rcLirrirurc
January 12, 1994
Ms. Whitney McIlvaine RECEIVED
City of San Luis Obispo JAN 1 3 1994
990 Palm Street
P.O. Box 8100 cm of SAN nils OBISPO
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 cIMININm DEVELOPMEW
Re: T.R. Annexation
Dear Whitney:
In order to assist you in resolution of the in lieu fee issue associated with this annexation we have
conducted the following research:
1. Contacted other similarly sized and situated cities to see if they had similar fees or programs
to act as guidelines (see Exhibit A).
2. Contacted the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo to obtain their opinions and/or
experience regarding open space mitigation fees (See Exhibit B).
3. Contacted active members of the real estate industry in San Luis Obispo to discuss land
values, easement values, and land prices in San Luis Obispo and its fringe (See Exhibit C).
Our research did not reveal any other community with an existing program similar to the City of
San Luis Obispo annexation policy on provision of open space for minor annexations. None of the
communities have established fees,a specific preservation percentage, or ratio requirement similar
to the City of San Luis Obispo minor annexation policy.
We contacted Mr. Belknap at the Land Conservancy to check on their experience with purchase
of open space lands by fee title ownership or less than fee easements. In general, their experience
with properties listed for sale in fee is that per acre values get lower as the parcel size gets bigger.
They have participated in few, if any, acquisitions of less than fee (easement) interests. It appears
that land within the City is not available at less than about $80,000 per acre for fee interest. This
is due to its potential for development.
We also contacted several active members of the San Luis Obispo real estate industry to discuss
land values both for fee ownership interest and less than fee (easement) interest. Large properties
(100+ acres) on the fringe of the City of San Luis Obispo are presently listed for sale at values
ranging from $4,160.00 per acre to $1,632.00 per'acre for full fee ownership. The price, of course,
varies depending upon location, agricultural production value of the land, and the improvements
present on the land. None of the people we spoke with was familiar with transactions for less than
full fee ownership except utility line easements, which are done by private negotiations between
property owners and utility right-0f--way agents, and generally don't extinguish development rights.
co 9nurh Flipvrr.i St.--er.Gan Lm.l lhi:n,•.Call h,rnin 91lnr .e:.:'a)- "•)i
rou . u!h Strer:. Mud.nw.Cal doi ilia yj 1;4 -�/'544-L,-V4 -30
r r.:.•....:,., ,:... .............. �i..1,r.,r-r..,.,.... . v (t•/
Nis. Whitney McIlvaine
Page 2
January 12, 1994
Our conclusion, based upon this research, is that full fee ownership interest can be selectively
acquired for t$2,000-00 - $3,000.00 per acre in large parcel sizes of 250 acres or more. In parcel
sizes of 250 acres or less,for properties with substantial improvements, for high quality agricultural
land or for land with development potential, the cost for full fee ownership escalates to $4,000.00
to $10,000.00 per acre.
In our experience, the imposition of fees for open space acquisition on commercial minor
annexation projects is clearly a new twist of the ordinance. It has, in the past, been used only in
conjunction with residential projects which were large properties with small areas (minor
annexations) available for development. Stoneridge is an example of the past use of this policy; in
fact,it was the prototype for the policy creation. We know of no other example of where this policy
has been applied to a minor commercial annexation.
Notwithstanding absence of the precedent for application of this policy to a minor commercial
annexation, Mr. Kreutzkampf has offered to pay a fee of up to $1,000.00 per acre based upon an
88-acre "dedication" requirement. This represents as much as 50% of the full fee ownership value
of some of the large San Luis Obispo fringe properties on a per acre basis. It is unclear how much
it could purchase if used for easement or open space dedication acquisition. This is,in our opinion
and by our research, a significant amount and adequate to achieve the City's goals in combination
with other programs such as direct trade offs with property owners, acquisition of trail easements,
acquisition of creek easements or other less than fee ownership objectives.
In summary, the results of our research indicate that a fee of$1,000.00 per mitigation acre to be
sufficient for 50% of full fee ownership based upon acquisition of 44 acres of land. The proposed
fee is sufficient to purchase an unknown amount of less than full fee interest, but certainly greater
than one to one assuming the use of the unaffected land is unimpaired. This in lieu fee amount
is capable of contributing significantly toward achieving the City's goals.
If you have questions, please give me a call to discuss this matter. We, of course, want to re-
establish a City Council hearing to complete this process as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
RRM DESIGN GROUP
Dean R. Benedix, P.E.
Senior Vice President
Director Engineering Division
cc: Mike Timm
Larry Kreutzkampf
Dean Benedix, RRM
ztdb-tkan.mci
T.K. ANNEXATION
VARIOUS CITY POLICIES FOR OPEN SPACE
The following information was obtained by telephone conference with Staff Planners of the
respective Cities.
MORGAN HILL
• City has a growth control ordinance limiting the number of building permits each
year.
• Proposed development projects are "scored" based on design and amenities,
including open space; highest ranking projects are awarded building rights.
SANTA CRUZ
• Industrial projects are required to leave 20% of project parcel in "open space"
(percentage recently reduced from 30%). This requirement is often met by outdoor
employee use space.
• Commercial projects must have 10% of parking landscaped.
• City does have a designated "Greenbelt" area around City perimeter (General Plan
designation is primarily Park/Public Facility or Suburban Residential
• No open space requirement for annexation.
VENTURA
• Density requirement for residential lots results in 35% of lot left "open".
• No open space requirement for annexation.
• City park area which is already City-owned.
GILROY
• No open space requirement for development, but some lower-density zones require
clustering which results in non-easement open space within a project
WATSONVILLE
• Open space requirement is imposed based on the sensitivity of the site, i.e., projects
with slough areas are required to dedicate those areas to the City for protection of
the resource.
• No open space requirement for annexation.
3-3A
T.K. Annexation
Various City Policies for Open Space
Page 2
CHICO
• 60% landscape area required for all Residential projects.
• Designated "creekside greenways" serve as public open space.
• Entitlement projects must be designed 25' minimum from top of bank to protect
riparian areas.
• Additional setback (up to 100') can be granted as conservation easement with credit
against park fees.
MONTEREY
• City is basically built-out or "zoned-out".
• Some hillside development has required greenbelt areas for specific resources.
• Open space would be an issue with an annexation and would be handled with pre-
zoning density.
• County restrictions on land over 25%.slope (just outside the City basically results
in an open space buffers).
z/db-tkan.opu
3��3
Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County
TF
January 4, 1994
Ms. Deborah Hollowell
Engineering Division, RRM Design Group
South Higuera
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: T.K. ANNEXATION
Dear Ms. Hollowell.
The following information is in response to your phone call today asking for a separate
letter on our experience with mitigation land values. As our letter of December 23rd pointed
out, the lowest we have seen "mitigation" land in the coastal area is about $1,000.00/acre.
This is based on our experience in Black Lake Canyon where appraisals were conducted on
three lots that had been restricted to open space uses as the result of a cluster subdivision
approval by the County. We have not, however, been able to purchase the property for less
than $2,500.00-$3,000.00 per acre. 'Phis is the price that is necessary to make it attractive
to the owners to sell the lots.
Within the San Luis Obispo area, during the first part of December, 1993, we found 20
undeveloped parcels for sale within the City and another 55 for sale within the San Luis
Obispo "fringe' as defined by the real estate industry. One of these was only 2,500 square
feet and was on the market with an asking price of $90.000.00. A second 2.5 acre parcel
was for sale for $165,000.00.
Based on'rule-of-thumb"information gained through conversations over the years, the price
per acre of rural lands (emphasis on"rural"lands) increases as the size of the lot decreases.
A 40-acre lot, for example, could have a $4,000.00/acre land value and an asking price of
$1609000.00. As the lots become smaller, a five-acre lot can sell for $9,400.00/acre or
$47,000.00 for the lot. A five-acre lot in Spanish Camp, however, can easily run
$30,000.00/acre or$150,000.00 for the lot. These are some general rules for rural land and
are not necessarily representative of San Luis Obispo.
S' r yours,
a Belknap
Executive Director
cc: •Whitney McIlvane, City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 12206 San Luis Obispo. CA 93406 (805 ) 5444-90�9yfi
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 5, 1994
To: File
From: Deborah Hollowell
Job Name: T K Annexation Job No.: E93805
Re: Property ValuesWces
The following information is from phone conversations on this date in which I asked for
information regarding recent sales, or current listings for ranch, grazing or ag property. We
also discussed unusable.property, "cabin" property with an eye toward anything without
significant development potential.
Per Ken Marks, Santa Lucia Properties, Atascadero 466-6770:
• Price or value for open space land can only be set by current value (appraisal).
• Location is biggest factor.
• If you are going to establish an easement an appraisal must be done to account for
economic loss.
• The "farmer's price" for grazing land or dry crop farm land should be $365/acre - no
more than $500/acre.
• Current listing: 500± acres in North County at $700/acre.
Per John Kuden 541-6257:
• Cattle land in SLO area $1,200 to $2,000/acre.
• Recent appraisal in Arroyo Grande/Huasna area by Santa Maria appraiser$800/acre
(parcel size over 100 acres).
Per Real Estate Group 541-2888:
Per Kirk Graves at Real Estate Group:
• Class I cropland $6,000 to 8,000/acre.
• Grazing only land should not be more than $2,000/acre.
.x'35
• Over the last two years: Three parcels on Los Osos Valley Road (total 685 acres
with 150 acres farmable) wouldn't sell for $2.85 million ($4,160/acre).
Eventual sales:
1. 245 acres, vacant, $400,000 ($1,632/acre).
2. In escrow: 199 acres, $345,000 ($1,733/acre) will probably close at lower
price - 50 to 70 acres farmable.
• On the market Edna Valley 112 acres with 3 bedroom with view $599,000
($5,348/acre).
• On the market Edna Valley 108 acres "overpriced" at $985,000 ($9,120/acre).
• On the market Los Osos Valley Class I 83 acres with structures $899,000
($10,831/acre).
Per Roland Maddalena:
• Duvall property on Buckley Road sold 10 acre parcels for $175,000 and $200,000
($17,500 to $20,000/acre) with ag zoning and airport hazard.
• 40 acres at $960,000 list ($24,000/acre).
• 10 acres at $480,000 list ($48,000/acre).
(Both the above behind Copeland's warehouse.)
• 160 acres, Los Berros, $325,000 ($2,031/acre).
• Grape property is $3,500 to $4,500/acre.
0 Lisa Newton has listing at Biddle Ranch near Lopez Lake, $1,000±/acre.
• One to five miles around San Luis Obispo is $4,500 to $5,000/acre.
Per Charlie Delmartini 544-1470:
• 385 acres, Prefumo Canyon, no access, vacant, hillsides - current asking price
$600,000 ($1,558/acre).
• South of San Luis Obispo: 250 acres, over $1,000,000. (over $4,000/acre)
• Vineyard and vegetable property: $10,000 to.$20,000 per acre.
• Foster property- Out Royal Way off Los Osos Valley Road; 4 ea 40 acre parcels at
$514,000 each; 2 contiguous to City limits; property was de-annexed to take
advantage of County zoning for subdivision; entire property except 300' diameter
building sites is open space easement.
• Ag property over grade is about $1,000/acre.
cldho-tkann fil
x14 1 1� I I* c -3-6
Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County
December 28, 1993 RECEIVED
Ms. Deboreah Hollowell
DEC 3 01993
Engineering DivisionMCLEM Po
RRM Design Group O° "�
South Higuera
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: T.K ANNEXATION
Dear Ms. Hollowell,
The mission of the Land Conservancy is to protect land through voluntary transactions. As
such, we are pleased to be of assistance to RRM and the City in helping to establish a
budget and then participate in acquiring land.
Regarding your letter of December 21, 1993, we have the following comments.
1. We can identify parcels that are for sale, in fee or partial interest, and we can provide
a report on our findings as requested in your letter. We can identify parcels that are
available and report on their site characteristics, value, and availability. Our ability to
identify easements that may have been available is, however, limited.
2. We can not, however, make a determination on what is a "reasonable" fee. This is a
value judgement that properly belongs with the City.
We have had some experience with locating and assessing properties for mitigation
purposes. We would offer the following additional comments.
1. We can provide in a matter of days a summary letter of our current experience. This
letter would be based on our experience with the value of land and the general
availability of land that is currently on the market in the San Luis Obispo area.
This information would be similar to what we discussed during our meeting. That is,
that the lowest we have seen "mitigation" land in the coastal area is about
$1,000.00/acre. We have found, however, that owners are reluctant to sell at less that
$2,500.00-$3,000.00 per acre. In addition, the parcels that are for sale and listed in the
conventional real estate listings are considerably higher. There were, about a month
ago, over 75 undeveloped parcels within the San Luis Obispo area and ranged from
$90,000.00 for a 2,500 sq.ft. lot to $165,000.00 for a 2.5 acre lot.
1
3-37
P.O. Box 12206 San Luis Obispo. CA 93406 (805 ) 544-9096
The suitability of a property is a measure of its potential in comparison to the bench-
mark property. One property, for example, may have considerable potential for
restoration and become equal to the best or most "capable" property identified above.
The feasibility of a property includes its price as well as other issues. If a property is
being acquired for its habitat value, for example, is the owner willing to provide
stewardship? This could be particularly important even if there is public land that could
be permanently devoted to such a use. In addition, you need consider the availability
of the property. Is it available now, if not, when? We will attempt to acquire this
information only for the properties included in the final list approved by the City. We
will also need to coordinate the development of this information with the City Attorney.
Since the City has condemnation authority, there may be some limits on the amount of
contact that is permitted with individual landowners.
We have found that providing this information to a public body provides a good basis
for final selection. A property may not be of"high" value but may have good potential.
Or, a property may not be of high value or good potential but be available under
favorable conditions. Each of these issues needs to be considered in making a final
selection. The map that shows the location of each property is important in considering
-issues of context; what the property is near. A property may not have inherent
capability but it could be the "missing link" in a larger program of public acquisition.
The Land Conservancy is pleased to be considered as part of this project.
We are available for additional discussion if you would like to refine these points into a
scope of work and proceed with the project.
Sincerely yours,
Ray Belknap
Executive Director
cc: Whitney McIlvane, City of San Luis Obispo
4
3-38
2. We are also prepared to help RRM and the City prepare a more comprehensive report.
This report would take additional time for the reasons described below.
a. Many of the properties that could be of interest to the City are not advertized on
the open market. A landowner may not have any plans to sell a parcel at this time
but may have been considering a sale at a future time. This is the case when the
parcel may not have any obvious development potential and the owner may
presume there is no market. This is especially true when you might be considering
a conservation easement. Locating these owners requires original research and
personal contact with landowners.
b. A easement is difficult to describe to a potential seller and often takes considerable
education before the seller is willing to negotiate a final transaction.
c. Each property, as with each person, is unique. We have found that it is important,
especially when presenting information on alternatives to public agencies, to present
information on properties in a comprehensive yet comparable manner. We have
developed a procedure for completing this analysis and recommend it be followed
for this project. The importance of this process and the time it will take to review
the properties should not be underestimated.
d. The price a person is asking vs. the appraised value are two different issues. We
have found that it is important for a public agency to base the expenditure of public
funds on an appraisal. An appraisal can take more time and require additional
funds.
The Land Conservancy is prepared to begin this project after the first of the year and we
would propose to proceed with the project in the following steps. These steps could be
refined into a "Scope of Work" for a service agreement.
1. Establish the criteria for property acquisition.
The selection criteria are well identified in your letter. We may need some help from
the City on those areas that are "especially vulnerable to imminent development," but
otherwise we believe information is available to help identify land that would meet these
criteria.
Our first step would be to identify and map those resources within the City's greenbelt
and larger planning area. This provides an important initial focus to our activity and
a basis for comparing sites in our final report.
2
2. Establish a preliminary list.
This list would be established from several sources. We would begin with real estate
brokers and then proceed into more informal sources of information depending on our
initial success with public sources. We have found, for example, that engineers are often
in contact with landowners and may know of their personal interests that may not be
available to the public. In addition, we have found that elected officials and community
leaders are often in contact with landowners and may know of possible properties.
There are a variety of such informal sources that can be contacted.
Beyond these preliminary efforts, it may be necessary to advertize in the media or
conduct a mailing campaign to individual landowners. This additional effort would not
be undertaken unless we mutually feel our initial contacts have been unproductive.
The amount of time spent on this initial effort will depend on our initial results. It is
important to maintain regular contact during this time period so we can determine when
to make our first cut in defining a preliminary list.
3. Review this list with RRM and the City.
After we have developed what we mutually believe is a satisfactory first-cut list, this
would be presented to the City for ratification. We have found that it may not be until
this stage that other member of the public find out about the project and want to add
properties to the list.
4. Establish a final list.
The City needs to provide written confirmation that the list presented is adequate and
that we should proceed with a comparative evaluation.
5. Evaluate the properties and prepare a report.
Our final report will locate each property, provide a brief description and comparative
evaluation. The procedure we have used that works well in these situations is to
compare the properties in terms of the three interrelated concepts of the properties
if "suitability," and "feasibility." The following is brief description of these
concepts as they will be employed in the report.
The capability of a property is a comparison of its inherent quality in relation to the
selection criteria and other properties. If one property is particularly valuable as
"habitat," for example, the remaining properties are compared against this bench-mark
proNrty.
3
3-0
City Council Meeting Page 5
Tuesday, December 7, 1993 - 7:00 PM
9:13 PM Mayor Pinard declared a recess.
9:35 PM City Council reconvened; all Council Members present.
3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/PREZONING/ANNEXATION- P/R ANNX 54-93 (File No.463)
Council held a public hearing to consider a General Plan Amendment/Prezoning in conjunction with
the annexation of a 22.05 acre site on the east side of South Higuera between Tank Farm Road and
Suburban Road; M. Timm Development, Inc., and Lary Kreutzkampf, a partner, applicants.
Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing open.
Dean Benedix. RRM Design Group, expressed concern with time for approvals, stated that the open
space dedication was not possible, the County's designation was for industrial uses, and urged
approval of the annexation tonight.
Bruce Wiedmer, 32 Las Praderas Dr., opposed the development, stating that the use was not
compatible, and expressed concerns regarding traffic impacts.
Paul Orton. 33 Las P.raderas Dr., stated annexation met with his approval, but the use proposed was
not compatible; he suggested using it for a park area because it was in the flood plain.
Ray Bunnell. 141 Suburban Rd., stated that the proposal was better than a mini-storage utilization.
Upon questioning, he stated he would support the provision of a signal on Suburban Road.
Bill Bates. 28 Los Verdes Drive, stated that the traffic noise and air pollution would be significantly
increased.
Brian Christensen, 818 Pismo SL, stated that the project met policy direction and urged a review of
uses with regional draws.
Brian Sears. 1712 10th SL, Los Osos, urged the retention of the open space standards.
Mayor Pinard declared the public hearing closed.
Council discussed the support in a neighborhood of a development similar to the Telegram Tribune
or Hind facilities, the impact uses with regional draws, open space requirements and appropriate
zoning.
Moved by Raooa/Romero to continue this Item with direction to staff to work with the applicant and
owner to consider annexation of this property with'a C-S-S designation and open space in-lieu fees
or dedication to be reasonable; motion carried (4-1, Council Member Roalman voting no).
4. GOLF COURSE FUND RATE REVIEW (File No. 133)
Council held a public hearing to consider eliminating the monthly single and couple cards and
establishing a three tier system for green fees of: A) Senior Weekday fee of $3.75, B) Non-senior
Weekday fee of$5.75,and C) Weekend/Holiday fee of$6.50 effective January 1, 1994;and A) Senior
3-��
draft
MINUTES - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
City of San Luis Obispo
November 17, 1993
PRESENT: Commrs. Mary Whittlesey, Gilbert Hoffman, Dodie Williams, Brett Cross,
Sandra Sigurdson, Charles Senn, and Chairman Barry Karleskint
ABSENT: None
OTHERS
PRESENT: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director; Ron Whisenand,
Development Review Manager; Whitney Mcllvaine, Assistant Planner; Cindy
Clemens, Assistant City Attorney; Wayne Peterson, City Engineer; and
Diane Wright, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC
COMMENT: None
Item 1. General Plan Amendment Rezoning & Annexation GP/R/ANNX 54-93.
A request to amend the Land Use Element map and prezoning property to
designate land to be annexed within the City to Neighborhood-Commercial,
Special Considerations(C-N-S),Service-Commercial/Light Industrial,_Special
Considerations (C-S-S) and Service-Commercial/Light Industrial (C-S) to
accommodate a neighborhood-commercial center and light-industrial and
office uses; 154 Suburban Road; M. Timm Development & Kruetzkampf
Investments; applicants.
Commrs. Karleskint and Sigurdson stepped down due to a conflict of interest.
Commr. Williams acted as Chairperson.
Whitney Mcllvaine presented the staff report and recommended the Commission approve
the annexation request because the property is located within the urban reserve line just
outside city limits, and because the location would allow for cost effective city services to
be provided. She explained that to be in conformance with the General Plan, the
applicant would have to secure 88 acres of open space on other property, the
Commission would have to make a finding that the project provided some other
compensating public benefit that outweighed the open space requirement, or to make a
finding that the open space requirement was not reasonable. She said if the Commission
felt the applicant should meet the open space requirement, the applicant might be able
to work with the San Luis Obispo Land Conservancy to establish a conservation
easement in the city's greenbelt area. She explained that finding 2 might need to be
modified. She said the airport area annexation is approximately one and one-half years
away. She said if this area was not annexed, it could be developed in the county and the
34
P.C. Minutes
November 17, 1993
Page 2
city would be subject to impacts of development without compensating benefits. She
explained that staff was recommending a base zoning of Service-Commercial (C-S) for
the entire site with a Special Consideration Overlay on the areas not already developed
because it would be consistent with the City's LUE Update and with the County's Update,
and because City Neighborhood-Commercial policies would not accommodate the
applicant's need. She said the applicant had mentioned Home Base and Food 4 Less
as possible tenants and those uses would draw from a larger area than the immediate
neighborhood. She explained the S Overlay would allow the Commission to review all
future uses of the site and allow the city to establish site development standards. She
mentioned that revised findings had been handed out to Commissioners and that those
findings explained the need for the S Overlay. She said the applicant was asking for
Commission comment on a preliminary subdivision plan, but that a formal subdivision
proposal had not been made.
In answer to a question by Commr. Whittlesey, Whitney Mcllvaine explained that the Land
Conservancy could help the applicant pick sites for acquisition of land or for a
conservation easement. She said the LUE did have a provision for allowing less than the
4-1 ratio of open space dedication if the open space is of significant value.
Commr. Whittlesey expressed concern about determining this request would result in a
public benefit significant enough to outweigh the open space requirement because
affordable housing, quality of life issues, or mitigation of environmental damage was not
involved, as was specified in city policies.
Commr. Cross questioned how staff could suggest a finding that stated that the
requirement for open space would not be appropriate because that was not substantiated
in the staff report or the mitigation measures.
Whitney Mcllvaine explained that the finding was an option, but the Commission could
also find that an aspect of this project outweighed the open space requirement, or the
Commission could require open space to be provided.
Commr. Cross expressed concern about other future projects asking for exemptions from
open space dedications.
Commr. Whittlesey also expressed concern about other properties in the airport area.
She believed this proposal had some merit but it should be done in the context of the
Airport Area Annexation Plan.
3-�f3
P.C. Minutes
November 17, 1993
Page 3
Commr. Hoffman felt that the mitigation measure bullet calling for"Clean-fueled or electric
shuttle service to link the neighborhood-serving aspect of the project to nearby residential
development" under Air Quality should be eliminated.
Vice-Chairwoman Dodie Williams opened the public hearing.
Dean Benedix of RRM Design Group, 3026 South Higuera Street, project engineer and
manager, presented a history of the project. He explained the County Industrial Parcel
Map, street improvement plans approved by the City and the County, and a development
plan for the self-storage industrial buildings. He said four wells had been constructed on
the site. . He said Mr. Kruetzkampf began discussing possible annexation with the city in
the Fall of 1991 because city services were available and it appeared to be in the City
because of its location. He said the applicant would like a portion of the property to be
zoned C-N to allow flexibility, such as specialty stores, which would not be allowed in a
C-S zone. He said the applicant would agree to reducing the amount of C-N zoning from
12 acres to 5 acres. He said residential use was not being proposed, and Mixed-Use was
not being requested. He said that the applicant voluntarily did a formal traffic study. He
believed that access issues had been agreed upon between the applicants and staff. He
said the applicant felt it was not reasonable to require that the open space requirement
be met because the land was currently in the county and zoned industrial. He read from
a resolution from the Southern California Gas Company Annexation which stated that the
area was unique because it was surrounded by areas served by city services, would be
an attractive gateway to the city, and would promote the health safety and welfare of
persons residing or working in and near the area. He said he could not find any
reference to open space. He said the project could most likely be approved in the
county, but annexation was being pursued for infrastructure benefits. He said the
applicant prepared a transportation management plan when the county approved the
mini-storage buildings.
In answer to a question by Commr. Hoffman, Mr. Benedix said the county transportation
management plan included bicycle storage, showers, and a future awareness program
for ridesharing. He said it did not include a local shuttle.
Commr. Hoffman asked why the applicant felt the open space requirement was
inappropriate. He said land dedication did not have to be contiguous property.
Mr. Benedix said the requirement was inappropriate because the county land was zoned
industrial. He said benefits to the city included a second lane on Higuera Street, bus
turnouts, tree preservation, another source for fire water as supported by the California
Department of Forestry, and revenue benefits from retail sales projects. He said it would
be very difficult for a project of this size to purchase 88 acres elsewhere and dedicate it
to the city.
P.C. Minutes
November 17, 1993
Page 4
Commr. Whittlesey asked why the project was seeking annexation ahead of the rest of
the airport area.
Mr. Benedix said Mr. Kruetzkampf felt his development could be done now successfully.
He said the fees shared with the rest of the area were unknown. He said consideration
of annexing the airport area has been around a long time and was not certain.
Commr. Whittlesey said the rest of the area, which was also zoned industrial, would be
required to dedicate open space. She said that industrial zoning did not make open
space dedication inappropriate. She said perhaps the amount of the requirement might
be inappropriate.
Mr. Benedix said a lot of the land in the airport area was wetlands. It also included a golf
course, which was contiguous open space. He said open space dedication on this
property would harm the developability of the site. In answer to a question by Commr.
Whittlesey, Mr. Benedix said the caretakers unit on the site could be considered mixed
use, but he did not want a MU overlay. He did not believe the site was appropriate for
residential use.
In answer to a question by Commr. Hoffman, Mr. Benedix said if the City asked for a
reasonable amount of fees for off-site improvements, the applicant would probably not
object, but a significant increase in cost would harm the project. He said he was
concerned when he was told about possibly having to contribute to the Los Osos Valley
Road overpass or the Prado Road extension. He said the applicant would be paying for
a full signal at Suburban Road, modifications to the Tank Farm intersections, perimeter
improvements, and water and sewer connections. He said improvements required by the
County included curbs, gutters the construction of Jenney Way, and a drain system for
the mini-storage.
Commr. Senn asked if the cost per acre of developable property in the airport area could
somehow be quantified in regard to open space. He asked if this project would be willing
to carry its fair share of the open space requirement.
Mr. Benedix said he would recommend that the owners do that, because if they were still
in the county, they would have to do so.
Commr. Senn said in the future the applicant might want to request a PD zoning because
uses might be compatible but not allowed in the C-N or C-S zone. He asked staff how
long it would take for a change to PD zoning.
P.C. Minutes
November 17, 1993
Page 5
Ron Whisenand estimated it would take approximately six months. He said there are
several uses, such as banks and real estate offices, that are not allowed in PD Zoning.
Commr. Senn asked what uses the applicant wanted that would be allowed in C-N zoning
but not in C-S.
Mr. Benedix said retail sales and specialty uses. He said C-N zoning was preferred, but,
would not be a project buster.
Ron Whisenand said staff was concerned about some of the uses allowed in C-N zones.
He said a mixed use overlay does not require a residential component.
. Commr. Senn asked how the applicant could complete the interior road because lots 4
and 5 were not owned by the applicant and would be remaining in the County.
Mr. Benedix said the same situation existed if the site remained in the County. He
believed Sonic and Coca-Cola would not object to the road, but if they did, he said the
applicant would end the road on his property with a cul-de-sac.
Commr. Whittlesey asked what parts of the project were already approved in the County.
Mr. Benedix said the road alignment, the parcel map for three 5-acre parcels, the
development plan for the 7-1/2 acre parcel and the building permits for the constructed
mini-storage units had been approved. He said the street improvement on Suburban
Road had been completed and other exterior and interior street plans had been approved
by the County.
Ray Bunnell, 5255 Cover Ridge Lane, said he owned property across the street from the
project and he said he favored the annexation and wouldn't mind having his developed
property also annexed to the City.
David Morrow, 670 Chorro Street, asked staff if the applicant could build a 12 acre
shopping center if it was annexed and rezoned.
Whitney Mcllvaine said the applicant would have to obtain a Planning Commission use
permit if there was an S Overlay on the property. He said the Architectural Review
Commisjion would have to approve the design.
Mr. Morrow asked how much traffic the project would generate?
Whitney Mcllvaine said 7,000-8,000 trips had been estimated.
37 �1�
P.C. Minutes
November 17, 1993
Page 6
Mr. Morrow asked if that would be compatible with the City's Circulation Plan.
Arnold Jonas said the draft General Plan had anticipated similar types of uses in that area.
Mr. Morrow said he taught at Cal Poly and had a traffic and air quality consulting
business. He was formerly employed by the Air Pollution Control District in San Luis
Obispo. He felt this type of development contradicted adopted Clean Air Plan land use
strategiesbecause it promoted sprawl, did not provide mixed use, and a large shopping
center would increase the jobs/housing imbalance. He read sections of the Clean Air
Plan for the Commission. He expressed concern that the project was not pedestrian,
bicycle or transit oriented, and it was not scaled in size to the community. He felt mixed
use which provided worker housing on the site was important. He felt reduced parking
should be granted and the money saved from parking costs should be put into the mass
transit system to make bus service more frequent. He suggested businesses be required
to provide delivery service so that people do not have to drive and pick up items. He said
wider roads, more traffic and higher traffic speeds are not benefits. He said he did not
want to see San Luis Obispo sprawl out like Southern California. He asked the
Commission to require a dollar number commitment from the applicant for open space.
Virginia Wartag, 5255 Cloveridge Lane, said she lived in the County to the south of this
site. She said if she wants to go shopping, she has to drive twice as far as this
development would require. She said this shopping area would be within walking
distance from her home, which was not true of other shopping.
Bruce Weidmeyer, Las Paderos Drive in the Meadows Housing Development, said people
in the Las Verdes Development, the Meadows Development, Creekside Mobile Home
Park and Silver City Home Park would be detrimentally affected by this proposed
development. He said South Higuera could not handle any more traffic. He felt trees on
the street would have to be removed to put in another lane on South Higuera. He said
a vast majority of people living in the developments he named oppose shopping projects
such as Food 4 Less and Home Base.
Commr. Williams asked Mr. Weidmeyer if shopping could be considered a convenience
especially for elderly residents because currently there was no shopping in the area.
Mr. Weidmeyer said no because shopping was not too far away and most of the people
had transportation. He felt the detrimental effects of the development would outweigh the
benefits.
Commr. Hoffman asked what features of a Food 4 Less and Home Base Mr. Weidmeyer
objected to.
J-- 47
P.C. Minutes
November 17, 1993
Page 7
Mr. Weidmeyer responded that traffic, noise pollution, air pollution would reduce the
quality of life for people living in the area.
Commr. Senn asked Mr. Weidmeyer how he would like to see the property developed,
and how he perceived the quality of property to the north and south.
Mr.Weidmeyer said the Hind facility and the Telegram-Tribune were acceptable in style,
did not generate much traffic and added to the area. He said the storage facility and
other developments to the south were unacceptable.
Bill Bates, 28 Los Verdes Drive, Los Verdes Park I, said his property was about 60 paces
fromHiguera. He said the noise pollution and air pollution already had made the
neighborhood noisy and unclean. He said this proposal would add more traffic.
Mr. Senn asked Mr. Bates for his opinion on the developments to the north and south on
Higuera.
Mr. Bates felt those uses did not increase traffic. He said more people from out of town
were using South Higuera to enter and leave the City.
Lisa Wheeler, 3960 South Higuera, Creekside Mobile Home Park, said most of the
residents of Creekside were families, many with children, not elderly residents. She said
most of the people drove and many were bikers and walkers who use South Higuera
Street. She questioned how many markets and shopping centers the City needed. She
said a hardware store and grocery store would soon be open in the Marigold Project.
She expressed concern about noise pollution and crime because Food 4 Less is a 24-
hour store. She said when the sewer plant upgrade was being considered, all nearby
residents were notified well in advance, but she and many others in her area learned
about this project last night in the paper and were not notified by the City. She asked if
water was available for this use. She expressed concern that an exemption of dedicated
open space for this project would open the door for exemptions in future projects.
Mr. Bunnell said he had resided on Suburban Road for 25 years and the Milling Company
was the only other business there when he arrived. He said it was nice back when most
of the area was undeveloped, but times had changed and the area had grown. He
believed a lot of the traffic on South Higuera was generated by the new overpass on Los
Osos Valley Road, which has nothing to do with this development. He said the concrete
plant and block plant that cause objectionable' noise for the residents were there long
before the residents and the overpass. He said people have to learn to live together. He
felt the type of complex being proposed for this site was better than a block plant or
concrete plant. He said there were already hundreds of homes in the area across the
3-�8
P.C. Minutes
November 17, 1993
Page 8
street and it would allow those people to shop closer to home which would reduce traffic
on Tank Farm and Los Osos Valley Roads. He said he favored the project.
Commr. Cross asked if residents were not notified because they were outside of the 300-
foot boundary.
Ron Whisenand said public notification of the hearing was done consistent with State Law.
He said it was advertised in the paper, but he did not know if residents of the residential
areas were mailed out notification.
Mr. Benedix said specifics of the planned development such as size of lots were not
presented in depth because this was an annexation request. He said some information
had been compiled to make sure the project was environmentally sound for annexation
based on the zoning requested. He said he was concerned that the City does not have
a large facility such as a Toys R Us or a Costco. He said he regretted having to drive to
Santa Maria to spend his money. He said he would like to see sales tax revenue stay in
the community. He said the air was being polluted from San Luis Obispo residents
driving to Santa Maria to shop. He said Tank Farm and Higuera Street had been
designated as arterial roads. He said if there was a successful annexation of the airport
area, the applicant would come back to the Commission regarding open space or traffic
fees. He said City resources such as waste water were examined and it was determined
those services could be provided. He said four wells producing potable water and would
be used for landscaping.
Lisa Wheeler asked the Commission to remember the problems caused by the Bear
Valley Shopping Center wells and that the City was responsible to the property owners
for their losses. She felt putting a signal at Suburban Road would result in too many
signals in a short area.
Vice Chairwoman Williams closed the public hearing.
Wayne Peterson said Keith Franklin, the traffic engineer for the project, looked at the
closest intersections in either direction and it was determined in most cases that the
change in level of service would not be noticeable to the public.
Keith Franklin, Associated Transportation Engineers, said the Commission needed to
remember this was an annexation, not a commercial development and the development
would later come back before the Commission for consideration of traffic generation. In
response to the traffic handling ability of South Higuera, he said there was currently one
northbound and two southbound lanes at the project frontage, and when the project was
developed, South Higuera would have two lanes in each direction, a center turn lane, and
P.C. Minutes
November 17, 1993
Page 9
bike lanes. He said the trees would not be lost unless a right turn lane was constructed.
He said the right turn lane was not required by the development traffic, but might be in
the future due to cumulative development near the airport area. He said the report
suggested the land be dedicated for the right turn lane, but not constructed. He said the
possible future extension of Prado Road across the freeway and to Broad Street would
support some of the traffic currently on South Higuera Street.
In answer to a question by Brett Cross, Wayne Peterson said Mr. Franklin's analysis
looked at the effect of this project and projections for the near future, while the DKS study
looked at full buildout 25 years in the future.
Commr. Senn felt the Commission was getting off track. He said a County approved
development plan existed for one 7-acre parcel. He said the applicant could walk out and
develop what he wanted as long as it was allowed by the County. He said the
Commission should be considering if this is an appropriate piece of property to annex to
the"City.
Commr. Cross said traffic impacts were not a minor detail.
Commr. Senn said the traffic impacts would result whether the property was in the City
or County.
Ron Whisenand advised that CEQA requires that the Commission make a finding that the
annexation would not result in significant traffic impacts.
Commr. Senn asked staff what issue the Commission should consider first.
Whitney Mcllvaine explained that staff was recommending C-S prezoning for the entire site
because it is what is shown for the area in the Land Use Element Update. She said that
C-N zoning raises the issue of additional traffic.
Commr. Senn expressed concern that the Commission could determine this site was
appropriate for annexation with C-S zoning and then the applicant could come back with
a request for C-N zoning.
Ron Whisenand suggested the Commission first consider if the property should be
annexed to the City, and then examine the effects of the annexation to determine if staff's
suggested mitigations sufficiently address those impacts.
_ SII s v
P.C. Minutes
November 17, 1993
Page 10
Keith Franklin said the traffic study was done to determine if around 300,000 square feet
of development would result in significant traffic impacts. It was found that it did not and
that no degradation of services would result.
Vice Chairwoman Williams reminded the Commission it was considering two separate
motions; one on annexation and one on land use.
Commr. Whittlesey felt the annexation was appropriate for many reasons, especially
because the City would have control of the land before development. She suggested
finding 2 be revised to state: 'The proposed general plan amendment is consistent with
the goals and policies of the General Plan with consideration of the minor annexation
policies being satisfied through a dedication of open space or an in lieu program
consistent with the airport area master plan." She explained she wanted the property to
contribute to open space by in the amount of its fair share portion of the airport area.
Ron Whisenand suggested the Commission ask Cindy Clemens about the matter.
Cindy Clemens said Arnold Jonas had just explained to her how to proceed, and she
deferred to him.
Arnold Jonas explained the zoning itself could not be conditioned and open space
dedication could not be required at this time. He said The Commission should state the
project would incorporate the policies of the General Plan. He suggested the following
wording for finding 4: 'The proposed general plan amendment is consistent with the
goals and policies of the General Plan since compliance with the open space requirement
can be achieved by dedication or in lieu fees as part of the annexation process.
Cindy Clemens said she.was concerned about the mechanism for requiring open space
dedication, but she felt comfortable with the wording suggested by Arnold Jonas. She
said she understood there would be times during the development process that open
space could be required.
Arnold Jonas explained that the Commission needed to rely on existing policy because
there was no mechanism for the Commission to require open space at this time. He said
the Commission would be recognizing that a policy exists for dedication of open space.
Commr. Whittlesey moved to concur with the negative declaration of Environmental
Impacts and recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution amending the General
Plan Land Use Element Map to change the designation for the project site from Rural-
Industrial to Service-Commercial/Light Industrial as shown on exhibit A with the findings
and with finding 2 modified as suggested by Arnold Jonas.
P.C. Minutes
November 17, 1993
Page 11
Commr. Hoffman seconded the motion.
Ron Whisenand requested that the motion include recommendations to the City Council
for a., b., and c.
Commr. Williams asked if bullet 5 under Prezoning Finding 5 meant that the project
should not be a regional center.
Whitney Mcllvaine said there were square foot limitations in General Plan policies and
Zoning Regulations and if the project discussed tonight was proposed, square footage
would be considered.
Commr. Senn believed that bullet 5 under Prezoning Finding 5 should be deleted because
he had reservations about this site being suitable for retail uses. He requested that the
wording in bullet 4 under Prezoning Finding 5 be modified to state "minimum site
development standards and architectural guidelines will be similar to those..." because
one project cannot be "the same as" a project done years ago.
Commrs. Whittlesey amended her motion to also include a recommendation to the City
Council to print an ordinance pre-zoning the annexation area Service-Commercial (C-S)
and Service-Commercial Special Consideration (C-S-S) and to adopt a resolution
recommending that LAFCo approve the annexation, with the words "same as" in bullet 4
under Prezoning Finding 5 replaced with the words "similar to", and the elimination of
bullet 5 under Prezoning Finding 5.
Commr. Hoffman agreed to the additions to the motion.
Commr. Cross said he could not support the motion. He felt the Commission hadn't
adequately addressed C-N zoning. He said he did not agree that the site was
inappropriate for C-N zoning. In answer to a question by Commr. Senn, Commr. Cross
said he still had concerns about traffic and noise impacts.
Commr. Senn felt zoning should be consistent for the entire parcel and when the owner
had a specific project for this site, he could request a PD overlay. He said prezoning the
site C-S would be consistent with the General Plan and the airport plan. He felt a C-S-S
zoning for the entire site was appropriate.
•
VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Whittlesey, Hoffman, Williams and Senn
NOES - Commr. Cross
ABSENT - Commrs. Sigurdson and Karleskint
MFrn _ AGENDA 3. .
DA. I NCO
_ ra#
_ -
- COUNCIL . ]FIRECHIEF
IR
-- February-25-.1994— - --- � � - -W�[:nO HIEFT10RNEY The Honorable Members of theMoCLEq�pE CHF
San Luis Obispo, California City CCUnCi 1 RIG City Ha11 O MGMT TEAM R990 Palm Street � D ILE IRSan Luis Obispo, Ca 9ti401Q/ IR
RE: South Higuera Street Pr-ezoning (Annex%GP%R 54-93)
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
In r-egard to your consideration of the proposed South Higuera
- _ _ - _
Street F'r ezoning,. }r _Vo_lEsloc4;, _ Inc.,.;.:, _a....company which has
been in the busi'ness__,_of. _maneaCturing .,,concrete block and
selling it along with a full line of masonrysupplies and
materials, .• occupies a large parcel ofJand for.• its business
directly. ' -across .Subur-barr` Rodd-_ _ .'from_ _the parcel under
consideration. -Air_VoI-has-bee n,___atthis.__,10ca_ tion and in
business- since--1961 , approximatley - 33- year --- and it currently
employs approximately twenty-five persons.
When contemplating the above referenced pr-ezoni.ng we with you
--- --- to consider whether- such prezoning or-- subsequent--zoninq would
negatively impact or imperil the business of ; Air Vol Block.
Inc. .
Please. be advised that we have absolutely 'no immediate or-
future Dlans to remove or relocate our business.whatsoever.
We thank you in advance for your kind considerat.ibn.
Yours truly,
RVOL _'LOCF:, IN/C
R ber-t J. M lle President :� I=CE 'VED
- FEB 2. 8..1994
CITY CLERK
LUSS OBKWO,CA
P.O. BOX 931 • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93406 (805) 543-1314
MEETING _ y,� ITEM #� •
DATE�.7-.�
TIUNCIL CDD DIR
A
O ❑ FIN DIRAO ❑ FIRE CHIEFORNEY ❑ PW DIRRWJORIG ❑ POLICE CHFMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR
EAD FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PERS DIR
To OLG1��:�•G
Date �—Time�V�r 9000 .
w E YO R T. .
M..
of
Phone.L--i Number Extension
Area Code
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL`
CALLED TO SEE Y.OU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RET RNED Y UR CALL
M a
. . reord 00 0
RCC1(ti6m PAPER
wwuwo
'RECEIVED.
MAR o ; 1994
CITY CLERK
^.'.'1 LUIS OBIDPO,C->