HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/04/2000, 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION, ANNEXATION, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT-PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE ORCUTT CREEK ANNEXATION (LATHROP BUSINESS PARK AT BROAD STREET NEAR INDUSTRIAL WAY, ANNX NO. 79-99). council Apr.4,00
j acEnda Repoizt
CITYOF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Glen Matteson,Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION,ANNEXATION, ZONING,AND
DEVELOPMENT-PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE ORCUTT CREEK
ANNEXATION(LATHROP BUSINESS PARK AT BROAD STREET NEAR
INDUSTRIAL WAY,ANNX NO. 79-99).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
A. Adopt a resolution to approve a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact.
B. Adopt a resolution recommending that the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo)
approve the annexation.
C. Introduce an ordinance to pre-zone the privately owned part of the site Service Commercial
Planned Development (C-S-PD) and to approve the preliminary development plan, subject to
conditions,and to pre-zone the City-owned part Public Facility with Specific Plan(PF-SP).
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Scott Lathrop wants to prepare this site just outside the city limits for development of a credit
union and businesses that connect subscribers with the Internet. The intensity of proposed
development makes annexation and provision of City services desirable. Development approved
by the City rather than by the County is more likely to fit the vision for the Airport Area that is
being defined by the specific plan. The General Plan says this site is eligible for annexation. No
General Plan policy prohibits a credit union here. One would be allowed.by the anticipated
Business Park designation. However, the basic zones that go with the current General Plan map
designation would not accommodate a credit union. In addition, the basic zones would allow
some uses that would not be compatible with the proposed Business Park designation. Also,
typical zoning standards require more parking than appears.necessary for the Internet services,
which would consist mostly of equipment. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend
annexing the site and combining the Planned Development and Service Commercial zones to:
• screen out uses that would not conform with the proposed Business Park designation;
• tie annexation to a project design that fits proposed Business Park design standards,
including open space protection,access,and site amenities;
• allow a credit union;
• allow a parking ratio that better fits the demands of the Internet services.
The applicant agrees with the recommendation.
The Council's approval of the northern alignment for the Prado Road extension means this site
need not provide right-of-way for it.
The City has acquired a corner of the site for the sports fields project. Staff and the Planning
Commission recommend zoning that land Public Facility with Specific Plan. Its development
must wait for Council adoption of the Margarita Area Specific Plan and approval of detailed
plans for the Sports fields.
2-1
Council Agenda Report—Orcutt Creek(Lathrop) annexation
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Data Summary
Property Owners: Scott R. &Ellen A Lathrop; City of San Luis Obispo
General Plan Land Use Map: Services and Manufacturing;Recreation
Zoning: Outside city limits, so no City zoning; County General Plan designations are Commercial
Service for the eastern one-third of the site and Residential Multi-family
for the western two-thirds.
Surrounding Uses: grazing land proposed to become sports fields; recreational-vehicle storage
and a mobile home park; open land proposed to be a commercial center;
across Highway 227, a utility company yard and a shopping center.
Environmental Status: On, December 28, 1999, staff proposed that a mitigated negative
declaration be approved.
Action deadline: Annexation and zoning are legislative acts, and therefore are not subject to State-
mandated action deadlines.
Site Description
The four-hectare (9.7-acre) site is gently sloping, open land. Orcutt Creek flows from north to
south through the western part of the site. A house that was most recently used as an office has
been moved from its foundation,in anticipation of being relocated to another site.
Project Description
The subject applications were filed because a credit union and an internet service firm want to
have new buildings on this site sooner than would be allowed by adoption of the Airport Area
Specific Plan and completion of the areawide annexation.
The site would be annexed,making it subject to City land-use rules and eligible for City services.
The two existing parcels would be re-subdivided into three lots. The City recently acquired the
northeast comer of the site for use in conjunction with the proposed Damon-Garcia sports fields
(see the concurrent report on the "Acacia Creek Annexation"). The site would be zoned Service
Commercial with a Planned Development overlay (C-S-PD). With a PD overlay, the City can
allow or restrict land uses and property development standards, such as setbacks and parking,
differently from the underlying zone, so long as they are consistent with the General Plan. A PD
overlay also ties the zoning to a development plan showing basic features such as building
location and size,access,parking,and site amenities(attached Site Plan).
The proposed development would include 104,000 square feet in five one-story and two-story
buildings, about 212 parking spaces, and a new local street intersecting opposite Industrial Way.
Details of building exteriors and landscaping have not been submitted, but will need approval by
the Architectural Review Commission before construction begins.
2-2
Council Agenda Report—Orcutt Creek(Lathrop) annexation
Page 3
Evaluation
Annexation Criteria
The site is inside the urban reserve line,making it eligible for annexation. The Land Use Element
says urban development should be within the City, and that land must be inside the city limits to
receive City services.
With a literal interpretation of the Land Use Element map, the northeast comer of the site, above
the alignment for the Prado Road extension adopted in 1994, is within the Margarita Area. The
General Plan says such land can be annexed after the City Council has approved a draft of the
Margarita Area Specific Plan. That approval was given in 1998. However, development in this
area cannot proceed until the specific plan is adopted.
Most of the site is in the Airport Area. The General Plan says there should be a specific plan for
the Airport Area, coordinated with annexation of the whole area (which was initiated several
years ago). The City Council has approved very basic land use and circulation concepts .and
alternatives, to be elaborated in the forthcoming specific plan and evaluated in the forthcoming
environmental impact report. The General Plan allows individual annexation requests to be
approved before the Airport Area Specific Plan is adopted, if they meet all the following criteria.
1. The property is contiguous to the city limits.
This criterion is met because the city limit is along the east property line of the site (the west
side of Broad Street).
2. The property is within the existing urban reserve line.
This criterion is met
3. The property is located near existing in$astructure.
This criterion is met because water and sewer mains exist in the major street along the east
side of the site.
4. Existing infrastructure capacity is available to serve the proposed development
This criterion is met because:
• Broad Street has adequate capacity for existing traffic plus traffic due to the project, so
long as the Industrial Way intersection signals and lane markings are modified before or
concurrently with project construction.
• This project would require at most about 4.7 acre-feet of water(9.4 acre-feet offset): This
amount is available now,through the offset(retrofit)program. However,water is allocated
to a project when building permits are obtained,not when the site is annexed.
2-3
Council Agenda Report—Orcutt Creek(Lathrop)annexation
Page 4
• Water treatment capacity is adequate.
• The water storage tank and distribution main that would serve the site are of adequate
location and size for domestic supply and fire protection.
Wastewater treatment capacity is adequate, and the project's wastewater impact fees will
pay a proportionate share of the cost to increase treatment capacity needed in response to
cumulative increases in wastewater flows.
• There is almost no additional capacity for wastewater collection, because the pumps
serving this area often operate at their rated capacity. The main concern is potential failure
of a pump. This deficiency can be addressed in the short term through an impact-fee
contributing to pump replacement.
• The storm-drainage capacity of existing channels will be adequate if the project is
designed to comply with the City's General Plan and Flood Damage Prevention
Regulations, and the national flood insurance program (location of building floors above
the 100-year flood level and detention of peak flows on site).
5. A development plan for the property belonging to the applicant accompanies the application
for annexation.
This criterion is met because the application includes a preliminary development plan as part
of the PD zoning.
6. The applicant agrees to contribute to the cost of preparing the specific plan and constructing
area-wide infiastructure improvements according to a cost-sharing plan maintained by the
City.
This criterion has been met by the applicant signing a pre-annexation agreement (attached),
and providing a letter of credit(condition#25).
Zonins Consistency with General Plan
The General Plan Land Use Element shows the northeast comer of the site as Recreation, and
says that consistent zones for this designation are Conservation/Open Space (C/OS), Public
Facility (PF), or either Service Commercial (C-S) or Manufacturing (1) as limited by a Special
Considerations (S), Planned Development(PD), or Specific Plan(SP) overlay. The adjacent land
to the north, recently considered by the Planning Commission as the Acacia Creek Annexation,
was recommended to have C/OS zoning until the Margarita Area Specific Plan is adopted, when
the zoning would be changed to PF-SP. Staff recommends that the PF-SP zone be applied to this
relatively small part of the site now, because it essentially straddles the boundary between
specific plan areas, largely occupies the originally proposed alignment for extending Prado Road,
and has been acquired by the City.
The Land Use Element shows most of the site as Services and Manufacturing, and says that
consistent zones for this designation are Service Commercial (C-S) or Manufacturing (M). The
Zoning Regulations say the C-S zone is"to provide for storage,transportation and wholesaling as
well as certain retail sales and business services which may be less appropriate in the City's other
2-4
Council Agenda Report—Orcutt Creek(Lathrop) annexation
Page 5
commercial zones. It will be applied to areas designated `services and manufacturing'.on the
general plan map, typically those areas with more public exposure along arterial streets than
places reserved for manufacturing." The Zoning Regulations say the M zone is "to provide for
assembly and fabrication activities in addition to those permitted in the C-S zone, and for limited
sales and services —primarily those not directly related to local consumers. This zone will be
applied to areas designated `service-commercial/light industrial' [a previous name for the current
Services and Manufacturing designation] on the general plan map, usually those served by, but
with no frontage on, arterial streets."
The Land Use Element also shows the site within the Airport Area Specific Plan boundary, and
requires that the specific plan be adopted before annexation unless a site meets the criteria for
what have been called "interim" annexations, discussed above. If the City Council adopts the
Airport Area Specific Plan designation shown in a conceptually approved draft, the site will be
shown as Business Park, and the Land Use Element map will be amended accordingly. The Land
Use Element says existing zones consistent with the Business Park designation are any of the
following zones combined with a PD or SP overlay: Office(0); C-S; or M. Currently,there is no
Business Park zone. Staff expects to recommend one concurrently with the specific plan.
The General Plan Open Space Element designates Orcutt Creek as a perennial creek with a
degraded corridor, but one that can be restored or repaired. The Open Space element says creek
corridors are to be considered Open Space and zoned accordingly, even though they are not all
shown as such on the Land Use Map. Staff recommends that the open-space status of the creek
be reflected in the PD's development plan (as it was submitted), but that a separate C/OS zone
not be applied to the corridor through this site now. If the adopted Airport Area Specific Plan
confirms the status of Orcutt Creek, which is in doubt, the corridor would be rezoned C/OS at
that time. (The master drainage plan that will include the Airport Area and the Margarita Area
may propose realignment or diversion of Orcutt Creek, and a corresponding amendment of the
Open Space Element, affecting its location or flow through this site.) The recommended
development-plan approval provides a level of protection equivalent to the C/OS zone. Any
development in the creek corridor would require approval of a new development plan, with
specific findings,following hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Approving development that generates housing demand, particularly in this time of rapid
employment growth, could be a basis for delaying an annexation with commercial zoning
(Housing Element goal 10.1 and policies 10.2.1 and 10.2.2). However, such a delay for this
application would not be consistent with other City policies or actions on other annexations in
the Airport Area.
"PD"for Compatibility with the Anticipated Business Park Designation
The City is being asked to approve a project where the General Plan map shows Services and
Manufacturing, but where the draft of the Airport Area Specific Plan map shows Business Park.
Until adoption of the Airport Area Specific Plan (and a simultaneous General Plan amendment),
the PD zone provides the greatest flexibility in allowing only those uses that are consistent with
2-5
Council Agenda Report—Orcutt Creek(Lathrop) annexation
Page 6
both the current Services and Manufacturing designation and the anticipated Business Park
designation(diagram below).
Services& Business
Manufacturing PD
Park
Some uses allowed in the Services and Manufacturing designation are not consistent with the
proposed Business Park designation. If they were established before the Business Park zone is
adopted, they would become non-conforming uses. Under zoning rules, these non-conforming
uses could make building improvements or tenant changes at this site difficult. Nonconforming
service-commercial uses could become nuisances to the types of uses intended for the Business
Park designation. Likewise, not all uses proposed for the Business Park designation are
consistent with Services and Manufacturing. The project needs to be consistent with the General
Plan when the project is approved.
In addition, the Airport Area specific planning process is defining a development character for
the south Broad Street corridor. The draft specific plan will include development standards and
guidelines intended to create the desired sense of place. To do so, as much new development as
possible along Broad Street should reflect the desired development character. A PD can set
development standards in line with those recommended for the Business Park designation. The
proposed development plan closely follows the draft standards.
When the Airport Area Specific Plan is adopted,it is anticipated that the City will simultaneously
rezone the site and some neighboring land to Business Park. Because this PD will reflect the
Business Paris zoning features, the future rezoning should be a relatively smooth transition for
any development that occurs prior to the rezoning.
Development Plan
A PD zoning action is unique in that it combines a zone change with approval of project features.
Approval of a PD development plan is a two-step process. The drawings and statements before
the Council now are a `preliminary development plan." Subdivision and construction are
contingent on City approval of a 'final development plan.".Unless otherwise required by a
condition of approval for the preliminary development plan, the final development plan may
consist of building-permit plans and improvement plans for streets and utilities, and be subject
only to staff review and approval. (Architectural Review Commission approval is required for all
new commercial buildings,regardless of their location in a PD or business park.)
Site planning issues are discussed in following sections.
2-6
Council Agenda Report—Orcutt Creek(Lathrop)annexation
Page 7
Types of Uses
The main land-use issue is whether a credit union should be allowed at Phis location, where C-S
zoning would not normally allow one but where the in-progress draft Airport Area Specific Plan
would allow one in a recommended Business Park designation. That particular issue is discussed
further in following sections.
The applicant's listing of uses on the development plan (left hand side of the second sheet) was
taken from the C-S zone column in the Zoning Regulations use chart and from an in-progress
draft of the Airport Area Specific Plan (copy in Council Reading File). Several types of uses
allowed in the basic C-S zone or the draft Airport Area Specific Plan's Business Park designation
are not included in the applicant's listing, because they would not reinforce the applicant's
proposed focus on Internet and financial services or the Business Park concept that is emerging
from staff work and citizen involvement in the specific planning effort. The current plans have a
list of`proposed uses,"which contains fewer types of uses than staff previously recommended as
being allowed,or allowable with use permits. Staff does not object to the shorter list
Staff recommends that the status of uses be spelled out in a condition of approval(#18). Doing so
will avoid ambiguities. An example is the applicant's listing of "sales of business and office
supplies, branch of bank...retail sales of prepared food and beverages." With .the proposed
Airport Area Business Park standards these would be classified under "convenience facilities
primarily to serve area workers," and would be subject to size limits to assure that they are not
principal uses.
The current plans label four of the five buildings with particular types of uses: "internet &
computer services" for the two western buildings and "credit union" for the two eastern
buildings. Because of the parking situation, discussed in a following section, it makes sense to
identify some particular uses. In fact, staff recommends that the description of"intemet services"
be more specific (condition #18). However, labeling the eastern buildings for a particular use
(credit union) could require approval of a new development plan, following Planning
Commission and City Council hearings, even for another office-type use with a parking
requirement the same as a credit union (Zoning Regulations section 17.62.080.C). Therefore,
staff recommends that condition#18 clarify that,with this approval,the buildings are available to
all the allowed or allowable uses.
In each basic zone,some types of uses are allowed, some need staff approval of a use permit,and
some need Planning Commission approval of a use permit. The different levels of review are
intended to reflect the potential for incompatibility or policy inconsistency. Also, for some uses
in some zones, there are size limits or requirements for special findings. The applicant's listing
did not indicate whether the uses would be allowed by right once the development plan is
approved, or if finther City action would be necessary. Therefore, the recommended planned-
development use list identifies the approval authority and special standards that would apply.
Following is the draft Airport Area Specific Plan's statement of purpose for the Business Park
designation.
2-7
Council Agenda Report—Orcutt Creek(Lathrop) annexation
Page 8
"Areas designated Business Park are primarily for research and development, light
manufacturing, and business services that are compatible with each. other and with
airport operations. Business Parks are intended for firms and agencies which provide
jobs that can support households in San Luis Obispo. Activities which are supportive of
or accessory to the primary activities may be established as well. The City recognizes
that firms locating in areas designated Business Park often combine product
development, promotion, manufacturing, and distribution at a single facility. The [use
chart] provisions are intended to accommodate such corribinations, with the lowest levet
of review by the City that is consistent with assuring a desirable setting for the types of
businesses that are the primary reason for Business Parks.
"Business Parks are most appropriate for sites of at least four hectares (10 acres), with
frontage on highways and arterial streets."
Credit Union Concent
The development plan would allow one or more credit unions, occupying up to 58 percent of the
total project floor area.
The justification for approval can be summarized as follows:
• This is a good location. A credit union now exists at a location that is outside downtown,
at the intersection of a major road and a minor road,across from a shopping center,and in
the vicinity of dwellings and parks. The project site has the same setting. It would allow
that credit union to relocate to this site, which has better access and more room for
parking.
• Credit unions and banks have virtually the same fimctions and characteristics. A branch
bank consistent with Services and Manufacturing policies and a check-cashing business
have been established on a site zoned C-S-PD,just across Broad Street.
• A credit union would be compatible with the other uses intended for the project
The particular credit union proposed for the site would consist of corporate headquarters
(administrative) functions as well as direct customer service, and it has branch offices in the
County (one in the immediate San Luis Obispo area) for additional direct customer contact. (At
the request of the credit union, the applicant has also filed an application to amend the Zoning
Regulations text, to allow credit unions in certain situations in the C-S zone, with Planning
Commission approval of a use permit That application has not been scheduled for a hearing,
pending the outcome of the subject request for C-S-PD zoning.)
Credit Union Consistency with Draft Airport Area Specific Plan"Business Park"
One recommendation from the Airport Area land-use workshops was to allow credit unions and
similar uses in Airport Area Business Park, C-S, M zones "subject to special standards or review
processes." Staff's response is to recommend provisions for the draft specific plan as
summarized in the following table. The recommendation distinguishes between (A) small-scale
direct customer services, which in a business park would be mainly for area workers, not
2-8
Council Agenda Report—Orcutt Creek(Lathrop) annexation
Page 9
residents of the whole community, (B) a regular branch that could attract customers from all or a
large part of the city, and (C) headquarters functions which would be like any other corporate
office. In conclusion, the proposed credit union is consistent because it consists of an
administrative office, it offers a convenience to area workers, and it would be less than 25
percent of the development's floor area.
Preliminary Airport Area Specific Plan Sta Recommendation
T e of Use Business Park Service Commercial Manufacturin
[A] Convenience facilities,which along
with certain other secondary uses
cannot exceed 25%of a project's
floor area:
Branch of bank,savings&loan, Allowed with Allowed with Allowed with
credit union,or finance company, administrative administrative use administrative
not to exceed 2,000square-feet. use permit permit use permit
Bank,savings&loan,credit union, or
finance company.
[B]Customer service branch [no Not allowed(but Allowed with admin. Not allowed
size limit see below use permit
[C]Corporate or regional Allowed Allowed with admin. Not allowed
administrative office I use permit
Credit Union Consistency with Services and Manufacturing
According to the adopted General Plan,the subject site's current land use designation of Services
and Manufacturing is "for activities such as business services, wholesaling, building contractors,
utility company yards, auto repair, printing, food manufacturing and other light manufacturing,
and retail sales of large items,bulk quantities, and items often stored outdoors(vehicles, building
materials, plants). Areas reserved for these uses may also accommodate convenience restaurants
and other activities primarily serving area workers"(policy LU 3.5.1).The General Plan also says
land with this designation can accommodate "Large offices,with no single tenant space less than
2,500 square feet, and having no substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown
government services ... subject to approval of a Planned Development zoning application"
(policy LU 3.5.2.F). As noted before, this PD application has been presented not as one targeting
large offices, but as a way to accommodate anticipated Business Park uses ahead of that
designation being adopted.
When General Plan policies leave room for interpretation, the:Zoning Regulations provide the
previous official interpretation. In the C-S zone, branches of banks and savings-and-loans are
allowable with an administrative use permit; headquarters are expressly excluded. Credit unions
and finance companies are not allowed (Section 17.22.010). For large-office PD's in the C-S
zone, banks in particular and "financial institutions" in general are expressly excluded (Section
17.62.040.C).
The reason for constraining credit unions more than banks is not clear. It is true that banks
generally, but not always, have several branches in San Luis Obispo, while at least in the past a
2-9
Council Agenda Report—Orcutt Creek(Lathrop) annexation
Page 10
credit union, being a member-based organization,had only one location. Since a credit union had
a single location, it would draw customers from the whole area, which would produce traffic
contrary to the stated reasons for a Neighborhood Commercial zone. Recently, due mainly to less
Federal regulation, distinctions between banks and other "money processing" businesses,
insurance services, and investment services are being blurred. The expansion of Internet
commerce may do so further. Regardless of the Commission's action on the subject application,
this topic is likely to be revisited during consideration of a citywide update of commercial
zoning.
In conclusion, a credit union can be allowed.in this PD based on the following:
• It is not excluded by General Plan policies.
• Considering the Zoning Regulations, the administrative functions are similar to other
office-type activities that are allowed or allowable in the C-S zone, such as advertising and
related services, credit reporting and collection,member and service organizations,research
and development, secretarial and related services, and utility company administrative
offices. A credit union administrative office focuses on processing transactions and other
data, personnel matters, general communication with current and prospective members, and
investments. It has minimal connection with local government (downtown) or direct
customer service.
• The direct customer-service to be provided at this site could focus on people working in
the vicinity. The credit union has a branch in the San Luis Obispo area,and can provide
service via the Internet.
Site Layout
The site plan reflects leaving Orcutt Creek in its present location, providing the 35-foot setbacks
required by the Zoning Regulations, and not developing the part of the site west of the creek or
bridging the creek. Any substantial future change to those aspects would require a Planning
Commission hearing and a City Council hearing, and Council approval of a new development
plan.
SeveralGeneral Plan policies call for restoration of degraded creek corridors and provision of
appropriate public access as development along them is approved(LU 6.4.1,LU 6.4.2, LU 6.4.42
OS 3.12, OS 3.1.3, and OS 3.2.1). Recommended condition #4 addresses habitat restoration.
Recommended condition .#5 addresses access to the creek for safety and maintenance. Access
along the creek has not been proposed because the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan and
conceptual area plans have shown access along the more substantial Acacia Creek corridor.
Building construction techniques can reduce indoor noise exposure to levels that are acceptable
for office uses, according to the Noise Element and the Noise Guidebook. The Noise Element
does not explicitly set a standard for outdoor use areas other than parks or residential yards. Two
of the three plazas would be sufficiently far from Broad Street and shielded by buildings that
traffic noise is not expected to hinder their use. Noise exposure for the plaza closest to Broad
Street is expected to be in the range of 65 to 68 decibels, or about the level that can interfere with
normal conversation. An option would be to maintain that plaza location as a space for
landscaping and bicycle parking, but to locate outdoor space for employee or visitor use farther
2-10
Council Agenda Report—Orcutt Creek(Lathrop) annexation
Page 11
to the west, shielded by a wall, or at the interior diagonal part of the southeastern building.
Consideration also should be given to providing the plazas a southern winter sun exposure and
protection from the prevailing wind.
The new, local street would allow access to the proposed sports fields to the north. A pedestrian
walkway and common driveway could be extended to the developable, commercially designated
property to the south.
Parking
The preliminary development plan shows a total of 231 spaces. Staff estimates that about 212
spaces can be provided if planters are provided every six spaces in the longer parking bays, as
called for by the City's parking-lot landscape standards and the anticipated Business Park
"orchard planting" guideline. The Zoning Regulations normally require one vehicle space per
300 square feet gross floor area for a credit union, bank, title company, computer services, or
other non-medical offices. Applying the 1:300 ratio to the whole site would result in a
requirement for 347 spaces. The draft Airport Area Specific Plan will recommend, for Business
Parks, a ratio of at least one space per 500 square feet and at most one space per 250 square feet.
In recognition of the"intemet service" space being occupied mainly by equipment, a requirement
like that for manufacturing could be used, as low as one space per 500 square feet, or for
warehousing, one space per 1,500 square feet. These lower ratios would result in a total
requirement of 240 spaces or 293 spaces.
It is important for the development plan to provide parking that can serve the range of expected
uses, on the chance that a specific use such as the Internet service changes to another use or
adopts different technology requiring more workers. On one hand, providing excess parking
reduces permeable surfaces and space for amenities, and does not encourage alternatives to
single-occupant vehicles. On the other hand, providing insufficient parking can reduce the range
of occupants that will locate in a development, and cause employees or patrons to park in the
spaces owned by neighbors. (This site has relatively little space for curbside parking.)
The preliminary development plan assumed a parking requirement based on the following:
• credit union, 60,000 square feet at one space per 300 square feet=200 spaces;
• mtemet services,at one space per shift worker=24 spaces(equivalent to 1 space/1,670 s.f.).
• 4,000 square feet unspecified use,assuming one space per 300 square feet= 13 spaces.
The resulting total requirement would be 237 spaces, which is 25 spaces (about 12 percent)more
than the 212 spaces likely to be provided if the parking lot has planters consistent with City
design standards. Without any special approval, when a project provides more bicycle parking
than required, the number of vehicle spaces may be reduced at a certain ratio, with a maximum
reduction of ten percent. In this case,the resulting requirement would be 213 spaces.
During previous review, the applicant indicated that a reduction from typical parking
requirements could be justified based on mixed use. With approval of an administrative use
permit, parking for projects with mixed uses or with shared parking can be reduced by as much
as 30%,when it is shown that times of high parking demand will not coincide (for example,large
shopping centers including uses such as stores, restaurants, and theaters). However, that is not
likely to be the case with this project_ Considering that one of the reasons given for the credit
2-11
Council Agenda Report—Orcutt Creek(Lathrop) annexation
Page 12
union moving to this site is to have more room for parking, staff is not comfortable with a
substantial reduction that is not based on a particular code provision. Also, it would be desirable
to provide parking at a ratio that would allow at least one type of use in-addition to the Internet
services, consistent with the Zoning Regulations parking standards.
The Zoning Regulations also allow off-site parking subject to certain limitations. The applicant
and City staff have informally discussed the potential for a reciprocal "off-site" parking
arrangement that could benefit this project and the City's proposed sports fields, but there is no
assurance that this will be implemented.
With the Planned Development zone, any parking arrangement that is consistent with the General
Plan and that meets the intent of the Zoning Regulations—adequate parking—can be approved.
Staff recommends the following approach to parking, which is expected to require a few more
spaces or slightly less building area than shown in the preliminary development plan.
• Internet services (as defined in the PD use listing), 40,000 square feet at one space per
1,500 square feet=27 spaces(allowing warehouse uses if the Internet services change);
• credit union and offices, 64,000 square feet at one space per 300 square feet=213 spaces;
total spaces required before any code-based reduction=240 spaces;
• total spaces required with ten percent reduction for extra bicycle parking=216 spaces.
A reciprocal parking and access agreement among the parcels on this site will be required if
parcels are to be created as shown.
These parking aspects are addressed by recommended conditions#8, #9, and#10.
Planned Development Findings
The Zoning Regulations require that at least one'of the following findings be made to approve a
Planned Development zone(Section 17.62.040):
1. It provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group (such as the elderly
or families with children)which would.not be feasible under conventional zoning_
2. It transfers allowable development, within a site, from areas of greater environmental
sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or hazard; _
3. It provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional development;
4. Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards (privacy,usable
open spare, adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood character, and so on) as well
as or better than the standards themselves;
5. It incorporates features which result in consumption of less materials, energy or water than
conventional development;
6. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits such as parking, open space,
landscaping, public art, and other special amenities which would not be feasible under
conventional development standards.
2-12
Council Agenda Report—Orcutt Creek(Lathrop) annexation
Page 13
Staff recommends making finding #4, because the plazas, the amount of parking as conditioned,
and the open creek corridor achieve the intent of conventional standards as well as the
conventional standards: site amenities in the form of plazas, adequate parking, and open space
protection. Staff also suggests finding #6, since a project complying with the proposed Business
Park standards is likely to be more attractive to the public than one meeting only the conventional
Service Commercial standards.
Since this project does not involve a density bonus or an allowance for large professional office
buildings with at least 2,500 square-feet per tenant, no additional planned-development findings
need to be made.
Airport Compatibility
The City's General Plan Land Use Element says development must be consistent with the Airport
Land Use Plan. That is a State-mandated guide to compatible uses in the vicinity of the airport,
which is adopted by the independent San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission.
According to the adopted (1973) Airport Land Use Plan, the proposed uses are compatible. The
project is also expected to be compatible under the pending update of the Airport Land Use Plan.
Because the project involves a change in land-use designation within the airport influence area,
review by the County Airport Land Use Commission is required. The Commission conducted
that review on September 15, 1999, and recommended that the City approve the project with
conditions concerning avigation easements, soundproofing, radio interference, and lighting.
(Those items are addressed in recommended conditions of approval#11 through#14.)
Subdivision
Approval of the three-parcel division is an administrative item, which will be acted on by a staff
hearing officer (following Council action on the preliminary development plan). The proposed
lot dimensions easily comply with the Subdivision Regulations for the C-S zone and with the in-
progress draft Airport Area Specific Plan standards for a Business Park designation.
CONCURRENCES
Comments of City departments are reflected in the recommended conditions.
On March 8,2000,the Planning Commission voted 4 to 3 to recommend approval, as reflected in
the CAO Recommendation and attachments. The dissenting Commissioners were concerned that .
approving the development plan now would preclude future choices,mainly:
• Reconsideration of routing the Prado Road extension through this site, if the northern
alignment recently approved by the Council turns out to be infeasible due to environmental
impacts that cannot be mitigated.
• Provision of additional creek setback or storm-water detention space on this site, if the
anticipated areawide drainage changes are not carried out.'
Staff believes that in the unlikely event that Council decides to change the Prado Road alignment
back, it still could be routed through this site. However, doing so would be more expensive and
2-13
Council Agenda Report—Orcutt Creek(Lathrop) annexation
Page 14
disruptive as the applicant and the City get farther along in designing and building their
neighboring projects. Staff also believes the proposed development plan, as conditioned,
provides adequate flexibility to design a drainage solution that will protect development on this
site from flooding and prevent additional downstream flooding, while avoiding adverse impacts
to riparian habitat.
FISCAL IMPACT
A fiscal study for the 1994 General Plan update showed that the City's general fiord would
remain fiscally healthy while annexing a combination of residential and commercial areas.
(Mundie&Associates, 1994). This has been happening and is proposed to continue.
ALTERNATIVES
Concerning the environmental determination, the Council may request more information. The
Council would need to identify the specific type of additional information desired. If the Council
believes there may be significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, the appropriate action would
be to continue consideration until the. Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans
Environmental Impact Report is certified.
The Council may decide not to proceed with annexation. If so, the applicant could pursue
development under County jurisdiction.
The part of the site that the City is acquiring could be zoned Conservation/Open Space. The
creek corridor could be zoned Conservation/Open Space.
The Council may approve the development plan with a different list of allowed and allowable
uses, if they are consistent with the General Plan. One option is to not allow a credit union. The
development plan may be approved with different findings, exceptions, and conditions, so long
as they are determined to be consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Regulations.
Attachments
Vicinity map
Draft resolution approving a negative declaration of environmental impact
Draft resolution recommending that LAFCO approve the annexation
Draft ordinance pre-zoning the site
Draft pre-annexation agreement
Initial environmental study and Addendum
Site plan reduction .
Correspondence received
Draft Planning Commission minutes for March 8,2000
In Council Reading File: Draft Airport Area Specific. Plan "Land Use"and "Urban Design"
Chapters
ai portaVvhrop\annx CAR
2-14
Vicinity
Map
Orcutt Creek Annexation
1 500 1000
ANNX 79-99 rincorporated area Meters N
��=�y � y�� �'�'R"'�`a•�fi,i��t � � � ,>i t` .',���'� a�' �C'�s�w��ui�i �..'��� ���e�7�,����,1�v/--��'
M i� l �^"_ � 6 J2 } �'. ;vy i � Y r � Si �� m"✓A,f"� / .may. �`��J� >, .ti L1 W.'Li
✓.F� ✓'�-ci- �-.�-=-��1. st �� ��`!�+ k-a r� n?A�'t,Y� ��i N,�:' 'J-� �T i� �'v L1��^5�''.,1 r' *' G� �"ti A
y,fr ..1.."�...-�—�"_ �rT� rVb�y' .fes V ,n � H.r Y j .%}y. s. y d z✓� �
\ -
i t��w l s 2,j x,
5 �� ,� +�.f 2+-., � f z t � - r� --�1♦rf' � Y ! L'j�Fb"` r..�L a �, l ,^+.�� �
y�y-rr-'� s i `Y' is ���`j sux x' i �`.f C''.� ��r \S �• 1�
i. ..J .,r sY > ny w i w. 1'Y ',5'—� �i '£.T � ti ..c> t +P Ft Y '—� R, Y" �:.{ ♦ Lk�/ ��r � �
�Ukw+•�-b'�il
�, �`•��s , s_ Y .-'ri 5 Y ��+:t-€ 1 �l'�� ti�`w t�1�< �r�.�, y�11�i A�+." •
NY \ �
s A
City of Obispo
Long-range Planning Division
Febnjary 2000 xVmjec1sXoom devMong rangelairportUaft.5,700
RESOLUTION NO. (2000 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING A NUTIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR THE ORCUTT CREEK
ANNEXATION,PRE-ZONING,AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN(ER 79-99)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 4, 2000, and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action,and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the project's Negative Declaration and Addendum adequately address the potential environmental
impacts of the project, and reflect the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council
determines that the annexation, zoning, and development plan will have no significant effects on
the environment The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. Mitigation, Monitoring, and Record of Approval. The Negative
Declaration is based on mitigation measures and monitoring actions described in the Initial Study
and agreed to by the project applicant The Initial Study, an Initial Study Addendum describing
changes to the project after submittal, the applicant's statement accepting mitigation measures,
and the record of project approval are available for public review at the Community
Development Department in City Hall,990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,California.
On motion of . seconded by ,and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT-
the foregoing resolution was adopted this_day of ,2000.
2-16
Resolution No.
Page 2
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price, CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ty m Jeff ge
auporm/Iathrop/ndccres.doc
2-1
RESOLUTION NO. (2000 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION BY
THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING THAT THE
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION APPROVE
THE ORCUTT CREEK ANNEXATION(ANNX 79-99)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have held hearings on the
proposed annexation on March 8,2000, and April 4, 2000,respectively; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on April 4, 2000, by Resolution No. (2000 Series),
approved a Negative Declaration for the proposed annexation, pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15090; and
WHEREAS, on recommendation of the Planning Commission and as a result of its
deliberations, the Council has approved an amendment of the Zoning Map by pre-zoning the
annexation property to Service Commercial Planned Development (C-S-PD) and Public Facility
with Specific Plan(PF-SP); and
WHEREAS, City Council approval is a prerequisite for the San Luis Obispo County
Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCo)to initiate formal annexation proceedings; and
WHEREAS, the territory to be annexed is not inhabited, and a description of the
boundaries of the territory is set forth in attached Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS,this proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence adopted by the Local
Agency Formation Commission of San Luis Obispo.County for the City of San Luis Obispo;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1: Findings.
1. Annexation is appropriate since the annexation area's eastern side is contiguous with
the City.
2. Annexation of the site is a logical addition to the City due to its location and
availability of services.
3. The proposed annexation will promote the health, safety, and welfare of persons living
or working in the vicinity of the annexation area.
2-18
Resolution No.
Page 2
SECTION 2: Annexation Area. Described. The annexation shall consist of that area,
covering approximately 93acres west of Broad Street opposite the intersection with Industrial
Way, as shown on the site location map attached as Exhibit A and legally described in attached
Exhibit B.
SECTION 3: Council Recommendation. The City Council recommends that the Local
Agency Formation Commission of San Luis Obispo County approve the proposed annexation, in
accordance with California Government Code Section 56844 and following.
SECTION 4: hnvlementation. The City Clerk shall forward a copy of this resolution and
pre-zoning actions, the Negative Declaration of environmental impact, and all pertinent
supporting documents to the Local Agency Formation Commission.
On motion of , seconded by and on the
following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of .2000.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price, CMC _
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ty tto y leporgl6sen
aupor0athrop/ecWkes.doc
2-19
Exh •
Orcuff. Creek - •
00 1000
ANNX 79-99 incorporated area Meters N
rt � G F. 4.' G ^ -_ �\f' \ � r y `f r
J �Z' .�"� ✓�J
RZ
�'�_�—'--�� � _—�-� * �!, \�l \ � �rr --�fr� r{�4u �„G�'r'` ice✓^ .,�tl C>
t
am
f ' \ _
Acacia Creek
z
t
A
Orcutt Creek-
City
�
x �
Obispo
Long-range Planning Division
1'0
Exhibit B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Orcutt Creek Annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo
Being a portion of lots 84 and 85 of the San Luis Obispo Suburban Tract as recorded in
Book 1 at Page 92 of Records of Survey in the County Recorder's office in the County of
San Luis Obispo, State of California,more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 83 of said Suburban Tract;thence
N66'30'1 8"E along the southerly line of said Lot 84 a distance of 704.20 feet to its
intersection with the westerly right-of-way line of Broad Street,also being State Highway
227;thence northerly along said westerly right-0f--way line N24°00'00"W a distance of
177.96 feet; thence northerly along a tangent curve, concave to the east, having a radius
of 7,055.00 feet and a central angle of 03°25'55"an arc distance of 422.58 feet;thence
leaving said right-of-way line S23029'42"W a distance of 711.32 feet; thence
S66'3 1'42"E a distance of 600.38 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 9.75 acres.
2-21
ORDINANCE NO. (2000 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
PRE-ZONING THE ORCUTT CREEK ANNEXATION
(R/PD 79-99)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 4, 2000, and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action,and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;and
WHEREAS, Council has approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impact for the proposed annexation and zoning(Resolution No. )
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed zoning,
and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations,public testimony, and
reports thereon makes the following findings:
A. The proposed C-S-PD and PF-SP zones are consistent with the General Plan.
B. The proposed C-S-PD and PF-SP zones are consistent with the intended uses and
locations of the zone as described in the Zoning Regulations.
C. The proposed C-S-PD and PF-SP zones will be compatible with surrounding land
uses.
D. The proposed development plan,as conditioned,is consistent with the General Plan
E. The proposed uses are suitable for the.site and compatible with existing and planned
uses in the vicinity.
F. The Planned Development's plazas, parking, and creek corridor protection achieve
the intent of conventional standards for usable open space, adequate parking, and
open space protection as well as the standards themselves.
G. The Planned Development provides exceptional public benefit by complying with the
proposed Business Park standards, which will result in a project more attractive to the
public than one meeting only the conventional Service Commercial standards.
SECTION 2, Adoption of Zones. The territory to be annexed shall be zoned as shown on
the attached Exhibit A.
2-22
Ordinance No.
Page 2 of 7
SECTION 3. Development Plan and Conditions. The Council approves the development
plan, comprised of drawings prepared by RRM Design Group dated February 23 and 24, 20002
and letters dated December 23, 1999, and February 10,2000, subject to the following:
Findings
1. The proposed zoning and the development plan, as conditioned, are consistent with
the General Plan.
2. The proposed zoning is consistent with the purposes of the PF, SP, C-S, and PD zones
as stated in the Zoning Regulations.
3. The proposed uses are suitable for the site and compatible with existing and planned
uses in the vicinity.
4. The Planned Development's plazas, parking, and creek corridor protection achieve
the intent of conventional standards for usable open space, adequate parking, and
open space protection as well as the standards themselves.
5. The Planned Development provides exceptional public benefit by complying with the
proposed Business-Park standards, whickwill result in a project more attractive to the
public than one meeting only the conventional Service Commercial standards.
Conditions
1. Each development shall provide for dispersed drainage across areas with suitable soil and
vegetation to allow percolation and filtering, rather than piped or other concentrated
drainage from roofs and paved areas directly to creeks or public storm drains. To provide
suitable soil, landscaped areas shall not be compacted, or shall be adequately loosened
and amended prior to planting. Pervious paving shall be used for all parking stalls.
Driveways and parking aisles may be pervious. For each development site, plans for
architectural review and for construction permits shall show how this mitigation will be
implemented. _
2. If areawide drainage improvements will not be available to serve development of the
project site at the time of building .permit, on-site storm drainage detention will be
provided. It may be a temporary facility. The detention basin shall be landscaped
consistently with planting for other development on the site. The design of the facility
will be prepared by a qualified professional and subject to approval by the City Engineer
and the Architectural Review Commission. If the facility takes the form of a
conventional detention basin,it shall be located outside the required creek setback-
2-23
Ordinance No.
Page 3 of 7
3. The final development plan shall provide for drainage along the southern edge of the site
to the approval of the Public Works Director. Utilities shall be designed to be compatible
with drainage in this area, to the approval of the Utilities Director.
4. The final development plan shall include a plan for restoration of the Orcutt Creek
corridor riparian habitat, including planting of native species, subject to approval by the
City's Natural Resources Manager.
5. The final development plan shall provide for access to the creek from the parking aisle
on parcel 1, for maintenance and emergency response,to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
6. Before recordation of a parcel map or issuance of building permits, whichever comes
first, the owner and the City will enter into an agreement with Caltrans, providing a
schedule and cost-sharing for modification of the intersection signal and other
intersection features.
7. Building permits will not be issued until the City Utilities Director confirms that the
wastewater collection system serving the development will have adequate capacity prior
to occupancy. If permits are to be obtained before the Airport Area wastewater collection
system is available, applicant shall pay a proportionate share of the cost to upgrade pump
stations serving the development, based on wastewater flows from the project and
tributary area as determined by the City's Utilities Engineer.
8. The final development plan shall provide at least one vehicle parking space for each
1,500 square feet gross floor area of Internet service providers, plus for credit union and
other office-type uses, one space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. This condition is
not intended to preclude firture approval of mixed-use or shared-use parking reductions,
or of off-site parking, if conditions allowing such approval occur. All parcels shall be
subject to a recorded agreement concerning access and parking, in a form approved by the
Community Development Director.
9. The final development plan shall provide parking space access and parking lot
landscaping consistent with the Parking and Driveway Standards.
10. The final development plan shall provide bicycle parking and bicycle storage facilities as
required by the Zoning Regulations. The required number of vehicle spaces may be
reduced as allowed by the Zoning Regulations based on provision of more than the
required number of bicycle or motorcycle spaces.
11. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo
via an avigation easement document prepared by the applicant and submitted to the
County for approval and recordation. The applicant shall provide the Community
Development Department with a copy of the easement for documentation purposes.
2-24
Ordinance No.
Page 4 of 7
12. Buildings shall provide sound reduction so that aircraft noise will not result in indoor
noise exposure exceeding 60 decibels for a single event.
13. Equipment or activities at the site shall not cause any radio or telecommunications
interference with the airport or aircraft in flight
14. Lighting at the site shall not interfere with the airport or aircraft in flight. Sky glare, glare
toward the airport,flashing lights,and searchlights are prohibited.
15. Water and sewer mains shall comply with City standards and shall be designed subject to
approval of the City Utilities Director. Water lines shall be designed to enable completion
of a loop through the property to the south. Easements for utility lines shall be provided
subject to approval of the City Utilities Director.
16. Water meters shall be located in compliance with City standards and to the approval of
the City Utilities Director.
17. Pacific Gas & Electric facilities and services within the development shall comply with
City standards and be compatible with the City-owned streetlight system, and shall be
-subject to approval of the City Utilities Director. -
18. Uses shall be allowed,or allowable with further approval, as listed in the following table.
Uses that are not listed may not be established at the site. This planned-development
approval does not limit particular buildings to particular uses, though future use-permit
approvals may do so.
2-25
Ordinance No.
Page 5 of 7
PD 79-99 Use Listing
Type of Use Status
Advertising and related services Allowed
Antennas—municipal,commercial,and Allowable with administrative use permit
public utility broadcasting and wireless
communications
Audio and video production studios Allowed
Caretakers quarters Allowable with administrative use permit
Computer services(data processing, Allowed
consulting,computer design and
development,software development);see
also"intemet services"
Convenience facilities primarily to serve
workers in the area
Sales of business and office supplies Allowable with administrative use permit;
maximum floor area 5,000 sq. ft.;see also note#1
Branch of bank,savings&loan,or Allowable with administrative use permit;
credit union maximum floor area 2,000 sq. ft.; see also note#1
Retail sales of food,publications,and Allowable with administrative use permit;
sundries maximum floor area 2,000 sq.ft.; see also note#I
Credit reporting and collection Allowed
Credit unions and finance companies Allowed
Insurance services Allowable with administrative use permit
Internet services(connection and traffic Allowed
routing facilities)
Laboratories for medical or analytical Allowed
research
Manufacturing subject to note#2 Allowed
Offices-contractors and construction Allowed .
management
Offices-architecture,engineering,and Allowed
industrial design
Organizations' offices Allowable with administrative use permit
Organizations' meeting rooms Allowable with administrative use permit
Research&development—services, Allowed
software,consumer products,instruments,
office equipment,and similar items
Secretarial and related services such as Allowable with administrative use permit
transcribing,telephone answering
Title companies Allowable with administrative use permit
See notes on next page.
2-26
Ordinance No.
Page 6 of 7
PD 79-99 Use Listing
Notes:
I. Within the project site,combined floor area of the following uses shall not exceed 25
percent of the total floor area.
Branch of bank,savings&loan,credit union,finance company(regional or corporate
administrative offices are not subject to this area limit)
Retail sales of food,publications,sundries
Sale,rental of business and office supplies
2. Manufacturing uses are limited to those involving minimal toxic materials or wastes
and low shipping volume(shipping or receiving less than 400 cubic meters[14,000
cubic feet]of truck or container space per day);typical products would be specialty
foods,beverages,or apparel;electronic,optical,or instrumentation products;jewelry,
musical instruments; Torting goods; art materials.
19. Applicant shall install full frontage improvements along Broad Street, including detached
sidewalk, landscaped parkway, and Class lI bike lanes meeting City and Caltrans
standards,to the approval of the Public Works Director.
20. Applicant shall provide a street-type entry to the site, with additional right-of-way to
accommodate typical curved property line returns (3 meter radius) from Broad Street to
the new street
21. Applicant shall dedicate to the City access rights along the Broad Street frontage.
22. Applicant shall provide an offer of dedication for a public street extending to the property
to the south, to the approval of the Public Works Director. The offer of dedication may
reflect a right-of-way narrower than normally provided for a local commercial street(such
as a roadway with adequate travel-lane widths,but no curbside parking).
23. The final development plan shall show space for trash and recycling facilities, with the
amount and location based on recommendations by the trash and recycling operators and
the City's Utilities Conservation Division. Design of these facilities shall be subject to
approval by the Architectural Review Commission.
24. The final development plan shall show the location(s) of any automatic teller machine(s),
which shalf avoid the Broad Street frontage or other locations that would create traffic
congestion or hazard Such facilities shall be subject to approval by the Architectural
Review Commission.
25. The applicant shall contribute to the cost of preparing the Airport Area Specific Plan and
constructing area-wide infrastructure improvements, according to the cost-sharing plan
maintained by the City, with the fee amount reflecting the City's acceptance of a
complete annexation application on November 24, 1999.
2-27
Ordinance No.
Page 7 of 7
SECTION 4. Publication. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of
Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5)days prior to its final
passage, in the 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, but no sooner than the
effective date of annexation of the subject site.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo at its meeting held on the day of 2000, on a motion of
seconded by and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price, CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
oe
i tto y;eJoro&isen
aiportan athrop/zoneord.doc
.2-20
Exhibit A
aning Feet 0 200 400 Meters 0 50 100 Q
R 79-99
N
a
u5ti�a��
PF-SP Mrd
0
Eii
.0i ig
;gggg� ii
9'
o-
N
P
0
C,S D
co
pi
mimmn
�a�KFa�
City of San Luis Obispo Lor g-range Planning
9 February 2000
MprojectMo m deAlong rangMairporWaVmone spr
2-29
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
APN: 076-401-039
076-401-040
PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND
SCOTT R. & ELLEN A LATHROP
This annexation agreement'is made and entered into this day of 2000, by and
between the City of San Luis Obispo, a chartered municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred to
as "CTTTwhose address is 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401; and Scott R.
& Ellen A Lathrop, whose address is P.O. Box 13938, San Luis Obispo, California 93406
(hereinafter referred to as "OWNER"), pursuant to the authority of the City Charter, and Section .
56000 and following sections of the California Government Code. CITY and OWNER shall
hereinafter be referred to collectively as"PARTIES."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Scott R. & Ellen A Lathrop are the owners in fee of certain real property in the
County of San Luis Obispo, described as a portion of Lot 84 and Lot 85 of the Suburban Tract,
County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map filed February 6, 1906, in
Book 1 at Page 92 of Records of Surveys in the office of County Recorder of said county
(Assessor's Parcel Numbers 076-381-010 and 076-381-011, and commonly known as 3807
Broad Street), shown on the attached Exhibit A and referred to herein as the "subject property;"
and
WHEREAS, the subject property is proposed for annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo (City
File No. 79-99); and
WHEREAS, to provide for the City's orderly growth and development, consistent with the
General Plan, the PARTIES anticipate that the subject property will be annexed to the City
pursuant to terms and procedures of the California Government Code 56000 and following
sections;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and agreements stated
herein,PARTIES agree as follows:
1. URBAN SERVICES. Upon annexation, the property shall be entitled to the full range of
City services, including but not limited to water and sewer services, police and fire protection,
and general government services,some of which are described below in more detail.
. 2-30
Pre-annexation Agreement: Lathrop
Page 2
Water Service. CITY agrees to provide water service as available for fire fighting and domestic
purposes to the subject property upon request of OWNER, subject to- the same laws, rules,
regulations, and fees applicable to other new users in the City under similar circumstances,
including but not limited to retrofit requirements. Use of on-site ground water or other sources
for potable or non-potable uses may continue for existing development,provided they continue to
meet County Health Department standards. Use of groundwater for new development will
comply with applicable City policies. Non-potable water may be used for landscape irrigation. If
well(s) fail or are abandoned, OWNER shall comply with applicable State and County
regulations regarding well abandonment.
Sewer Service. City agrees to provide sanitary sewer service, as available, to the subject property
upon request of the OWNER, and subject to the same laws, rules, regulations, and fees
applicable to other new users in the City under similar circumstances.
Fire Protection. City agrees to provide fire protection service, as available, to the subject
property upon request of the OWNER, and subject to the same laws, rules, regulations, and fees
applicable to other new users in the City under similar circumstances.
4. COMPLIANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS. Once annexed, the.property will be subject
to the same rules,regulations, laws, and fees that would be applied to other properties in the City
under similar circumstances including, but not. limited to, Subdivision Regulations, Zoning
Regulations, Building Code, Fire Code, environmental regulations (California Environmental
Quality Act), fees, and other provisions of the Municipal Code and State laws.
5. AGREEMENT FOR WELL WATER AND CITY SEWER. Once annexed, if OWNER
proposes to use a private well for domestic water supply and a CITY sewer connection for
wastewater disposal, for a commercial activity, OWNER shall enter into an agreement with
CITY concerning metering and billing for sewer service, including installation of a meter in
compliance with CITY standards.
6. PROPERTY EMPROVEMENTS. At the time of future development or redevelopment, it
shall be the responsibility of the OWNER to install and/or pay for improvements and fees which
may be required by permit, law, rule, or regulation at that time, or-which are required by
mitigation measures established as part of the annexation.
7. SPECIFIC PLAN AND AREAWIDE PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE FEES.
This fee of $15,538.00 per acre (interim fee) is the estimated, apportioned cost of areawide
planning and construction of infrastructure within the Airport Area annexation (including
specific plan preparation, water and sewer system improvements, circulation system
improvements, and storm drainage system improvements). OWNERS hereby agree to contribute
$142,173.00 based on the developable area of subject property (9.15 acres). This payment shall
be paid in full, or secured by letter of credit, prior to final Council action on the subject .
annexation. If a letter.of credit is used, it shall be in effect for a period not less than five years
2-31
Pre-annexation Agreement: Lathrop
Page 3
from the date of completion of the annexation: OWNERS may elect to pay this fee at any time
within the five-year period and retire the letter of credit
Within the next 12 to 24 months (but not later than three years), the City expects to adopt a
finalized specific plan and infrastructure improvement fee (finalized fee), form an assessment
district or similar funding mechanism (district), or implement some combination of these two
approaches, to finance these planning and improvement costs. If the interim fee is paid in full
before adoption of a finalized fee or the formation of a district, all obligations under any such
finalized fee or district shall have been fully satisfied by payment in full if this interim fee
amount.
If OWNERS choose not to pay the interim fee before the finalized fee is adopted,payment in full
of the finalized fee, as it applies to subject property, shall be required, and the letter of credit will
be retired. If CITY adopts a district approach for funding the Airport Area Specific Plan and
infrastructure improvements instead of, or in combination with, a finalized fee, OWNERS and
their successors agree to support the formation of such a district
8. OPEN SPACE. This fee of$2,500.00 per acre is the apportioned cost for acquisition of an
open space buffer generally to the south of the Airport Area, as required by the General Plan.
OWNERS agree to contribute $22,875.00, based on the size of subject property (9.15 acres),
before final Council action on the annexation..
9. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of this agreement shall begin upon the effective date
of the annexation. The agreement shall remain in effect until modified or terminated by mutual
consent of the PARTIES. If the annexation does not become effective for any reason, this
agreement shall terminate and have no force and effect,as if it had never been entered into by the
PARTIES.
10. SUCCESSORS, HEIRS, AND ASSIGNS. This agreement shall be recorded with the
County Recorder and shall bind and inure to the benefit of the successors, heirs, assigns, and
personal representatives of the PARTIES.
11. AMENDMENTS,TIME EXTENSION,OR CANCELLATION. This agreement may be
amended, extended, or canceled at any time by mutual consent of the PARTIES or their
successors in interest.
2-32
Pre-annexation Agreement:Lathrop
Page 4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is executed on the date above stated at San Luis
Obispo, California
ALL SIGNATURES M1•TUST BE NOTARIZED.
Inelude title Typed name if signing as a trustee,business partner, ur officer of a corporation.
OWNED �y
BY: BY: ; tic (�1�
type name: type name:
Scott R . YOP L-cthrvF
cc
sew u
Nofar
my com
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,A Chartered Municipal Corporation
BY:
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee.Price, CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen
2-33
Exhibit A
Orcutt Creek Annexation
0 500 1000
ANNX 79-99 incorporated area Meters N
L4
"T
I A
T7�T:�
Z
9
I ly-7
171
4
43 ` is%
W,
_J
Acacia Creek
site—,
Orcuwtt
City of San Luis Obispo
Long-range Planning Division
9 February 200D Aprojects%cm devMong rangMairporhlath ib.ap
CALIFORNIA AL4PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of � n� a-
.County of _�;q. ld,s Ub1 Slb J
Ona�ax'�D� before me,
DATE /- NAME.TITLE OF omcm m.WAAEZC,
personally appeared ��� A- "/" /!%"z �c,� i _ D ,
NAME(s)6F SIGNUM
,Vpelsonally known to me - OR - ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
R. COOK subscribed to the within instrument and ac-
ok-cawomia#12D3W6
N knowledged to me that he/she/they executed
rspoCOLKN the same in his/her/their authorized
-., capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s),
or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WENDRA R.COOK
~- N P,;a ca WITH S my hand and official seal.
W SAN LUIS OSISPO COUNTY
My Comm F-�.l]er> 5,202
SIGNATURE OF NOTARY
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law.It may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevert
fraudulent reattachment of this form.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
❑ INDIVIDUAL
❑ CORPORATE OFFICER
TIRE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
TRLm _
❑ PARTNER(S) ❑ LIMITED
❑ GENERAL
❑ ATTOMEY4N-FACT NUMBER OF PAGES
❑ TRUSTEE(S)
❑ GUARDW-LWNSERVATOR
❑ OTHER:
DATE OF DOCUMENT
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
WYMOFPERSONS)OABfflrf S) .
SIGNER(S)OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
INITIAL STUDY
ER 79-99
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title: Orcutt Creek Annexation and Development Plan
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401-3249
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
805 781-7165
e-mail: gmatteso@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us
4. Project Location:
The site is on the west side of Broad Street, opposite the Industrial Way intersection
(attached Vicinity Map).
5. Project Sponsor's,Name and Address: Scott Lathrop
PO Box 13938
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
6. General Plan Designation:
The site is within the urban reserve line. The site's northern edge is in the Margarita
Specific Plan Area and is designated Recreation. Most of the site is in the Airport Specific
Plan Area and is designated Services and Manufacturing. (The General Plan requires a
specific plan for the Airport Area. The draft speck plan shows the site as Business Park,
and contains standards for that designation.) Open Space policies apply to the creek
flowing through the site.
7. Zoning:
The County's designations are Commercial Service along Broad Street and Residential
Multifamily along the existing mobile home park to the west. Since the site is outside the
city limits; City zoning does not yet apply.
8. Description of the Project:
The site would be annexed, making it subject to City land-use rules and eligible for City
services. The applicant proposes to subdivide two parcels with a combined area of about
four hectares (9.7 acres) into three lots, with dedication of public streets and sale to the
City of the northeast comer of the site (attached Site Plan). The resulting net developable
area would be about three hectares (eight acres). The applicant requests that upon
annexation, the site be zoned Service Commercial with a Planned Development overlay
(C-S-PD). With a PD overlay, the City can allow or restrict land uses and property
2-36
development standards, such as setbacks and parking, differently from the underlying
zone, so long as they are consistent with the General Plan. A PD overlay also ties the
zoning to a development plan showing basic features such as building location and size,
access, parking, and site amenities.
The principal land-use difference between this PD and the usual C-S zone would be
allowance for a credit union, including both direct customer service and administrative
(headquarters) functions. The site wogld also be available for the other types of uses listed
in the Planned Development zoning application. These include research and development,
light manufacturing, certain types of offices and service businesses, and limited retail
sales. The applicant's listing is general, so City staff will recommend certain size limitations
and requirements for separate approval for certain types of uses, consistent with the
anticipated Business Park designation in the forthcoming draft Airport Area Specific Plan.
The preliminary development plan shows a total of 6,640 square meters (71,485 square-
feet) of building floor area in seven one-story and two-story buildings.
The preliminary development plan shows a larger setback from Broad Street than usually
required by Zoning Regulations (and reflecting an existing highway slope easement). No
specific exceptions to property development standards have been requested. However, the
parking ratios are lower than the one vehicle space per 300 square-feet gross floor area
usually required for office developments: one space per 318 square-feet overall, and one
space per 355 square-feet on parcels 2 and 3. A ratio of 1:400 is typically used for projects
that combine offices with-uses such as parts and equipment sales and service, since the
latter uses normally require a parking ratio of 1:500. The ratios of 1:318 or 1:355 can be
approved for predominantly office uses, through the planned-development process, in
recognition of the shared parking arrangement and opportunities for bicycle parking (not
yet detailed in plans), and the City's objectives for moderating trip growth through
alternatives to single-occupant vehicles. The lower parking ratio helps provide space for
the proposed plaza, an amenity for workers and visitors and a potential basis for making
the findings required to approve a planned development rezoning. (The number of parking
spaces for parcel one is inferred from the parking bay layout, since plans do not indicate
the number of spaces for that parcel.)
The site plan does not show parking-lot tree planters every six spaces, as called for by the
City's Parking and Driveway Standards. Also, the tum-around "island" at the north end of
parcel 1 would, by eliminating back-up space, make the surrounding parking spaces
unusable. These deficiencies can be addressed by conditions of approval.
City staff will recommend that the approximately 0.25-hectare (0.6-acre) area to be bought
by the City be zoned Public Facility with Specific Plan (PF-SP). A separate environmental
review will be conducted for the neighboring sports fields development and any associated
parking on this site. The development plan shows a street entry to the area recently
acquired by the City for sports fields, as well as an alternate "knuckle" arrangement for the
new intersecting local streets.
2 2-37
9. Project Entitlements Requested:
• Annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo;
• Zoning of Service Commercial with Planned Development (C-.S-PD) and, if part of the
site is acquired by the City, Public Facility with Specific Plan (PF-SP);
• Approval of a development plan, including a list of allowed and allowable uses;
• Approval of a parcel map;
Architectural approval has not been requested, but will be required before construction can
begin.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The site is gently sloping, open land, occupied by a house that is being used as an office.
(The house may be moved off the site by the time the City acts on the project.) To the
north is grazing land proposed to become sports fields; to the west, recreational-vehicle
storage and a mobile home park; to the south, open land proposed to be a commercial
center, to the east, across Highway 227, a utility company yard and a shopping center.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Approval of the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) is
required for the annexation.
Because the project involves a change in land use designation within the airport influence
area, review by the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission is required. The
Commission conducted that review on September 15, 1999, and recommended that the
City approve the project with conditions concerning avigation easements, soundproofing,
radio interference, and lighting. (Those items will be recommended conditions of approval
for the development plan, but are not listed as mitigation measures since they are not
needed to avoid significant impacts.)
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) approval will be required for changes to
intersection signals or any construction work or encroachments into the highway right-of-
way or the associated slope easement.
3 2-38
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated-by the checklist on the
following pages.
Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
.Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
Water Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Air Quality Public Services
Transportation and Utilities and Service
Circulation Svstems `
FISH AND GAME FEES:
X There is no evidence before,the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on
fish and wildrrfe resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, the project qualifies
for a de minimis waiver with regard to filing Fish and Game fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Califomia Fish and Game Code.
4 2-39
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets X
will be part of the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project may have one or more significant effects on the environment, but at
least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, ii the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will
not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been
analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project.
I find that the proposed project may have one or more significant effects on the environment, but (1)
the potential impacts have been adequately analyzed in an earlier environmental impact report
pursuant to applicable legal standards, including findings of overriding considerations for some .
potential cumulative impacts, and (2) impacts for which findings of overriding considerations have not
previously been made have been avoided, or mitigated by measures described on attached sheets.
Arnold Jonas,Community Development Director
BY:
Z
ature Date
Mandeville, Long-range Planning Manager
5 2-40
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact' answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved (for example, the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact'
answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (for
example, the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening
analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including impacts that are off-site as well as on-
site,cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and.construction as well as operational.
3. °Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If
there are one or more °Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures
has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact° to a "Less than Significant Impact.° The lead
agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier
analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (such as general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A
source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the
discussion.
6 2-41
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially US= No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Orcutt Creek Annexation & Development Plan Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation _
Inco rated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING . Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with a General Plan designation, specific plan 1. 2 X
designation, or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies 4 X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (such as impact
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land 3 X
uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community(including a low-income or minority X
community)?
a) The General Plan calls for a specific plan for the designated Airport Area, and allows annexations
meeting certain criteria to be approved before that specific plan is adopted. The intent was to accommodate
within the city limits projects that otherwise might proceed under County jurisdiction, with on-site services.
In summary, the criteria are that a development plan be submitted, the site be adjacent to the city limits,
and utilities be close and of adequate capacity.Adequacy of utilities is discussed in part 12 below.
Either the C-S zone or the M zone would be consistent with the General Plan's Services and Manufacturing
designation, but neither of these zones allows a credit union.The PD overlay zone would allow any use that
is consistent with General Plan policies concerning intended uses in the Services and Manufacturing
designation. This raises an issue of policy intent, which will be resolved by the City Council, but does not
involve any significant impacts to the natural environment or public services.
The City is preparing a specific plan for the Airport Area, which is expected to show the site as Business
Park. This would be an expansion of the Business Park designations in the General Plan, and so will
require an amendment of the General Plan Land Use Map. Also, the specific plan is expected to allow
credit unions subject to size limits intended to keep areas designated Business Park mainly for research-
and-development and light manufacturing uses. Implementation of this concept will be addressed through a
new Business Park zone. Adoption of the specific plan, General Plan amendments, and new zoning will
follow preparation of an.environmental impact report for the Airport Area Specific Plan.
The General Plan also calls for a specific plan for the Margarita Area. Land in the Margarita Area may be
annexed before that specific plan is adopted, but such land is to be zoned Conservation/Open Space until
the specific plan is adopted. The recommended zoning of PF for the small, northeast part of the site is not
seen as conflicting with this policy, because,that area is largely in the path of the Prado Road extension as
shown in the 1994 Circulation Element. Further, its development by the City as part of the proposed
Damon-Garcia sports fields will not occur until the Margarita Area Specific Plan is adopted, following
completion of the EIR on that plan.
The 1994 Circulation Element update showed an easterly extension of Prado Road through the Margarita
Area, intersecting Broad Street opposite Industrial Way. The preliminary development plan shows a
potential right-of=way for that extension, but in a location slightly north of where it was shown on early drafts
of the Margarita Area Specific Plan. The preliminary development plan also shows local streets and part of
a building (on parcel 1) in the potential right-of-way. As this study is prepared, the City is considering an
amendment to the Circulation Element, to show a different alignment for the Prado Road extension, which
would intersect Broad Street about 300 meters (1,000 feet) farther north and which would avoid this site.
That change would reflect the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan approved by the City Council in 1998. It is
expected that a decision on the proposed alignment will be made before this annexation and development
2-42
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentia q Potentially Les Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
Orcutt Creek Annexation & Development Plan Mitigation
Incorporated
plan are presented for action. If not, the development plan will need to be revised or approval will need to
be conditioned to assure consistency with the Circulation Element. (The proposed Circulation Element
amendment is the subject of a separate environmental study, ER 190-99.)
b) Proposed development would be outside the Orcutt Creek corridor, so no direct impacts are identified.
The project site drains to Orcutt Creek, and will need to mitigate potential water-quality impacts(see section
4). Creek changes may be proposed in a new development plan, possibly in response to City drainage
proposals involving the Airport Area Specific Plan and development of sports fields on land north of the
subject site. The City's General Plan Open Space Element identifies as community goals "Preserve creek
corridors as a regional network of open space" and "Restore degraded creeks to provide high quality
habitat..." It also says "Within the city limits the City shall preserve creek corridors as open space, and
maintain creek corridors in essentially a natural state to protect the community's water quality, wildlife
diversity, and aesthetic value." Further, "the City shall require public or private development to locate
outside a creek corridor" except when there is no practicable alternative or to protect public health and
safety. General Plan consistency and impacts of any such future changes will be evaluated in the pending
EIR for the Airport Area Specific Plan and the Margarita Area Specific Plan.
d) In years past, the site was used for non-irrigated pasture. It is shown as "farmland of local potential" on
the California Department of Conservation Farmland Map (1996 edition). This category corresponds to land
which is not cultivated but could be, because it has characteristics of land classified as"prime farmland" or
"farmland of statewide importance." Due to the site's size and history of use, and current and proposed
surroundina uses, the impact of its conversion to urban uses is considered to be less than significant.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X
projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly(for example, through projects in an undeveloped 4 X
area or major infrastructure)?
c Displace existing housing, especially.affordable housing? X
The growth4nducing effects of annexation and of designation as Recreation and as Services and
Manufacturing were evaluated in the 1994 EIR for the General Plan update. This Planned Development,
intended to allow a project consistent with the expected Business Park designation, will not result in
substantially more development at the site than was evaluated in the 1994 EIR.The forthcoming EIR for the
Airport Area Specific Plan will evaluate the anticipated Business Park designation's potentially more intense
development and resulting additional workers and housing demand in the Airport-Area as a whole.
The project will not displace existing housing.The owner and the City are pursuing moving the building on the
site, originally built as a dwelling but now used as an office, to a site in the vicinity where it would be used as
a residence.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose ole to poterrittlal im acts invoIvin :
a) Fault rupture? X
b) Seismic ground shaking? X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X
d) Seiche,tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X
e) Landslides or mudflows? 4, 5, X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions 11 X
from excavation, grading, or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land? X
h) Expansive soils? X
i Unique geologic or physical features? X
g 2-43
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources potentially potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Orcutt Creek Annexation & Development Plan Issues M less impact
gation _
Incorporated
Impacts of development will be adequately addressed by code requirements. The City of San Luis Obispo
is in a seismically active region. Strong ground shaking is expected during the fife of structures, which must
comply with seismic design criteria in the Uniform Building Code. No known faults pass under or close to
the site. The site is not subject to landslide, liquefaction, seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazards. It does not
contain unique features.
Soil erosion and expansive soils are common concerns at construction sites in the San Luis Obispo area.
They are addressed by requirements of the Uniform Building Code and local amendments.
4. WATER. Would the'proposal iresult in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the rate 4 X
and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards 4, 7 X
such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other.atteration of surface X
water quality(including temperature,dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X
body?
e) Changes in currents,or the course or direction of water X
movements?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters., either through 4 X
direct additions orwithdrawals..,or through:interception:of
an aquifer by or excavations or through substantial
loss of.groundwaterrecharge capability?
g) Altered direction orrate-of,flow of groundwater? X
h) impacts to groundwater quali y?. X
) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X
otherwise available-for public Water supplies?
a, c) Development would increase the amount of impervious surface, which would increase the rate and
amount of runoff and degrade water quality(primarily creeks)through contaminants washed from roadways
and parking lots.There is a concern for cumulative impact in the watershed. The Airport Area Specific Plan
is expected to call for minimizing the water-quality impacts of drainage from roofs and paved areas, due to
contaminants, temperature changes, velocity changes, and sediment. The following recommended
mitigation is based on standards anticipated for the draft specific plan.
Recommended mitigation
Each development shall provide for dispersed drainage across areas with suitable soil and vegetation to
allow percolation and filtering, rather than piped or other concentrated drainage from roofs and paved
areas directly to creeks or public storm drains. To provide suitable soil, landscaped areas shall not be
compacted, or shall be adequately loosened and amended prior to planting. Pervious paving shall be
used for all parking stalls. Driveways and parking aisles may be pervious. For each development site,
plans for architectural review and for construction permits shall show how this mitigation will be
implemented.City plan-check and inspection will verify compliance with this mitigation measure.
b) Based on interpretation of small-scale Federal flood-zone maps, the 100-year flood plain occupies a
corridor about 60 to 70 meters (190 to 230 feet)wide along Orcutt Creek. Construction will be subject to.
the City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations, which will require occupied floors to be above the
100-year flood level,to be achieved without raising the flood level for other land. It is anticipated that in
the long term, on-site and downstream flooding impacts will be mitigated by areawide drainage
improvements to be proposed as part of the Airport Area Specific Plan. However, those improvements
will not be available in the time frame indicated by the development plan.
9 2-44
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiany Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Orcutt Creek Annexation & Development Plan Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Recommended mitigation:
If areawide drainage improvements will not be available to serve development of the project site, on-site
storm drainage detention will be provided. It may be a temporary facility. The design of the facility will be
prepared by a qualified professional and subject to approval by the City Engineer and the Architectural
Review Commission. The detention basin shall be landscaped consistently with planting for other
development on the site If the facility takes the form of a conventional detention basin, it shall be
located outside the required creek setback. City plan-check and inspection will verify compliance with
this mitigation measure.
f-i)The project is expected to have no impact on groundwater, other than a minor decrease in groundwater
recharge due to faster runoff. Provision of City water and sewer service is expected to reduce impacts in
comparison with development under County jurisdiction.that would use on-site well water and a wastewater
leaching system.
S. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing
or projected air quality violation (noncompliance with X
APCD Environmental Guidelines)? 4, 9
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 10 X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X
. any change in climate?
d Create objectionable odors? X
Any additional development-of the type proposed will result in short-tern emissions from construction
equipment and long-term emissions from more vehicle trips. The EIR for the 1994 Land Use Element
Update evaluated cumulative impacts of General Plan build-out and found that they would not violate the
County Clean Air Plan in effect at that time. The annexation would not enable development substantially
beyond that anticipated in the 1994 EIR or in the Clean Air Plan.
6. TRANSPORTATION&CIRCULATION. Would the proposaI result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X
b) Hazards to safety from design features(such as sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses X
(such as farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate general or emergency access? 4, 11 X
d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or off-site? X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation(such as bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail,waterbome or air traffic impacts(incompatibility with 5 X
Airport Land Use Plan)?
The EIR for the 1994 Land Use Element Update evaluated cumulative impacts of General Plan build-out.
The annexation would not enable development substantially beyond that anticipated in the 1994 EIR.
Using trip generation rates from the Instihrte of Traffic Engineers Manual, average weekday trip ends have
been projected as follows(all rounded to two significant digits):
• Office-type activites on parcels 2&3:46,100 sq.-ft. at 10 trips/1000 sq.-ft. = 460 trips
• Research & development and light manufacturing activities on parcel 1: 25,385 sq.-ft. at 7 trips/1000
sq.-ft. = 180 trips
• Proposed sports fields accessed through the site: 23 acres at 5 trips per acre= 120 trips
Total =760 trips.
10 2-45
Issues and Supporting Information sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Orcutt Creek Annexation & Development Plan Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation .
Incomorated
The average daily traffic on Broad Street between Tank Farm Road and Orcutt Road is estimated to be
18,000 to 20,000, and is projected to be 26,000 to 35,000 at build-out, depending on the route for
extending Prado Road. Therefore, the project's contribution to traffic volume is projected to be about two to
four percent With the possible exception of weekday, after-school sports fields practice ending between
4:30 and 5:30, total peak-hour trip generation is expected to be below the sum of peak-hour trips for the
individual uses.
The northern edge of the project site was included in the Margarita Area because early drafts of that
specific plan showed Prado Road extending to intersect Broad Street at Industrial Way. The current draft of
the specific plan instead shows the Prado Road extension intersecting Broad Street about 1,000 feet to the
north. An amendment of the General Plan Circulation Element to show the northern alignment is in
hearings. The proposed development plan would interfere with the Industrial Way alignment. The proposed
local street layout and the site plans for parcels 1 and 2 would need to be revised.
Recommended mitigation
If the City has not approved an alignment for Prado Road extension other than intersecting at Industrial
Way when the development plan is approved, the proposed local street layout and the site plans for
parcels 1 and 2 shall be revised to:
Locate proposed parking areas and building envelopes outside the proposed Prado Road right-of-
way
ightof-
way and standard C-S zone street setbacks;
Provide driveway access only from a new local street approximately in the location shown for "new
street B,' subject to approval by the City Engineer.
City plan-check and inspection will verify compliance with this mitigation measure.
The existing "T' intersection of Industrial Way with Broad Street is equipped with a traffic signal. The signal,
and possibly lane striping, will need to be modified to control a four-way intersection. Without modification,
there would be significant impacts to congestion and traffic safety, especially as drivers attempted left turns
in and out of the site. There would also be hazards for pedestrians and cyclists, particularly since there will
be a demand for trips between the project site and the shopping center on the east side of Broad Street
Recommended mitigation
Before recordation of a parcel map or issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the owner
and the City will enter into an agreement with•Caltrans, providing a schedule and cost-sharing for
modification of the intersection signal and other intersection features.
City plan-check and inspection will verify compliance with this mitigation measure.
Proposed uses are compatible with the zone shown in the.Airport Land Use Plan.
T. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect: .
a) Endangered,threatened or rare species or their habitats - X
. (including plants,fish, insects, animals or birds)?
b) Locally designated species(such as heritage trees)? X
c) Locally designated natural communities(such as oak 1,4 X
forest,coastal habitat)?
d) Wetland habitat(marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? X
e Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X
The site is primarily non-native grassland. The northeastern part has been graded and used for outdoor
storage. Most of the site is not considered to be sensitive habitat
Creeks in the vicinity provide habitat for many aquatic species, including the federally listed southern
steelhead. They support Pacific pond turtles and may contain red-legged frogs. Creeks also are important
t I 2-46
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentialty Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Orcutt Creek Annexation& Development Plan Issues Unless Impact
p Mitigation _
incorporated
sources of water, food, and shelter for more common and wide-ranging species. They provide corridors for
wildlife movement between habitat areas that have been fragmented by urban development and intensive
agriculture. In undeveloped areas, the creeks west of Broad Street have been severely degraded by cattle
grazing,with no overstory plants remaining.
Orcutt Creek, a tributary to Acacia Creek, follows a winding, generally north-south path.for about 200
meters (650 feet)through the western third of the site. The channel has almost no riparian vegetation, due
to past activities on the site. According to a U.S.G.S. map from about 1900, Orcutt Creek previously flowed
nearly due west from Broad Street and not through this site. However, the General Plan Open Space
Element designates this existing section of Orcutt Creek as a perennial creek with a degraded riparian
corridor, and requires that it be kept open and restored to a more natural condition, unless there is no
practicable alternative for reasonable development of the site. The Zoning Regulations require a 35-foot
setback from the top of bank to buildings and paving, and provide for certain types of exceptions.
The preliminary development plan shows no development within Orcutt Creek and its corridor as defined by
minimum setbacks required by the Zoning Regulations. With the mitigation for water quality and for
drainage described in part 4,the project will not have a sig nificant.impact on the creek.
While restoration of riparian habitat is not required to mitigate a potentially significant impact, General Plan
policy calls for such restoration in concert with development, so it will be recommended as a condition of
approving the preliminary development plan. Since the status of Orcutt Creek on this site is subject to
change, City approval of the restoration plan and its implementation by the developer would be deferred
until a final development plan for parcel 1 is submitted. At this stage (environmental determination and
approval of the preliminary development Ian) it is adequate to reserve a riparian corridor of sufficient width.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the prMoposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner? 4 .
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
The site contains no known.mineral resources.
9. HAZARDS. Would the.pro I involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances(including oil, pesticides, chemicals or X
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or X
emergency evacuation plan? -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health 4, 11 X
hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health X
hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass X
or trees?
d) The site is not known to contain hazardous materials. The types of uses proposed typically do not
involve large quantities of hazardous materials.
Much of the nearby Unocal property has petroleum contamination due to an explosion and fire in 1926 and
operations over the years. No speck remediation has been approved. The nearest contamination is
about 300 meters (1,000 feet southwest from, and at a slightly lower elevation than, the project site. The
12 2-47
Issues and Supporting Information sources sources Potentially potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant significant Significant
Orcutt Creek Annexation& Development Plan Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
contamination appears to be largely immobile, so exposure to potential health hazards at the project site is
considered not significant.
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? X
b) Exposure.of people to"unacceptable" noise levels as 4, 12
defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise X
Element?
The Noise Element indicates that at General Plan build-out the site will be conditionally acceptable for
office use considering outdoor traffic noise exposure. The proposed plaza will be largely shielded from
traffic noise by buildings. For most office-type uses, indoor noise exposure can be reduced to acceptable
levels through normal building-design and construction methods, though some uses such as broadcast
studios mav needspecial noise mitigation.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon,or result in a need for,new or altered
ovemment services in an of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
C) Schools? 4 X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
e Other.. ovemmental services? X
Any additional development of the type proposed will result in more demand for public services. Previous
studies have concluded that adequate services can be provided, subject to projects complying with City
standards and code requirements. The project will not by itself result in the development of additional
public facilities or service programs that would have significant impacts.
12 a urtES-AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.- Would,the proposal.result in a need-for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the foliowin .utilities:
a) Power or.natural gas? X
b) Communications.systems? X
c) Local or.regional water treatment or distribution facilities? 4 X
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
e) Storm water drainage? X
f) solid wasteasposai? X
Locai;or ional_waters -lies?:. X
c, d, g) Any additional development of the type proposed will result in more demand for utilities. City code
requirements and previously established impact fees will mitigate impacts to acceptable levels for water
supply,treatment, and distribution,and wastewater(sewage)treatment. Because pumping stations serving
the area are essentially at capacity, the wastewater collection system would be significantly impacted by
full development, if the pumping stations are not upgraded or an alternative collection system serving the
Airport Area is not developed.
Recommended mitigation:
Building permits will not be issued until the City Utilities Director confirms that the wastewater collection
system serving the development will have adequate capacity prior to occupancy. If permits are to be
obtained before the Airport Area wastewater collection system is available, applicant shall pay a
proportionate share of the cost to upgrade pump stations serving the development,' based on
wastewater flows from the project and tributary area as determined by the City's Utilities Engineer.
City plan-check will verify compliance with this mitigation measure.
e)The project will increase the rate of storm runoff, contributing to flooding of downstream areas. Drainage
improvements that are anticipated to result from adopting the Airport Area Specific Plan will not be
available when the development begins. To avoid a contribution to cumulatively significant impacts, the
13 2-48
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiatiy Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
issues Unless Impact
Orcutt Creek Annexation&Development Plan Mitigation
Incorporated
following measure should be incorporated.
Recommended mitigation:
If areawide drainage improvements will not be available to serve development of the project site, on-site
storm drainage detention will be provided. It may be a temporary facility. The detention basin shall be
landscaped consistently with planting for other development on the site. The design of the facility will be
prepared by a qualified professional and subject to approval by the City Engineer and the Architectural
Review Commission. If the facility takes the form of a conventional detention basin, it shall be located
outside the required creek setback. City plan-check and inspection will verify compliance with this
mificiation measure.
13.AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 1,4 X
c Create light orglare? I X
The cumulative impact of urbanization on the planning area's rural character was evaluated in the 1994 EIR
and found to be significant and unavoidable. A finding of overriding considerations was made in adopting
the Land Use Element update.
According to the Scenic Roadways section of the Circulation Element, Broad Street in the project vicinity is
a road with moderate scenic value. The project will affect views toward the distant Irish Hills and the closer
South Hills. The General Plan says blocking views of important scenic resources from scenic roadways is
to be considered a significant impact. Because the site is two to four meters (six to 12 feet) lower than
Broad Street, and buildings would be set back 15 meters (50 feet) from the right-of-way, view blockage
would be less than with a level site and minimum setbacks required by zoning. There will be no buildings
along about 40 percent of the site's Broad Street frontage, including the.anticipated sports fields parking,
the new intersecting street, and spaces between proposed buildings. Plans have been revised from an
earlier submittal to show a one-story building at the comer, further avoiding view blockage. Distant views
will be reduced but not eliminated.
No parking lots would be between buildings and Broad Street, minimizing the sight of vehicles and outdoor
lighting from public areas. Structures, parking areas, landscaping, lighting, and a sign program will be
subject to architectural approval, based on the draft Airport Area Specific Plan design guidelines.
14.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? X
b) -Disturb archaeological resources? 13, 14. X
c) Affect historical resources? 15 X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would X
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the - X
potential impact area?
.Cultural resources have been found in the general vicinity, indicating that pre-European people at least
visited the area. An archaeological survey of records and the site's surface found no evidence for cultural
resources at the site, and concluded that further studies are not needed (Heritage Discoveries;July, 1999).
There remains a chance that excavation or grading would expose human remains or cultural materials, in
which case work would need to stop until disposition of the items could be resolved consistent with State
law.
The existing small, wood-frame house appears to have been built between 1900 and 1940; it has not been
designated as architecturally or historically significant. The applicant and the City are attempting to arrange
its relocation to a nearby neighborhood.
14 2-49
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Irnpact
Significant Significant Significant
Orcult Creek Annexation&Development Plan Issues Unless trthpaci
Mitigation
Inc rated
15.RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks 4 X
or otherrecreational facilities?
b Affect existing recreational opportunities? X
The project will attract additional workers, and indirectly residents, who will place additional demands on
recreational facilities. According to the City's General Plan and previous studies, additional facilities can be
provided to keep pace with demand.
The project will have a beneficial impact on access for the proposed sports fields, by providing a public
street entry separate from Broad Street ands ace for additional parking.
16.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a X
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant.or animal or
eliminate-important examples of the major periods of
Cardornia history orprehistory?
Environmental quality could be degraded by unfiltered and accelerated storm water drainage, traffic
congestion at the Industrial Way intersection, and inadequate sewage collection capacity. These potential
impacts will be reduced to acceptable levels by recommended miti aion.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short=term, X
to the disadvantage of long4errn, environmental goals?
c) Does theproject have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? (°Cumulatively
considerable',means that the'in6mme6ta1 effects of a X
project are considerable-when,viewed;in connection.with
the effects>of:the past projects,the4ffecfs:of other current
ro ects and-the effects of: Fobablefuture rojects
Impacts on traffic, storm runoff rate and quality, and wastewater collection are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable.They will be reduced to axe table levels by the recommended miticlation.
d) Does the project have emiirormentat-effects,which will' X
cause substantial adverse effects.on human beings,either
di or.indi
15 2-50
17. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more
effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In
this case a discussion should identify the following items:
a Earlier analysis used.. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
This initial study uses information from a previous EIR but does propose to use that EIR for the current
project. The annexation and urban use are covered by the City s General Plan Land Use Element and
Circulation Element, which were comprehensively revised in 1994. A final EIR for those updates was
prepared in 1994. That EIR is available at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development
Department, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were-within thescope of-and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and.state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are 'Less.than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated;' describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which
they addresssite=s ec fic conditions::of:the project.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources.Code Sections 210.80(c), 21080.1, 21.080.3, 21082.1,21083,.21083.3,21093,
321.094,21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino,202 Cal.App. 3d 296(1988);..Leonofff v.Monterey Board of
Su rvisors,.222 Cal.App. 3d 1337(1990).
18. SOURCE-REFERENCES
1. General Plan, City of San Luis Obispo, elements with various dates.
2. Zoning Regulations, City of San Luis Obispo, February 1999.
3. San Luis Obispo County Important Farmland(map), California Department of Conservation, 1996.
4. Final Environmental Impact Report. 1992 Land Use Element and Circulation Element Updates,
CitV of San Luis Obispo,August 1994.
5. General Plan Safety Element, City of San Luis Obispo, update in progress.
6. Airport Land Use Plan, S.L.O. County Airport Land Use Commission, 1973 as amended in 1977).
7. "Flood Insurance Rate Map," panel 060304 0625 C,July 1985, and panel 060310 0005 C,July
1981, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
8. Flood Damage Prevention Re uladons, City of Sarr Luis Obispo, February 1997.
9. CEQA Air Quality Handbook San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, 1995
10. San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan, S.L.O.County Air Pollution Control District, 1995.
11. Airport Area Specific Plan Constraints Analysis Memorandum, Wallace Roberts&Todd:Jones&
Stokes Associates, Inc.; Fehr& Peers Associates, Inc.; 1998.
12. General Plan Noise Element, City of San Luis Obispo, May 1996.
13. Phase 1 Archaeological Survey of the Lathrop Property, Broad Street, San Luis Obispo,
Califomia, Heritage Discoveries, Inc. hor Conway),July 1999.
14. Historic and archaeological resource maps, City of San Luis Obispo Community Development
Department,various dates.
15. Inventory of Cultural Resources for the Water Reclamation Project, City of San Luis Obispo, CA,
Robert O. Gibson, February 18, 1993.
2-51
19. MITIGATION MEASURES & MITIGATION MONITORING
Water Quality
1. Each development shall provide for dispersed drainage across areas with suitable soil and vegetation
to allow percolation and filtering, rather than piped or other concentrated drainage from roofs and paved
areas directly to creeks or public storm drains. To provide suitable soil, landscaped areas shall not be
compacted, or shall be adequately loosened and amended prior to planting. Pervious paving shall be
used for all parking stalls. Driveways and parking aisles may be pervious. For each development site,
plans for architectural review and for construction permits shall show how this mitigation will be
implemented.
Monitoring: City plan-check and inspection will verify compliance with this mitigation measure.
Storm Drainage
2. If areawide drainage improvements will not be available to serve development of the project site, on-
site storm drainage detention will be provided. It may be a temporary facility. The detention basin shall
be landscaped consistently with planting for other development on the site. The design of the facility will
be prepared by a qualified professional and subject to approval by the City Engineer and the
Architectural Review Commission. If the facility takes the form of a conventional detention basin, it shall
be located outside the required creek setback.
Monitoring: City plan-check and inspection will verify compliance with this mitigation measure.
Traffic Circulation
3. If the City has not approved an alignment for Prado Road extension other than intersecting at
Industrial Way when the development plan is approved, the proposed local street layout and the site
plans for parcels 1 and 2 shall be revised to:
• Locate proposed parking areas and building envelopes outside the proposed Prado Road right-of-
way and standard C-S zone street setbacks.
Provide driveway access only from a new local street approximately in the location shown for "new
street B,' subject to approval by the City Engineer.
Monitoring: City plan-check and inspection will verify compliance with this mitigation measure.
4. Before recordation of a parcel map or issuance of building permits, whichever comes first,the owner
and the City will enter into an agreement with Caltrans, providing a schedule and cost-sharing for
modification of the intersection signal and other intersection features.
Monitoring: City plan-check and inspection will verify compliance with this mitigation measure.
Utilities(Wastewater Collection)
5. Building permits will not be issued until the City Utilities Director confirms that the wastewater
collection system serving the development will have adequate capacity prior to occupancy. If permits are
to be obtained before the Airport Area wastewater collection system is available, applicant shall pay a
proportionate share of the cost to upgrade pump stations serving the development, based on
wastewater flows from the project and tributary area as determined by the City's Utilities Engineer.
Monitoring: City plan-check will verify compliance with this mitigation measure.
17 2-52
Addendum to Initial Study ER 79-99
February 25, 2000
After the initial environmental study and public notice of a proposed mitigated negative
declaration were published, the applicant submitted revised plans. The principal differences
from the previously evaluated project are:
1. The total floor area would be 104,000 square feet, rather than 71,500.
2. Usage of the buildings on the western part of the site, which account for most of the
increased floor area, would be limited to intemet-serving uses, with most of their floor area
occupied by equipment rather than workstations.
3. Several types of uses, including ambulance services, athletic clubs, delivery services, and
printing, publishing, and photocopying would not be allowed.
4. There would be five buildings, rather than seven.
5. There still would be one-story buildings and two-story buildings, but with the new plans the
two-story buildings would be only along the new street intersecting perpendicular to Broad
Street.
6. The number of vehicle parking spaces would be about 212, rather than about 220; as a
result of this and the added floor area, the overall parking ratio would be one space per 491
square feet rather than one per 318 square feet.
7. There would be only one small parking lot next to the creek setback area.
8. There would be three pedestrian plazas, rather than one.
9. A parking lot aisle, rather than a public street, would provide access to the southwest part of
the site (though the design would allow conversion to a public street if the site plan for lot#1
changes as a result of potential changes to Orcutt Creek).
10. Building setbacks would be 15 feet rather than 10 feet along the new street and 20 feet
rather than 40 feet along Broad Street.
Key features that would not change are: the proposed local street that would intersect Broad
Street opposite Industrial Way, an emphasis on financial-services offices for the buildings along
Broad Street; no development of the creek corridor or the part of the site west of the creek.
The City of San Luis Obispo has determined that this addendum to the initial study is necessary
to document°minor technical changes or additions"that have occurred in the project description
since the initial study was originally prepared. The City has reviewed and considered the
information contained in this addendum in its consideration of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration ER 79-99, Planned Development rezoning 79-99, and Annexation 79-99, and finds
that the preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration is not necessary because:
1. The project's proposed additions and changes are minor in relation to the development
potential of the site, as evaluated in the EIR fot the 1994 updates of the Land Use Element
and the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
2. The changes will not result in new types of impacts.
3. The changes will not result in more severe impacts, and may result in lower levels of impact
for trip generation (due.to the use of floor area for equipment rather than workstations).
4. The project changes do not require changes to previously proposed mitigation measures,
(though the previously recommended measure concerning potential redesign to
accommodate the Prado Road extension is no longer needed).
5. There have been no substantial changes to the project setting or the regulatory setting
(including code requirements dealing with water supply, drainage and flooding, fire access,
and grading and foundation design).
alMortVaMroplies addendum.doc
2-53
a a o a e t a a a a s a @ 3 N
! ZNVId Rm^O s it
lVnLcBDNOJ alll
I
Z
AV la3
s
........ .. .
• N
•r
February 15,2000
City Planning Commission
City Hall
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,Calif.93401
Dear Commissioner,
We are writing with questions in relation an item on your February 23rd agenda. Your
Commission previously voted 7-0 to postpone its review of a 10-acre annexation request made
by Scott Lathrop. This postponement was done in regards to whether Prado Road would go
north or south of the new ballparks.
The decision made by City Council to have Prado Road take the northerly route left many
unanswered questions during the discussion time. Our major concerns are with these unclear
areas relating to the Prado Road alignment We are interested in knowing the following:
1. What is the position of San Luis Coastal School District regarding having a school in such
close proximity to a 44ane(Hwy 227)major road? What is their position regarding the school
being separated from the playing fields? Will the school students be allowed to use the fields?
Who will monitor the students if they have to travel over a bridge or under a 100 foot tunnel?
Who will be responsible for the safety of the students?
2. What about flooding problems in the event the tunnels were installed?
3 What about I"rghting for tunnels andlor bridges as alot of games could be played in the evening
hours? With so many children both our own and those from neighboring cities coming to utitlitze
the ballparks,we do need to provide a safe,secure,environment first and foremost.
4.There was mention of having to divert one creek into another creek for this road. This is a
environmental issue worthy of study- diverting Mother Nature is not easy.
5. Prado.Road north would scar the mountain. This was only briefly mentioned. The visible
scarring will be difficult to hide for a long time as.plant growth on serpentine rock is riot easy.
The question about what happens to the asbestos when the serpentine rock is cut into was
never answered.
6. An archaeological Indian site was identified to be in the path of the road but nothing more
was said. The results of the soon to be released EIR should provide more information. We need
time to read IL
7.The northern route was said to bel 0 tD 15 percent.above grade level in places with no futher
discussion on the issue. Also a bridge was mentioned but no discussion was held relating to
how big,how long,or what cost was Involved.
8. The cost the road was also held in question at the meeting. Apparently Cal Trans had not
issued a statement regarding any alignments. If the city wants to have Prado Road designated
Hwy 227 then the road will have to be built to Cal Trans specifications. Cal Trans will have alot
to say about this road. We need their input During the discussion about the cost there seemed
to be discrepancies in the figures. The cost of this road should have major consideration over
and above alignment because.withoutfunds,no road.
RECEIVED
FEB 2 3 2000
S .0 CI1�' NCIL
pg 2
In the event the northern route does not prove feasible and Council needs to reconsider the
alignment,the opportunity to do so should be left open If at all possible. According to a
newspaper article, Mr.lathrop's agreement included the wording,"...as long as the city
annexes his business park within one year." There is still plenty of time,six months or more,to
honor that agreement He brought the property not too long ago with full knowledge that Prado
Road(the southern route)was adopted per the General Plan in 1994.
Wouldn't it be best for all of the Community to postpone a decision on the annexation until such
time as these questions,and others that might arise,can be adequately addressed? Let's learn
as much as we can before it is too late. We all want what is best for the children and for the
Community. Let's keep our options open as long as possible.
Sincerely,
kwz
dL
7 r� j
2-56
FEBRUARY 16,2000
CITY 'PLANNING COMMISSION
990 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF 93401
DEAR COMMISSIONER,
WE ARE WRITING THIS BECAUSE OF OUR CONCERN FOR THE CHILDRENS BALLPARKS OR PLAY
FIELDS LOCATED OFF BROAD STREET. WE HAVE READ IN THE PAPER THAT A BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT ON TEN ACRES IS COMING BEFORE YOU ON FEBRUAY 23, 2000. THAT
DEVELOPMENT IS IN THE SAME PLACE WHERE PRADO ROAD COULD BE PUT (AT INDUSTRIAL
WAY INTERSECTION) . WHAT HAPPENS IF THE NORTHERN ROUTE FOR PRADO ROAD DOES NOT
WORK OUT? IF YOU ALLOW A DEVELOPMENT NOW AND THEN IN A FEW MONTHS FIND OUT
THE NORTHERN ROUTE WILL NOT WORK, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE COULD BE ALOT OF
DIFFICULTIES FOR ALL PARTIES.
WE ARE WRITING OUT OF CONCERN FOR THE BALLPARKS AND THE CHILDREN.
SINCERELY,
RECEIVED
FEB 2 3 2000
S4qZqMOUNCIL
FEBRUARY 16,2000
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
AT CITY HALL
990 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF 93401
DEAR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS,
WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF YOU COULD DELAY MAKING A DECISION ON THE ANNEXATION OF 10
ACRES OWNED BY SCOTT LATHROP(ON YOUR FEB 23RD AGENDA)? WE WERE WONDERING IF
CITY COUNCIL HAD TO CHANGE PLANS AND MOVE PRADO ROAD ALIGNMENT BACK TO THE
SOUTHERN(INDUSTRIAL WAY)INTERSECTION,HOW COULD THEY DO IT IF THE 10 ACRE
ANNEXATION HAD BEEN APPROVED? WE THOUGHT MAYBE IT BEST TO KEEP THAT
POSSIBILITY OPEN. THE PLAYING FIELDS NEED TO BE CONSIDERED FIRST AND THE ROAD
ALIGNMENT IS A CRUCIAL PART OF THE PLAYING FIELD PROPOSAL.
IT SEEMS IF YOU GIVE THE OK TO THE ANNEXATION THAT IT WOULD REALLY BE MAKING
THINGS AWKWARD IF THE NORTHERN ROUTE PROVES TO HAVE MORE PROBLEMS THAN
ANTICIPATED. WE NST THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE PRUDENT TO NOT GIVE THE OK ON THE
ANNEXATION UNTIL THE NORTHERN ALIGNMENT HAS HAD MORE TIME TO BE ANALYZED.
WE DID READ WHERE THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT HAD A YEAR OF TIME INVOLVED SO
ALITTLE BIT MORE OF TIME CERTAINLY WON'T HURT. WHO KNOWS THIS NST MIGHT
BENEFIT EVERYONE AND SAVE THE GAME!
THANK YOU,
c.
fen nc..
HGCEIYEO
FEB 23 2000
CITY of SAN LUIS oep'458
March 8, 2000
City Planning Commission
City Hall
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Dear Commissioner,
I am writing with some concerns regarding the proposed annexation, and
approval of a preliminary development plan for about ten acres know as the
Lathrop Property located at 1807 Broad.
The Lathrop Property should not be annexed or preliminary development
approved at this time for the following reasons:
1. As per the February 1,2000 City Council meeting, city staff informed the
public that an EIR was in the process of being completed on the entire Margarita,
Lathrop, and Garcia properties and will be completed within 1-2 months. I
suggest that the Planning Commission wait until the EIR is completed to annex
this property. Mr. Lathrop stated that he has a agreement with the city that the
property be annexed in one year from date(November 1999),and that still gives
time to annex after the EIR is completed. I suggest that we wait this short period
of time, as to make sure the northern alignment of Prado Road at Broad is still a
possibility. If it is not,then perhaps we still have an option for the alignment of
Prado Road at Industrial Way. Why not keep our options open at this time?
This makes sense. What is the hurry?Why do an EER if we are not going to use
it?
2. Another concern that was mentioned at the February 1,2000 City Council
meeting was the 1-2 tunnels that connect the Margarita Area School and the City
Playing Fields with the northern Prado Road alignment Many neighbors are
questioning the safety of our children walling through these"tunnels". The
homeless are a problem on the Garcia property now,a tunnel could provide a
perminent"hang out"and additional problems. Flooding and contamination on
these particular lands are well know problems that exist and need to be
addressed with these proposed properties.
3. Has Cal Trans been notified of the proposed new traffic and signal lights?
What is their reaction of the northern Prado Road alignment Broad and how
does it affect the Industrial Way traffic flow?
Sincerely,
476,Aw
Ann Hall
2302 Parkland Terrace
SLO,Ca. 93401
2-59
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MARCH 8, 2000
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:09 p.m. on
Wednesday, March 8, 2000, in Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Allan Cooper, David Jeffrey, Mary Whittlesey, Alice Loh,
Charles Senn, Stephen Peterson, and Chairman Paul Ready
Absent: None
Staff Recording Secretary Leaha Magee, Long Range Planning Manager John
Mandeville, Associate Planner Glen Matteson, and Assistant City Attorney.
Gilbert Trujillo.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no non-agenda comments made.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 3807 Broad Street, ANNX/R: PD. and ER 79-99: Request to annex approximately
10 acres and pre-zone to C-S-PD (Service-Commercial with a Planned Development
overlay zone) and PF (Public Facility); development plan for a planned development
overlay zone; and environmental review; Scott Lathrop, applicant.
Associate Planner Matteson presented the staff report and recommended that the
Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of (a) the mitigated
negative declaration of environmental impact, (b) annexation, (c) pre-zoning of Service-
Commercial Planned Development (C-S-PD) for m6st of the site and the preliminary
development plan that goes with that zone, subject to conditions, and zoning of Public
Facility with Specific Plan (PF-SP) for a comer of the site.
2-60
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
March 8,2000
Page 2
Commissioner Loh had staff review pedestrian features between future sports fields, the
neighborhood park and school site, and asked if the proposed floor area ratios meet
City standards.
Associate Planner Matteson replied yes.
Commissioner Jeffrey referred to page 11 regarding direct customer service provided at
this site with focus on people working in the vicinity. He asked if it would be appropriate
to condition the maintenance of the other credit union facilities in town.
Associate Planner stated staffs conclusion that it would be a difficult condition to
enforce.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if the possibility of an automated teller at this location
would change the original intent from being administrative to that of a service center.
Associate Planner Matteson said staff's understanding is this site would have both
functions and would not be exclusively administration. Staffs concern with an
automated teller is the location and appearance; Public Works concern is related to
traffic congestion and safety.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if on-site temporary storm drainage detention has been
enumerated on the plans.
Associate Planner Matteson replied no, but that a mitigation measure concerning that is
a condition of approval.
Commissioner Jeffrey stated that on numerous occasions the owner of the nearby
mobile home park has come before the Commission indicating flooding problems. He
asked if some temporary provision for a storm drainage detention basin should be
included.
Associate Planner Matteson stated the applicant's minimum responsibility is to prevent
the additional flow from the site after development, as.compared to before development,
from having a downstream impact. To solve the flooding problems of the mobile home
park, there would have to be channel widening and possibly upstream detention. The
applicant's legal obligation is to detain or take some steps to prevent added runoff as a
result of development of this site having any greater flooding impact downstream.
Manager Mandeville stated on-site detention would be calculated to the specific
development.
Commissioner Whittlesey referred to page 7 and Condition 18 and asked about the
wording of "a completedescription of Intemet services" in relation to the elimination of
high employee on-site usage.
2-61
Draft Planning Commission Mi,Butes
March 8, 2000
Page 3
Associate Planner Matteson stated staff is comfortable with the level of specificity in
Condition 18.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked if the Commission could impose a condition concerning
possible future consolidation of credit union branches at this site so that staff would
have the ability to review the reasonableness of the parking and on-site impacts.
Associate Planner Matteson stated that the other credit union location is on Cal Poly
campus, not downtown. He believed other branches could be closed without adding
building area to this location, but that there might be more employees or traffic.
Commissioner Whittlesey had staff explain business park parking calculations.
Commissioner Whittlesey stated page 13 speaks to a reciprocal parking and access
agreement being necessary and asked if this should be a condition of approval as well.
Associate Planner Matteson stated that is reflected in Condition 8.
Commissioner Whittlesey had staff review the location and explain the options of
rerouting Acacia and Orcutt creeks and the proposed realignment of Prado Road.
Commissioner Cooper commented on concerns previously expressed regarding
environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Long Range Planning Manager Mandeville stated there would be further environmental
assessments when the City Council gets precise alignment and design drawings, and
any new environmental discoveries not previously addressed would fully be analyzed
pursuant to CEQA.
Commissioner Cooper noted page 1 references equipment on the main floor of the
western building instead of workstations and asked if would allow the first floor to be
below the 100-year flood level.
Associate Planner Matteson replied that was not the intent.
Commissioner Cooper stated he could not find business park standards as referred to in
Finding 5.
Associate Planner Matteson stated business park standards exist in a draft of the
specific plan chapter which has been reviewed by.the ARC and. includes landscaping,
pedestrian amenities, building setbacks, etc.
Commissioner Peterson asked if there is an annexation agreement between the city
and Mr. Lathrop which is holding this project to a timetable.
2-62
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
March 8, 2000
Page 4
Associate Planner Matteson replied no. Mr. Lathrop has signed and returned a pre-
annexation agreement that follows the model used for all. other Airport Area
annexations, but it does not commit the City to any schedule for annexation.
Commissioner Peterson had staff review the timetable for the completion and adoption
of the Airport Area Specific Plan.
Commissioner Peterson felt there are many unresolved issues relative to the creek and
he questioned moving ahead with this request He felt it might be best to wait until the
other plans are finalized.
Manager Mandeville stated if the development were not accommodated within the city,
property owners would work to achieve their development in the county. The City can
take measures to insure developments all contribute to the cost of providing the overall
infrastructure and that the character of the uses and the development are consistent
with the draft specific plan.
Commissioner Senn asked which credit union would be located at this site.
Staff deferred the question to the applicant.
Commissioner Senn questioned staff on the practical interim solutions contained in
Condition 2.
Commissioner Loh had staff clarify the status of credit unions and financial companies
in this zoning.
Chairman Ready had staff clarify parking calculations for Intemet services at one space
per 1,500 square feet.
Associate Planner Matteson noted all allowable uses are subject to meeting the basic
zoning standards of minimum parking.
Commissioner Jeffrey questioned staff on conditioning the usage of the structure to
conform to parking calculations based on possible new uses.
Associate Planner Matteson stated if the applicant cannot meet the parking requirement
with the combination of uses proposed, there would be vacant building space until more
parking is provided.
Chairman Ready had staff explain creek setbacks in relation to the potential of creek
widening through this parcel.
Manager Mandeville stated the draft drainage plan shows channel changes for Acacia
Creek, not Orcutt Creek.
2-63
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
March 8, 2000
Page 5
Associate Planner Matteson explained channel changes being considered for Acacia
Creek. This site plan does not overly constrain future options.
There were no further comments or questions and the public comment session was
opened.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Diane Fredricks, RRM Design Group, representing the applicant, described the site
planning involved with this project and the provided plazas and linkages. She explained
that landscaped islands will be provided between rows of parking to break the parking
up. She explained site occupancy/usage, parking lot circulation, the site entrance, and
the temporary drainage detention basin. She concurred with staffs recommendations
and urged approval of the project.
Commissioner Loh asked if the amount of parking would be reduced to accommodate
the detention basin.
Ms. Fredricks stated the preliminary development plan would be followed by a final
development plan and would include a hydrology study addressing detention basin
issues. She noted there are possibilities of where the basin could be located on a
temporary basis.
Scott Lathrop, applicant, described the planned uses and their needs, noting the credit
union involved is SESLOC.
Commissioner Senn asked Mr. Lathrop if he is willing to take the risk if the leases don't
come together on the Internet facilities, recognizing the limited parking.
Mr. Lathrop replied yes. He explained how project phasing would defer some building
area as well as parking, for the lot that would contain the detention basin.
Nick Muick, 3731 Orcutt Road, requested the .Commission postpone a decision on the
annexation because of the many unanswered questions with the Prado Road
realignment. He submitted a letter enumerating his concern to the Commission.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENT:
Commissioner Loh noted for the record that the initial study was not included in the
Commission's agenda packet.
Associate Planner Matteson said the initial study was included with the previous staff
report for January 12, 2000, for review and consideration, and that staff would have
provided additional copies if any commissioner had requested.
2-64
Draft Planning Commission Minutes.
March 8, 2000
Page 6
Commissioner Jeffrey moved to recommend that the City Council (1) approve the
mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact with mitigation measures listed
in the initial study. (2) approve the annexation with staffs recommended findings, and
(3) adopt the zoning of Public Facility with Specific Plan (PF-SP) and Service
Commercial Planned Development (C-S-PD), as shown on the attached map and
approve the preliminary development plan with staffs recommended findings and
conditions with an amendment to the first sentence of Condition 2. page 16, to include.
"If areawide drainage improvements will not be available to serve development of the
project site at the time of building permit, on-site storm drainage detention will be
provided." Commissioner Senn seconded the motion.
Commissioner Peterson did not support moving forward with this annexation because
there are too many unanswered questions and commented that the site plan that has .
been created in response to a creek that may or may not exist in its present form and
completion of a master drainage plan is pending. The Airport Area Specific Plan has
not yet been finalized. The EIR mayor may not affect the final alignment of Prado
Road, considering the archaeological resources. He could support a continuance until
all questions raised have been addressed.
Commissioner Cooper concurred.
Commissioner Loh expressed concern about the parking ratio in relation to the Internet
use and location of buildings in relation to the creek setback and flooding concerns.
Chairman Ready stated staff has addressed his concern with the area of the lot west of
the creek, but he does have concerns with the proposed parking.
Commissioner Jeffrey felt staff has done an excellent job working with the applicant in
trying to merge the services and manufacturing and the business park into the PD. He
supports the layout of the project and is satisfied that the environmental impacts have
been addressed, as they are known at this point in time. He has concerns with the
parking, but staff has given assurances that the conditions have been applied to the
project. Since this is a phased project, interim drainage basins will alleviate any further
impacts on downstream flooding.
Commissioner Whittlesey concurred. She felt the possibility of channeling Orcutt Creek
into Acacia Creek would eliminate the creek altogether from this site and questioned if
Open Space zoning would be appropriate, due to the fact that the creek may go dry.
Associate Planner Matteson stated the development plan shows this area as an Open
Space corridor and different use of this area would require amendment of the
development plan.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked if there would be a chance that lighting from this site
could impact future neighborhoods.
2-65
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
March 8, 2000
Page 7
Associate Planner Matteson stated the citys general standard for lighting would
addresses this concern.
Commissioner Senn commented on the timing of hearings related to review of the
Airport Area Specific Plan and stated this project should not be held up for an unknown
period of time. He felt the City has plenty of safeguards when it comes time to issue
building permits to insure adequate parking will be provided.
AYES: Commissioners Jeffrey, Senn, Whittlesey, and Chairman Ready
NOES: Commissioners Cooper, Peterson, and Loh
REFRAIN: None
The motion carried 43. .
2. Citywide. General Plan Annual Resort: Annual review on the status of the City's
General Plan and its implementation; City of San Luis Obispo.
Associate Planner Matteson presented the staff report and recommended reviewing the
report and forwarding it with comments to the City Council.
Commissioner Cooper referred to page 6, Housing Conservation Downtown, and
questioned the inclusion of "further.work was delayed by other program efforts" and
referred to page 7, Neighborhood Traffic Management, and questioned rewording
"...continued to respond to requests conceming neighborhood traffic issues."
Chairman Ready suggested including "...and if appropriate"to item 2, D.
Commissioner Whittlesey noted the last item on page 6 is incomplete and asked that a
definition of Zone 9 be included.
There were no further comments/questions and the public comment session was
opened.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There were no public comments.made.
COMMISSION COMMENT:
Commissioner Whittlesey moved to forward to the City Council the Annual Report with
the Commission's revisions and comments. Commissioner Cooper seconded the
motion.
AYES: Commissioners Whittlesey, Cooper, Loh, Jeffrey, Senn, Peterson, and
Chairman Ready
2-66
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
March 8, 2000
Page 8
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
The motion carried 7-0.
3. COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION:
A. Staff—Agenda Forecast:
March 22 —A Tract Map Environmental Review.
April 12 — Planning Commission Elections, Amendment Request to the Water
Management Element, and a PD Annexation Request to the Westpac
Project.
April 26 —Two Residential Subdivision Requests and the Dalidio EIR Review.
B. Commission:
After discussion, the Commission reached consensus to requested staff to provide for
the next agenda as a business item information on procedures followed for initiating
items to be placed on the ballot.
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. to
the next regular meeting scheduled for March 22, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in Council
Chambers.
Respectfully submitted,
Leaha K. Magee
Recording Secretary
2-67
MEONG AGENDA o�
DATE "°O ITEM #�
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM# I
FROM: John Mandeville, Long Range Planning ManarMEE
96OUNCIL D DIR
BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner WCAUCAO O FIN DIR
GMCAO 0 FIRE CHIEF
GI'A1'TORNEY O PW DIR
FILE NUMBER: ER, ANNX, PD 79-99 tLERK1oRro l7 POLICE CHF
❑t�GMT V O nL D R
PROJECT ADDRESS: 3807 Broad Street v. la PERS DIR ti
SUBJECT: Environmental determination, annexation, pre-zoning, and development-plan
approval for a ten-acre site to contain a new commercial development on Broad
Street at Industrial Way ("Orcutt Creek Annexation")
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that the City Council approve (A) a mitigated negative declaration of environmental
impact, (B) annexation, and (C) pre-zoning of Service Commercial Planned Development (C-S-
PD) for most of the site, and the preliminary development plan that goes with that zone, subject
to conditions, and zoning of Public Facility with Specific Plan(PF-SP) for a corner of the site.
DISCUSSION
Situation Update
The Planning Commission continued this item on January 12, 2000. Commissioners did not want to
make a recommendation on the development plan until the Council had acted on the then-pending
General Plan amendment to show the northern alignment for the Prado Road extension. On
February 1, the City Council approved an amendment to the Circulation Element showing the
northern alignment, which passes about 1000 feet north of this site. As a result, the development
plan need not reflect right-of-way fora future regional route.
.At the previous hearing, there was no public testimony. Commissioners did not object to the
environmental study or the types of land uses proposed. The applicant indicated that staff's
recommended listing of allowed and allowable uses was acceptable. Some commissions questioned
design features such as building elevations for flood-proofing, locations for two-story buildings,
and treatment of the creek.
During the continuance period, the applicant submitted two versions of revised plans. The plans
now before the Commission reflect the following changes to the project:
I. The total floor area would be 104,000 square feet, rather than 71,500.
2. Usage of the buildings on the western part of the site, which account for most of the
increased floor area, would be limited to intemet-serving uses, with most of their floor area
occupied by equipment rather than workstations.
3. Several types of uses, including ambulance services, athletic clubs, delivery services, and
printing, publishing, and photocopying were eliminated from the li t o "WoEe
MAR 3 1 1000
Sl_O CITY CLERK
Planning Commission Staff Report—Orcutt Creek Annexation Page 2
4. There would be five buildings, rather than seven.
5. There still would be one-story buildings and two-story buildings, but with the new plans the
two-story buildings would be only along the new street intersecting perpendicular to Broad
Street.
6. The number of vehicle parking spaces would be about 212, rather than about 220; as a result
of this and the added floor area, the overall parking ratio would be one space per 491 square
feet rather than one per 318 square feet.
7. There would be only one small parking lot next to the creek setback area.
8. There would be three pedestrian plazas, rather than one.
9. A parking lot aisle, rather than a public street, would provide access to the southwest part of
the site (though the design would allow conversion to a public street if the site plan for lot 41
changes as a result of potential changes to Orcutt Creek).
10. Building setbacks would be 15 feet rather than 10 feet along the new street and 20 feet rather
than 40 feet along Broad Street.
Data Summary
Property Owners: Scott R. & Ellen A Lathrop; City of San Luis Obispo
General Plan Land Use Map: Services and Manufacturing; Recreation
Zoning: Outside city limits, so no City zoning; County General Plan designations are Commercial
Service for the eastern one-third of the site and Residential Multi-family
for the western two-thirds.
Surrounding Uses: grazing land proposed to become sports fields; recreational-vehicle storage
and a mobile home park; open land proposed to be a commercial center;
across Highway 227, a utility company yard and a shopping center.
Environmental Status: On, December 28, 1999, staff proposed that a mitigated negative
declaration be approved.
Action deadline: Annexation and zoning are.legislative acts, and therefore are not subject to State-
mandated action deadlines.
Site Description
The four-hectare (9.7-acre) site is gently sloping, open land. Orcutt Creek flows from north to
south through the western part of the site. A house that was most recently used as an office has
been moved from its foundation, in anticipation of being relocated to another site.
Project Description
The subject applications were filed because a credit union and an intemet service fine want to
have new buildings on this site sooner than would be allowed by adoption of the Airport Area
Specific Plan and completion of the areawide annexation.
Planning Commission Staff Report—Orcutt Creek Annexation Page 3
The site would be annexed, making it subject to City land-use rules and eligible for City services.
The two existing parcels would' be re-subdivided into three lots, with dedication of a public
street. The City recently acquired the northeast comer of the site for use in conjunction with the
proposed Damon-Garcia sports fields (the "Acacia Creek Annexation," recommended by the
Planning Commission in November 1999).
The private property would be pre-zoned Service Commercial with a Planned Development .
overlay (C-S-PD). With a PD overlay, the City can allow or restrict land uses and property
development.standards, such as setbacks and parking, differently from the underlying zone, so
long as they are consistent with the General Plan. A PD overlay also ties the zoning to a
development plan showing basic features such as building location and size, access, parking, and
site amenities(attached Site Plan).
Evaluation
Annexation Criteria
The site is inside the urban reserve line, making it eligible for annexation. The Land Use Element
says urban development should be within the City, and that land must be inside the city limits to
receive City services.
With a1iteral interpretation of the Land Use Element map, the northeast comer of the site, above
the alignment for the Prado Road extension adopted in 1994, is within the Margarita Area. The
General Plan says such land can be annexed after the City Council has approved a draft of the
Margarita Area Specific Plan. That approval was given in 1998. However, development in this
area cannot proceed until the specific plan is adopted.
Most of the site is in the Airport Area. The General Plan says there should be a specific plan for
the Airport Area, coordinated with annexation of the whole area (which was initiated several
years ago). The City Council has approved very basic land use and circulation concepts and
alternatives, to be elaborated in the forthcoming specific plan and evaluated in the forthcoming
environmental impact report. The General Plan allows individual annexation requests to be
approved before the Airport Area Specific Plan is adopted, if they meet all the following criteria.
1. The property is contiguous to the city limits.
This criterion is met because the city limit is along the east property line of the site (the west
side of Broad Street).
2. The property is within the existing urban reserve line.
This criterion is met.
Planning Commission Staff Report—Orcutt Creek Annexation Page 4
3. The property is located near existing infrastructure.
This criterion is met because water and sewer mains exist in the major street along the east
side of the site.
4. Existing infrastructure capacity is available to serve the proposed development.
This criterion is met because:
• Broad Street has adequate capacity for existing traffic plus traffic due to the project, so
long as the Industrial Way intersection signals and lane markings are modified before or
concurrently with project construction.
• This project would require a total allocation of about 4.7 acre-feet (9.4 acre-feet offset).
This amount is available now, through the offset (retrofit) program. However, water is
allocated to a project when building permits are obtained, not when the site is annexed.
• Water treatment capacity is adequate.
• The water storage tank and distribution main that would serve the site are of adequate
location and size for domestic supply and fire protection.
• Wastewater treatment capacity is adequate, and the project's wastewater impact fees will
pay a proportionate share of the cost to increase treatment capacity needed in response to
cumulative increases in wastewater flows.
• There is almost no additional capacity for wastewater collection, because the pumps
serving this area often operate at their rated capacity. The main concern is potential failure
of a pump. This deficiency can be addressed in the short term through an impact-fee
contributing to pump replacement.
• The storm-drainage capacity of existing channels will be adequate if the project is
designed to comply with the City's General .Plan and Flood Damage Prevention
Regulations, and the national flood insurance program (location of building floors above
the 100-year flood level and detention of peak flows on site).
5. A development plan for the property belonging to the applicant accompanies the application
for annexation.
This criterion is met because the application includes a preliminary development plan as part
of the PD zoning.
6. The applicant agrees to contribute to the cost of preparing the specific plan and constructing
area-wide infrastructure improvements according to a cost-sharing plan maintained by the
City.
This criterion will be met by the applicant signing a pre-annexation agreement before the
application is considered by the City Council, and paying the fees or providing a letter of
credit before the annexation is approved (condition #25).
Planning Commission Staff Report-Orcutt Creek Annexation Page 5
Zoning Consistency with General Plan
The General Plan Land Use Element shows the northeast comer of the site as Recreation, and
says that consistent zones for this designation are Conservation/Open Space (C/OS), Public
Facility (PF), or either Service Commercial (C-S) or Manufacturing (M) as limited by a Special
Considerations (S), Planned Development (PD), or Specific Plan (SP) overlay. The adjacent land
to the north, recently considered by the Planning Commission as the Acacia Creek Annexation,
was recommended to have C/OS zoning until the Margarita Area Specific Plan is adopted, when
the zoning would be changed to PF-SP. Staff recommends that the PF-SP zone be applied to this
relatively small part of the site now, because it essentially straddles the boundary between
specific plan areas, largely occupies the originally proposed alignment for extending Prado Road,
and has been acquired by the City.
The Land Use Element shows most of the site as Services and Manufacturing, and says that
consistent zones for this designation are Service Commercial (C-S) or Manufacturing (M). The
Zoning Regulations say the C-S zone is"to provide for storage, transportation and wholesaling as
well as certain retail sales and business services which may be less appropriate in the City's other
commercial zones. It will be applied to areas designated `services and manufacturing' on the
general plan map, typically those areas with more public exposure along arterial streets than
places reserved for manufacturing." The Zoning Regulations say the M zone is "to provide for
assembly and fabrication activities in addition to those permitted in the C-S zone, and for limited
sales and services —primarily those not directly related to local consumers. This zone will be
applied to areas designated `service-commercial/light industrial' (a previous name for the current
Services and Manufacturing designation] on the general plan map, usually those served by, but
with no frontage on,arterial streets."
The Land Use Element also shows the site within the Airport Area Specific Plan boundary, and
requires that the specific plan be adopted before annexation unless a site meets the criteria for
what have been called "interim" annexations, discussed above. If the City Council adopts the
Airport Area Specific Plan designation shown in a conceptually approved draft, the site will be
shown as Business Park, and the Land Use Element map will be amended accordingly. The Land
Use Element says existing zones consistent with the Business Park designation are any of the
following zones combined with a PD or SP overlay: Office (0); C-S; or M. Currently, there is no
Business Park zone. Staff expects to recommend one concurrently with the specific plan.
The General Plan Open Space Element designates Orcutt Creek as a perennial creek with a
degraded corridor, but one that can be restored or repaired. The Open Space element says creek
corridors are to be considered Open Space and zoned accordingly, even though they are not all
shown as such on the Land Use Map. Staff recommends that the open-space status of the creek
be reflected in the PD's development plan (as it was submitted), but that a separate C/OS zone
not be applied to the corridor through this site now. If the adopted Airport Area Specific Plan
confirms the status of Orcutt Creek, which is in doubt, the corridor would be rezoned C/OS at
that time. (The master drainage plan that will include the Airport Area and the Margarita Area
Planning Commission Staff Report—Orcutt Creek Annexation Page 6
may propose realignment or diversion of Orcutt Creek, and a corresponding amendment of the
Open Space Element, affecting its location or flow through this site.) The recommended
development-plan approval provides a level of protection equivalent to the C/OS zone. Any
development in the creek corridor would require approval of a new development plan, with
specific findings, following hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council.
"PD" for Compatibility with the Anticipated Business Park Designation
The City is being asked to approve a project where the General Plan map shows Services and
Manufacturing, but where the draft of the Airport Area Specific Plan map shows Business Park.
Until adoption of the Airport Area Specific Plan (and a simultaneous General Plan amendment),
the PD zone provides the greatest flexibility in allowing only those uses that are consistent with
both the current Services and Manufacturing designation and the anticipated Business Park
designation (diagram below).
Services & Business
Manufacturing PD
Park .
Some uses allowed in the Services and Manufacturing designation are not consistent with the
proposed Business Park designation. If they were established before the Business Park zone is
adopted, they would become non-conforming uses. Under zoning rules, these non-conforming
uses could make building improvements or tenant changes at this site difficult. Nonconforming
service-commercial uses could become nuisances to the types of uses intended for the Business
Park designation. Likewise, not all uses proposed for the Business Park designation are
consistent with Services and Manufacturing. The project needs to be consistent with the General
Plan when the project is approved.
Also, the Airport Area specific planning process is defining a development character for the
south Broad Street corridor. The draft specific plan will include development standards and
guidelines intended to create the desired sense of place. To do so, as much new development as
possible along Broad Street should reflect the desired development character. A PD can set
development standards in line with those recommended for the Business.Park designation. The
proposed development plan closely follows the draft standards.
When the Airport Area Specific Plan is adopted, it is anticipated that the City will simultaneously
rezone the site and some neighboring land to Business Park. Because this PD will reflect the
Business Park zoning features, the future rezoning should be a relatively smooth transition for
any development that occurs prior to the rezoning.
Planning Commission Staff Report—Orcutt Creek Annexation Page 7
Development Plan
A PD zoning action is unique in that it combines a zone change with approval of site features.
Approval of a PD development plan is a two-step process. The drawings and statements before
the Commission now are a "preliminary development plan." Subdivision and construction are
contingent on City approval of a "final development plan." Unless otherwise required by a
condition of approval for the preliminary development plan, the final development plan may
consist of building-permit plans and improvement plans for streets and utilities, and be subject
only to staff review and approval. (Architectural Review Commission approval is required for all
new commercial buildings, regardless of their location in a PD or business park.)
Site planning issues are discussed in following sections.
Tvaes of Uses
The main land-use issue is whether a credit union should be allowed at this location, where C-S
zoning would not normally allow one but where the in-progress draft Airport Area Specific Plan
would allow one in a recommended Business Park designation. That particular issue is discussed
further in following sections.
The applicant's listing of uses on the development plan (left hand side of the second sheet) was
taken from the C-S zone column in the Zoning Regulations use chart and from an in-progress
draft of the Airport Area Specific Plan. Several types of uses allowed in either the basic C-S zone
or the draft Airport Area Specific Plan's Business Park designation are not included in the
applicant's listing, because they would not reinforce the applicant's proposed focus on Internet
and financial services or the Business Park concept that is emerging from staff.work and citizen
involvement in the specific planning effort. The current plans have a list of "proposed uses,"
which contains fewer types of uses than staff previously recommended as being allowed, or
allowable with use permits. Staff does not object to the shorter list.
Staff recommends that the status of uses be spelled out in a condition of approval (418). Doing so
will avoid ambiguities. An example is the applicant's listing of "sales of business and office
supplies, branch of bank...retail sales of prepared food and beverages." With the proposed
Airport Area Business Park standards these would be classified under "convenience facilities
primarily to serve area workers," and would be subject to size limits to assure that they are not
principal uses.
The current plans label four of the five buildings with particular types of uses: "intemet &
computer services" for the two western buildings and "credit union" for the two eastern
buildings. Because of the parking situation, discussed in.a following section, it makes sense to
identify some particular uses. In fact, staff recommends that the description of"internet services"
Planning Commission Staff Report—Orcutt Creek Annexation Page 8
be more specific (condition #18). However, labeling the eastern buildings for a particular use
(credit union) could require approval of a new development plan, following Planning
Commission and City Council hearings, even for another office-type use with a parking
requirement the same as a credit union (Zoning Regulations section 17.62.080.C). Therefore,
staff recommends that condition#18 clarify that, with this approval,the buildings are available to
all the allowed or allowable uses.
The applicant's listing does not indicate whether the uses would be allowed by right once the
development plan is approved, or if further City action would be necessary. Typically, in each
zone some types of uses are allowed, some need an administrative• use permit (staff approval
following a public hearing), and some need Planning Commission approval of a use permit. The
-different levels of review are intended to reflect the potential for incompatibility or policy
inconsistency. Also, for some uses in some zones, there are size limits or requirements for special
findings.
Following is the draft Airport Area Specific Plan's statement of purpose for the Business Park
designation.
"Areas designated Business Park are primarily for research and development, light
manufacturing, and business services that are compatible with each other and with airport
operations. Business Parks are intended for firms and agencies which provide.jobs that
can support households in San Luis Obispo. Activities which are supportive of or
accessory to the primary activities may be established as well. The City recognizes that
firms locating in areas designated Business Park often combine product development,
promotion, manufacturing, and distribution at a single facility. The [use chart] provisions
are intended to accommodate such combinations, with the lowest level of review by the
City that is consistent with assuring a desirable setting for the types of businesses that are
the primary reason for Business Parks.
"Business Parks are most appropriate for sites of at least four hectares (10 acres), with
frontage on highways and arterial streets."
Credit Union Concept
The development plan would allow one or more credit unions, occupying up to 58 percent of the
total project floor area.
The justification for approval can be summarized as follows:
• This is a good location. A credit union now exists at a location that is outside downtown,
at the intersection of a major road and a minor road, across from a shopping center, and in
the vicinity of dwellings and parks. The project site has the same setting. It would allow
that credit union to relocate to this site, which has better access and more room for
parking.
• Credit unions and banks have virtually the same functions and characteristics. A branch
Planning Commission Staff Report—Orcutt Creek Annexation Page 9
bank consistent with Services and Manufacturing policies and a check-cashing business
have been established on a site zoned C-S-PD,just across Broad Street...
A credit union would be compatible with the other uses intended for the project.
The particular credit union proposed for the site would consist of corporate headquarters
(administrative) functions as well as direct customer service, and it has branch offices in the
County (one in the immediate San Luis Obispo area) for additional direct customer contact. (At
the request of the credit union, the applicant has also filed an application to amend the Zoning
Regulations text, to allow credit unions in certain situations in the C-S zone, with Planning
Commission approval of a use permit. That application has not been scheduled for a hearing,
pending the outcome of the subject request for C-S-PD zoning.)
Credit Union Consistency with Draft Airport Area Specific Plan"Business Park"
One recommendation from the Airport Area land-use workshops was to allow credit unions and
similar uses in Airport Area Business Park, C-S, M zones "subject to special standards or review
processes." Staff's response is to recommend provisions, for the draft specific plan as
summarized in the following table. The recommendation distinguishes between (A) small-scale
direct customer services, which in a business park would be mainly for area workers, not
residents of the whole community, (B) a regular branch that could attract customers from all or a
large part of the city, and (C) headquarters functions which would be like any other corporate
office. In conclusion, the proposed credit union is consistent because it consists of an
administrative office, it offers a convenience to area workers, and it would be less than 25
percent of the development's floor area.
Preliminary Air ort Area Specific Plan Sta Recommendation
TyTe of Use Business Park Service Commercial Manufacturing
[A]Convenience facilities,which along
with certain other secondary uses
cannot exceed 25%of a project's
floor area:
Branch of bank, savings& loan, Allowed with Allowed with Allowed with
credit union,or finance company, administrative administrative use administrative
not to exceed 2,000 square-feet. use permit permit use permit
Bank, savings& loan,credit union, or
finance company:
[B] Customer service branch [no Not allowed (but Allowed with admin. Not allowed
size limit see below use permit _
[C]Corporate or regional Allowed Allowed with admin. Not allowed
administrative office use 2ermit
Planning Commission Staff Report—Orcutt Creek Annexation Page 10
Credit Union Consistency with Services and Manufacturing
According to the adopted General Plan, the subject site's current land use designation of Services
and Manufacturing is "for activities such as business services, wholesaling, building contractors,
utility company yards, auto repair, printing, food manufacturing and other light manufacturing,
and retail sales of large items, bulk quantities, and items often stored outdoors (vehicles, building
materials, plants). Areas reserved for these uses may also accommodate convenience restaurants
and other activities primarily serving area workers" (policy LU 3.5.1). The General Plan also says
land with this designation can accommodate "Large offices, with no single tenant space less than
2,500 square feet, and having no substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown
government services ... subject to approval of a Planned Development zoning application"
(policy LU 3.5.21). As noted before, this PD application has been presented not as one targeting
large offices, but as a way to accommodate anticipated Business Park uses ahead of that
designation being adopted.
When General Plan policies leave room for interpretation, the Zoning Regulations provide the
previous official interpretation. In the C-S zone, branches of banks and savings-and-loans are
allowable with an administrative use permit; headquarters are expressly excluded. Credit unions
and finance companies are not allowed (Section 17.22.010). For large-office PD's in the C-S
zone, banks in particular and "financial institutions" in general are expressly excluded (Section'
17.62.040.C).
The reason for constraining credit unions more than banks is not clear. It is true that banks
generally, but not always, have several branches in San Luis Obispo, while at least in the past a
credit union, being a member-based organization, had only one location. Since a credit union had
a single location, it would draw customers from the whole area, which would produce traffic
contrary to the stated reasons for a Neighborhood Commercial zone. Recently, due mainly to less
Federal regulation, distinctions between banks and other "money processing" businesses,
insurance services, and investment services are being blurred. The expansion. of Internet
commerce may do so further. Regardless of the Commission's action on the subject application,
this topic is likely to be revisited during consideration of a citywide update of commercial
zoning.
In conclusion, a credit union can be allowed in this PD based on the following:
• It is not excluded by General Plan policies.
• Considering the Zoning Regulations, the administrative functions are similar to other
office-type activities that are allowed or allowable in the C-S zone, such as advertising and
related services, credit reporting and collection, member and service organizations,
research and development, secretarial and related services, and utility company
administrative offices. A credit union administrative office focuses on processing
transactions and other data, personnel matters, general communication with current and
prospective members, and investments. It has minimal connection with local government
(downtown) or direct customer service.
Planning Commission Staff Report—Orcutt Creek Annexation Page 11
The direct customer-service to be provided at this site could focus on people working in
the vicinity. The credit union has a branch in the San Luis Obispo area, and can provide
service via the Internet.
Site Layout
The site plan reflects leaving Orcutt Creek in its present location, providing the 35-foot setbacks
required by the Zoning Regulations, and not developing the part of the site west of the creek or
bridging the creek. Any substantial future change to those aspects would require a Planning
Commission hearing and a City Council hearing, and Council approval of a new development
plan.
Several General Plan policies call for restoration of degraded creek corridors and provision of
appropriate public access as development along.them is approved (LU 6.4.1, LU 6.4.2, LU 6.4.4,
OS 3.1.2, OS 3.1.3, and OS 3.2.1). Recommended condition #4 addresses habitat restoration.
Recommended condition #5 addresses access to the creek for safety and maintenance. Access
along the creek has not been proposed because the City's Bicycle Transportation.Plan and
conceptual area plans have shown access along the more substantial Acacia Creek corridor.
Building construction techniques can reduce indoor noise exposure to levels that are acceptable
for office uses, according to the Noise Element and the Noise Guidebook. The Noise Element
does not explicitly set a standard for outdoor use areas other than parks or residential yards. Two
of the three plazas would be sufficiently far from Broad Street and shielded by buildings that
traffic noise is not expected to hinder their use. Noise exposure for the plaza closest to Broad
Street is expected to be in the range of 65 to 68 decibels, or about the level that can interfere with
normal conversation. An option would be to maintain that plaza location as a space for
landscaping and bicycle parking, but to locate outdoor space for employee or visitor use farther
to the west, shielded by a wall, or at the interior diagonal part of the southeastern building.
Consideration also should be given to providing the plazas a southern winter sun exposure and
protection from the prevailing wind.
The new, local street would allow access to the proposed sports fields to the north. A pedestrian
walkway and common driveway could be extended to the developable, commercially designated
property to the south.
Parkine
Plans show parking lots with a total of 231 spaces. Staff estimates that about 212 spaces will be
available if planters are provided every six spaces in the longer parking bays, as called for by the
City's parking-lot landscape standards. The Zoning Regulations normally require one vehicle
space per 300 square feet gross floor area for a credit union, bank, title company, computer
services, or other non-medical offices. Applying the 1:300 ratio to the whole site would result in
a requirement for 347 spaces. The draft Airport Area Specific Plan will recommend, for Business
Parks, a ratio of at least one space per 500 square feet and at most one space per 250 square feet.
Planning Commission Staff Report—Orcutt Creek Annexation Page 12
In recognition of the "intemet service" space being occupied mainly by equipment, a requirement
like that for manufacturing could be used, as low as one space per 500 square feet, or for
warehousing, one space per 1,500 square feet. These lower ratios would result in a total
requirement of 240 spaces or 293 spaces.
It is important for the development plan to provide parking that can serve the range of expected
uses, on the chance that a specific use such as the intemet service changes to another use or
adopts different technology requiring more workers. On one hand, providing excess parking
reduces permeable surfaces and space for amenities, and does not encourage alternatives to
single-occupant vehicles. On the other hand, providing insufficient parking can reduce the range
of occupants that will locate in a development, and cause employees or patrons to park in the
spaces owned by neighbors. (This site has relatively little space for curbside parking.)
The applicant proposes to base the parking requirement on the following:
• credit union, 60,000 square feet at one space per 300 square feet= 200 spaces;
• internet services, at one space per shift worker=24 spaces (equivalent to 1 space/1,670 s:f.).
4,000 square feet unspecified use, assuming one space per 300 square feet= 13 spaces.
The resulting total requirement would be 237 spaces, which is 25 spaces (about 12 percent) more
than the 212 spaces likely to be provided if the parking lot has planters consistent with City
design standards. Without any special approval, when a project provides more bicycle parking
than required, the number of vehicle spaces may be reduced at a certain ratio, with a maximum
reduction of ten percent. In this case, the resulting requirement would be 213 spaces.
The applicant has indicated that a reduction from typical parking requirements could be justified
based on mixed use. With approval of an administrative use permit, parking for projects with
mixed uses or with shared parking can be reduced by as much as 30%, when it is shown that
times of high parking demand will not coincide (for example, large shopping centers including
uses such as stores, restaurants, and theaters). That is not likely to be the case with this project.
Considering that one of the reasons given for the credit union moving to this site is to have more
room for parking, staff is not comfortable with a substantial reduction that is not based on a
particular code provision: Also, it would be desirable to provide parking at a ratio that would
allow at least one type of use in addition to the Internet services, consistent with the Zoning
Regulations parking standards.
The Zoning Regulations allow off-site parking subject to certain limitations. The applicant and
City staff have informally discussed the potential for a reciprocal "off-site" parking arrangement
that could benefit this project and the City's proposed sports fields, but there is no assurance that
this will be implemented.
With the Planned Development zone, any parking arrangement that is consistent with the General
Plan and that meets the intent of the Zoning Regulations—adequate parking—can be approved.
Staff recommends the following approach to parking, which is expected to require more spaces
or less building area than shown in the preliminary development plan.
- Planning Commission Staff Report—Orcutt Creek Annexation Page 13
• Internet services (as defined in the PD use listing), 40,000 square feet at one space per
1,500 square feet=27 spaces (allowing warehouse uses if the Internet services change);
• credit union and offices, 64,000 square feet at one space per 300 square feet=2.13 spaces;
• total spaces required before any code-based reduction=240 spaces;
• total spaces required with ten percent reduction for extra bicycle parking= 216 spaces.
A reciprocal parking and access agreement among the parcels on this site will be required if
parcels are to be created as shown.
These parking aspects are addressed by recommended conditions #8, #9, and #10.
Planned Development Findings
The Zoning Regulations require that at least one of the following findings be made to approve a
Planned Development zone (Section 17.62.040):
1. It provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group (such as the elderly
or families with children)which would not be feasible under conventional zoning.
2. It transfers allowable development, within a site, from areas of greater environmental
sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or hazard;
3. It provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional development;
4. Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards (privacy, usable
open space, adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood character, and so on) as well
as or better than the standards themselves;
5. It incorporates features which result in consumption of less materials, energy or water than
conventional development;
6. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits such as parking, open space,
landscaping, public art, and other special amenities which would not be feasible under
conventional development standards.
Staff recommends making finding #4, because the plazas, the amount of parking as conditioned,
and the open creek corridor achieve the intent of conventional standards as well as the
conventional standards: site amenities in the form of plazas, adequate parking, and open space
protection. Staff also suggests finding #6, since a project complying with the proposed Business
Park standards is likely to be more attractive to the public than one meeting only the conventional
Service Commercial standards.
Since this project does not involve a density bonus or an allowance for large professional office
buildings with at least 2,500 square-feet per tenant, no additional planned-development findings
need to be made.-
Planning Commission Staff Report—Orcutt Creek Annexation Page 14
Airport Compatibility
The City's General Plan Land Use Element says development must be consistent with the Airport
Land Use Plan. That is a State-mandated guide to compatible uses in the vicinity of the airport,
which is adopted by the independent San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission.
According to the adopted (1973) Airport Land Use Plan, the proposed uses are compatible. The
project is also expected to be compatible under the pending update of the Airport Land Use Plan.
Because the project involves a change in land-use designation within the airport influence area,
review by the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission is required. The Airport
Land Use Commission conducted that review on September 15, 1999, and recommended that the
City approve the project with conditions concerning avigation easements, soundproofing, radio
interference, and lighting. (Those items are addressed in recommended conditions of approval
#I I through#14.)
Subdivision
Approval of the three-parcel division is an administrative item, which will be acted on by a staff
hearing officer (following Council action on then preliminary development plan). The proposed
lot dimensions easily comply with the Subdivision Regulations for the C-S zone and with the in-
progress draft Airport Area Specific Plan standards for a Business Park designation.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Comments of other departments are reflected in the recommended conditions.
ALTERNATIVES
The Commission may continue action on the annexation, and the zoning and development plan.
Environmental Determination
Concerning the environmental determination, the Commission may request more information. If
the Commission believes a potential impact could be significant unless additional mitigation is
required, that. mitigation should be described. If the Commission believes there may be
significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, the appropriate action would be to recommend that
the City Council not act on the annexation and zoning until the Environmental Impact Report for
the Airport Area Specific Plan is certified. That course of action would essentially defer the
project until the specific plan is ready for adoption.
Planning Commission Staff Report—O.rcutt Creek Annexation Page 15
Annexation
The Commission may recommend that the annexation not be approved. (Without annexation,
there would be no need for a zoning decision. However, the Commission could take a position on
the zoning issue in case the annexation proceeds.)
Pre-zoning
The part of the site that the City is acquiring could be pre-zoned Conservation/Open Space. The
creek corridor could be pre-zoned Conservation/Open Space.
Development Plan
.The Commission may recommend that the Planned Development be approved with a different
list of allowed and allowable uses, so long as they are consistent with the General Plan. One
option is to not allow a credit union. The development plan may be approved with different
findings, exceptions, and conditions, so long as they are determined to be consistent with the
General Plan and the Zoning Regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
(A) Recommend that the City Council approve a mitigated negative declaration of
environmental impact,with the mitigation measures listed in the initial study.
(B) Recommend that the City Council approve the annexation,with the following findings:
1. The annexation is appropriate since it is within the City's Urban Reserve, and the site is
contiguous to the City on one side.
. 2. The annexation of the site is a logical addition to the City due to its location in relation to
existing urban development and utilities.
3. The General Plan anticipates development of the site with uses like those in the proposed
zoning and development plan.
(C) Recommend that the City Council adopt zoning of Public Facility with Specific Plan
(PF-SP) and Service Commercial Planned Development (C-S-PD), as shown on the
attached map, and approve the preliminary development plan, with the following
findings and subject to the following conditions:
Planning Commission Staff Report—Orcutt Creek Annexation Page 16
Findings
1. The proposed zoning and the development plan, as conditioned, are consistent with the
General Plan.
2. The proposed zoning is consistent with the purposes of the PF, SP, C-S, and PD zones as
stated in the Zoning Regulations.
3. The proposed uses are suitable for the site and compatible with existing and planned uses
in the vicinity.
4. The Planned Development's plazas, parking, and creek corridor protection achieve the
intent of conventional standards for usable open space, adequate parking, and open space
protection as well as the standards themselves.
5. The Planned Development provides exceptional public benefit by complying with the
proposed Business Park standards, which will result in a project more attractive to the
public than one meeting only the conventional Service Commercial standards.
Conditions
I. Each development shall provide for dispersed drainage across areas with suitable soil and
vegetation to allow percolation and filtering, rather than piped or other concentrated
drainage from roofs and paved areas directly to creeks or public storm drains. To provide
suitable soil, landscaped areas shall not be compacted, or shall be adequately loosened
and amended prior to planting. Pervious paving shall be used for all parking stalls.
Driveways and parking aisles may be pervious. For each development site, plans for
architectural review and for construction permits shall show how this mitigation will be
implemented.
2. If areawide drainage improvements will not be available to serve development of the
project site, on-site storm drainage detention will be provided. It may be a temporary
facility. The detention basin shall be landscaped consistently with planting for other
development on the site. The design of the facility will be prepared by a qualified
professional and subject to approval by the City Engineer and the Architectural Review
Commission. If the facility takes the form of a conventional detention basin, it shall be
located outside the required creek setback.
3. The final development plan shall provide for drainage along the southern edge of the site
to the approval of the Public Works Director. Utilities shall be designed to be compatible
with drainage in this area, to the approval of the Utilities Director.
Planning Commission Staff Report—Orcutt Creek Annexation Page 17
4. The final development plan shall include a plan for restoration of the Orcutt Creek
corridor riparian habitat, including planting of native species, subject to approval by the
City's Natural Resources Manager.
5. The final development plan shall provide for access to the creek from the parking aisle
on parcel 1, for maintenance and emergency response, to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
6. Before recordation of a parcel map or issuance of building permits, whichever comes
first, the owner and the City will enter into an agreement with Caltrans, providing a
schedule and cost-sharing for modification of the intersection signal and other
intersection features.
7. Building permits will not be issued until the City Utilities Director confirms that the
wastewater collection system serving the development will have adequate capacity prior
to occupancy. If permits are to be obtained before the Airport Area wastewater collection
system is available, applicant shall pay a proportionate share of the cost to upgrade pump
stations serving the development, based on wastewater flows from the project and
tributary area as determined by the City's Utilities Engineer.
8. The final development plan shall provide at least one vehicle parking space for each
1,500 square feet gross floor area.of Internet service providers, plus for credit union and
other office-type uses, one space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. This condition is
not intended to preclude future approval of mixed-use or shared-use parking reductions,
or of off-site parking, if conditions allowing such approval occur. All parcels shallbe
subject to a recorded agreement concerning access and parking, in a form approved by the
Community Development Director.
9. The final development plan shall provide parking space access and parking lot
landscaping consistent with the Parking and Driveway Standards.
10. The final development plan shall provide bicycle parking and bicycle storage facilities as
required by the Zoning Regulations. The required number of vehicle spaces may be
reduced as allowed by the Zoning Regulations based on provision of more than the
required number of bicycle or motorcycle spaces.
11. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo
via an avigation easement document prepared by the applicant and submitted to the
County for approval and recordation. The applicant shall provide the Community
Development Department with a copy of the easement for documentation purposes.
(Note: The process of granting an avigation easement takes approximately one month.
Therefore, it is recommended that the property owner pursue this requirement as soon as
possible).
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MARCH 8, 2000
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:09 p.m. on
Wednesday, March 8, 2000, in Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Allan Cooper, David Jeffrey, Mary Whittlesey, Alice Loh,
Charles Senn, Stephen Peterson, and Chairman Paul Ready
Absent: None
Staff Recording Secretary Leaha Magee, Long Range Planning Manager John
Mandeville, Associate Planner Glen Matteson, and Assistant City Attorney
Gilbert Trujillo.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no non-agenda comments made.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 3807 Broad Street, ANNX/R. PD. and ER 79-99: Request to annex approximately
10 acres and pre-zone to C-S-PD (Service-Commercial with a Planned Development
overlay zone) and PF (Public Facility);.development plan for a planned development
overlay zone; and environmental review; Scott Lathrop, applicant.
Associate Planner Matteson presented the staff report and recommended that the
Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of (a) the mitigated
negative declaration of environmental impact, (b) annexation, (c) pre-zoning of Service-
Commercial Planned Development (C-S-PD) for most of the site and the preliminary
development plan that goes with that zone, subject to conditions, and zoning of Public
Facility with Specific Plan (PF-SP) for a comer of the site.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
March 8, 2000
Page 2
Commissioner Loh had staff review pedestrian features between future sports fields, the
neighborhood park and school site, and asked if the proposed floor area ratios meet
City standards.
Associate Planner Matteson replied yes.
Commissioner Jeffrey referred to page 11 regarding direct customer service provided at
this site with focus on people working in the vicinity. He asked if it would be appropriate
to condition the maintenance of the other credit union facilities in town.
Associate Planner stated staff's conclusion that it would be a difficult condition to
enforce.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if the possibility of an automated teller at this location
would change the original intent from being administrative to that of a service center.
Associate Planner Matteson said staff's understanding is this site would have both
functions and would not be exclusively administration. Staff's concem with an
automated teller is the location and appearance; Public Works concern is related to
traffic congestion and safety.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if on-site temporary storm drainage detention has been
enumerated on the plans.
Associate Planner Matteson replied no, but that a mitigation measure concerning that is
a condition of approval.
Commissioner Jeffrey stated that on numerous occasions the owner of the nearby
mobile home park has come before the Commission indicating flooding problems. He
asked if some temporary provision for a storm drainage detention basin should be
included.
Associate Planner Matteson stated the applicant's minimum responsibility is to prevent
the additional flow from the site after development, as compared to before development,
from having a downstream impact. To solve the flooding problems of the mobile home
park, there would have to be channel widening and possibly upstream detention. The
applicant's legal obligation is to detain or take some steps to prevent added runoff as a
result of development of this site having any greater flooding impact downstream.
Manager Mandeville stated on-site detention would be calculated to the specific
development.
Commissioner Whittlesey referred to page 7 and Condition 18 and asked about the
wording of "a complete description of Internet services" in relation to the elimination of
high employee on-site usage.
Draft Planning Commission h....utes
March 8, 2000
Page 3
Associate Planner Matteson stated staff is comfortable with the level of specificity in
Condition 18.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked if the Commission could impose a condition concerning.
possible future consolidation of credit union branches at this site so that staff would
have the ability to review the reasonableness of the parking and on-site impacts.
Associate Planner Matteson stated that the other credit union location is on Cal Poly
campus, not downtown. He believed other branches could be closed without adding
building area to this location, but that there might be more employees or traffic.
Commissioner Whittlesey had staff explain business park parking calculations.
Commissioner Whittlesey stated page 13 speaks to a reciprocal parking and access
agreement being necessary and asked if this should be a condition of approval as well.
Associate Planner Matteson stated that is reflected in Condition 8.
Commissioner Whittlesey had staff review the location and explain the options of
rerouting Acacia and Orcutt creeks and the proposed realignment of Prado Road.
Commissioner Cooper commented on concerns previously expressed regarding
environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Long Range Planning Manager Mandeville stated there would be further environmental
assessments when the City Council gets precise alignment and design.drawings, and
any new environmental discoveries not previously addressed would fully be analyzed
pursuant to CEQA.
Commissioner Cooper noted page 1 references equipment on the main floor of the
western building instead of workstations and asked if would allow the first floor to be
below the 100-year flood level.
Associate Planner Matteson replied that was not the intent.
Commissioner Cooper stated he could not find business park standards as referred to in
Finding 5.
Associate Planner Matteson stated business park standards exist in a draft of the
specific plan chapter which has been reviewed by the ARC and includes landscaping,
pedestrian amenities, building setbacks, etc.
Commissioner Peterson asked if there is an annexation agreement between the city
and Mr. Lathrop which is holding this project to a timetable.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
March 8,2000
Page 4
Associate Planner Matteson replied no. Mr. Lathrop has signed and returned a pre-
annexation agreement that follows the model used for all other Airport Area
annexations, but it does not commit the City to any schedule for annexation.
Commissioner Peterson had staff review the timetable for the completion and adoption
of the Airport Area Specific Plan.
Commissioner Peterson felt there are many unresolved issues relative to the creek and
he questioned moving ahead with this request. He felt it might be best to wait until the
other plans are finalized.
Manager Mandeville stated if the development were not accommodated within the city,
property owners would work to achieve their development in the county. The City can
take measures to insure developments all contribute to the cost of providing the overall
infrastructure and that the character of the uses and the development are consistent
with the draft specific plan.
Commissioner Senn asked which credit union would be located at this site.
Staff deferred the question to the applicant.
Commissioner Senn questioned staff on the practical interim solutions contained in
Condition 2.
Commissioner Loh had staff clarify the status of credit unions and financial companies
in this zoning.
Chairman Ready had staff clarify parking calculations for Internet services at one space
per 1,500 square feet.
Associate Planner Matteson noted all allowable uses are subject to meeting the basic
zoning standards of minimum parking.
Commissioner Jeffrey questioned staff on conditioning the usage of the structure to
conform to parking calculations based on possible new uses.
Associate Planner Matteson stated if the applicant cannot meet the parking requirement
with the combination of uses proposed, there would be vacant building space until more .
parking is provided.
Chairman Ready had staff explain creek setbacks in relation to the potential of creek
widening through this parcel.
Manager Mandeville stated the draft drainage plan shows channel changes for Acacia
Creek, not Orcutt Creek.
Draft Planning Commission i. ..rtes
March 8, 2000
Page 5
Associate Planner Matteson explained channel changes being considered for Acacia
Creek. This site plan does not overly constrain future options.
There were no further comments or questions and the public comment session was
opened.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Diane Fredricks, RRM Design Group, representing the applicant, described the site
planning involved with this project and the provided plazas and linkages. She explained
that landscaped islands will be provided between rows of parking to break the parking
up. She explained site occupancy/usage, parking lot circulation, the site entrance, and
the temporary drainage detention basin. She concurred with staff's recommendations
and urged approval of the project.
Commissioner Loh asked if the amount of parking would be reduced to accommodate
the detention basin.
Ms. Fredricks stated the preliminary development plan would be followed by a final
development plan and would include a hydrology study addressing detention basin
issues. She noted there are possibilities of where the basin could be located on a
temporary basis.
Scott Lathrop, applicant, described the planned uses and their needs, noting the credit
union involved is SESLOC.
Commissioner Senn asked Mr. Lathrop if he is willing to take the risk if the leases don't
come together on the Internet facilities, recognizing the limited parking.
Mr. Lathrop replied yes. He explained how project phasing would defer some building
area as well as parking, for the lot that would contain the detention basin.
Nick Muick, 3731 Orcutt Road, requested the Commission postpone a decision on the
annexation because of the many unanswered questions with the Prado Road
realignment. He submitted a letter enumerating his concern to the Commission.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENT:
Commissioner Loh noted for the record that the initial study was not included in the
Commission's agenda packet.
Associate Planner Matteson said the initial study was included with the previous staff
report for January 12, 2000, for review and consideration, and that staff would have
provided additional copies if any commissioner had requested.
' Draft Planning Commission Minutes
March 8, 2000
Page 6
Commissioner Jeffrey moved to recommend that the City Council (1) approve the
mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact with mitigation measures listed
in the initial study, (2) approve the annexation with staff's recommended findings, and
(3) adopt the zoning of Public Facility with Specific Plan (PF-SP) and Service
Commercial Planned Development (C-S-PD), as shown on the attached map and
approve the preliminary development plan with staff's recommended findings and
conditions with an amendment to the first sentence of Condition 2, page 16, to include,
"If areawide drainage improvements will not be available to serve development of the
project site at the time of building permit, on-site storm drainage detention will be
provided." Commissioner Senn seconded the motion.
Commissioner Peterson did not support moving forward with this annexation because
there are too many unanswered questions and commented that the site plan that has
been created in response to a creek that may or may not exist in its present form and
completion of a master drainage plan is pending. The Airport Area Specific Plan has
not yet' been finalized. The EIR may or may not affect the final alignment of Prado
Road, considering the archaeological resources. He could support a continuance until
all questions raised have been addressed.
Commissioner Cooper concurred.
Commissioner Loh expressed concern about the parking ratio in relation to the Intemet
use and location of buildings in relation to the creek setback and flooding concems.
Chairman Ready stated staff has addressed his concern with the area of the lot west of
the creek, but he does have concerns with the proposed parking.
Commissioner Jeffrey felt staff has done an excellent job working with the applicant in
trying to merge the services and manufacturing and the business park into the PD. He
supports the layout of the project and is satisfied that the environmental impacts have
been addressed, as they are known at this point in time. He has concerns with the
parking, but staff has given assurances that the conditions have been applied to the
project. Since this is a phased project, interim drainage basins will alleviate any further
impacts on downstream flooding.
Commissioner Whittlesey concurred. She felt the possibility of channeling Orcutt Creek
into Acacia Creek would eliminate the creek altogether from this site and questioned if
Open Space zoning would be appropriate, due to the fact that the creek may go dry.
Associate Planner Matteson stated the development plan shows this area as an Open
Space corridor and different use of this area would require amendment of the
development plan.
Commissioner. Whittlesey asked if there would be a chance that lighting from this site
could impact future neighborhoods.
Draft Planning Commission. .rtes
March 8, 2000
Page 7
Associate. Planner Matteson stated the city's . general standard for lighting would
addresses this concem.
Commissioner Senn commented on the timing of hearings related to review of the
Airport Area Specific Plan and stated this project should not be held up for an unknown
period of time. He felt the City has plenty of safeguards when it comes time to issue
building permits to insure adequate parking will be provided.
AYES: Commissioners Jeffrey, Senn, Whittlesey, and Chairman Ready
NOES: Commissioners Cooper, Peterson, and Loh
REFRAIN: None
The motion carried 4-3.
2. Citywide, General Plan Annual Report: Annual review on the status of the City's
General Plan and its implementation; City of San Luis Obispo.
Associate Planner Matteson presented the staff report and recommended reviewing the
report and forwarding it with comments to the City Council.
Commissioner Cooper referred to page 6, Housing Conservation Downtown, and
questioned the inclusion of "further work was delayed by other program efforts" and
referred to page 7, Neighborhood Traffic Management, and questioned rewording
"...continued to respond to requests concerning neighborhood traffic issues."
Chairman Ready suggested including "...and if appropriate" to item 2, D.
Commissioner Whittlesey noted the last item on page 6 is incomplete and asked that a
definition of Zone 9 be included.
There were no further comments/questions and the public comment session was
opened.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There were no public comments made.
COMMISSION COMMENT:
Commissioner Whittlesey moved to forward to the City Council the Annual Report with
the Commission's revisions and comments. Commissioner Cooper seconded the
motion.
AYES: Commissioners Whittlesey, Cooper, Loh, Jeffrey, Senn, Peterson, and
Chairman Ready