HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/02/1996, 4 - REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT (LUE) MAP DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE, AND AMEND THE ZONING MAP FROM R-2 TO O, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON PACIFIC STREET, NEAR JOHNSON AVENUE (1318 PACIFIC STREET). council M�
j Apenba izEpout -Z -��
hem N®6v
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
6
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Pam Ricci, Assiate Planner
SUBJECT:
Request to amend the Land Use Element (LUE) map designation from Medium-Density Residential
to Office, and amend the zoning map from R-2 to O, for property located on Pacific Street, near
Johnson Avenue (1318 Pacific Street).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
A. Adopt a resolution approving a negative declaration with mitigation measures and amending
the Land Use Element (LUE) map designation from Medium-Density Residential to Office
for property located at 1318 Pacific Street, based on findings.
B. Introduce an ordinance to print approving a negative declaration with mitigation measures
and amending the zoning map from R-2 to O-S for property located at 1318 Pacific Street,
based on findings.
DISCUSSION
Back and
The law firm of Andre, Moms& Buttery is currently located at 1304 Pacific Street, the northwest
corner of Johnson Avenue and Pacific Street. The firm wants to expand their offices next door. They
propose to use the bottom floor of the existing house as office space and the top floor as an
apartment. The submitted applications propose to change the LUE map designation for the site from
Medium-Density Residential to Office, and to rezone the site from R-2 to O.
The project includes the rehabilitation of the existing house for the proposed offices and residence,
and the development of a parldng lot at the rear of the site with access from Johnson Avenue.
Changes proposed will not result in significant physical changes to the site or neighborhood, but they
do raise important policy consistency issues with the adopted general plan. The attached Planning
Commission report provides a detailed discussion of the project's consistency with the general
plan.
Planning Commission's Action
On a 4-1-2 vote (Veesart voting no), the Planning Commission at a meeting held on May 8, 1996,
directed that the City Council approve the proposed amendments with the addition of the Special
Council Agenda Report - GP/R 33-96
Page 2
Consideration (S) overlay to the Office zoning to ensure retention of a dwelling on the site and
visual compatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Four nearby residents spoke
against the project, citing concerns with the elimination of on-street parking and loss of residential
character as the primary reasons for opposition. A majority of the Commission felt that the
retention of a dwelling on-site, coupled with the restoration of an historic structure, merited
approval of the amendments.
Off-site Parking for Existing Offices (1304 Pacific Street)
The lack of parking in the neighborhood has been raised as an issue. The law firm's existing
office at 1304 Pacific Street was allowed to expand in 1988 with the condition that 7 off-site
parking spaces for use by the firm were maintained at 1250 Pepper Street. The continued
availability of these off-site parking spaces has been questioned. The attached letter from Marilyn
Farmer to Andrew Merriam dated 6-11-96 documents that the SLO Pacific Properties partnership,
which has several of the same principals as the project applicant, has five parking spaces
specifically set-aside for their use and controls an additional two parking spaces.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the Resolution, included as Attachment 3, denying the requested amendments based
on inconsistency with the City's General Plan.
2. Continue with direction to the staff and applicant if the Council desires further information
or analysis to render a decision.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Resolution approving the LUE map amendment
Attachment 2: Ordinance approving the rezoning
Attachment 3: Resolution denying the project
Attachment 4: Planning Commission follow-up letter
Attachment 5: Draft 5-8-96 Planning Commission Minutes
Attachment 6: Revised site plan
Attachment 7: Letter from Marilyn Farmer to Andrew Merriam dated 6-11-96
Attachment 8: Planning Commission Staff Report
y-z
OTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT MAP
FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1318 PACIFIC STREET
(GPIR 33-96)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 8, 1996, and
recommended approval of an amendment to change the designation on the City's Land Use
Element map from Medium-Density Residential to Office for property located at 1318 Pacific
Street; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, July 2, 1996, and has
considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission
hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed general plan amendment is
consistent with the General Plan and other applicable City ordinances; 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 Deter.,,in tion The City Council finds and determines that
the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental
impacts of the proposed general plan map amendment, and reflects the independent judgement of
the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and incorporates the
following mitigation measures into the project:
11-3
City Council Resolution No. (1996 Series)
Page 2
1. The proposal shall be modified to rezone the site O-S. The existing zoning
regulations require the processing of an administrative use permit when a residence
is converted into an office. However, the rezoning cannot be conditioned to
require the retention of the apartment unit. With the "S" overlay zone, the special
consideration for the site can be documented to provide direction with the review
of the use permit that an apartment needs to be retained with the conversion of the
house into an office.
2. Through the required architectural review process, site development plans shall be
reviewed to evaluate parking lot development and landscaping plans for buffering
and screening between the project site and adjoining lots.
3. Parking lot lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not cast glare
onto adjacent properties. The specific design of lighting shall reviewed through the
required architectural review process, with special attention given to the height and
type of lighting fixtures.
SECTION 2. Fines. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed
amendment to the City's Land Use Element map from Medium-Density Residential to Office for
property located at 1318 Pacific Street, makes the following findings:
1. The proposed general plan amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety or
welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity because the proposed
combination of residential and office uses will not result in significant physical changes
to the environment.
2. The proposed general plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the
General Plan, given that residential use will be retained at the property with the
inclusion of a two-bedroom apartment on the second floor (no net loss in housing
units), and the project will not significantly increase traffic in residential areas with
access to the proposed parking lot from the arterial street Johnson Avenue.
3. The proposed development of the site is appropriate and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses because site changes to accommodate the office use with
apartment can be adequately evaluated and regulated with the required processing of
an administrative use permit and architectural review.
-- 7`7
City Council Resolution No. (1996 Series)
Page 3
4. The project site is immediately adjacent on its north and west sides to existing office
zones, and its location is on the periphery of downtown generally meets criteria for
the location of professional office uses.
5. The loss in residential development capacity with redevelopment would be
insignificant when considered from a citywide perspective, given the relatively small
size of the site (6,500 square feet).
6. There is not a comparable site which would accommodate the expansion needs of this
particular business, given their present location and investment in this site.
7: There is a.significant need to attempt to accommodate existing businesses with links
to the downtown and government center, like law offices, in areas within walking
distance of downtown.
8. The project involves the rehabilitation of the existing house, rather than the demolition
and development of a new building, which is consistent with general plan policies.
9. A Mitigative Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development
Department on April 24, 1996, which describes significant environmental impacts
associated with project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the
project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the
mitigation measures shown in the attached initial study ER 33-96 being incorporated
into the project.
SECTION 3. approval. The request to amend the City's Land Use Element map from
Medium-Density Residential to Office, for property located at 1318 Pacific Street, is hereby
approved.
SECTION 4. Ado tion.
1. The Land Use element map is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit "A".
2. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in
documents which are on display in City Hall and are available for public viewing
and use.
T—�
City Council-Resolution No.
Page 4 (1996 Series)
Onmotion of - aeconded by -- -
- - - -- - _ -
and on the following -toll call vote:
AYE&
Mk&
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1996.
— — :
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk — -
APPROVED;
h' t*Yff gensen
L.U='gp733-%.ka. - -
i
EXHIBIT A
y- General Retail -j�
=per �� \\\ Q2
E- Office
o -
\>\\x
<- Change map designation from ^•�
\ Medium Density Residential
Neighborhood \to Office
Commercial 4
Medium Density Residential
\ \ \ \ \ \ - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Land Use
` Change zoning from `
R-2 to O-S
FPF
C-N
R-2 0
01
Zoning R-2=Medium Density Residential 0=Office C-N=Neighborhood Commercial
EXHIBIT A - LAND USE AND ZONING
11-7
.TTACHMENT 2
ORDINANCE NO. (1996 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-2)
TO OFFICE WITH THE SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OVERLAY ZONING (O-S)
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1318 PACIFIC STREET
(GP/R 33-96)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 8, 1996, and
recommended approval of a rezoning (GP/R 33-96) to change the designation on the City's zoning
map from Medium-Density Residential, R-2, to Office with the Special Consideration overlay
zoning, O-S, for property located at 1318 Pacific Street; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, July 2, 1996, and has
considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission
hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the
General Plan and other applicable City ordinances; 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 ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental D tP Min-rinn
The City Council finds and determines that
the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental
impacts of the proposed general plan map amendment, and reflects the independent judgement of
the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and incorporates the
following mitigation measures into the project:
Ordinance No. (1996 Series)
Page 2
1. The proposal shall be modified to rezone the site O-S. The existing zoning
regulations require the processing of an administrative use permit when a residence
is converted into an office. However, the rezoning cannot be conditioned to
require the retention of the apartment unit. With the "S" overlay zone, the special
consideration for the site can be documented to provide direction with the review
of the use permit that an apartment needs to be retained with the conversion of the
house into an office.
2• Through the required architectural review process, site development plans shall be
reviewed to evaluate parking lot development and landscaping plans for buffering
and screening between the project site and adjoining lots.
3. Parking lot lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not cast glare
onto adjacent properties. The specific design of lighting shall reviewed through the
required architectural review process, with special attention given to the height and
type of lighting fixtures.
SECTION 2. Finding, That this Council, after consideration of the proposed rezoning
to change the City's zoning map designation from Medium-Density Residential (R-2) to Office with
the Special Consideration overlay (O-S) for property located at 1318 Pacific Street, makes the
following findings:
I. The proposed rezoning will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of
persons residing or working in the vicinity because the proposed combination of
residential and office uses will not result in significant physical changes to the
environment.
2• The proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals and policies of the General
Plan, given that residential use will be retained at the property with the inclusion
of a two-bedroom apartment on the second floor(no net loss in housing units), and
the project will not significantly increase traffic in residential areas with access to
the proposed parking lot from the arterial street Johnson Avenue.
3. The proposed "S" overlay zoning will document that an apartment needs to be
retained with the conversion of the house into an office as the special consideration
for the site and will require the processing of an administrative usepermit to establish
proposed uses.
_ y-y
Ordinance No. (1996 Series)
Page 3
4. The proposed development of the site is appropriate and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses because site changes to accommodate the office use with
apartment can be adequately evaluated and regulated with the required processing
of an administrative use permit and architectural review.
5. The project site is immediately adjacent on its north and west sides to existing
office zones, and its location is on the periphery of downtown generally meets
criteria for the location of professional office uses.
6. The loss in residential development capacity with redevelopment would be
insignificant when considered from a citywide perspective, given the relatively
small size of the site (6,500 square feet).
7. There is not a comparable site which would accommodate the expansion needs of
this particular business, given their present location and investment in this site.
8. There is a significant need to attempt to accommodate existing businesses with
links to the downtown and government center, like law offices, in areas within
walking distance of downtown.
9. The project involves the rehabilitation of the existing house, rather than the
demolition and development of a new building, which is consistent with general
plan policies.
10. A Mitigative Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development
Department on April 24, 1996, which describes significant environmental impacts
associated with project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the
project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the
mitigation measures shown in the attached initial study ER 33-96 being
incorporated into the project.
SECTION 3. Approval. The request to change the City's zoning map designation from
Medium-Density Residential (R-2) to Office with the Special Consideration overlay (O-S), for
property located at 1318 Pacific Street, is hereby approved.
SECTION 4. Adoption.
1. The zoning map is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit W.
y-�o
Ordinance No. (1996 Series)
Page 4
2. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in
documents which are on display in City Hall and are available for public viewing
and use.
SECTION 5. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members
voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the
Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into
effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
at its meeting held on the day of , 1996, on a motion of
seconded by , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
orn y J Jo nsen
k\=�Wr33.9 Wd
EXHIBIT A
y General Retail -9,
_O�
—9 C�
_ oyti
o
F Office
.4- Change map designat on from�••�••
Medium Density Residential ,N
Neighborhood to Office
Commercial 4
t- Medium Density Residential
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Land Use
` Change zoning from `
R-2 to 0-S
`"PF P
_._ C
R-2 0
Zoning R-2=Medium Density Residential 0=office C-N=Neighborhood Commercial
EXHIBIT A - LAND USE AND ZONING
y iz
+TTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT
MAP FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE,
AND TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP
FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-2)
TO OFFICE WITH THE SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OVERLAY ZONING (O-S),
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1318 PACIFIC STREET
(GP/R 33-96)
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 8, 1996, and
recommended approval of an amendment to change the designation on the City's Land Use
Element map from Medium-Density Residential to Office for property located at 1318 Pacific
Street; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, July 2, 1996, and has
considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission
hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed general plan amendment is
inconsistent with the General Plan and other applicable City ordinances; 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. Findings,
1. The proposed general plan amendment and rezoning are inconsistent with the goals
and policies of the General Plan, specifically Policy 2.6.2, Boundary Adjustments,
of the Residential Land Protection section of the LUE that discourages conversion
of residential sites to other land use designations.
2. The proposed development of the site will not be compatible with surrounding land
uses because of parldng concerns and adverse changes to neighborhood character.
y/3
City Council Resolution No. (1996 Series)
Page 2
3. There are comparable sites which could accommodate the expansion needs of this
particular business.
SECTION 2. Denial. The requests for an amendment to the City's Land Use Element
map from Medium-Density Residential to Office, and the rezoning from Medium-Density
Residential (R-2) to Office with the Special Consideration overlay (O-S), for property located at
1318 Pacific Street, are hereby denied.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_ day of 1996.
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
--------------
City Clerk
APPROVED:
tt Je Jorgensen
L•=\gpd3-%An
y i�
XTACHMENT 4
��►�u��'�����iii����►illilillllll III�►�������i►i I
II
® city of sAn tuis oBispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
May 15, 1996
Margaritaville Partners
Attn: Maryellen Simkins and Michael Moms
1304 Pacific Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: GP/R 33-96: 1318 Pacific Street
Request for a general plan amendment to change the land use designation from
medium-density residential to office, and rezoning request to change the zoning
designation from R-2 (medium-density residential) to O (office).
Dear Ms. Simkins and Mr. Morris:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of May 8, 1996,-urged the City Council to approve the
above request with the following recommendations:
1. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of
persons residing or working in the vicinity because the proposed combination of
residential and office uses will not result in significant physical changes to the
environment.
2. The proposed amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the General
Plan, given that residential use will be retained at the property with the inclusion of
a two-bedroom apartment on the second floor(no net loss in housing units), and the
project will not significantly increase traffic in residential areas with access to the
proposed parking lot from the arterial street Johnson Avenue.
3. The proposed "S" overlay zoning will document that development needs to be visually
compatible with a residential street facade and an apartment needs to be retained with
the conversion of the house into an office as the special consideration for the site and
will require the processing of an administrative use permit to establish proposed uses.
4. The proposed development of the site is appropriate and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses because site changes to accommodate the office use with
apartment can be adequately evaluated and regulated with the required processing of
an administrative use permit and architectural review.
5. The project site is immediately adjacent on its north and west sides to existing office
zones, and its location is on the periphery of downtown generally meets criteria for
the location of professional office uses.
/�/O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
GP/R 33-96
Page 2
. 6. The loss in residential development capacity with redevelopment would be
insignificant when considered from a citywide perspective, given the relatively small
size of the site (6,500 square feet).
7. There is not a comparable site which would accommodate the expansion needs of this
particular business, given their present location and investment in this site.
8. There is a significant need to attempt to accommodate existing businesses with links
to the downtown and government center, like law offices, in areas within walking
distance of downtown.
9. The project involves the rehabilitation of the existing house, rather than the demolition
and development of a new building, which is consistent with general plan policies.
10. A Mitigative Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development
Department on April 24, 1996, which describes significant environmental impacts
associated with project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the
project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the
mitigation measures shown in the attached initial study ER 33-96 being incorporated
into the project.
The action of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council and, therefore is not
final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled before the Council on July 2, 1996. This date
should be verified with the City Clerk's Office(781-7103).
Due to City water allocation regulations, the Planning Commission's approval expires after three.years
if construction has not started,unless the Comrnission designated a different time period. On request,
the Community Development Director may grant renewals for successive periods of not more than
one year each.
If you have any questions, please contact Pamela Ricci at 781-7168.
Sincerely,
Ronald . Whisen
Development Review Manager
cc: Andre, Morris&Buttery
Andrew Merriam
1AP033-96.1et �—/�
XTACHMENT 5
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 22
management for the streams and to protect that management with some sort of buffer. These are very
nice creeks and the quality of the riparian vegetation is good. We have the opportunity to manage
them properly from day one as they will be going through developed areas. The maintenance and
management will consist of mowing the grass that is there and perhaps some plantings on the top of
banks. He recommends that direction be given to the staff and the applicant that the entire area,
including the setbacks, should be dedicated to the City for preservation as a riparian corridor. With
respect to Item 48, Lots C and D, he recommends doing the same.
Chairman Karleskint stated there is a consensus of the Commission to concur with staffs
recommendation for both lots C and D.
Commissioner Veesart asked Manager Havlik to address the issue of removing the eucalyptus trees.
Manager Havlik would like to see what species of eucalyptus these are and will check with the City
Arborist about selective tree removal. The applicant has stated he is willing to do a tree replacement.
Commissioner Veesart suggested if the applicant is willing to perform a tree replacement, the
replacements be native species.
Commissioner Kourakis made a motion to continue this item to a date uncertain. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Senn.
AYES: Commissioners Kourakis, Senn, Veesart, Ready, Jeffrey, and Chairman Karleskint
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Whittlesey
4. 1318 Pacific Street: GP/R 33-96: Request for a general plan amendment to change the land
use designation from medium-density residential to office, and rezoning request to change the
zoning designation from R-2 to O; Andre, Morris, and Buttery, applicants.
Commissioner Ready refrained from participating due to a potential conflict of interest.
Associate Planner McIlvaine presented the staff report, recommending review of the initial study of
the environmental impact and recommending the approval of the amendments to the City Council
with the addition of the "Special Consideration" overlay zone, based on the findings.
17
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 23
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Andrew Merriam, Cannon & Associates, 364 Pacific St., stated the applicant wants to expand and
cannot do it in the R-2 Zone. They do concur with the S designation and the conditions as outlined
by staff. They will be back with development plans, so such issues as the exact layout of the parking,
etc. will be addressed in detail then. He feels the real issue is an optimum resolution with the two
General Plan policies in retaining this type of office use within walking distance to the courthouse.
Andre, Morris & Buttery now has 5,300 square feet and needs to expand to approximately 6,500
square feet. They will be needing approximately nine additional parking spaces. The spaces will be
located behind the existing residence. Two of the spaces will be replacement spaces so that all traffic
will be redirected onto Johnson Ave. Mr. Merriam distributed photos of the parking area and the
buildings to the Commission. The second floor can be easily made into an apartment and they will
add an extra stairway to the rear and supply the residential parking. If this building were to be
demolished and replaced, it would only be allowed three bedrooms. They will be retaining the two
bedroom apartments under the proposal before the Commission. They believe it does show
substantial compliance with the General Plan policy. There are some well maintained houses on
Pacific St. and the Dart residence will be brought back to this standard. They feel this will be an
improvement on Pacific St. They believe this is an optimum mesh of a lot of different situations. Mr.
Merriam requested the Commission to support the General Plan amendment and the rezoning.
Evelyn Snyder, 1356 Marsh, stated she has lived on Marsh since 1954. When she first moved here,
this area consisted of only family homes. After they moved in, two different oil companies purchased
the two corners on Marsh and Pacific to put up service stations. This was then opposed by the
neighborhood and she feels they are better off with homes here than service stations. The General
Plan amendment does not fit the conditions and the true needs and values for these kinds of changes.
She feels this is spot zoning with a special consideration given to a property owner. This will make
a physical change to the neighborhood and impact parking. According to the parking requirements,
a total of 40 spaces is required. She feels there are not enough required parking spaces in this
neighborhood. She feels there is not enough area in the backyard for parking and trees will have to
be taken down. She feels this does not meet the needs of the General Plan, the LUE, or the zoning
laws. There are too many homes being converted into offices. She requested the General Plan
amendment and the rezoning be denied and this site be kept a family home.
Gene Miller,resident across from the Dart residence, stated his only objection to the rezoning is the
parking situation_ On Pacific St. there is parking for 36 cars. Every morning at 7:00 there will be 6
to 11 cars parked there. By 8:30 there are no parking spaces left. He hopes they will be able to make
accommodations for their own cars.
Beverly Diel, 1326 Pacific, stated she has lived in this house for 36 years. She shares a common
garage wall with the Dart/Morris properties. She is concerned that they will tear down the garage
y/fir
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 24
that is there. She wants her garage wall to remain. She is also concerned about the parking situation_
By 8:30 a.m. there are no parking spaces left in her neighborhood. She feels this will change the
residential feel of the neighborhood. She would like to see the plans maintain the larger trees in the
backyard and the inclusion of a fence.
Sharon Dobson, 1327 Pacific St., read a letter to the Commission from her neighbor Ursula Bishop
who had to leave the meeting due to the lateness of the hour. Ms. Bishop, 1265 Buchon St., and her
family are all active in the community. Their neighborhood is very important to them. She asks the
Commission to preserve the quality of historic homes and that the land use for 1318 Pacific not be
changed. She feels new office space can be built but the older homes cannot be replaced.
Ms. Dobson wants the nature of the neighborhood preserved. She feels the City should try to
preserve the older homes. She is also concerned about the parking situation. She feels the apartment
above the office is just a way to get the rezoning through the Commission. She feels this house
should remain a residence.
Michael Morris, 628 Oak Ridge, one of the property owners at 1318 Pacific, stated the law firm
located at 1304 Pacific has been in San Luis Obispo for 48 years. Their property has been well
maintained and has won a beautification award. When they considered purchasing Mrs. Dart's
property,they understood there would be conflicting policies that would need to be dealt with. He
feels their proposal deals with all of the issues which preserves the housing on the site by allowing
the second floor to be an apartment. This proposal will restore a great, old house. The house is
presently in deplorable condition, but it has tremendous potential. He feels their proposal will
enhance the parking in the neighborhood. They have asked their employees not to park in front of
the neighbors'houses. Traffic will be coming out of the back of the property. From Pacific St. there
will not be a visible difference between an office and a home. This will keep his law firm located in
downtown San Luis Obispo. They will meet whatever concerns are raised during the process with
regards to trees, fences, and etc. Mr. Morris offered to answer any questions.
The public comment session was closed.
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS:
Commissioner Senn asked, from a processing standpoint, if this amendment and rezoning are
approved, if it then it goes to the hands of the Architectural Review Commission.
Associate Planner McIlvaine stated that a recommendation for an S overlay will come back before
the Commission.
y i9
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 25
Manager Whisenand stated it would go to the Hearing Officer unless the Commission gave some
direction for this to come back before the Commission.
Commissioner Jeffrey stated he walked the property and Mr. Morris gave him a tour of the interior
of the home. The upstairs is very large. He feels a two-bedroom apartment is consistent with the
housing element. He feels if this house would be used as a residence it would require a great deal of
work. Mr.Morris has indicated he is willing to put up a fence and replace the common garage wall.
He believes the use is consistent and feels it would be advantageous for the City to have this property
restored. This will be an attractive site for the City.
Commissioner Senn made a motion to recommend approval of the application for the General Plan
amendment and the zoning change with the S overlay to the City Council, subject to the
recommendations and conditions attached to the staff report. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Kourakis.
Commissioner Kourakis would like the motion to include that an apartment needs to be retained with
the conversion of the house and that development is visually compatible with the adjacent neighbors.
Commissioner Senn accepted the amendment to the motion.
Commissioner Kourakis expressed concerns relative to the common garage wall.
Mr. Morris assured the Commission the common garage wall would be attended to the satisfaction
of the neighbors.
Commissioner Senn stated he is sensitive to both Mr. Morris and the neighbors. He believes this is
the best for the City. He concurred with Commissioner Jeffrey's previous statement. He observed
the prior Andre,Moms, &Butteries remodel and is impressed with how they have taken care of the
property. He feels this will be a benefit to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Veesart stated he will not be supporting the motion. He is concerned about the
intrusion of office space into the neighborhood.
Chairman Karleskint feels it is important to preserve the existing structure. He believes this a feasible
way of preserving this building. They will be keeping the residential aspect of it and at the same time
fulfilling the needs of the office.
Commissioner Veesart feels the house is restorable as a residence.
L1,a
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 26
AYES: Commissioners Senn, Kourakis, Jeffrey, and Chairman Karleskint
NOES: Commissioner Veesart
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Whittlesey
Commissioner Ready refrained from participating and voting due to a potential conflict of interest.
BUSINESS ITEM:
5. 748 Pismo Street: Other 58-96: General Plan conformance determination prior to sale of
City-owned property(Fire Station One) at 748 Pismo Street; O Zone; The City of San Luis
Obispo, applicant.
Manager Whisenand presented the staff report.
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS:
Commissioner Kourakis made a motion to find the disposition of surplus City property consistent
with policies of the City's General Plan and exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Veesart.
AYES: Commissioners Kourakis, Veesart, Senn, Ready, Jeffrey, and Chairman Karleskint
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Whittlesey
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
6. Staff
Manager Whisenand presented the agenda forecast for the Planning commission Meeting of May 22,
1996.
7. Commission
y2/
ATTAC AMENT 6
LU
0-1 �
UJ Ix
Z
z � N
O O D ¢ ¢W ¢ Q LL
¢ E d Q W d ~ Q.
n n blrn b W O U O J ¢ Q y Q
m Q F¢ moi— ¢f W
O n b ¢o pa 00 mW
_j co
W W W y O N J 2 m W W
LLJ 2 W O
Q y W W X U m m U W W U ¢C'S 2 r�V
OJ d f ¢ C F W m~ J Z�! 2 W Q O tL 0
Q W n m > W W CO W Q J_ O Q Q J W H Q
U' O f n U O _ LL ¢ ¢ F b 3 H 2O 00 m W (7 Z
z O U.e..¢LU d z Fa-¢ 2 V 2 m 2 ¢U q Z
Y U J J W io 0 N N Q 3 LL O J x W Q Q Q �
.Q Q J W dd OLL it J O 2 d O 2 CC W
Q m wLL 0 r W ¢ 6 00 iL -C .1-b z 0 C O
d n¢OOr F- ■
0 0 0 0T..
m W I O W O O G
e0 ¢ 6
2 4
W
W
W N ¢ O
U' � W O
Z y
W
LL W z_
2 F N O ¢
N W W = d
W m
IQI O
Y N
to 30N3d 9NI1SIX3 d0 3Nn
J
W
2
0
4 p 0 0
777
T ui
2 O O
� f
0 W
Y X ¢
¢ W f
6 07 a
W < O O
= Q W Q
yx W
U 2 H
w p O y LL
? O X Q
W
U O
F z S
Wto
0 N O 6
\ z
¢ O W
O V1,
w Z
4
O
u�iWI2�J�1 qW4�uµ�: '.III
' 9uaPaEnw ?der
.. O
O O
3nN3AY NOSNHOf ��
ANDRE, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
MORRIS
BUTTERY ATTACHMENT 7 oPacificPacific5t t
Post sr Office Box 730
San Luis Obispo
Califoinia 93406-OMO
Tclephonc 805/543.4171
Fax Numbcr 8051543-0752
iAaryellen X Simkins
Legal Administrator
June 11, 1996
Andrew Merriam Via Facsimile
Cannon Associates
364 Pacific Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Margaritaville Partners .
Dear Andrew,
Michael asked me to reply to your inquiry regarding the parking spaces on Pepper Street.
The parking lot is leased from Southern Pacific by the Pepper Parking Partnership which consists
of Peter Andre, Michael Morris, James Buttery and Dennis Law plus Marilyn Farmer. The
partners in SLO Pacific Properties, which is the owner of 1304 Pacific Street, are Peter Andre,
Michael Morris, James Buttery and Dennis Law. The shareholders in Andre, Morris &Buttery,
which leases the building from SLO Pacific, are Michael Morris, James Buttery, Dennis Law,
and 1. Todd Mirolla. The partners in Margaritaville Partners, which owns.1308 Pacific Street,
are the same as the shareholders in Andre, Morris & Buttery.
There are 17 parking spaces plus a handicapped space in the Pepper Street lot. Three are rented
to Pat Perry, four to Peoples Self Help Housing. Three are used by Marilyn Farmer and five
are used by SLO Pacific Properties. There is no rental agreement with the members of the
partnership. Two spaces are currently not rented or allocated to either of the partners.
If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to call me.
Very truly yours;
25
ATTACHMENT 8
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rrEM#4
BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: May 8, 1996
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager
FILE NUMBER: GP/R 33-96
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1318 Pacific Street
SUBJECT: Request to amend the Land Use Element (LUE) map designation from Medium-
Density Residential to Office, and amend the zoning map from R-2 to 0, for property located on
Pacific Street, near Johnson Avenue.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Review the initial study of environmental impact, and recommend approval of the amendments to the
City Council, with the addition of the"Special Considerations" overlay zone, based on findings.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The existing offices of the law firm of Andre, Morris& Buttery are located at 1304 Pacific Street,
the northwest comer of Johnson Avenue and Pacific Street. The firm wants to expand their offices
next door. To this end, they have purchased the subject site at 1318 Pacific Street, and have applied
to the City for a ?eneral plan amendment, rezoning and environmental review. The submitted
applications propose to change the LUE map designation for the site from Medium-Density
Residential to Office, and to rezone the site from R-2 to 0.
The Planning Commission reviews general plan and zoning amendments and makes a
recommendation to the City Council, which takes a final action on such requests.
Data Summary
Applicant: Andre, Morris&Buttery
Representative: Andrew Merriam, Cannon & Associates
Existing Zoning: Medium-Density Residential (R-2)
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation: Medium-Density Residential
Proposed Zoning: Office (0)
Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation: Office
Environmental Status: A Mitigative Negative Declaration was recommended by the Development
Review Manager on April 24, 1996. Final action on the initial study will be taken by the City
Council.
Project Action Deadline: Legislative actions not subject to processing deadlines.
y�y
GP/R 33-96
Page 2
Site Description
The relatively flat project site is currently developed with a house containing about 2,200 square feet
of floor area and a garage/shed building on the rear property line. The house is in deteriorated
condition and the grounds have been neglected. The house is not included on the City's master list
of historic resources or in a historical preservation zone. However, the house was built in 1912 and
was the home of Louisiana Clayton Dart who was actively involved in the City's historical
preservation efforts. Mrs. Dart lived in the house for 71 years and recently passed away.
The project site is located about three blocks beyond the downtown core (the C-C zone), and is
bordered by"0," Office zoning on its west and north, and by R-2 zoning on its east and south. The
surrounding neighborhood is composed of offices and residences. Most of the nearby offices are
located in buildings that were originally built as residences in the early part of the 20th century. The
Scolari's/Payless neighborhood shopping center is located across Johnson Avenue from the project
site.
Project Descritpion
The law firm wants to use theground floor of the existing house for offices (1,266 square feet) and
the upper floor as a two-bedroom apartment (925 square feet). The applicant's project statement
indicates that the architectural character of the existing house at 1318 Pacific Street will be retained,
but it will be rehabilitated. The firm's existing parking lot will be expanded by paving areas behind
the house. Access to the parking lot will be from Johnson Avenue.
EVALUATION
The proposed amendments will not result in significant physical changes to the environment. The site
can be developed as the applicant would like, be very attractive and fit in with the neighborhood. The
key issue with the project is whether it can be found to be consistent with the City's general plan as
adopted. The attached initial study concludes that it is possible to find the requests consistent with
the general plan with the retention of a housing unit on the site. However, there are significant policy
consistency questions associated with the project, especially with a specific policy contained in the
City's LUE regarding protection of residential land.
The following paragraphs discuss general plan policy issues associated with the requested
amendments:
1. Do the requested amendments adequately protect housing!
The proposed amendments would change the map designations of the property from Medium Density
Residential (LUE map) and R-2 (Zoning map) to Office (LUE map) and O (Zoning map). A key
component of the applicant's proposal is to retain residential use at the property with the inclusion
of a two-bedroom apartment on the second floor.
GP/R 33-96
Page 3
The following policy is the key one to an analysis of the proposal's consistency with the LUE. LUE
Section 2.6, Residential Land Protection, specifically Policy 2.6.2 says:
■ Policy 2.6.2 Boundary Adjustments The City may adjust land-use boundaries in a way that
would reduce land designated as residential, only if.-
A. A significant, long-term neighborhood or citywide need, which outweighs the preference to
retain residential capacity, will be met, and;
B. The need is best met at the proposed location and no comparable alternative exists.
The initial study concludes that if the request can be judged to retain the"residential capacity" of the
site(one house) with the inclusion of the second floor apartment, then the proposal may be viewed
to be consistent with the intent of this policy(no "net loss" in total housing units).
There are alternative ways to approach the analysis of the residential capacity of this site. One
important factor is that the site is developed with a residential building that has been used as a single-
family residence during its lifetime, rather than a vacant site. So although the site is zoned R-2, which
would allow for multiple dwelling units (1.79 equivalent units, which translates to one 3-bedroom
unit, or two 1-bedroom units, or a 2-bedroom unit and a studio, or 3 studios), the site has.historically
been used as a single dwelling unit.
It is unlikely that a request to demolish the house and build new multiple units would be approved
within the foreseeable future. It would be possible to divide the floor plan up to create additional
units by moving interior walls, adding a kitchen or kitchens, and developing required parking.
However, any net gain in residential capacity with redevelopment would be insignificant, given the
relatively small size of the site(6,500 square feet) and consequently, its limited development potential.
If it is judged that the residential capacity will be reduced even with inclusion of the apartment, then
decision makers will need to wrestle with the question whether criteria A. and B. above can be met.
A determination would need to be made that:
■ the site generally meets criteria for the location of professional office uses (see discussion
under Item 2 of the Evaluation);
■ will not adversely impact adjacent residential uses (also see discussion under Item 2 of the
Evaluation);
■ there is not a comparable site which would accommodate the expansion needs of this
particular business, given their present location and investment in this site (see discussion
under Item 4 of the Evaluation); and
y��
GP/R 33-96
Page 4
■ there is a significant need to attempt to accommodate existing businesses with links to the
downtown and government center, like law offices, in areas within walking distance of
downtown.
The initial study contains a mitigation measure that the proposal be modified to rezone the site O-S.
The existing zoning regulations require the processing of an administrative use permit when a
residence is converted into an office. However, the rezoning cannot be conditioned to require the
retention of the apartment unit. With the "S" overlay zone, the special consideration for the site can
be documented to provide direction with the review of the use permit that an apartment needs to be
retained with the conversion of the house into an office.
The"S" overlay zone is another tool to guarantee that the housing issue is not overlooked. Through
the review of the use permit, conditions can be imposed to assure that the apartment use is retained
at the site. It is likely that one condition would be a requirement for a covenant agreement that would
be recorded and run with the land to assure that the apartment use is retained at the site.
2. Is this a good place to put an office?
Section 3.3 Offices of the LUE outlines the basic locational criteria for different types of office uses.
Professional office zones have generally been established on the periphery of the Central Business
District. The rationale behind this land use strategy is to locate offices near the governmental and
retail center of downtown and provide a transition between more intensive commercial development
and residential neighborhoods. The project site is immediately adjacent on its north and west sides
to existing office zones and its location is on the periphery of downtown.
The project is generally consistent with the intent of LUE Office policies which are designed to
minimize impacts to adjoining residential areas. Although the project is not the specific situation that
the following policy was drafted to address, which is minor expansions of offices outside designated
areas, it does meet the given criteria which were designed to protect surrounding residential uses.
■ Policy 3.3.3 Offices Outside Designated Areas Existing office buildings outside the areas
described in policy 3.3.2 may continue to be used and may have minor expansions if they.
A.Have access directly from collector or arterial streets, not local residential streets;
B.Will not significantly increase traffic in residential areas;
C.Will not have significant adverse impacts.
The proposed amendments can be found to be consistent with this policy. With access from the
arterial street Johnson Avenue, the project will not significantly increase traffic in residential areas.
With the required processing of an administrative use permit and architectural review, site changes
to accommodate the office use with apartment can be adequately evaluated and regulated.
11-21-
GP/R 33-96
Page 5
3. Consistency with the Housing_Element
The following discussion was directly extracted from the initial study for the project. The key again
to finding the project consistent with the selected Housing Element policies is the proposal to retain
a housing unit in the project. The other important project component is the rehabilitation of the
existing house, rather than proposing demolition and development of a new building.
■ Goal 1.23:Housing Conseriviion. Consenye existing housing s-upply and prevent displacement
of current occupants
Conclusion: The proposal can be found to be consistent with this policy with the retention of an
apartment unit at the site. The house has been vacant since the death of the long--term owner Mrs.
Dart. Therefore, the project will not result in the displacement of occupants.
■ Policy 1.23.2 The City shall discourage the conversion or elimination of existing housing in
office, commercial and industrial areas.
Conclusion: With the retention of the apartment unit in the project, the proposal can be found to be
consistent with this policy.
4. Comparable Sites for Expansion
The LUE residential protection policy discussed under Item 1 above includes the following language:
"The need is best met at the proposed location and no comparable alternative exists."
There are other sites available in the Office zone where the applicant could find additional space that
would serve as law offices. The initial study prepared for another rezoning proposal (from R-3 to
0) reviewed by City in 1991 documented that there were 220 dwellings located in existing office
zones. With consideration for coversion of some of those residential buildings to offices over the past
five years, staff would estimate that the current number is about 200 dwellings. This provides a large
inventory of residences already zoned for office use that could be converted to offices. The question
then becomes is it reasonable to allow the firm to expand onto the adjacent property, rather than
creating a satellite site or moving the entire business to a new location.
The Commission as part of a recommendation to the Council for approval of the amendments would
need to find that there is not a comparable site which would accommodate the expansion needs of
this particular business, given their present location and investment in this site
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend that the City Council deny the proposed amendments, based on inconsistency with
the general plan. Planning Commission action is final unless appealed to the City Council
y�Y
GP/R 33-96
Page 6
2. Recommend that the City Council approve the request with modifications to the text of the Land
Use Element.
3. Continue review with direction to the applicant and staff.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
No other departments objected to the proposed change of use at the site. Specific requirements from
other departments would be incorporated as conditions of use permit approval or architectural
review.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend the approval of the request to amend the Land Use Element (LUE) map designation
from Medium-Density Residential to Office, and amend the zoning map from R-2 to 0-S, based on
the following findings:
1. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity because the proposed combination of residential and office
uses will not result in significant physical changes to the environment.
2. The proposed amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan,
given that residential use will be retained at the property with the inclusion of a two-bedroom
apartment on the second floor (no net loss in housing units), and the project will not
significantly increase traffic in residential areas with access to the proposed parking lot from
the arterial street Johnson Avenue.
3. The proposed "S" overlay zoning will document that an apartment needs to be retained with
the conversion of the house into an office as the special consideration for the site and will
require the processing of an administrative use permit to establish proposed uses.
4. The proposed development of the site is appropriate and will be compatible with surrounding
land uses because site changes to accommodate the office use with apartment can be
adequately evaluated and regulated with the required processing of an administrative use
permit and architectural review.
5. The project site is immediately adjacent on its north and west sides to existing office zones,
and its location is on the periphery of downtown generally meets criteria for the location of
professional office uses.
6. The loss in residential development capacity with redevelopment would be insignificant when
considered from a citywide perspective, given the relatively small size,of the site (6,500
square feet).
y�y
GP/R 33-96
Page 7
7. There is not a comparable site which would accommodate the expansion needs of this
particular business, given their present location and investment in this site.
8. There is a significant need to attempt to accommodate existing businesses with links to the
downtown and government center, like law offices, in areas within walking distance of
downtown.
9. The project involves the rehabilitation of the existing house, rather than the demolition and
development of a new building, which is consistent with general plan policies.
10.A Mitigative Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department
on April 24, 1996, which describes significant environmental impacts associated with project
development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation measures shown in the attached
initial study ER 33-96 being incorporated into the project.
Attached:
Vicinity Map
Exhibit "A" showing proposed map amendments
Applicant's Project Statement
Concept Plan for development of 1318 Pacific Street
Information on existing house
Mitigation Measures/Initial Study ER 33-96
I:Uoning\gpr33-96.wp
�!3 v
OFT
\17
\G\ .0T" 6 6 •
fl
�► ?�
4b
hFA. F°h� Ok o \ • 4\
. ,\1CY :• PlriR'�` y'� R. br h P\��,a
o�,b •.• p�y0 � O \� � 1q�h J OC�
�`h o
V
e�
Al
tihmix
N
Q �1
`klIV
ry 0 -
°2
r � \
N � Q
�o
VICINITY MAP GP/R 33-96 NORTH
1
318 PACIFIC
sem.\ GENERAL RETAIL
� OFFICES
♦\\\\4\� \ ♦�,\
PROPOSED OFFICE LAND USE
NEIGHBORHOOD
` MEDIUM DENSITY
COMMERCIAL x`\ -RESIDENTIAL
II I
\�` I C��• V . o ////,/.
LAND USE
fly
oo
,+ t / V '. •.�s, r, 'moi \`
PF
^ PROPOSED OFFICE ZONING
SP
:��'" - ..: ,'L`\\ �.r::... ':�.=�y ..=-.:,t4• .fin �, \ �\ �\
ZONING R-2 — MEDIUM DENSITY O OFFICE C—N — COMMERCIAUNEIGHBORHOOD
�anaon EXHIBIT "A" - LAND USE & ZONING
ASSOCIATES �_�
Marmon
ASSOCIATES PROJECT STATEMENT
General Plan Amendment and Rezoning for 1318 Pacific Street.
General plan policies and changes requested:
This request would change the subject property from a multi-family designation to
an office designation. The uses allowed in the changed designation coupled with
the use permit will allow both the retention of housing in the core area while
allowing expansion of office uses within walking distance of the downtown.
The proposed change will fit within the general existing pattern of urban use in the
area. The adjoining properties are designated for office uses along Marsh Street to
the north west and Johnson to the southwest.
Approval of this amendment will allow the firm of Andre, Morris and Buttery to
expand their existing law practice currently based in a converted residence at 1304
Pacific Street. This location has proven to be good for them in that it is within
walking distance of the courthouse and has enough parking for employees and
clients -- something that buildings more centered in the downtown core do not
provide with the same convenience yet this location is within the general core area
and promotes the vitality of downtown San Luis Obispo. These concepts are
supported within the general tenets of the downtown concept plan and the policy
statements of the general plan which seek to maintain professional offices in the
downtown.
The conditional use permit will condition the project to retain a two bedroom unit
on the upper floor thus meeting the general plan land use and housing elements
goals of retaining housing in the general core area of San Luis Obispo.
While not a part of the general plan change or the rezoning,-the conditional use
permit will address the issues of the potential visual changes to the neighborhood
and impacts to the traffic patterns. Supplemental information is provided here.
The applicant proposes that any development will be conditioned to require that
1) the basic exterior character of the old Dart home be retained (in fact it will be
rehabilitated and improved over its present condition) and 2)that the addition of a
improved two bedroom unit will be provided on the upper floor. From Pacific
Street there will be almost no visible change except the upgrade of the structure
and the improved landscaping which will match that of 1304 Pacific Street.
Conversion of the present structure to office on the lower floor will not increase
the impacts on parking since the additional parking required will be provided in the
rear yard with access through the existing parking lot and exiting onto Johnson
Avenue. Noise and use activities of up to six additional employees will not impact
the neighborhood as they will only be there primarily during the day.
7,77
�nnon
ASSOCIATES It is our belief, that the proposed amendment and rezoning is in character with the
intent of the general plan element and conforms with the housing element and the
downtown concept plan. No change in policies is required or requested.
Regarding the Housing Element, several Policies and the applicants response are
identified:
(2) "Conserve existing housing and cause the least possible displacement of
current occupants." (The house is vacant and was formerly occupied by
only one occupant).
(6) "Preserve the quality of existing neighborhoods,...." (There will be no
visible change to the neighborhood except the improvement of a now
somewhat rundown stnucture)
(10) "Develop and retain housing of sites that are suitable..." (A housing unit
will be retained at this site)
Downtown Physical Concept Plan Policies: The proposed expansion of a
consolidated office complex is within the general policy direction of concentrating
offices in the downtown core area
Rezoning changes requested:
In conformity with the general plan changes, the zoning requested would be
changed from R-2 to "O". The use permit will commit the applicant to retain a
two bedroom housing unit on the site.
Other comments:
• The restoration of the Dart Residence will be performed to a higher level when
this building is functioning as an office than if it were left to function as student
housing or perhaps torn down and replaced with an apartment or duplex allowed
in the R-2 zone..
• The balance of the neighborhood is mixed in character being surrounded on the
northwest and southwest by the office"0" zone along Johnson and Marsh Streets,
the northeast by the Southern Pacific Railroad and southeast by San Luis Creek.
This remnant pocket, in fact is composed of the equivalent of one block of R-2
zoning and contains some 11 structures with the equivalent of 16 two bedroom
units. In fact one of the houses at the end of Pacific street is occupied by the
American Heart Association and functions as an office. Some have argued that
this block of Pacific Street should be one of the expansion areas of the core along
with the rest of this end of town in the Monterey/Marsh Streets corridor up to the
railroad tracks. The applicant concurs with this long range general plan and
zoning projection as this is one of the few areas in town where this type of
expansion can occur.
95-1206 applicta
y 3y
1 2' 3 4 5 6
EXISTING
PARKING
i
I I
OT
I I
G
m
I I l
H.C. (NEW) MCI BIKE g
11 UP (RES) 1
7 H.C. RAMP.
11T1 _ _
XXIX: 9
TR
EL I
� :
L S
;L''t
.zPOT
ENTIA ENTRY' '
�.�-�--- (RES)[
•.`:•�EXIST — —
>sssx�N�<ssM1
OFFICE <> ''
HOUSE
lo
I
RES
`"<<
........................... .:. .
.............
LINE OF 121(--POTENTIAL
EXIST. FENCE I EXTRA SPACE
P/L PIL
PACIFIC STREET
3-12-96(9512061EXHIBRES)
Marmon CONCEPT PLAN: DART RESIDENCE
ASSOCIATES OFFICE & RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE
ANDREW G. MERRIAM, AIA, AICP
Cannon DANIEL S. HUTCHINSON, LS
ASSOCIATES
April 22, 1996
ENGINEERS
PLANNERS Pam Ricci, associate planner
Department of Community Development
SURVEYORS City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93406
RE: General Plan Amendment and Rezoning: 1318 Pacific St. Information
on existing structures.
Dear Pam:
Attached is the diagram of the upper and lower floors of the old Dart Residence at
1318 Pacific Street.
The upper floor has 925 square feet. The ground floor has 1266 square feet.
The existing office building which Andre, Morris and Buttery wishes to expand has
5300 square feet on two floors.
If I can be of further assistance, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
0�
Andrew G. Merriam, AIA, AICP
Principal
Attachment
95-1206 floom
364 PACIFIC STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
93401
CELEBRATING
805.544-7407 r,. � • •,..
FAx 805.544-3863
awns a ssmna
y 3S.
N
W
Q
V
Q
N
b N
GD Q
O N
W
O W
N
uwj
m 13SO1� a
O � L •�
Li
1 m O N
v g
�� p �r, r
O
NLLJ
io
m U
n
N
D an
f
a
o LU CL
o Z
a o a 0
,-Li LLJ : w `
( U) 1
LLI
2 O
2O J
20
O
7.1
n
v
Alf 37
Applicant Acceptance of Mitigation Measures
Project: ER 33-96
1318 Pacific Street
San Luis Obispo
This agreement is entered into by and between the City of San Luis Obispo and Andre,
Morris and Buttery on the 14 I'^ day of , 1996. The
following measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse environmental
impacts. Please sign the original and return it to the Community Development Department.
Mitigation Measures:
1 Mitigation Measure: The proposal shall be modified to rezone the site O-S. The
existing zoning regulations require the processing of an administrative use permit
when a residence is converted into an office. However, the rezoning cannot be
conditioned to require the retention of the apartment unit. With the "S" overlay
zone, the special consideration for the site can be documented to provide direction
with the review of the use permit that an apartment needs to be retained with the
conversion of the house into an office.
Monitoring Program: The Planning Commission and City Council must determine
that the proposed amendments are consistent with LUE policy by finding that the
residential capacity of the site will not be reduced with the inclusion of an apartment
in the project.
2 Mitigation Measure Through the required architectural review process, site
development plans shall be reviewed to evaluate parking lot development and
landscaping plans for buffering and screening between the project site and
adjoining lots.
Monitoring Program: Parking lot development and landscaping plans shall be
reviewed and monitored during architectural review and building permit plan check.
3 Mitigation Measure: Parking lot lighting shall be designed to be directed
downward and not cast glare onto adjacent properties. The specific design of
lighting shall reviewed through the required architectural review process, with
special attention given to the height and type of lighting fixtures.
Monitorinq Program: Parking lot lighting shall be reviewed and monitored through
the review of plans during architectural review and building permit plan check.
If the Community Development Director or hearing body determines that the above
mitigation measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify
the mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures.
I-/-3f(
ER 33-96
Mitigation Measures
Page 2
Please note that section 15070 (b) (1) of the California Administrative Code requires the
applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration is released for public review. This project will not be scheduled
for public review and hearing until this signed original is returned to the Community
Development Department.
on isetiew
d Michael is
De elopment Manager Andre, Morris and Buttery
cc: Andrew Merrian, Cannon & Associates
LeA33-96.mit
3y
i►►�i��������I�I��IIIII!IIIIIIIIIh1°"�°��i I III
II
� city osAn tuis oBispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
Andre, Morris & Buttery Rezoning (GP/R 33-96, ER 33-96)
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:
Pamela Ricci (805)781-7168
4. Project Location:
1318 Pacific Street, between Johnson Avenue and Pepper Street
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Andre, Morris & Buttery
1304 Pacific Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Exl� Medium-Density Residential
Proposed: Office
7. Zoning:
Existi�a R-2; Medium-Density Residential
Proposed- 0; Office
S. Description of the Project:
The existing offices of the law firm of Andre, Morris & Buttery are located at 1304
Pacific Street, the northwest corner of Johnson Avenue and Pacific Street. The firm
!O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
V� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. N—Alf)
►►��n��n►IIIIIIIIIII�II�IIIII�►►�1111°ill �
II
at o san �u�s oBispoY
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
wants to expand their offices next door. To this end, the firm has purchased the
subject site at 1318 Pacific Street, and has applied to the City for a general plan
amendment, rezoning and environmental review. The submitted applications
propose to change the Land Use Element map designation for the site from Medium-
Density Residential to Office, and to rezone the site from R-2 to 0.
The applicant's project statement indicates that the architectural character of the
existing house at 1318 Pacific Street will be retained, but it will be rehabilitated.
The floor plan will incorporate a two-bedroom apartment unit on the upper floor. The
firm's existing parking lot will be expanded by paving areas behind the house.
Access to the parking lot will be from Johnson Avenue.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The project site is located about three blocks beyond the downtown core (the C-C
zone), and is bordered by "0", Office zoning, on its west and north, and by R-2
zoning on its east and south.
The surrounding neighborhood is composed of offices and residences. Most of the
nearby offices are located in buildings that were originally built as residences in the
early part of the 20th century. The Scolari's/Payless neighborhood shopping center
is located across Johnson Avenue from the project site.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval,
or participation agreement).
None.
/O The city of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. /,
v Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. 7'All
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
X Land use and Planning Biological Resources X Aesthetics
Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
Water X Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Air Quality Public Services
Transportation and Utilities and Service
Circulation Systems
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
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.
find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there x
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATIVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
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 a significant effect(s) 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, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "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.
3
y�Z
April 24, 1996
gnatu Date
Ronald Whisenan. , Development Review Manager Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
Printed Name For
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 parentheses following each question. 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 (e. g.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 (e. g.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 off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
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 (e.g. 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.
4 y y3
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 33-96;1318 Pacific Street Issues Unless Impact
Page 5 Mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1,2 X
The proposed amendments would change the designations from Medium Density Residential (Land Use Element map)
and R-2 (Zoning map) to Office (LUE map) and 0 (Zoning map). A key component of the applicant's proposal is to
retain residential use at the property with the inclusion of a two-bedroom apartment on the second floor.
Land Use Element
Section 2.6, Residential Land Protection, specifically Policy 2.6.2 says:
■ Porcy 2.6 2 Boundary Adjustments The City may adjust land-use boundaries in a way that would reduce/and
designated as residential, only if.
A. A significant, long-term neighborhood or citywide need, which outweighs the preference to retain
residential capacity, will be met, and;
B. The need is best met at the proposed location and no comparable alternative exists.
Conclusion: If the request can be judged to retain the "residential capacity" of the site (one house) with the inclusion
of the second floor apartment, then the proposal may be viewed to be consistent with the intent of this policy (no
.net loss" in total housing units).
There are alternative ways to approach the analysis of the residential capacity of this site. One important factor is
that the site is developed with a residential building that has been used as a single-family residence during its
lifetime, rather than a vacant site. So although the site is zoned R-2, which would allow for multiple dwelling units
(1.79 equivalent units, which translates to one 3-bedroom unit, or two 1-bedroom units, or a 2-bedroom unit and a
studio, or 3 studios), the site has historically been used as a single dwelling unit. It is unlikely that a request to
demolish the house and build new multiple units would be approved within the foreseeable future. It would be
possible to divide the floor plan up to create additional units by moving interior walls, adding a kitchen or kitchens,
and developing required parking. However, any net gain in residential capacity with redevelopment would be
insignificant, given the relatively small size of the site (6,500 square feet) and consequently, its limited development
potential.
If it is judged that the residential capacity will be reduced even with inclusion of the apartment, then decision makers
will need to wrestle with the question whether criteria A. and B. above can be met. A determination would need to
be made that:
■ the site generally meets criteria for the location of professional office uses;
■ will not adversely impact adjacent residential uses;
• there is not a comparable site which would accommodate the expansion needs of this particular business,
given their present location and investment in this site; and
■ there is a significant need to attempt to accommodate existing businesses with links to the downtown and
government center, like law offices, in areas within walking distance of downtown.
5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 33-96;1318 Pacific Street Issues Unless Impact
Page 6 Mitigation
Incorporated
Mitigation Measure:
The proposal shall be modified to rezone the site 0-S. The existing zoning regulations require the processing of an
administrative use permit when a residence is converted into an office. However, the rezoning cannot be
conditioned to require the retention of the apartment unit. With the "S" overlay zone, the special consideration for
the site can be documented to provide direction with the review of the use permit that an apartment needs to be
retained with the conversion of the house into an office.
Section 3.3 Offices outlines the basic locational criteria for different types of office uses. Professional office zones
have generally been established on the periphery of the Central Business District. The rationale behind this land use
strategy is to locate offices near the governmental and retail center of downtown and provide a transition between
more intensive commercial development and residential neighborhoods.
■ Policy 3.3.3 Offices Outside Designated Areas Existing office buildings outside the areas described in policy
3.3.2 may continue to be used and may have minor expansions if they:
A. Have access directly from collector or arterial streets, not local residential streets-,
B. Will not significantly increase traffic in residential areas;
C. Will not have significant adverse impacts.
Conclusion: The proposed amendments can be found to be consistent with this policy. With access from the arterial
street Johnson Avenue, the project will not significantly increase traffic in residential areas. With the
required processing of an administrative use permit and architectural review, site changes to
accommodate the office use with apartment can be adequately evaluated and regulated.
Housina Element
■ Goal 1.23:Housing Conservation. Conserve existing housing supply and prevent displacement of current
occupants.
Conclusion: The proposal can be found to be consistent with this policy with the retention of an apartment unit at
the site. The house has been vacant since the death of the long-term owner Mrs. Dart. Therefore, the
project will not result in the displacement of occupants.
■ Policy 1.23.2 The City shall discourage the conversion or elimination of existing housing in office, commercial
and industrial areas.
Conclusion: With the retention of the apartment unit in the project, the proposal can be found to be consistent with
this policy.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 33-96:1318 Pacific Street Issues Unless Impact
Page 7 Mitigation
Incorporated
■ Policy 1.23.3 Since older dwellings can often be relocated and refurbished for considerably less cost than for a
comparable new dwelling, and since older dwellings may offer spatial and material amenities
unavailable in new dwellings, the City, in the interest of both economy and housing variety, will
encourage rehabilitating such dwellings rather than demolition.
■ Policy 1.23.6 The City shall preserve landmark and historic residential buildings.
Conclusion: The proposal will retain and rehabilitate the existing house.
■ Program 1.23.8 To maintain housing in residential/office portions of Downtown, the City will consider adopting a
no net housing loss'policy, requiring that housing units either be maintained, or, in the case of
office conversion of existing housing, be replaced on site or nearby. 'Downtown'means the area
bounded by Highway 101, the railroad tracks, and High Street.
Conclusion: With the retention of the apartment unit in the project, the proposal can be found to be consistent with this
policy.
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
The proposal will not result in the need for special environmental permits from other regulatory agencies.
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X
With access from the arterial street Johnson Avenue, the project will not significantly increase traffic in residential areas.
With the required processing of an administrative use permit and architectural review, site changes to accommodate the
office use with apartment can be adequately evaluated and regulated.
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to X
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population 1 X
projections?
The proposal will create additional office space for the existing law firm. The additional space will accommodate up to
six employees. This minimal increase in the capacity of the office will not contribute significantly to an increase in the
local population.
issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 33-96;1318 Pacific Street Issues Unless Impact
Page 8 Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or X
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or
major infrastructure?
This project involves an already developed site in an older neighborhood composed of residences and offices.
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X
With the retention of the apartment unit in the project, the proposal will not have any significant impacts on the City's
housing supply.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? X
b) Seismic ground shaking? X
I Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X
e) Landslides or mudflows? X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions X
from excavation, grading or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land? X
h) Expansive soils? X
i) Unique geologic or physical features? X
WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 33-96;1318 Pacific Street Issues Unless Impact
Page 9 Mitigation
Incorporated
Development of the parking lot at the rear of the site will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site and
decrease the ability for surface drainage to percolate effectively into the soil. Through the review of the required
architectural review application, changes to drainage patterns can be adequately evaluated with the grading and
landscaping plans developed for expansion of the parking lot.
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X
such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of X
surface water quality (e.g. 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 X
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of
an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X
otherwise available for public water supplies?
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an X
existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance with
APCD Environmental Guidelinesi?
9 y y�
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 33-96;1318 Pacific Street Issues Unless Impact
Page 10 Mitigation
Incorporated
The project size is below the minimum threshold for APCD's significance criteria. In concept, the project raises issues
with the loss of housing on the fringe of downtown. However, as a commercial project including housing, it is consistent
with mixed use design strategies to reduce trips.
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors? X
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 3 X
lased on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation estimates, the historic use of the building as a single
family house would generate about 10 vehicle trips per day. Estimates for use of the building as apartments would
increase the trip generation estimate to 15. ITE trip generation estimates for use of the building as ground floor offices
and a second floor apartment is 29 vehicle trips per day. The difference between the potential trip generation rate as
apartments with the proposed mixed use project is 14 vehicle trips per day or about 2 vehicle trips during either peak
a.m. or p.m. hours.
Conclusion: The project will result in the site being more intensively used by employees and customers and will add extra
trips to peak hour traffic. However, the increase in trip generation is not considered significant and will not
result in localized impacts that require mitigation. Cumulative impacts are addressed by the payment of
traffic impact fees established by the Circulation Element and later codified by ordinance.
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves X
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment))?
The project will result in an expansion of the existing parking lot serving the law offices. The access point will continue
to be off of Johnson Avenue. The existing driveway serves as the access for several parking lots. Therefore, the addition
of two additional vehicle trips during peak hours is not expected to result in significant safety concerns.
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X
The project will provide on-site parking to meet City ordinance requirements.
i Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X
10
y �y
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 33.96;1316 Pacific Street Issues Unless Impact
Page 11 Mitigation
Incorporated
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative x
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Through the architectural review process, the design and location of bicycle parking will be reviewed.
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility x
with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan)?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats x
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
or birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? x
There are no heritage trees on the site. Through the architectural review process, any proposals to remove trees or other
significant vegetation will be evaluated. Compensatory tree planting may be required.
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, x
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? x
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? x
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? x
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient x
manner? FT
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?
11
y s-o
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 33-96:1318 Pacific Street Issues unless Impact
Page 12 Mitigation
Incorporated
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or X
emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health 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
of trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? X
The development of a parking lot on the rear of the site will result in increases in noise levels associated with cars using
the site, mostly in daytime hours. With appropriate attention to buffering the parking lot from the adjacent residential
property, this increase in noise levels is expected to be insignificant.
Mitigation Measure:
Through the required architectural review process, site development plans shall be reviewed to evaluate parking lot
development and landscaping plans for buffering and screening between the project site and adjoining lots.
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 4,5 X
12 y s"/
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 33-96;1318 Pacific Street Issues Unless Impact
Page 13 Mitigation
Incorporated
The project site is located about 50 feet from Johnson Avenue and over 400 feet from the railroad tracks. The 1990
noise contour maps show that worst-case estimates of noise levels at the site are 60 dB and will increase to 65 dB with
build-out. The Noise Element indicates that levels of 60 dB are generally acceptable for outdoor activity areas and 45
dB for indoor areas for both residential and professional office uses.
Complying noise levels for interior spaces can be achieved through standard building techniques. The site in the future
will be in the "conditionally acceptable" in terms of exterior noise. The Draft Noise Element indicates that about 700
dwellings, generally built before the 1970s, in areas along arterial streets or near the railroad will be similarly affected.
However, the proposed land use change will not change ambient conditions, given the fact that offices and residential
uses are considered equally in terms of noise level exposure standards.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fre protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools?
X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
e) Other governmental services? X
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? X
b) Communications systems? X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
13
�1-s"L
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 33-96;1318 Pacific Street Issues Unless Impact
Page 14 Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Storm water drainage? X
f) Solid waste disposal? X
g) Local or regional water supplies? X
The City has adopted Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new development and land use
changes do not jeopardize adequate water service to current and new customers. Section 17.89.030 of the regulations
states that a water allocation shall be required in order to: "obtain a connection to the city water system for a structure
or facility not previously connected; change the use of land or buildings, whether or not a construction permit is also
required; obtain a construction permit."
The new uses are estimated to have an annual water use of 0.246 acre feet, while the existing house has a water use
factor of 0.30 acre feet. Therefore, the change in use will actually decrease projected water use and a water allocation
will not be required.
3. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? FX
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X
The project will rehabilitate the existing house and install new upgraded landscaping. This will result in positive, rather
than negative aesthetic impacts. The design of building modifications, landscaping, parking lot development and signage
will require the review and approval of the ARC.
c) Create light or glare? X
A parking lot is planned which would cover much of the western part of the project site. This area is somewhat buffered
from adjacent residential uses by fencing and vegetation, but there is the potential for glare from parking lot lighting to
impact nearby residences.
Mitigation Measure:
Parking lot lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not cast glare onto adjacent properties. The specific
design of lighting shall reviewed through the required architectural review process, with special attention given to the
height and type of lighting fixtures.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? X
14 ��sl
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 33-96;1318 Pacific Street Issues Unless Impact
Page 15 Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Disturb archaeological resources? X
C) Affect historical resources? X
The project involves the rehabilitatior. of the existing house which is currently in a deteriorated condition. The project
will protect the architectural and hist xical integrity of the existing house. The house, built in 1912, is not located in
a historical overlay zone or included cn any historic registers.
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which _TX
would affect unique ethnic cultur�; values?
-7
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X
potential impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the prop-,sal:
a) Increase the demand for neighbcrhood or regional parks X
or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational oppc rtunities? X
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF S.GNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the pote tial to degrade the quality X
of the environment, substantia.ly reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a f sh or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
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
California history or prehistory'
Without mitigation, the project weld have the potential to have adverse impacts for all the issue areas checked in the
table on page 3.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, X
to the disadvantage of long-te:m, environmental goals?
In this case, short- and long-term environmental goals are the same.
15 y S
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 33-96;1318 Pacific Street Issues Unless Impact
Page 16 Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, X
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
The project scale is small and results in relatively minor changes to the physical development of the site. Its scale keeps
it below many of the thresholds for determining a significant project-related impact exists. However, the degradation
of air quality, noise and the level of service on the City's street circulation system may result from the cumulative impacts
of small projects.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
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.
Final EIR: Land Use Element/Circulation Element Updates, August 1994.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope 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 address site-
specific conditions of the project.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094,
'51;Sunds"m v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222
_al. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
16
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 33-96;1318 Pacific Street Issues Unless Impact
Page 17 Mitigation
Incorporated
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element, August 1994.
2 City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element, September 1994.
3 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 4th Edition.
4 City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, Revised Hearing Draft, April 1996.
5 Draft City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook, March 1996.
19. MITIGATION MEASURESIMONITORING PROGRAM
1 Mitigation Measure: The proposal shall be modified to rezone the site O-S. The existing zoning regulations
require the processing of an administrative use permit when a residence is converted into an office.
However, the rezoning cannot be conditioned to require the retention of the apartment unit. With the "S"
overlay zone, the special consideration for the site can be documented to provide direction with the review of
the use permit that an apartment needs to be retained with the conversion of the house into an office.
Monitoring Prooram: The Planning Commission and City Council must determine that the proposed
amendments are consistent with LUE policy by finding that the residential capacity of the site will not be
reduced with the inclusion of an apartment in the project.
2 Mitigation MeastLm Through the required architectural review process, site development plans shall be
reviewed to evaluate parking lot development and landscaping plans for buffering and screening between the
project site and adjoining lots.
Monitoring Program: Parking lot development and landscaping plans shall be reviewed and monitored during
architectural review and building permit plan check.
3 Mitioation M as r : Parking lot lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not cast glare onto
adjacent properties. The specific design of lighting shall reviewed through the required architectural review
process, with special attention given to the height and type of lighting fixtures.
Monitoring Program: Parking lot lighting shall be reviewed and monitored through the review of plans during
architectural review and building permit plan check.
The above mitigation measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. Section
15070(b)(1) of the California Administrative Code requires the applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures before the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review. I hereby agree to the mitigation measures and
monitoring program outlined above.
Applicant Date
17
�'OUNCIL CDD DIR
� AO ❑ FlNDIR �
SAO 13 FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY. ❑ PW DIR
40 CL
ERIWRIG ❑ POL109 CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM p REC DIR
/ 3/ ��c+ S G•O�._p D FILE ❑ UTIL`DIA'
v ❑ PERS DIR
lea-
.�
aQ f- Gym -J� pa`1 '
I�LLy�it/ .C�!/r-e�/ L;ea�7G/�i�ii�/ •moo- .,Q�x�'��eri / .e%��evvr.�— • �!% �c
oee /4, �
RECEWE
.IUL. 3 1996
CITY CLERK
?1 LU.L O6io?O.CA
Trian Investments.Inc. it 805-544-2742 fU711196 (932a r'M pu3
MEL _,i, _ AGENDA s
DATE —
James P. Sargen
570 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
,'UL 0 1 V96
July 1, 1996
UNCIL WrODD DIR
Mayor Settle and City Council ' CAO ❑ FIN DIR
City of San Luis Obispo
AC ❑ FIRE CHIEF
City Hall r. ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR R
San Luis Obispo. CA 93401 : ;i CLERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF j
❑ MGMTTEAM D REC DIR i
BY FAX [3R D FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PERS DIR
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council:
I am writing in support of the application of Andre, Morris and Buttery to
convert the Dart House, located adjacent to their existing office into a
combined office and second floor rental unit. Approval of the proposal is
consistent %vith previous Council action.
Andre Morris has already shown that they have the ability to restore an aging
residence into a very attractive building. Their present offices in a restored
residence at the corner of Johnson and Pacific is an excellent example of the
way in which they will follow through in their plans for the Dart House.
These two former residences will sit in harmony with the other residential
buildings on Pacific.
In the current depressed real estate market, it takes additional economic
incentives to encourage a buyer to make the substantial investment in
restoring an older home. The offices of an established professional firm,
with their Iona term perspective can make the investment. Few buyers have
the resources or the patience to restore an older home.
The Andre Morris plan addresses parking, access, and maintains the
residential character of Pacific Street. It keeps a major professional office
located in the Downtown, in proximity to Courthouse, City Hall and the
offices of clients and other professionals who often work together. Clustering
these related uses makes sense.
I would urge the Council to look with favor on this application.
Yours truly,
Jim Sargen