HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/19/1991, 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM SERVICE COMMERCIAL-SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS (C-S-S) AND CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE - 40 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE (C/OS-40) TO SERVICE COMMERCIAL - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (C-S-PD), INCLUDING A iClL
"Jf MEETING DATE:
O SanLUIS OBISpO 3/1991
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director o
PREPARED BY: Greg Smith, Associate Plannej
SUBJECT _f
Planning Commission recommendation to rezone property from Service Commercial -
Special Considerations (C-S-S) and Conservation Open Space - 40 acre minimum lot
size (C/OS-40) to Service Commercial - Planned Development (C-S-PD), including a
preliminary development plan allowing large offices, and an exception to Grading
Ordinance Standards. The project site is on the east side of South Higuera Street, south
of the Elks Lane intersection.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Introduce the attached ordinance to rezone from C-S-S to C-S-PD, including approval
of a mitigated negative declaration and approval of a preliminary development plan,
and an exception to Grading Ordinance standards, for PD 1488, subject to findings and
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
REPORT IN BRIEF
The project involves extensive grading and a large, two-story building on a prominent
hillside site. Various issues relevant to the application are evaluated, particularly those
related to intensity of development and visual impacts of the proposed project. The
report summarizes Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission positions
on those issues: the project will not have significant adverse environmental impacts, and
the type of use and building scale are appropriate for the site. The need for
modifications to the project to reduce visual impacts received extensive consideration
during Planning Commission hearings.
DISCUSSION
I
Data Summary
Address: 2877 South Higuera Street
Applicant/Representative: Steven Wise
Zoning (Current): C-S-S, C/OS-40
Zoning (Pending): C-S-PD
General Plan: Service Commercial/Light Industrial;
Conservation/Open Space
Environmental Status: Mitigated negative declaration approved by
Director.
Project Action Deadline: April 31, 1991.
r /
PD 1488
Page 2
Site Description
The area to be developed is a 1.5-acre portion of larger parcel. Most of the development site
is zoned for service commercial uses, and the remainder is zoned for conservation and open
space uses. The site slopes steeply up from South Higuera Street, and the average cross slope
exceeds 30%. Several billboards are located on the site, at least one of which will be removed
in conjunction with the project. Refer to the attached initial study for a more complete
description of the site's environmental setting and vegetation.
Project Description
The applicant proposes to build a 15,000 square-foot office building on a 1.5-acre portion of
a 40.5-acre site,with the remainder to be dedicated as permanent open space. 53 auto parking
spaces would be provided in a paved parking lot on the site.
The 1.5-acre development site would be extensively graded to accommodate the proposed two-
level building and terraced parking. Finish grades will be as much as 20 feet lower than
existing grades, with six to ten-foot cuts typical throughout the site.
No specific tenant is proposed for the building, but city zoning regulations would require that
any tenant occupy at least 2500 square feet. Medical office uses and certain other types of
offices are prohibited by the regulations.
The project requires approval of the following permits by the City of San Luis Obispo. The
project does not involve permits from any other agency.
- Rezoning of the 1.5-acre construction site from C-S-S (Service Commercial - Special
Considerations) and C/OS-40(Conservation/Open Space,40-acre minimum parcel size)
to C-S-PD (Planned Development). The rezoning is required to allow construction of
the office building and its use by any type of tenant other than industrial design or
construction contracting, and because of C/OS-40 zoning on a small portion of the
development area. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning
and preliminary development plan on January 30, 1991.
- Approval of site and building design by the Architectural Review Commission. The
ARC granted schematic approval on February 4, 1991, with direction to step back the
loggia on the second floor, restudy colors and materials, and restudy front/top corner
detail. The plans submitted for council review incorporate an additional two-foot loggia
step back, which has not yet been reviewed by the ARC.
- Approval of an exception to the standards of the city's Grading Regulations, to allow
grading on a site whose average cross slope exceeds 30%. This exception requires
formal approval of the City Council only, although the Planning and Architectural
Review Commissions have indicated support for the request.
- Dedication of the undeveloped portion as permanent open space, by easement or by
granting fee title to the city, is a requirement of a tentative subdivision map approved
by the city in 1989.
PD 1488
Page 3
EVALUATION
Review by staff and commissions has identified various issues which the council should consider
in evaluating this project. The issues relate to land use policies for office development, site
constraints and intensity of development, and traffic and visual impacts of the proposed
building.
The project involves several complex policy areas, and staff suggests that the council focus on
major policy questions. Less significant site planning and building design details can be
handled as part of ARC final approval.
1. Land Use Element Policies
Based on results of an office supply and demand study commissioned by the city (discussed
further below), the council changed the general plan land use element to allow larger offices
in the service commercial/light industrial areas. The element says:
Large professional office buildings which can include multiple tenants but with
no single tenant space less than 2500 square feet may be established in service
commercial/light industrial areas subject to the approval of a planned
development (PD) zoning application and compliance with criteria set forth in
the zoning regulations. This last provision notwithstanding, the dispersion of
banks,real estate offices,financial institutions,medical clinics, doctors offices and
lawyers offices throughout the city is prohibited.
The request is for an office building with tenant spaces not less than 2,500 square feet. No
specific tenants have been proposed by the applicant.
2. Zoning Regulations Standards
The zoning regulations say that to approve a planned development for large offices, the
commission or council must find that it meets all of the following criteria:
1. The project will be compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the area.
The project is not expected to cause any compatibility conflicts with existing or
future uses. Noise conflicts are unlikely, because of the concrete walls of the
adjoining warehouse use.
The project is intended to contain only office uses, but compatible C-S uses
should not be prohibited. Compatibility of uses within the project may be
controlled with PD conditions.
2. The project's location or access arrangements do not significantly direct traffic
to use local or collector streets in residential areas.
The project meets this requirement. Refer to more detailed traffic analysis
below, and the attached report by the traffic consultant.
,� -3r
PD 1488
Page 4
3. The project will provide adequate mitigation to address potential impacts related
to noise, light and glare, and loss of privacy, among others, imposed by
commercial activities on nearby residential areas, by using methods such as
setbacks, landscaping, berming, and fencing.
The project is separated by the adjacent warehouse site from the nearest
residences, at Villa Fontana. No mitigation is proposed or considered necessary.
4. The project does not preclude industrial or service commercial uses in areas
especially suited for such uses when compared with offices.
The steepness of the site makes it unsuitable for many service commercial uses.
The 1.5-acre project is small in comparison with the amount of C-S-zoned land
available nearby.
5. The project does not create a shortage of C-S and M zoned land available for
service commercial or industrial development.
An ample supply of C-S and M zoned land is available for development. The
city's recent surveys of current land uses indicates that C-S zoned land is in more
abundant supply than any other type in the city.
Note 10 of the Zoning Regulations Table of Allowed Uses (17.22.010) prohibits banks,
real estate offices, financial institutions, medical clinics and doctors offices, and lawyers
offices. These prohibitions are specifically listed in the conditions of approval
recommended by the commission. Government Offices are also listed as prohibited,
reflecting General Plan policies regarding appropriate locations for those uses.
3. Office Supply and Demand
The city commissioned an office supply and demand study in 1985, to determine if the current
supply of offices and office-zoned land is sufficient to meet the city's needs. The study
concluded that existing office zones could accommodate offices in the less than 2,500 square
foot category, but that available land for larger offices is limited in existing office and
downtown areas. The general plan land use element and zoning regulations were amended to
make some C-S- and M-zoned land available for this purpose.
Demand for offices over 2,500 square feet in area, according to the consultants, would likely
be between 17,200 and 24,400 square feet per year between 1986 and 1990, and from 11,400
to 16,200 square feet between the years 1991 and 1995. The project, which would supply
about 15,000 square feet, would provide from one to one-and-one-half year's supply for this
category. Changes in the community and county growth rates could significantly affect these
projections.
The building is not suited for many types of uses allowed in the C-S zone, including most retail
and service uses. If office tenants are not available, it may be difficult to locate other
conforming C-S tenants.
a - Al
PD 1488
Page 5
4. Development Intensify
The proposed floor area of the project, and the corresponding required parking, necessitate
extensive grading of the site.
The council should evaluate what level of intensity is appropriate for this site, which is the
only steep hillside lot with C-S zoning in the city. A smaller floor area would significantly
reduce grading and visual impacts: an eight to ten thousand square-foot building would need
only one level of parking, eliminating much of the grading and retaining wall work now
proposed.
5. Visual Imp=
The building design has been modified since its original submittal, in response to visual impact
concerns raised by staff and the commissions:
The second floor of the building - which was originally cantilevered to a 16 foot
setback from South Higuera Street - has been set back approximately 16 feet
farther. The first floor setback from South Higuera Street remains at 24 feet; the
front comer of the second level is now set back 32 feet.
The height of the main portion of the building has been reduced by two feet.
The second floor loggia (open arcade) has been lowered to correspond to the
lower roofline, and stepped back slightly from the lower level facade. A planter
has been added at the front of the second level.
Several aspects of the building design affect its visual impacts. The council should consider the
following issues primarily as they relate to intensity of development, grading and site planning
issues, and environmental impacts. The ARC will review building design details.
- Size. In addition to having 15,000 square feet of floor area on two levels, plus covered
parking, the main portion of the building is 30 feet from the lower floor level to the top
of the parapet. The building will have a three-foot stemwall at the front, and the highest
point of the curved entryway roof would be ten feet higher than the parapet. Overall
height above grade is similar to that of the adjacent Dennis Transfer building. The
building would not involve an exception to the 35-foot C-S height limit. That limit is
measured from average grade; because of the steeply sloping site, the height above
average grade will be 27 feet.
- Proximity to street frontage. The building is set back 24 feet from the South Higuera
Street right-of-way, as noted above. A fifteen-foot setback is the minimum required for
buildings over 20 feet in height in the C-S zone.
- Height above street level. The building's lower floor level is thirteen feet above the
level of South Higuera Street, which contributes to the appearance of the mass of the
structure.
- Facade design. The design incorporates some features which add interest to the
building and break up the mass of the structure, including the balcony and recessed
g - s
PD 1488
Page 6
central entry. Further modification of the facade design could be of additional value
in this regard.
- Colors. The contrast between the dark green and white colors proposed for the
building, and their contrast with the project's hillside and skyline background, are also
factors which add to the project's visual impacts.
- Relationship to topography. ARC guidelines and Land Use Element policies call for
structures to conform to the contours of sloping sites. The lower level of the proposed
structure is dug into the hillside, but it may be appropriate to make further
modifications. A schematic alternative design with a three-level building, with a one-
story facade at the street frontage, was reviewed by the Planning commission and ARC.
An illustration of how the buildings profile might be reduced by that alternative, as
viewed from South Higuera Street, will be available at the council meeting.
The mitigated negative declaration approved by the Community Development Director included
several mitigation measures related to visual impacts of the original design. The revised design
and the commission recommendation incorporate most of those mitigation measures to the
satisfaction of the Planning Commission, and the attached resolution includes a revised
mitigation measure recommended by the commission.
6. Grading
Since the average cross slope of the site exceeds 30%, an exception to Grading Ordinance
standards is required if any grading is to occur. Obviously, some grading is necessary for site
access and parking. The extent of the parking and associated grading depends primarily on the
size of building proposed and secondarily on the type of use.
Other uses allowed in the C-S zone have lower parking requirements than offices. Many of
those require delivery or customer vehicle access which might partially offset any grading and
paving reduction gained by reducing the number of required parking spaces.
7. Traffic
An analysis of the development's traffic impacts was completed by city staff and a traffic
consultant whose work was reviewed by staff. That analysis concludes that no significant
adverse impacts on traffic congestion or safety will occur. However, it concludes that a trip
reduction program should be implemented, in order to mitigate a conflict with Land Use
Element policies. The LUE states that "where possible, access to service commercial areas
should be provided by industrial collector streets to minimize direct driveway access from
individual parcels onto the city's arterial system". Refer to the attached initial study and
enclosed consultant report for additional details.
Planning Commissioners expressed concerns with the need for a left turn lane in front of the
project, although the traffic study concluded that the turn lane would not be essential.
8. Open Space Dedication
The applicant proposes dedication of approximately 39 acres to the city as permanent open
space, either as an easement or in fee. Dedication of an easement was a condition of the
z -G
PD 1488
Page 7
tentative parcel map which would create the development site. Dedication of an easement is
also incorporated in the recommended conditions for the PD, with the applicant encouraged
to dedicate the property to the city in fee title (Condition No. 8). Acceptance of fee title may
be affected by a long-term lease for billboards in the open space area, as noted below.
While the open space is significant in determining the setting the building will be located in,
it is not a factor which has a direct impact on the appropriate intensity of development for the
site. Development of the C-S portion should be evaluated on its own merits.
9. Billboard Removal
The billboard in the immediate vicinity of the proposed building will be removed in conjunction
with construction of the project. Removal of the other billboards was required as a condition
of approval for the pending lot split.
Billboard removal may be complicated by State laws restricting local government regulations.
The City Attorney and Planning staff are continuing to research this issue, and will report at
the council meeting.
10. Plant Impacts
A study of plants found on the site is attached. That report, and the initial study completed
by staff, conclude that there will no significant impacts on rare or endangered plants. To be
on the safe side, the mitigated negative declaration requires that a survey be done in the spring,
prior to construction, to verify that no endangered plants are present in the construction area.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
No other department has raised concerns which would have significant impacts on the site or
building design.
CONCURRENCES
As noted above, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the project, and the
ARC has granted schematic approval to the proposed design.
FISCAL IMPACT
Council action will not result in significant changes to city revenues or expenses.
ALTERNATIVES
The council may deny the proposed rezoning and preliminary development plan. A draft
resolution including suggested findings for that action is attached.
The council may continue the project. Final action must be taken by April 31, 1991, unless the
applicant agrees to extend state-mandated deadlines for processing the application.
o? — 7
PD. 1488
Page 8
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the council pass to print the attached ordinance conditionally approving the
office planned development- rezoning and preliminary development plan for planned
development PD :1.4.88:
Attachments' Draft Ordinance for approval
Draft.Resolution.for. denial
Vicinity Map_ -
Site Plan-
Planning
lanPlanning Commission Minutes = January 30, 199.1. (forthcoming)
Initial Study
gtsdPD 1488CC.wp
il" $
ORDINANCE NO. (1991 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL MAP TO REZONE A PORTION OF
THE PROPERTY AT 2877 SOUTH HIGUERA STREET
FROM C-S-S AND C/OS-40 TO C-S-PD AND APPROVING A PRELIMINARY
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR LARGE OFFICES (APPLICATION PD 1488)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on application No. PD 1488 on January 30, 1991, and
recommended approval of the application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on
March 19, 1991, and has considered the testimony and statements of
the applicant, and other interested parties, and the records of the
Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff;
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Rezoning
The council approves application No. PD 1488, thereby amending the
Official Zoning Map designation for a portion of the site from
Service Commercial - Special Considerations (C-S-S) and
Conservation/Open Space - 40-acre minimum lot size (C/OS-40) to
Service Commercial - Planned Development (C-S-PD) , and approves the
preliminary development for a large office planned development, as
shown on Exhibit A attached, based on the following findings and
conditions, and including the following exception to the Grading
Ordinance Standards:
SECTION 2. Findings
1. The project will be compatible with existing and allowed land
uses in the area.
2 . The project's location or access arrangements do not
significantly direct traffic to use local or collector streets
in residential areas.
3. The project will not have impacts related to noise, light and
glare, and loss of privacy, on nearby residential uses.
4. The project does not preclude industrial or service commercial
a - ?
Ordinance No. (1991 Series)
PD 1488
Page 2
uses in areas especially suited for such uses when compared
with offices.
5. The project does not create a shortage of C-S and M zoned land
available for service commercial or industrial development.
6. A negative declaration for the project is hereby approved for
the project, based on incorporation of the following
mitigation measures into the project description:
Recommended Transportation and Circulation Impact Mitigation
Measures:
The applicant shall initiate a trip reduction plan approved
by the Community Development Director. The applicant shall
create a property owners ' association which shall be empowered
and required to implement the plan on a continuing basis.
Monitoring:
The property owners association shall report to the Community
Development Director annually on compliance with the on-site
trip reduction plan.
Recommended Plant Life Impact Mitigation Measures:
The site shall be surveyed by a qualified botanist during the
spring of 1991, prior to issuance of any permit for grading
or construction of the project is issued. If any evidence of
rare or endangered plant species is discovered, a new initial
study shall be prepared which evaluates the new information
in accordance with applicable provisions of CEQA and local
environmental review guidelines.
Recommended Aesthetic Impact Mitigation Measures:
The visual impact of the structure has been acceptably
mitigated by design revisions incorporated in the plans
submitted for review by the City Council at their March 4,
1991 hearing. Those plans, which are on file in the Community
Development Department office, are incorporated by reference.
SECTION 3 . Conditions
1. Except as otherwise noted in these conditions of. approval,
all zoning regulations for the C-S zone shall apply.
2. "Offices (professional) " shall be considered an allowed use
in this planned development, subject to compliance with the
square footage and any other limitations specified in these
07 �/d
Ordinance No. (1991 Series)
PD 1488
Page 3
conditions of approval. Utility company administrative
offices which do not involve significant public contact shall
be allowed.
3 . More than one office tenant may occupy office space on the
site, but no single tenant may occupy less than 2500 square
feet of adjacent, interconnected floor area.
4. Office-related uses which are prohibited by Section 17.22.010,
Footnote 10, shall be prohibited: banks, real estate offices,
financial institutions, medical clinics, doctors offices, and
lawyers offices. Government offices shall be prohibited.
5. The following uses which are otherwise permitted in the C-S
zone are prohibited in this PD:
Ambulance services
Auto repair and related services
Bars, taverns, etc.
Carwashes
Bus stations
Cabinet and carpentry shops
Contractors' yards
Equipment rental
Retail sales or rental of autos, trucks, motorcycles,
RV's, boats, aircraft, -mobile homes
Service stations
Tire recapping
Trailer rental
Trucking/taxi service
Utility companies
Corporation yards
6. The following uses which are otherwise permitted in the C-S
zone are only allowed in this PD subject to approval of an
administrative use permit:
Building and landscape maintenance services
Exterminators and fumigators
Feed stores and farm supply sales
Laundry/dry cleaners
Photofinishing - retail or wholesale
Printing and publishing
Repair services - appliances, locksmiths, saw sharpening,
shoe repair
Retail sales - building and landscape materials
Retail sales - auto parts and accessories-
Warehousing, ministorage, moving company
Wholesale and mail order houses
Ordinance No. (1991 Series)
PD 1488
Page 4
7. Applicant shall remove all off-premises signs (billboards)
from the site.
8. Applicant shall dedicate to the city an open space and
pedestrian easement over the entire area shown as Parcel 2 on
the approved tentative map for Minor Subdivision 89-096, to
the approval of the Community Development Director, City
Attorney, and applicant. The open space and access easements
shall run with the land and provide the following limitations
on land use or alterations:
A. No structures or solid fencing shall be placed on or
within said premises with the exception of receiving or
transmitting equipment.
B. No advertising of any kind shall be located within said
premises.
C. The general topography of the area shall be preserved
substantially in its existing condition. No grading
shall be allowed except as permitted by the Community
Development Director.
D. No removal of trees or vegetation except for fire
protection or other hazards or elimination of diseased
growth as approved by the Community Development Director.
In lieu of dedicating an easement, the applicant is encouraged
to dedicate Parcel 2 in fee title to the city for open space
uses.
9. Open space area described in Condition No. 8 shall not be
further subdivided.
SECTION 4: Exception to Grading Ordinance Standards
An exception to the Design Standards of Section 15.44.210 is hereby
approved, allowing grading as shown on the preliminary development
plan, on a site with an average cross slope in excess of 30%, and
where 100% of the site would otherwise be required to remain
ungraded. The exception is approved based upon the following
findings:
A. This exception is subject to conditions which assure that
it does not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties
in the same vicinity;
B. That because of special circumstances applicable to the
subject property, including size, shape, topography,
o? "/.Z
Ordinance No. (1991 Series)
PD 1488
Page 5
location or surroundings, the strict literal application of the
grading limitations is found to deprive subject property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity.
C. Under the circumstances of this particular case the
exception is in conformity with the purposes of the
Grading Ordinance as set out in Section 15.44 . 020.
SECTION 5. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City
Attorney, together with the names of council members voting for and
against, shall be published at least (5) days prior to its final
passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and
circulated in this city. This ordinance shall go into effect at
the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. A copy
of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file in the office
of the City Clerk on and after the date following introduction and
passage to print and shall be available to any interested member
of the public.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of
San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of
1991, on motion of , seconded
by , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
z - � 3
Ordinance No. (1991 Series)
PD 1488 _-
Page 6
APPROVED:
r
City =__m_ nstratve Officer
-to ney
Community Deve.l ent .Director
-
RESOLUTION NO. (1991 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING APPLICATION NO. PD 1488, A PROPOSAL TO REZONE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2877 SOUTH HIGUERA STREET FROM C-S-S AND C/OS-40
TO C-S-PD, AND DENYING AN EXCEPTION TO THE GRADING ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on application No. PD 1488 on January 30, 1991, and
recommended approval of the application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on
March 19, 1991, and has considered the testimony and statements of
the applicant, and other interested parties, and the records of the
Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo to deny Application PD 1488, based on the following
findings:
Findings
1. The project will not be compatible with existing and allowed
land uses in the area.
2. The project will cause significant adverse aesthetic effects
on the environment, because of extensive modification of
existing scenic landforms and construction of a prominent
structure on an aesthetically sensitive site.
3 . The requested exception to the Design Standards of the Grading
Ordinance is not consistent with the purpose of the ordinance
to preserve and enhance the beauty of the landscape by
encouraging the retention of natural topographic features and
minimizing the padding or terracing of building sites in the
hillside areas.
On motion of ,
seconded by and on the
following roll call vote:
Z - /S
Resolution No. (1991 Series)
PD 1488
Page 2
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of , 1991.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
c
City Adm'nistrative Officer
n
�7IEU
rdCh.�
Community Develdpment Director
07 -4
sit 0
VL °
N VAS
1 Y
N u fa y` '
� N
Z ir
I �... � CITY LIMITS
a 1 I
I
ea
F1
a U M�I—1
- t LL- l0 I
a
O
L V1
I ♦^ , I U
' I Q IS rlN:rr aiir�
•at sr
�11�1 NNIL
,w % U O I rear■ �Tir3
sr
-J � � — 1111111 Alli 7llr�
JIYd p011lfiQdR7 N �_ -���• ..
I O4`•
1
L
CL
N �'
Nir
(r
SAraer r� b.� _
V STS
1 of O I
N�
0
LL
_ �33u3 ods son
I was N • O
L U
o
city of san tins osispo
1�►i����lilllllillll��111°�'��I�I INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL -IMPACT
SITE LOCATION 1:1APPUC TION NO3W j
PROJECT OESCRIPTIO2��� -
APPLICANT ���1
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
X-NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY DATE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTIO DATE
Mmc�
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
11.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ...................................................
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH..........................................
C. LAND USE .......................................................................
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ..............................................
E. PUBLICSERVICES ....................................................................
F. UTILITIES........................................................................
G. NOISE LEVELS ....................................................................
H. GEOLOGIC 3 SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS ....................
1. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS...............................................
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ...................................._.........
KPLANT LIFE......................:...............................................
L. ANIMALLIFE.....................................................................
M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL...................................................
N. AESTHETIC ......................................................................
0. ENERGY/RESOURCE USE.............:............................................
P. .OTHER. :,..a:7 .... . .............................
tl-'t`.:. .: � � �frg".','•'.' .. - - - :.iti '8.."Y�'—'_ •:aaz :�.:
{^_,; _ _ :.dsp7fi�r. -
III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
*SEE ATTACHED REPORT S6J16
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Project Description
The applicant proposes to build a 15, 000 square-foot office
building on a 1.5-acre portion of a 40.5-acre site. 53 auto
parking spaces would be provided in a paved parking lot on the
site.
The 1.5-acre development site would be extensively . graded to
accommodate the proposed two-level building and terraced parking.
Finish grades will be as much as 20 feet lower than existing
grades, with six- to ten-foot cuts typical throughout the site.
No specific tenant is proposed for the building, but city zoning
regulations would require that any tenant occupy at least 2500
square feet. Medical office uses and certain other types of
offices are prohibited by the regulations.
The project requires approval of the following permits by the City
of San Luis Obispo. The project does not involve permits from any
other agency.
Rezoning of the 1.5-acre construction site from C-S-S
(Service Commercial - Special Considerations) and C/OS-40
(Conservation/Open Space, 40-acre minimum parcel size) to C-
S-PD (Planned Development) . The rezoning is required to allow
construction of the office building and its use by any type
of tenant other than industrial design or construction
contracting. This application will be reviewed by the
Planning Commission and the City Council.
- Approval of site and building design by the Architectural
Review Commission.
- Approval of an exception to the standards of the city's
Grading Regulations, to allow grading on a site whose average
cross slope exceeds 30%. This exception requires approval of
the City Council.
- Dedication of the undeveloped portion as permanent open
space, by easement or by granting fee title to the city.
Environmental Setting
The site slopes steeply up from South Higuera Street. The slope
of the portion of the site to be developed varies from 25% to
greater than 40%; the open space portion of the site is generally
steeper. The portion of the site to be developed is vacant, except
for three billboard structures.
The development site area is located at the southwest corner of the
large parcel. Thus, vacant, steeply sloping, undeveloped land
borders the north and east sides of the development site, and would
07 ' 9
ER 18-90
Page 3
continue to do so because of the open space dedication proposal.
The adjacent property to the south is developed with a large
concrete warehouse building and associated parking lots. A
cemetery is located to the west of the development area, across
South Higuera Street. Various residential and service commercial
uses are located in the vicinity.
Vegetation in the development area and the remainder of the site
consists of native grassland species intermixed with introduced
non-native grasses and other low-growing plants. Refer to the
attached botanical study of the site by V. L. Holland, Ph. D.
II. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW
A. Community Plans and Goals
The city's Land Use Element includes policies intended to focus
demand for most office uses in areas specifically zoned for that
type of use. Exceptions are provided for large professional office
buildings in the C-S zone, where no single tenant space is less
than 2,500 square feet, and where the project will meet performance
criteria contained in the Zoning Regulations. Banks, real estate
offices, financial institutions, medical clinics, and doctors' and
lawyers' offices are prohibited.
The provisions of the Zoning Regulations - and of the planned
development rezoning ordinance implementing the approval of the
proposed project - would insure that the square footage and use
prohibitions will be complied with.
The intent of the restrictions is, in part, to ensure that demand
for office space in the downtown periphery remains strong enough
to allow the preservation of historically significant structures,
and maintain the small-scale office buffer and transition zone
between intensive downtown commercial uses and surrounding
residential neighborhoods.
The proposed project is not expected to have a significant impact
on the demand for downtown peripheral office space, for two
reasons:
- The vacancy rate for existing structures remains relatively
low. There are few vacancies, and few requests for demolition
of existing structures.
- The provisions of the regulations which require tenant
spaces of not less than 2,500 square feet in the C-S-PD zone
screen out most tenants who might be prospective tenants for
the downtown periphery, where most office buildings are
somewhat smaller.
Z - Sze
ER 18-90
Page 4
C. Land Use
Problems of conflicting land uses - such as excessive noise, odors,
etc. - are unlikely to occur between the project and existing or
likely future uses of nearby land. The adjacent warehouse and
cemetery pose no potential for conflict, and the existing open
space will remain undeveloped on the other two sides of the
developed area of the site.
D. Transportation and Circulation
An analysis of traffic impacts has been prepared by William P.
Heath, a traffic engineering consultant employed by the applicant.
The report has been reviewed and evaluated by city engineering and
planning staffs, who concur with the report's methodology and
conclusions.
The report concludes that the proposed project will have
imperceptible effects on traffic volumes and levels of service
along the South Higuera Street corridor.
The project's contribution to cumulative impacts of increasing
traffic levels will also be extremely small. Within the next ten
to twenty years, acceptable levels of service can be maintained
within existing rights-of-way with incremental changes to paving,
lane striping, and signalization (Pacific Coast Design Center
Traffic Study, ER 61-87; 3440 South Higuera Street Traffic Study,
ER 10-89) . No significant cumulative impacts will result from
increased traffic volumes due to this and other projects in the
vicinity.
The project's traffic study notes that the planned configuration
of South Higuera Street - an existing two-way left turn lane in
front of the site is to be eliminated as part of a restriping
project which is unrelated to the project - will make it illegal
to turn left when entering or leaving the project site. The
absence of the left turn lane will result in inconvenient site
access and additional miles traveled, and/or illegal left turns.
Traffic volumes during the PM peak hour on South Higuera Street
will be such that entering or exiting the site via southbound lanes
will be inconvenient (level of service LOS D and E) . The
inconvenience may encourage illegal and/or potentially hazardous
maneuvers. However, the volume of traffic from the site is small,
and sight distance/stopping times are good. The increased level
of hazard is not considered to be a significant adverse impact.
The project is designed to have direct access to South Higuera
Street, which is an arterial street. The city's general plan
includes a policy which encourages access via industrial collector
streets whenever possible. A trip reduction program is recommended
ER 18-90
Page 5
as a means of mitigating the project's conflict with that policy.
Recommended Mitigation:
The applicant shall initiate a trip reduction plan approved by the
Community Development Director. The applicant shall create a
property owners' association which shall be empowered and required
to implement the plan on a continuing basis.
Monitoring:
The property owners association shall report to the Community
Development Director annually on compliance with the on-site trip
reduction plan.
F. UTILITIES
The city's total water use has exceeded safe annual yield in recent
years, and water reserves have been reduced by consecutive years
of drought conditions. The city has adopted regulations which
require conservation of water by all users, and which require
development project applicants to retrofit existing buildings in
the city with water saving devices to compensate for water which
will be used in the new development. The regulations are expected
to mitigate water-use impacts.
H. GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS AND TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS
As noted above, the project involves extensive grading on the
portion of the site which is to be developed. A reconnaissance
geologic study of the site was prepared by Ken Maloney, P.E. , in
1989. That report concluded that significant geologist hazards are
not present. A more complete investigation is recommended to
support actual grading and building designs; such a report will be
required by city regulations prior to issuance of grading or
construction permits.
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY
The project will alter storm water runoff patterns in the 1.5-
acre development area. Drainage which currently sheet flows across
the property onto South Higuera Street will be collected and
directed to a suitable point of disposal - either onto the street
via pipes under the sidewalk, and thence via drop inlets r -- an
existing storm drainage pipe under the street; or directly into the
storm drain via underground pipes. The City Engineer's staff have
evaluated the capacity of the storm drain, and determined that its
size is adequate to handle the projected runoff from the project.
K. PLANT LIFE
0Z - az
ER 18-90
Page 6
A botanical study of the site by V. L. Holland, Ph. D. , is
attached. That study concludes that:
- No evidence of rare or endangered species was present in
September of 1990. Additional site study is needed in the
spring of 1991 to totally rule out the presence of rare
Dudleya species or Calochortus obispoensis, but the area to
be developed does not appear to be favorable habitat for those
plants.
- California native grassland species occupy much of the site,
dominated by the perennial, native bunch grass Stipa pulchra
(purple needle grass) . These plants are not considered rare
or endangered, but do constitute a significant and sensitive
plant community.
- Elimination of the native grassland species in the
development area does not constitute a significant impact,
since they are also present on much of the open space portion
of the site.
Recommended Mitigation:
The site shall be surveyed by a qualified botanist during the
spring of 1991, prior to issuance of any permit for grading or
construction of the project is issued. If any evidence of rare or
endangered plant species is discovered, a new initial study shall
be prepared which evaluates the new information in accordance with
applicable provisions of CEQA and local environmental review
guidelines.
N. AESTHETIC
The project would be located on a prominent hillside site adjoining
a major arterial street. The building would be set back 24 feet
from the street frontage, atop a graded 2: 1 embankment
approximately 12 feet higher than the street. The front facade of
the structure would rise an additional 32 feet to the typical
parapet height, and would be 206 feet in length.
The structure will dominate near- and long-range views of the site.
It will appear more massive than the adjoining warehouse, which is
significantly larger than other structures in the vicinity. The
parapet height of the proposed structure would be similar to that
of the warehouse, but the office building would be 30 feet closer
to the street and twice as wide.
The visual impact of the project, as proposed constitutes a
significant adverse aesthetic impact, since it is out of scale with
its surroundings, and adversely affects the open character of the
South Higuera corridor.
� -x3
ER 18-90
Page 7
Recommended .Mitigation:
The visual impact of the structure should be reduced to the
approval of the Architectural Review Commission by a combination
of appropriate methods which include the following:
- Reduction of building mass. Reduction of interior spaces
at the lower level which have sixteen-foot ceilings and/or
reduction of floor area.
- Modify the building to have three floor levels rather than
two, thus gaining floor area while reducing overall volume.
- Step the floor levels up the hillside to conform more
closely to the hillside topography.
- Reduce the height of the facade at the street frontage of
the building.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that a negative declaration be approved, based on
incorporating the following mitigation measures into the project
description:
Recommended Transportation and Circulation Impact Mitigation
Measures:
The applicant shall initiate a trip reduction plan approved by the
Community Development Director. The applicant shall create a
property owners' association which shall be empowered and required
to implement the plan on a continuing basis.
Monitoring:
The property owners association shall report to the Community
Development Director annually on compliance with the on-site trip
reduction plan.
Recommended Plant Life Impact Mitigation Measures:
The site shall be surveyed by a qualified botanist during the
spring of 1991, prior to issuance of any permit for grading or
construction of the project is issued. If any evidence of rare or
endangered plant species is discovered, a new initial study shall
be prepared which evaluates the new information in accordance with
applicable provisions of CEQA and local environmental review
guidelines.
Recommended Aesthetic Impact Mitigation Measures:
ER 18-90
Page 8
The visual .. impact ofthe structure should be reduced to the
approval of the Architectural Review Commission by a combination
of appropriate methods which include the following:
- Reduction of building mass. Reduction of interior spaces
at the lower level which have sixteen-foot ceilings and/or
reduction of floor area.
- Modify the building to have three floor levels rather than
two, thus gaining floor area while reducing overall volume.
- Step the floor levels up the hillside to conform more
closely to the hillside topography.
Reduce the height of the facade at the street frontage of
the building.
.•.?{Y {?V. �4,.,.... 'S�}�,,�. 4.x . ■t ..
•Y',5 NLA 5 5 5 '{lL 4■ �y•,55x,•'• J4i
�} SfvX-0v�kt :::}{(ntiQ7(v v} ....L .. ..............} {�45w .... .... .\ J�{�5.. .. ... ......
5 5Y.......... t .. ....
I `
TRAFFIC REPORT
S7< j
MONTE
VERDE
{
'A5
�-� OFFICE PROJECT
~��r L
5?•J.
M .
MY? C
!r
iJULY 1000
h ,
lav,
V. ''J.KYA.. 1 1 yy
for
5��'Sf,.SL•.:•..} 17171 �� 1111
{_ 1 =ter 11
r ''{•J. I ,1171
5. _
' gulf 1 oil 1
4Vti4t':
x':5tt5,,5555'.5. 4Y� T�
m GROUP
BYY
x?ti•JM 4!!.!41`4.•• e WoR
5YJ},I1'1µ
,•x;.5.155�:
M\?
N.YS"5'•..','•,�.�1. '.xi'• � Y n5\\5 � x J x5 vh � •u �L tx•.� L J 5
yyµ7N,.•5x'}t�,.7'ti:�Sx.'tl //++ fes_ �.5ui;t � 5•J}'4 � ��
Y4}5:7"h5. Y r1T � J• ~� 5�`,+.T Y.lA L�T� �5.�.� ��— f��..,55h�... '{
lvh�:55{ti',��;:v tt.5, �. {r- 'ti51••••J75� `� : J�J.:.S:'•' 1� J .r l Jt�xy �f `J
5 Y h\{•J. * xSVJh� IMJNJ •5•h hSN•.\ �...•hl•.Y•IMM 7�y',y/xYMW1„ �\W.• hyN•µ�, •5 ••
..,y:}}}:{}:N'�4}:{Y�:JJ ?':lh::'�h:K,�„5.'�,.,{YV.55NLW. �.1.�,{•}TI 5{SY.iY�}5:}.wwll"J}}:::!}::}}�:'}7':`.N G•} '}!J?{•�.. ... �.7J�..��NJ.SV x5,.1 VY: l ,
PRELIMINARY. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
MONTEVERDE' OFFICE
JULY 1996
i
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. PURPOSE OF TRAFFIC REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
IV. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2/4
V. TRIP GENERATION/DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5/6
VI. TRAFFIC IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7/10
VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/13
APPENDIX
A. References and Persons Contacted A-1
B. Level of Service and Sight Distance Description B-1/3
C. Traffic Data Sheets C-1/45
D. Correspondence D-1
E. Photos (Taken on 7/19/90 in PMPH) E-1/6
02
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This "Preliminary Traffic Analysis Report" responds to the June
26, 1990 request for preliminary traffic impact assessment from
the City of San Luis Obispo (See Appendix D) .
The report contains sections on existing conditions, trip
generation and distribution, traffic impacts, and conclusions and
recommendations.
Although the report does not find that the proposed Monteverde
project will produce significant traffic impacts requiring
mitigation measures, it does find that the proposed project
driveway is inconsistent with a policy of the City's Land Use
Element.
A mitigation measure consisting of a trip reduction plan to
encourage use of SLO Transit, ridesharing and bicycles is
recommended to compensate for the inconsistency with the Land Use
Element policy.
II. PURPOSE OF REPORT
The Community Development Department of the City of San Luis
Obispo has requested a "Preliminary Traffic Analysis Report" for
the Monteverde Office Development. (See Appendix D)
In response to a desired scope of work, Greg Smith, Associate
Planner, stated the report should utilize existing information to
the extent possible, to preliminary assess the potential traffic
impacts of the proposed Monteverde Office project including the
following:
1. Project Trip Generation and its effect on the intersections
of Higuera Street with Madonna Road, Elks Lane, proposed
project driveway, Margarita Avenue and Prado Road.
2. Sight Distance at Project Entrance
Greg Smith has supplied this author with copies of several
development impact studies to aid with the assessment of
current and cumulative impacts.
1
i
a - � 9
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Higuera Street between Madonna Road and the Caltrans south
driveway is a four-lane arterial facility with no turn lanes or
parking allowed. (See Photos 1-7)
Between the Caltrans south driveway (See Photo #7) and Prado Road
either left turn or two-way left turn lanes are provided. (See
Photos 9-23)
At the project site Higuera Street is constructed to its ultimate
plan line on the east side and curb, gutter and sidewalk has been
provided. (See Photos 11-15)
The project site is a 40.5 acre parcel (#53-021-17 and 53-022-
10) currently used for cattle grazing, that fronts on the east
side of Higuera Street just northerly of the Dennis Transfer
Storage building located at 2885 South Higuera Street.
IV. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
It is proposed to develop 1.42 acres of the 40. 50 acre site by
constructing a 15,258 G.S.F. of professional office condominiums.
Additional areas of 21, 084 S.F. landscaping and 25,104 S.F. of
paving are proposed in conjunction with the office condominiums.
The remaining 39.08 acres of the site will remain as cattle
grazing land use.
Access to the site will be via a 30-foot commercial driveway.
(See Photos 12-15)
2
2 - 30
a
Z
IZ
Y
Ic
Allp
�J
IV
i
1
eli , 4bb,
sow
�
g � r
8 e l
\ •> . Z
Ano� J tv� a b_are• �''�`�,,� ~'r � � - ��
4pa
•'a •rl 5D•�� - s '� � 7 � � 40�
�A nR � �OU•P•. • �e '
Wet 6f
Ou�l `•4j/ � '�
4
s : /
j ��5 • ens' 1
� / 1air
O •
/ 1
/ r
o
LSn y wws 1
At
PAP #1 a7-3/
it j' i Pik
cm
} us
:1111 n lJ'1 It 1 $ _ +I +� ( t Ii
W
9
AI
;y
' � 1
NX
Pi
tib.\ 'f\\ �,• R,.
1,,
V.
'A\ \1• \'�`�I 1}
it i
n�'�q.'•;
i
o?
a,,)R8►s!:;j.a!�
MONTE VERDE
MAP # 7
7
V. TRIP GENERATION/DISTRIBUTION
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) suggests a trip
generation rate of .16.31 to .17.7 Weekday Trips per 1000 Gross
Square Feet (GSF) for office development (ITE LU Code #711) .
The San Diego Association of Governments in their June 1987 Guide
of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates suggests a rate of 20
weekday trips per 1000 GSF be used for office developments under
100; 000 GSF. They also suggest a PM Peak Hour (PM PH) of 13%
with 20% of PM PH entering and 80% exiting.
other trip generation studies suggest rates varying from 9.4 to
17. 3 trips per 1000 GSF.
It was decided to use the San Diego rates because CEQA requires
use of the reasonable worst case alternative and the ITE rates
are based on national studies.
Applying the San Diego rates to the proposed development results
in the following: _
y>
Weekday Trips - 20 trips/1000 GSF x 15.258 305 trips
PM PH Weekday Trips = 13% (305) = 40 trips
80% Out = 32 Trips
20% In = 8 Trips
The trips were distributed as shown on Map 13 (See next page) .
5
� - 33
m CD
of ��Q•. � �
```� e`'i•G:: ;900 .•' +�.
` ``9f4< cz�.• s' ::���♦•moi
ter,•:..' .;:
•�� '• ••Aw R
EL
Son Luis
N P 90 _odiSp0
h10LF4� fpm\• /... \ /' r
344, HIGUERA IN
A PARKER
ST
�'p p
° • 4110 T4 CT W BEESEE
a N
a484E - ow ERxESS CT SGANZ l urA CT rP
. o
t
LY �4'r•�L'•r I ..r rl'Y�LY� Y�•�
'•��••�����•�' �: ��•:'::' KATY 5T
R Q R••• R• R••. R.• ,• '•': :�•'.�jl� f R R••• R •• •! R t ••R R R R
f TPRICE
L1, t.:
c:•.:. , a i:•:
nr c
ar:r. C1g0; i ICY •t i�
[ '
•• 4ClE* J4ZYIN ��:• V RING
TTOA
1*
N
�r r �
4c4 .-4 -4 TO ARROYO G
[J+ w
N
N N
tl.. . w 6150 A
1 ' 653,00(
MAP # 3 Z _ 3y
VI. TRAFFIC IMPACTS
The traffic and circulation portions of the following development
impact studies were reviewed:
1. Pacific Coast Design Center (21,705 SF Retail, 30, 200 SF
office) - Includes cumulative impacts. Located at the
intersection of Higuera Street/Madonna Road.
2. 3440 South Higuera Street - 19, 050 S.F. Office and
Commercial. Located at S.W. Corner of Higuera Street/Prado
Road intersection.
3. 3701 South Higuera Street - 17,000 S.F. Office building.
Located on South Higuera Street across from Eagles Lodge
near Silver City Mobile Home Park.
Prosect Related Impacts
Previous Traffic counts and studies have identified the PMPH as
the peak period of South Higuera Street between Madonna Road and
Prado Road.
A. S. Higuera Street/Madonna Road Signalized Intersection
(See Photos 1-5)
The PMPH trips associated with the proposed Monteverde
Development will add 27 PMPH trips to the intersection. The
largest increase in the PMPH will be to the NB Higuera to WB
Madonna move. As no peak hour distribution is known, it is
assumed the peak hour factor is equal to 1.
The Monteverde project is estimated to add 27 trips in the
PMPH. As this represents 0.4 % of the existing traffic and
the additional incremental delay of each additional vehicle
is only 0.2 second, the effect of the project is
insignificant and will not affect the LOS B or be
perceptible to users of the intersection. As the
Higuera/Madonna signal affects the operation of the
Higuera/South St. signal delay at both intersections will
increase an imperceptible amount and will not measurably
degrade the LOS at either signal. (See Data Sheets C-1 & C-
2)
B. S. Higuera Street/Elks Lane Unsignalized Intersection
(See Photos 9-11)
No existing turning movement data, and no new data was
collected. The intersection was observed twice in the PMPH
and was found to be operating at LOS A to B with no delays
for Higuera Street traffic and minor delays for NB Higuera
Street turns left to Elks Lane and eastbound Elks Lane left
turns to Higuera Street.
7
Some confusion appears to exist for southbound through
traffic on Higuera that must merge into the #1 (left) lane.
The merge move is signed in advance (See Photo #7) and at
the decision point (See Photo #9) . Barbara Lynch of Public
Works Traffic Section has informed this author that a
project to widen along the west side of Higuera along the
cemetery (See Photo #9) is in the "pipeline" . This project
will provide a separate right-turn lane and two continuous
southbound through lanes that should eliminate the confusion
and current bottle neck at this location.
C. S. Higuera Street/Site D.W. - As Proposed Unsignalized "T"
Intersection
(See Photo 12)
A LOS analysis was performed using traffic information from
the 5/31/90 PMPH turning movement county at Margarita Ave.
as input to the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
unsignalized intersection section. The analysis indicates
the intersection will operate at LOS A for all moves except
left turns out of the site that will operate at LOS D.
D. S. Higuera Street/Margarita Ave. Signalized Intersection
(See Photos 16-19)
A LOS analysis was performed using traffic information from
the 5/31/90 count at Margarita Ave. as input to the HCM
Signalized Intersection Section. The analysis indicated the
intersection is currently operating at LOS B.
E. S. Higuera Street/Prado Road Signalized Intersection
(See Photos 20-23)
No recent turning count information exists and - no new data
was collected. Observation of this intersection twice in
the PM PH indicates the intersection is operating in the B-
C LOS range. All ques cleared easily in each cycle and the
drivers (mostly commuters) did not exhibit any confusionor
frustration.
F. S. Higuera Street segments from Madonna Road to Prado Road
(See Photos 5-21)
As South Higuera Street is a four-lane highway for most of
the. study area (except the SB direction approaching Elks
Lane that is scheduled for widening) , the suburban multi-
lane HCM section was used to estimate LOS. (Note - the HCM
Urban and Suburban Arterial Section would be a better "tool"
to analyze S. Higuera Street but the data for all the
signalized intersections was not available. The segment LOS
between intersections is estimated as follows:
8
;Z
S. Higuera St. NB - PM PH SB - PM PH
Segment Exist./Exist. & Proj . Exist./Exist. & Proj .
From/To V/C-IAS/V/C-LOS V/C-LOS/V/C-LOS
Madonna Road/
Elks Lane .24-B /.25-B .32-B /. 32-B
Elks Lane/
Margarita Ave. .33-B /.33-B .23-B /.23-B
Margarita Ave./
Prado Road No Data No Data
Prado Road/
Tank Farm .30-B /.30-B .31-B /.31-B
Cumulative Impacts
The 1998 and 2008 Cumulative Impacts that follow are estimated
using data from the Associated Transportation Engineers 2/1/88
Traffic Study for the Pacific Coast Design Center.
Site Driveway
IAS LOS LOS
Higuera Driveway Driveway
Date SB-Left Turn Left Turn Right Turn
1993 A D A
1998 C E A
2008 D E A
Higuera Street (From Madonna to Elks Lane)
1993 1998 2008
NB/SB NB/SB NB/SB
V/C 0.25/0.32 0.34/0.43 0.41/0.52
IAS B/B B/B B/C
Higuera Street (From Elks Lane to Margarita)
V/C 0.33/0.23 0.47/0.33 0.56/0.40
LOS B/B C/B C/B
Higuera Street (From Prado Road to Tank Farm)
V/C 0.30/0.31 0.41/0.43 0.49/0.53
LOS B/B B/B C/C
( 9
Sight Distance at Project Driveway
The sight distance (time) of approaching vehicles was measured at
the proposed location of the project driveway.
The sight distance was measured at a point 15 feet from the edge
of traveled way, 3.5 feet above the proposed driveway to a point
4.25 feet above S. Higuera Street on approaching vehicles.
Two sight distance guidelines were tested for:
1. Stopping Sight Distance - Table 201.1 in Appendix B shows
the relationship between design speed and stopping sight
distance. For an arterial with geometrics such as South
Higuera a design speed of 50 MPH requires 430 feet of
stopping sight distance.
The posted speed limit for both northbound and southbound
traffic is 40 MPH at the site.
Several "floating car" runs were made in the PMPH and the 85
percentile speed northbound and southbound was - observed to
be 40 MPH. At 40 MPH it takes 7.3 seconds to travel 430
feet.
2 . Corner Sight Distance - Table 405.1A in Appendix B suggests
550 feet of sight distance should be provided for public and
private road intersections.
Although this corner sight distance guideline is not
required of driveways it is desirable to provide it if
financially feasible, especially when a low LOS for left-
turning vehicles is forecast. As LOS D and E are forecast
for left turns in the future, corner sight distance was
tested for. At the prevailing 85 percentile speed of 40 MPH
it takes 9.4 seconds to travel 5501 .
The average approach time measured at the proposed project
driveway was 16. 6 seconds (10961 ) for northbound traffic and 12.3
seconds (8121 ) for southbound traffic. As the existing sight
distance substantially exceeds the suggested guidelines, no
problems with sight distance are expected.
r
10
- 3r
VIZ. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This "Preliminary Traffic Analysis Report" has, using existing
information to the extent possible, attempted to analyze the
traffic- impacts .-to South Higuera Street. This section of the
report will discuss the traffic impacts and possible on and off
site mitigation measures.
On-Site Impacts
To reduce potential traffic hazards the City of San Luis Obispo
encourages alternatives to direct driveway access on the arterial
street system. The general plan land use element contains the
following policy:
"Where possible, access to service commercial areas should
be provided by industrial collector streets to minimize
direct driveway access from individual parcels onto the
city's arterial system. "
The Monteverde project as proposed has a single driveway provided
to Higuera Street. Although the single driveway is adequate for
estimate peak hour turning moves to and from the site, it is in
conflict with the above policy.
A single driveway also limits access by emergency vehicles
(especially fire fighting vehicles) .
Suggested Mitigation Measure - Provide a second driveway to the
site. It is obvious that the topography and proximity of
adjacent building makes this proposed mitigation measure very
difficult if not impossible to provide. In addition to the cost
and difficulty of providing a second driveway, parking would be
lost reducing the number of spaces to the minimum required.
As an alternate to providing a second driveway to the site, it is
recommended a vehicle trip reduction plan be considered to:
A. Reduce the number of job-related automobile trips associated
with commercial use of this site.
B. Encourage site employees to use alternative forms of
transportation, such as bicycles, transit and walking, or to
carpool.
C. Incrementally improve air quality through the reduction of
automobile use.
11
� - 39
A vehicle trip reduction plan would have beneficial on and off
site traffic benefits and should include the following
strategies:
A. Posting of transit, ridesharing, and bike route information.
B. Bus stop bench on sidewalk area in front of site. A sign
showing fare and bus route information should be provided
adjacent to bench.
Additional strategies such as preferential ridesharing parking,
transit subsidies, and annual employee surveys to encourage and
document transit and ridesharing use could be considered if
deemed appropriate by the City and/or developer.
Note - Although it would be the responsibility of the developer
to initiate the recommended trip reduction plan, it would become
the responsibility of the Property Owners Association to maintain
the plan and to implement the additional strategies.
Some concern was felt over the forecasted IAS D & E for left
turns from the site. The HCM method used to forecast cumulative
left-turn LOS is based on the probability of gaps occurring at
the same time (i.e. - concurrently) in both northbound and
southbound traffic. The existing geometrics at the proposed site
driveway include a two-way left-turn lane that would offer a
place of refuge for left turns to and from the site. This two-
way left-turn lane is scheduled to be replaced by a dedicated
left-turn lane southerly of the site.
As this proposed restriping of the existing' pavement would block
legal left turns to and from the proposed site driveway and the
existing driveways at the Dennis Transfer/Storage facility, it is
recommended the city extend its reduced width lanes northerly a
sufficient distance (200' - 3001 ) to allow a two-way left-turn
lane in front of the site and the Dennis Transfer/Storage site.
At such time in the future when the cemetery across from the site
installs its frontage improvements (tree removal and restraining
walls) , it should be possible to restore normal geometrics and
more acceptable lane widths to this section of Higuera Street.
Off-Site Impacts
The Monteverde project is expected to generate 305 weekday trips,
with 40 trips (13%) expected to occur in the PMPH. A review of
Map r3 (trip distribution) and the LOS projections for South
Higuera Street and its intersections from Madonna Road to Prado
Road does not indicate perceptible impacts or the justification
for off-site mitigation measures.
12
� - yo
In summary, the proposed Monteverde Office Condominium project is
not expected to result in measurable traffic impacts to South
Higuera Street or its intersections. Some delay will be
experienced by left-turners (estimated to be 8 in PMPH) . The
delay will increase driver frustration while waiting for
concurrent gaps in northbound and southbound traffic.
This frustration will likely manifest itself by drivers accepting
smaller gaps and compromising safety until the City of San Luis
Obispo provides a two-way left-turn lane. As left turns from the
site will be illegal, it is recommended that a sign advising
"RIGHT TURN ONLY" and a pavement arrow be provided until the
existing two-way left turn is restored.
Although no mitigation measures are recommended as a result of
project traffic impacts, an on-site mitigation measure consisting
of a trip reduction plan is recommended to mitigate the conflict
with a policy of the Land Use Element resulting from the single
driveway directly entering the Higuera Street arterial.
END OF REPORT
William P. Heath, Jr.
RCE #17059
13
a - y/
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES .MD PERSONS CONTACTED
REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONTACTED
I . REFERENCES:
1. Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook
1985 - Institute of Transportation Engineers ( ITE)
Trip Generation - 1987 Fourth Edition - ITE
.3. San Diego Traffic Generators - 1987 - SANDAG
4. Highway Capacity Manual - 1985 - TRB
5. CALTRANS Design Manual - Topic 201 (Sight Distance )
1987 , 1988 updates - Topic 405 ( Intersections )
o. Traffic and Circulation Study - Pacific Coast
Design Center - Assoc . Transp. Engrs. 1988
7 . Initial Study 3701 S. Higuera St . - City of SILO 1989
8. Initial Study 3440 S. Higuera St . - City of SLO 1989
9 . VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION PLAN - 3440 S.Higuera St .
City of SLO - 1989
II . PERSONS CONTACTED:
I . Greg Smith - City of SLO Community Dev. Dept.
2. Barbara Lynch - City of SLO Public Works - Traffic
3. Steven Wise - M Group Architects
- A-1
� � y3
APPENDIX B
i
LEVEL OF SERVICE
AND
SIGHT DISTANCE
DESCRIPTION
.2 -yy
a
c
r0 U) .i W L
•ri ra >1 ri • 4 C
o' N a) O A > W N 7 L: O r•t
3 >1 C C r0 a) +J 0) •r•t r0 U) (J r-
0
O m -roc a ra ri a) to
r-t to 3 w •r+ r0 N 4 E a) r0 4
to ro ra J-) a) O L C •1 C O CL L L, C
L 0 as 4 -.1 ra 1.1 L ra a) U to •r•t r•( N >) W O O
1J a) O a) r0 a) 7 a+ a) r-t a) U: y G. C ri C w -,4
•1 a 4 0a G a) A •-4 N -,a LW t.; C., C O 3 ri 3 w
3 to o o rr C 4 ro w a) O A t0 •r+ O to O 4 U)
ri U rn w 4 90 F_ 4 .^. • iJ r-f 7 ra a (V
L t0 s 3 a) a) 7 ra +) >, C v) U at
> 1.J U iJ U 4 O L 4 ri >r r••t a) ti U, L) a C U C
O •r-f •r t •.1 •r) .ra ri 1J •rr O •••1 0 ri C J) 3 7 Rf O O O O
ri 3 N 3 W 0) W y W A > of O ro C ra to •r+ U 4
w >, w L >,L O •r+ ri dr 0", C C -Li >) a)
•.r_ • a7 1j ar A iJ L 4 C 41 O a) •r+ >, O O U rJ a N
U 3 C. 3 4 ri 11 v •., C a.c 4 •rt•rr .,j E ro
0 O O W JJ X) ra C •.•, ra V ro N ro 1.J y 4 a) O
U, •--I r0 11 U ra a) •-r . 3 •.t N L a) a) 1) (U •.••4 1J Vi 4 &.i
�•+ C w >, a) y ri W Vi C %r a) al.0 C 4 ra U) a) y
6] t0 A ri U) ry ra co C 0 .0 :14 c ZJ a) a) C a) a) U) a
W ••q a) (1) O C) 0 3 0 -,1 O U) •.q E a 0 4 r0 C O
O N ri JJ N w 4 i, C, O U 4.1 N iJ ):1 O O U 0, 3 4
>+1J A to O L) U -+ r
W •-1 m L O C -•1 4 w L 7 a) .0 L O E o a O �7
o
0 --4E JJ 3y aJ040 01.8.) (1, U >,w 0L) E41 c
�+ N ....) N a) C U 1J a) 7 U 7 ro a 11 O •-1 a) O V, a) m
JJ C ri E E O 0 ri O O w (D O -^ w L 4 L U
•-+ a) w o O N >1 a) c7 -0 L .•1 U A u u) E•1 w ra 11
r' ro ra O N ro " 4 y ra L Ga •-a 4 (0 a) ra C a)
i C C) a) () al = 1.1 >, 4 a) Cu a•, a) Cla rJ W E
O D U (V ra a) = 0 a) rJ C7 r0 4) U 3 6 to U 7 O 3
U •,1 a C a) 4 y 0 4 rI C a) C- u, 0 U a 4 >1 ri
U-4 Ul O 1J W ri tr 7 C w a) ri a o 1.J C"ri a o
r3 W N U C U •-r C U a) O w -rl C .1 U) >
to •••r a) + U) Cl N (0 O O C L 1J U •r4 ra 7
Cr: u) LJ N v 4 ri v :+ c a) ;.i •-r ri C) N 1-) U) N to Y •ra r 5
() E-4 a) - 1.1 A --r 4 a) m L C J., w -0 > G a U yJ U C
O A 4 J U) ra O > .0 U •-) •r•I C) 4 a) A t0 r0 C a) t0
►1 ••1 •,1 C) C •r•I E •-) U ro t ru O (G .0 •r+ U .0 R A
E 4 c7 C 4 0 11 4 O E c 11 O 1J (U 4 11 y
�, J N C) •-+ U) N U r7 4 O C rG c >1 U 3 U) W N ro
i o r) ro C) ra 4 10 a 01 U u, a, (s W O C) A E ()
�+ U a) U) A a) :n m 0 0 G C c m N 4 C- a) ri r-) 7 •-a a)
L• -J v 4 4 •r, = a M .- MO U C O ra a) U N L a
L-] a a) O >141 G a! c •-a O (J A •-) U)
G N > Cl dJ aJ U +J L: D A -H aj U) ••1 1J 4 Cxa L ro W
G] aJ .0 •+ a) ON rJ a) 1-4 O C () U) a0 --r N C) ti �C C) L. > U y
U U a)r a U C L U •-4 3 U ro 4 4 ro U 4 t i L U 13 7 U, O
F, ...r ..1 ..y ..1 -- .0 1J O ., a) a) Aj a) -q N a) ., w ra r A
> > L >•r > C > r0 N > a) Ga W 0 > a E rU > J) O U O
CC 4 A 4 C ri C 4 4 0 :+ La it O (1) a 4 O 1 C 4 C) L+••1
L•1 a) ro a) •,., •ra O a) a) $ •ri a) N 4 71 a) ri rJ v E N 4 a)
V) LI) C ra N V) a+L .-, V) > 0 V) C U) Ja O U) 7 a) a) a) E
r0 a) C a) N 1J 7 A M-4 >1 Cl .0 > - ri 7 4 a ()
(i. W r•1 O w A ra W a) • 1J W C 4 C W C a W O a) 0 4
O O N ri •r•) O to 4 O C U) 0 .-1 U) r0 •r•r O a) r- •--r O > C al y
0 L) W LA a) C) ri rJ 0 JJ 1.) a) 4 1J N " A v N C X
E -
W U 7 1J ro a) w > O a) E = a) W 4 C " 4 C) ta U •� (0 • . C) ra O a)
> > .� C C > pa1 ••1 > r0 r-) .-a > aJ r0 E a > G 3 Y 0> a) O 0 a)
W a) O O O a) a 4 W W C O 0 a) LLL a) a (L) a) - C a) L 4 a 4 A
a .7 > U U .3 N in C) 4 ra > U) r-7 O U JJ O 67 4 Q 3 .a 3 Q-1 V) o L
B-1
;z - ys
HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 200-1
January, 1987
Chapter III of "A Policy on Geometric De-
sign of Highways and Streets," AASHTO,
CHAPTER 200 1984, contains a thorough discussion of the
GEOMETRIC DESIGN AND derivation of stopping sight distance.
STRUCTURESTANDARDS
Topic 201 - Sight Distance
201.2 Passing Sight Distance
Passing sight distance is the minimum
sight distance required for the driver of one
Index 201.1 - General vehicle to pass another vehicle safely and
Sight distance is the continuous length of comfortably. Passing must be accomplished
highway ahead visible to the driver. Three without reducing the speed of an oncoming
types of sight distance are considered here: vehicle traveling at the design speed should it
come into view after the overtaking maneuver
passing, stopping, and decision. Stopping
sight distance is the minimum sight distance is started. The sight distance available for
passing at any place is the longest distance
to be provided on multilane highways and on e
th
2-lane roads when passing sight distance is which a driver whose eyes are feet above
not economically obtainable. Stopping sight the pavement surface can see the top of an
object 4.25 feet high on the road.
distance also is to be provided for all ele-
ments of interchanges and intersections at Passing sight distance is considered only
grade, including private road connections on 2-lane roads. At critical locations, a
(see Indexes 405.1, 504.1 and Figure 405.7). stretch of 3- or 4-lane passing section with
Decision sight distance is used at major deci- stopping sight distance is sometimes more
sion points (see Indexes 201.7 and 504.2). economical than two lanes with passing sight
The following table shows the standards distance (see Index 204.5).
for passing and stopping sight distance related Figure 201.2 shows graphically the rela-
to design speed. These are the minimum val- tionship among length of vertical curve, de-
ues that shall be used in design. sign speed, and algebraic difference in grades.
Any one factor can be determined when the
Table 201.1 other two are known. '
See Chapter 6 of the Traffic Manual for
Sight Distance Standards criteria relating to barrier striping of no-pass-
ing zones.
Design Speed(') Stopping() Passing
(mph) (ft) (ft) 201.3 Stopping Sight Distance
.......... 125 800 The minimum stopping sight distance is
20 ..........._"'". •.............""' the distance required by the driver of a vehi-
25 _......__.._..._.......... 150 ........._........ 950 cle, traveling at a given speed, to bring his
30 _..............._..._....... 200 .........._....... 1100 vehicle to a stop after an object on the road
35 ..................._.._..... 250 ................... 1300 becomes visible. Stopping sight distance is
40 ......_.._.................. 30 ...... _ 1500 measured from the driver's eyes, which are
45 ............................. 3660 ..._.._�._... 1650 assumed to be 3.5 feet above the pavement
50 ...._.W_ ...... 430 ................... 1800
55 500 ................... 1950 surfade, to an object 0.5-foot high on the road.
...........�.__._.........
60 ............................... 580 ................... 2100 The stopping sight distances in Table 201.1
65 ............................_. 660 ................... 2300 should be increased by 20% on sustained
70 ........... 750 ................... 2500 downgrades steeper than 3% and longer than 1
75 ............................... 840 ......._...._.... 2600 mile.
80 ............._................ 930 ........._........ 2700
f (1)Sea Topic 101 for selection of design spud.
l (2)Increase by 20%on sustained downgrades»%k>1 mile.
ESL v2 r �.I
400-6 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
May t, 1988
Topic 405 — Intersection Design than 6 feet from the traveled way, addi- j
t Standards . tional allowance should be considered.
(b) Private Road Intersections--Minimum eor-
405.1 SIght Distance ner sight distance shall be stopping sight
(I) Stopping Sight Distance. See Index distance as given in Table 201.1 measured
201.1 for minimum stopping sight distance re- from a 3.5-foot eye height on the private
quirements. road to a 4.25-foot object height on the
major road. Set back is a minimum of 15
(2) Corner Sight Distance. feet, the same as for public road connec-
(a) Public Road Intersections--At unsignalized tions.
public road intersections (see Index 405.7) (c) Urban Driveways—Corner sight distance I
a substantially clear line of sight should requirements under (b) above do not apply
be maintained between the driver of a ve- to urban driveways.
hicle waiting at the cross road and the
driver of an approaching vehicle in the (3) Decision Sight Distance. urns e r
right lane of the main highway. Sight dis- tions where the State sign routea turns or
nte values given in Table 405.1A should crosses another State route, the decision sight
ta
todistance values given in Table 405.111 should
be used at unsignalized public road inter-
sections. On 2-lane highways, these values computing and measuring dand
si used. I
allow 7-1/2 seconds for the driver on the on sight distance, the 3.5-Coot eye height and
crossroad to turn left while the approach- the 0.5-foot object height should be used, the
ing vehicle travels at the assumed design object being located othe side of the inter-
speed of the main highway. On multilane section nearest the approaching
oaching driver.
highways, a 7-1/2 second criteria for the The application of the various sight dis-
outside lane will normally provide in- tante requirements for the different types of
t creased sight distance to the inside lanes intersections is summarized in Table 405.1C.
to compensate for the longer distance
traveled by the left-turning vehicle. Con-
sideration should be given to increasing
th.;se values on downgrades steeper than
3% and longer than 1 mile (see Index Corner Sight Distance
201.3). (7-1/2 Second Criteria)
In some cases the cost to obtain 7-1/2 sec- Design Speed Corner Sight
and corner sight distances may be exces-
sive. High costs might include right of (mph) Distance (ft)
way, building removal, extensive excava- 30 ............................_............ 330
tion, or environmental costs such as tree
removal, avoidance of wetlands, historic, 40 ......................_.................. 440
and archaeological sites. In such cases a 50 ......................................... 550
lesser value for corner sight distance may 60 ..................................... 660
be used, but the minimum value shall be 70 ...............-....... 770
the stopping sight distance given In Table
201.1 measured from a 3.5-foot eye height
on the minor road to a 4.25-foot object
height on the major road.
Set back for the driver on the cross road
shall be a minimum of 15 feet from edge
of the traveled way. Set back assumes 6
feet to the stop bar, 1-foot for the width
of the stop bar, and 8 feet from front
bumper to driver. If the stop bar is more
B-3 "17
Pages C-l ':= E=6 are. availabie in the
Community Development. Department Office
BOTANICAL STUDY OF 2877 SOUTH HIGUERA ST.,MONTE VERDE
DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA
By
V. L. Holland, Ph.D.
Plant Ecologist
1697 El Cerrito Ct.
San Luis Obispo,California 93401
Prepared for.
Steven Wise
M Group Architects
846 Higuera St. #11,
San Luis Obispo,California 93401
September 2.1990
RECEIVED
SEP 10 1W
E��r et gap Wq%0oiaea
Egmmupgy Oevebpmat
a - y9
Botanical Study of 28 1-1 So.Higuera,San Luis Obispo 2
INTRODUCTION
A botanical study of the Monte Verde project site located at 2877 South
Higuera was carried out on September 1, 1990. The subject ite is located
on a moderately sloping portion of the hillside along theQQK side of South
Higuera Street next to the existing buildings currently occupied by Dennis
Transfer and The Box Office (see map). Some small rock outcrops occur on
the subject site; however, the large serpentine hillsides known to have rare
plants occur east of the subject property.
The botanical field survey consisted of canvassing the area on foot,
recording all plant species found in identifiable condition and describing
plant habitats within the project boundaries. The main purpose of the
study was to see if any of the rare plants known to occupy the serpentine
hillsides to the east and west of the project site extend onto the subject
property planned for development..
A plant species list of all plants found in identifiable condition during
my on-site survey is on Table 1. However, it is important to point out that
this is not a complete list of the plants present on the site. Plant species
composition, especially herbaceous cover, varies seasonally and annually.
During my survey on September 1, 1990, many of the herbaceous plants
were represented only by the shattered, dried remains of last year's crop.
Most of these were not identifiable. Thus, the plants listed in Table 1 are
only those found in identifiable condition during September, 1990 following
a dry year preceded by several years of drought. A thorough survey
through the entire year would be necessary for a complete listing of the
flora found on the project site.
DESCRIPTION OF THE VEGETATION
Much of the natural vegetation of the subject property can be
characterized as California native grassland dominated by the perennial,
native bunchgrass Stipa pulchra (purple needlegrass). However, there are
several introduced plants scattered over the site and mixed with the native
grasses. In fact, in areas where the soil has been disturbed in the past,
such as along the roadside and near the adjacent lot (currently used by
Dennis Transfer), the native purple needlegrass has been eliminated. In
these areas, several introduced, weedy plants have become established and
dominate the vegetative cover. The most common of these include
Chenopodium album (lamb's quarters), Lactuca saligna (slender wild
lettuce), Lactuca serriola (prickly lettuce) and Rumex crispus (curly dock).
Other common weedy, introduced species include Brassica geniculata
(field mustard), Bromus mollis (soft chess brome), Bromus diandrus
(ripgut brome), Avena barbata (slender wild oats), Hordeum leporinum
(foxtail), Lolium multiflorum (wild rye), Erodium spp. (filaree), Hemizonia
fasciculata (tarweed) and others listed in Table 1.
Signature-1/-6c)
Botanical Study of 28 i 1 So.Higuera,San Luis Obispo 3
Native, perennial bunch grasses, such as the purple needlegrass,
dominated the California grasslands prior to Spanish settlement.
However, these native grasses are usually absent from areas that have been
heavily grazed or disturbed in the past. In San Luis Obispo County there
are few native grassland areas remaining, and many of them occur on the
steep slopes around serpentine outcrops where heavy grazing and land
disturbance has not occurred.
The native California grassland on the study site occurs at the base of
the steep rocky hillside where finer textured soils tend to develop. However,
this community is also the dominant plant cover on and around the rocky
hillsides east of the subject site. Here the native bunch grasses are
common in the small pockets of shallow soils the occur mixed with the rock
outcrop areas. Where some small rock outcrop areas occur on the subject
property, the purple needlegrass mixes with such plants as Astragalus
curtipes (locoweed), Calystegia macrostegia (common morning-glory),
Corethrogyne fclaginifolia (California-aster) and Chorizanthe staticoides
(spineflower). These plants are also common on the hillside to the east of
the project site.
RARE AND ENDANGERED AND OTHER SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES
The project site was carefully scrutinized for the presence of any rare
or endangered plant species or for what may be favorable habitat for them.
Two rare plants, Calochortus obispoensis (San Luis mariposa lily) and
Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina (San Luis Obispo dudleya), are known to
occur on the serpentine hillside to the east of the subject property. Several
other rare plants occur on serpentine areas in the general vicinity of the
project site both to the east and the west. However, no rare or endangered
plants were found on the subject property, and after examining the
potential habitats on and near the site, I do not believe that any favorable
habitats for any of the rare plant species exist on the subject site. However,
the steeper rocky hillsides to the east and off the site do appear are favorable
habitats and should be maintained in open space.
IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The project will result in some loss of purple needlegrass that
currently occupies portions of the site. However, a much more extensive
native grassland dominated by this purple needlegrass occurs on the
hillside east of the site. I recommend that this larger grassland area be
designated as open space so that the native grassland and its habitat can be
protected. It might also be possible to include purple needlegrass in the
landscape plans for the hillside on the eastern portion of the property.
Signature_y _
z - s/
Botanical Study of 28.7 So.Higuera,San Luis Obispo 4
REFEit NCFS
California Department of Fish and Game. 1988. Natural Diversity Data
Base. Special Plants. 58 pp.
Holland, V. L. 1990. Botanical Survey of Stoneridge II Subdivision and
Annexation Project, San Luis Obispo, California.
Holland, V. L. and David Keil. 1989. California Vegetation. Second
Edition. El Corral Publications. 375 pp.
and David Keil. 1989. Vegetation of the Proposed Irish Hills Golf
Course, San Luis Obispo County, California.
and J. M. Vanderwier. 1979. A Study of the Vegetation on the
Indian Knob Tar Sands. Unpublished final grant report for Phillips
Petroleum Co.
David Keil, and Mike Hanson. 1987. Appendix E. Biological
Survey of the Froom Ranch Project Site, San Luis Obispo County,
California.
Hoover, R. F. 1970. The Vascular Plants of San Luis Obispo County,
California.
U. C. Press, Berkeley, CA.
Munz, P. A., and D. D. Keck. 1959. A California Flora. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
1968. Supplement to A California Flora. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Smith, J. P., and Ken Berg. 1988. California Native Plant Society's
Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California.
California Native Plant Society, Special Publication No. 1,
Sacramento.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983.
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Supplement to
Review of Plant Taxa for Listing; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 48
(229):53640-53670.
Vanderwier, J. M. 1987. A Study of the Vegetation of the Indian Knob
area, San Luis Obispo County, California. Tar Sands. M.S. Thesis.
California Polytechnic State University. x + 122 pp.
Signature_
Botanical Study of 28 11 So.Hig uera,San Luis Obispo 5
Table I. Plant Species Identified on 2877 South Higuera St,Monte
Verde Development September,1990, San Luis Obispo,California
Astragalus curti2es Locoweed
Astragalus gambellianus Annual locoweed
*
Avena barbata Slender wild oats
* Avena fat= Common wild oats
* Brachypodium distachyon False brome-grass
* Brassica geniculata Perennial mustard
* Bromus diandrus Rip-gut brome grass
* Bromus mollis Soft chess brome grass
Calvstegia macrosteeia Common morning-glory
* Chenopodium album Lamb's quarters
* Chenopodium murale Pigweed
Chorizanthe staticoides Spineflower
Corethrogyne filaginifolia California-aster
*
Erodium cicutarium Red-stem filaree
*
Erodium moschatum Green-stem filaree
Eschscholzia californica California poppy
* Gnaphalium sg Cudweed
Hemizonia fasciculata Tarweed
Hemizonia luzulifolia White tarweed
Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph weed
* Hordeum leporinum Foxtail barley
* Hwochoeris glabra Smooth Cat's ear
*
Lactuca saligna Slender wild lettuce
*
Lactuca seriola Prickly lettuce
* Lolium multiflorum Annual ryegrass
Lotus sp. Annual deervetch
*
Medicazo nolvmornha Bur-clover
M lica imperfecta Melic grass
Phacelia imbricata Phacelia
*
Plantago lanceolata English plantain
*
Rumex conglomeratus Knotted dock
* Rumex crispus Curly dock
Signature__1/K_
Botanical Study of 28.l So.M vera,San Luis Obispo 6
* Sonchus asper. Prickly sow:thistle
* Sonchus oleraceus Common sow-thistle
,Stine ulchra Purple needlegrass
* Vulpia mnvuros Rattail fescue
* —Weedy alien species naturalized in California: f
Signature_
GEND
DATE�TiNG _ /AITEM °=
PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA
ROBERT M.JONES COUNSELLORS AT LAW RETIRED PAPTNCRS
GERALD S.TMEDE 200 EAST CARRILLO STREET
HAROLDLAR A.PARMA
ARTHUR M.
GAVDI -
JAMES X.HURLEY,J MpfLC.�y� SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA X.CEARME GAIN[9
JOIN KERR WILSON COn5 O- 93101-2190
C.MICHAEL GOONEY ♦DaEobw A� SOLVANG OFFICE
TERRY JOHN CONNL 493 ALISAL ROAD.SUITE I
J.TERRY SCHWARTZ CMDa Da
DAVID W.VAN HORN CW M [LING ADDRESS P.O. SOX 99 SOLVANG.CALIFORNIA 93AG3
PLTER D.SLAUGHTE Dl102-0090 MAILING ADDRESS P.O.BOX 1639
BARTON C CLEMEN —/(�`^eO ❑ RN.DR � SOLVANG,CALIFORNIA 934GA
DOUGLAS D.U ROSBI SAF AAO ❑ ME a, ,
LANI MGNLEY COLLI 5,�_J,/ [LEPnOVE IROS)D62-DON TELEPHONE(BOB)688�250
ERIC P.NVOLBELL Ia AnuRNEY ❑ FwDIR
DAVID K HUGHES CL[COPIER[e 031 9ee-397e
R.EDWARD HUTTO CLEW01UG. ❑ FOUC CR
ROBERT S.PATTERS
RICHARD A CROSS MGM[;TFf M ❑ RBG DIX OUR FILE NUMBER
CRAIG A PARTON
KENNETH J.PONTIF C FILE ILD
� 10120-
CLYDC C WVLLB RAN T❑
CMRISTOPXCR E.X K
DENISE L RANDOLP
EU2ABETI A WEST FRAWLEY
RAYMOND J.SETO
CHAD S.EHLER March 15, 1991
RECEIVED
Jeff Jorgensen, Esq. MAR
City Attorney 1 $ 1991
City of San Luis Obispo °' r0rFICroF
City Hall
P. 0. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Re: Planned Development Rezoning PD1488 -
(2877 So. Higuera St. )
Dear Jeff:
My firm represents National Advertising Company, which
entered into a lease on March 22, 1984 with the former owner of
the above-referenced property, Mr. Fred Righetti. Pursuant to
the terms of that lease, National has erected and maintains one
double-faced and two single-faced billboards on the subject
property. The lease runs until the year 2004 .
I have learned that on Tuesday night, March 19, 1991, the
City Council will be conducting a public hearing to consider the
adoption of an ordinance amending the City' s official map, to
rezone a portion of the property at 2877 So: Higuera St. to
Planned Development and asked to approve a preliminary
development plan for large offices. Condition seven (7) of that
ordinance as recommended by the City Planning Commission,
requires the applicant to remove all off-premises signs
(billboards) from the site.
As I understand from a reading of the city planning
documents the billboards in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed building will be removed in conjunction with
construction of the project, while removal of the other
billboards on the site is being required as a condition for the
rezoning and plan approval. A review of the plot plan for the
proposed building project would appear to indicate. that
National's double-faced billboard may be in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed building, while the northerly two (2)
single-faced billboards, located side by side, are not.
Jeff Jorgensen, Esq.
March 15, 1991
Page 2
As you know, National is entitled to just compensation for
the forced removal of its billboards. �- -
As I previously advised the City in letters to the former
City Attorney, National is not remove its billboards from the
premises unless adequate compensation is paid for said removal as
required by State and Federal law, or unless a relocation
agreement satisfactory to National is entered into. We would
request that you advise the City Council of National 's position
at the Tuesday meeting, and also inform them that National is
ready and willing to work with the City on a possible relocation
agreement in lieu of payment of just compensation. National has
the experience of entering into such relocation agreements with
other cities in the State of California. They have proven to
have been mutually beneficial to both sides.
Please call me if you have any questions about National 's
position. I had earlier corresponded with Roger Picquet on this
issue, and he may have correspondence information that is not
contained in your official city file. I look forward to working
with you on this issue, as we have successfully done in the past
on other matters.
Very truly yours,
David K. Hughes
for PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA
DKH/lfc
cc: Pay Paschke
r
MEETI G F AGENDA
March 18, 1991 DATE ITEM#e�
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
Re: Planned Development Resoning - PD 1488
Dear Council Members:
As applicant for the above project, I would like to commend the
planning staff for the complete and thorough report. Many areas
were addressed in the report and my partners and I are agreeable
to all conditions of approval except one; the removal of all
billboards.
When we acquired the property several years ago, a lease with
National 3M went with the land. It is a ten year lease signed in
1984, with an option (by lessee) for another ten years. According
to paragraph 9 of the lease, only signs in the area where a
building is going to be constructed can be removed. There is one
sign in the proposed building location and a second several hundred
feet to the north. Our problem is that one of the conditions for
approval is to remove all signs. We have contacted 3M and they are
adamant about keeping the north sign, unless it can be relocated
somewhere in the city. We have had numerous discussions with city
staff trying to pursue abatement of this billboard sign, and its
legality, but have not received any determination. We have also
sought council from two attorneys and have been told that the lease
is ironclad.
We would like to have all the billboards removed and can remove all
but one. The lease with 3M has our hands tied. Our request at this
time is to ask the City Council to modify the conditions of
approval to allow the northernmost billboard to remain, all others
will be removed. And, of course, we will work with city staff to
have the north sign removed or- relocated if at all possible.
We feel it is better to have most of the signs removed, than to
hold up this project for the one remaining sign. We also will agree
to not renew these sign leases nor enter into any new sign leases
on this property. We are willing to record a document to this
effect.
I have included copies of the lease and a site map showing the
location of the signs in question. We hope you will grant us this
modification to the conditions of approval. ^ _
sin re y, COPiSTp:
�/ J MN NR
,,/LTJ CAO- - ..__,❑. FIN.D[R
v L. Wise AIA ff ACAO _ ❑ MECHIEFF
ATrMEY__; EY Fbm.
w
ddC�vOM.G. ❑_Pouaa-L
MAR 1 8 1991 ❑ MGMT. AM ❑ REC.DIR
CITY CLERK ��—"_ RIME.
IME.
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
M'
1DAq.D LEASE AGREEMENT
,iase5.tl llevyeo oral
/J 6. In the event of any change of ownersnip 01 the properly nereoy leased.the Lessor agrees to notify the Lessee promptly of such change,and the Laaaor&ISO
'-tress to give the now owner formal written notice of the existence of Inis lease and to deliver a copy thereof to such now owner.
7. Unless specifically staled otherwise herein,Ine Lessor represents and warrants that he is either the Owner or trio Agent of the Owner of trio property herein
demised.and trial no has lull authority to enter into this lease.The Lessor covenants and warrants that if Ina Lessee shall pay the rental as herein provided and shall keep
and perform the other covenants herein stated.the Lessee shall and may.peaceably and Quietly have.hold and enjoy the use of the premises herein demised(dllhe term
Of this lease,such use IO include access to the site over any lands under the control of Ina Lessor.
8. Neither the Lessor not the Lessee snail be bound by any agreement or representation.expressed or implied,not contained herein.This leaSeshall to deemed
to have been accepted and its terms onforceaDle only upon the acceptance hereof by Ina Lessee in the space provided.Following such acceptance.it shallinufa lOthe
benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and to their respective tenants.heirs.successors.personal representatives.executors.administrators.and assigns.
9. In the avant that Ing portion Of the Lessor's property occupied by the Lessee's displays is 10 Do improveo by erecting a permanent private commercial or resi-
dential building,as evidenced by a building permit.Mgwfing removal of Lessee's disptay4.lhe Lessor may terminate this Lease upon giving the Leasee ninety(90)days
written notice of termination,together with a copy of the Duiloing permit.sent Oy registered mail to either the LesSee's HOme Offn or-the Branch Offica listed.and upon
the Lessor's refunding to the Lesbos the rent previously paid for the unexpired portion of this Lease beyond the termination dale plus the total coat of the construction
ihldthatemoval Ol Lessee a displays.less 111801h of such cost lot each full month of this Lease prior 10 the notice of termination.The Lessee&gross 1OfamOreil8display3
within Ina ninety(90)day period.If Ina Lessor does not commence trio construction witnin ninety(90)dayzaherthe displays have been removed.the Loneemay,at its
option.reinstate this Lease by written notice 10 the Lessor,and if so reinstated.Ine Lessor agrees to reimburse the Lessee tot its reasonable expenses in replacing the
Lessees displays on the Lessor's property.If any portions of the property are not to be utilized lot such building.the Losses has the Option to usethe remaining portion on
trio same[arms.except that the rent shall be equitably reouced if the highway view OI the display is less than wrist it was before the sign was moved.The right Of termination
slated nersin snail not exist and cannot be exercised if the demised premises anall be condemned or taken by power of eminent domain,or ilthe property is conveyed to
an entity acting as or on behalf of any public entity which nae the power of eminent domain.
10. If at anytime the hignway view of the Lessee's displays is obstructed or OOScurec.Crime advenising value Of the displays is impaired or diminished.or the use
or installation of such displays is prevented Or restricted bylaw or by the Lessae s inability to ootain any necessary permits or licenses.or if the Lessee rs unable.for any
period of ninety(90)consecutive days or more,to secure and maintain a suitaOle advertising contract for the displays.or if there occurs a diversion Of traffic hom,or a
change in the direction of traltic on nignways leasing past the Lessee's displays.trio Lessee may.at its option,terminate this lease by giving the Lessor fifteen(15)days
written notice.and Ina Lessor agrees to refund to ins Lessee the rent previously paid for the unexpired portion of this lease.It any of the conditions described in this para-
graph shall at any time temporarily exist.then the Lasses may.at its option,instead of terminating this lease.be entitled to an abatement of rent payable neroundar during
the period such condilions or any of them exist,and to trio refund of any rent paid In advance for the period of such abatement.
11. All structures.displays and materials placed upon the said property by the Lessee are Lessee's trade fixtures and equipment,and shall be and remain the Les•
see s property.and maybe removed by the Lasses at anytime prior to or within a reasonable time atter the ler mi nation of this lease or any extension therect.Trio Lessor
agrees to allow the Lessee full access to Ina propeny occupied oy Ina displays for the purpose of erecting.maintaining,changing or removing the displays at anytime.
12. The Lessor agrees not to erect or permit any olner pally to erect any advertising disptays or other advenising matter on any property owned orcontrollad by
Ing Lessor within a radius of six nundred(600)feel of Lessees displays,nor to permit any other Obstruction to partially orcomplelely obscure Ina normal highway view
Of said displays,and the Lessee is hereby authorized to remove any sucn other advertising display or other obstruction at its option.
13. Trio Lessee agrees 10 save the Lessor harmless from any and all claims or Oerrianas on account of bodily injury or pnysical property damage,caused by or
suiting Irom any negligent or willful act of Ine Lessees agents or employees in the construction.maintenance,repair.cnange or removal Of the Lessee s displays on
,a Property,and agrees to carry,at its own cost and expense.adequate public liability insurance covering any such contingency s0 long as this lease Shall remain in
ellect.The Lessor agrees 10 save the Lessee narmless from any and all claims or demands on account of bodily injury or pnysiral property damage Caused by or resulting
from any negligent or willful act DI the Lessor.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LEASED PREMISES(for recording purposes):
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
State of )
SS.
Courtly of )
On tris day of 19_.before me.
(Print Name of Notary)
Ina undersigned officer.personally appeared known to me(of sauslactonly
prOven110 be the person whose name is subscribed to the above instrument.and being informed of the contents Of said instrument.acknowledged tnai ne Or ire voluntarily
exadutoo the{erns for the uses ono purposes herein contained.
In witness whereof.I have hereunto set my hand and official seal.
EXISTING STRUCTURE LEASE LESSOR WARRANTS THAT SINCE (Signature of Officer)
._. ..... . .. .... . ............. 19... ........
OR EARLIER.THIS LOC_ATIO. .......N HAS BEE. ..N OC..*C'UPIE....D B.Y THE EXISTING
SIGN STRUCTURE.WHICH STRUCTURE HAS NOW BECOME LESSOR'S (Title of Officer)
`WN PROPERTY.AND LESSOR HEREBY ASSIGNS TO LESSEE ALL OF
SSOR'S RIGHTS TO SUCH STRUCTURE.
My Commission Expires 19
LESSOR'S
SIGNATURE
1
7 �
oQ
1!
1I 0 X K
11• �_
n�
-
ra
IL
�i
/�
y� �
LZ,\ _ JJ
0
'gym J
a
ct.