Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/02/1996, 5 - LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENTS AND REZONING, FROM TOURIST COMMERCIAL TO OFFICE WITH SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS, FOR A BROADCAST STUDIO ON THE HILLTOP RESTAURANT SITE AT THE SOUTHERLY END OF CALLE JOAQUIN. council M °I_2_5l j Ac,Enda RCPORt C I TY OF SAN LU IS O B I S P O FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director Prepared By: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner Clow / SUBJECT: Land Use Element text and map amendments and rezoning, from Tourist Commercial to Office with Special Considerations, for a broadcast studio on the hilltop restaurant site at the southerly end of Calle Joaquin. CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a resolution to: (A) approve the negative declaration of environmental impact; (B) amend Land Use Element policy 3.3.3 to allow office designations in some additional, limited locations; and (C) amend the General Plan Land Use Element map, from Tourist Commercial to Office. 2. Introduce an ordinance to: (A) approve the negative declaration of environmental impact; (B) rezone about 2.7 acres from Tourist Commercial (C-T) to Office, with Special Considerations (O- S), which would require use permit review for any future substantial development or use other than a broadcast studio or single-story building; and (C) authorize printing the ordinance in summary form for public notice. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On June 12, 1996, the Planning Commission voted four to none (three Commissioners not present) to recommend the actions described above under "CAO Recommendation." (One Commissioner was absent from the meeting, while two stepped down for this item due to potential conflicts of interest.) DISCUSSION Situation KSBY-TV wants to relocate its broadcast studio to the subject site, and is requesting necessary City approvals. Data Summary Applicant: KSBY and SJL of California (Richard Armfield, General Manager) Applicant's Representatives: Design: APS (Randy Rea) Real Estate: Patterson Realty (Charles Senn) s-� Council Agenda Report - KSBY Rezoning Page 2 Data summary - continued Property Owner: Peram, a California Limited Partnership Owner's Representatives: Andre, Morris, and Buttery; Dan Dorn General Plan Land Use Map: Tourist Commercial Zoning: Tourist Commercial (C-T) Environmental Status: Director has approved a negative declaration for public review. City Action Deadline: None, since this is a legislative act. Site Description The developed part of the site consists of about 2.7 acres on the top of a low hill overlooking Highway 101, at the southwestern edge of the city. The developed area contains the existing building, which was originally constructed as a restaurant and which has been used as a restaurant and nightclub intermittently for the last 25 years or so. It also includes parldng lots and landscaped areas. Two billboards face the highway on the lower slope of the hill. The undeveloped part of the property is roughly 24 acres of sloping and nearly level land with grasses and scattered brush. The nearest urban uses (motels and restaurants) are about one-quarter mile away to the northeast. Except for Highway 101 at the foot of the hill, most surrounding land is used for cattle grazing or field crop cultivation. County land use designations, surrounding the projection of incorporated area that contains this site, are Agriculture on the more level areas and Rural Lands on the hills. The hillsides facing the site have a Sensitive Resource Area overlay, reflecting their scenic qualities and potential for archaeological resources and rare plant species. Project Description The applicant proposes to establish a broadcast studio at the site. The existing building would be remodeled and an addition would be constructed to accommodate the studio itself. The addition would occupy area previously used as a parking lot. Several antennas, including microwave dishes and large satellite dishes, would be installed within the previously developed area (described in detail in the attached initial study). The current land use designation and zone do not allow a broadcast studio, so the developed part of the site, which is designated Tourist Commercial, would be changed to Office. The Open Space designation which surrounds the developed part of the site would not be changed. (See attached maps.) The current designation and zone allow uses such as restaurants, motels, and service stations, and with separate City approval, some retail, recreational, and residential uses. Unless restricted by an overlay zone, the proposed designation and zone would allow a wide range of office uses and, with separate approval, hospitals, some types of schools, and group housing. The proposed Special Considerations (S) overlay zone would require separate City approval for substantial further development, and for adding a different type of use or replacing the broadcast studio with a different type of use. (It is not the intent to require use permit approval for the currently proposed changes and additions.) ,"-Z Council Agenda Report - KSBY Rezoning Page 3 Existing Land Use Element (LUE) policies 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 do not support an Office designation at this location. To accommodate the proposed Office designation, policy 3.3.3 would be revised to allow offices in additional, limited locations (attached resolution text exhibit). Other Discretionary City Approvals Architectural review will be required for the building addition, any exterior remodel, and antenna installation. Architectural review will be scheduled after the basic land use decision is made. Any required City approval of replacement uses for KSBY's existing Hill Street location will be considered separately. Evaluation In summary, the proposed broadcast studio is a reasonable use for the site, which has had difficulty sustaining allowable uses in the Tourist Commercial designation. This site provides an opportunity for the local television station to better meet its space and location needs, while reducing the impact of a nonconforming use on a residential neighborhood. General Plan Consistency In response to relevant General Plan policies, the proposed map changes would: • Help retain an existing business, while malting more productive use of an existing building (LUE goals 11 and 12); • Not significantly reduce opportunities for visitor-serving uses, due to the area and location involved (LUE 3.4.2 and 3.4.3); • Not significantly affect the jobs/housing relationship, due to changing from one commercial designation to another (LEE 1.4 and 2.6); • Maintain open space around the developed area (LUE 1.7.1 and 6.2.6.G); However, LUE policies 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 do not support an Office designation at this location. These policies limit the dispersion of office designations throughout the city. To accommodate the proposed land use map change while not opening all areas of the city to potential Office designation, policy 3.3.3 would be revised to allow offices in existing nonresidential buildings, where there would be no adverse impacts to nearby uses (attached text). Of course, such additional allowance would still be subject to the Zoning Regulations text and map. For example, the following could not be converted to offices unless the sites were rezoned or the text of the Zoning Regulations was amended: a church building in a residential zone; a warehouse or industrial building in the Manufacturing zone, except through a planned-development approval for spaces larger than 2,500 square feet. t-3 Council Agenda Report - KSBY Rezoning Page 4 Zoning Status of Antennas According to the Zoning Regulations table which shows the status of various uses in the zones, "Antennas (commercial broadcasting)" are not allowed in the Office zone, but they can be allowed with use permit approval in the Open Space, Public Facility, Service Commercial, and Manufacturing zones. While the Zoning Regulations do not contain a definition, previous interpretations have confirmed that antennas of the type proposed for the site are not considered to.be "commercial broadcasting" antennas. Such antennas are typically towers which exceed the normal building height limits of the City's zones. They have been located on sites which do not have buildings within the area needed for their guy wires and ground lines. KSBY's broadcasting antenna is located outside the city, on Cuesta Ridge. The antennas on the subject site would be used to receive network programing from satellites, relay signals from mobile equipment, provide two-way radio communication, and provide a signal for broadcast from Cuesta Ridge. They would not be tall towers. Zoning Strategy The main issue in considering KSBY's application is how to best accommodate the proposed use without opening the site to uses which would be inconsistent with the General Plan or incompatible with the setting. A broadcast studio is an allowed use in the Office, Central Commercial, Retail Commercial, Service Commercial, and Manufacturing zones. Land Use Element policies limit the dispersion of Office and Retail Commercial uses outside identified locations. While Service Commercial and Manufacturing locations are somewhat less constrained by policy, these zones allow uses that are more likely than office uses to have unacceptable aesthetic impacts at this highly visible location. Zoning the site Service Commercial or Manufacturing could place a large burden for assuring compatibility on architectural review and use permit review procedures, if in the future some uses other than a broadcast studio are proposed. Staff advised the applicant that the best approach would be an Office designation, with the Special Considerations (S) overlay zone to "screen out" uses inconsistent with the General Plan. This is the proposal before the Council. Several alternatives to the proposed Land Use Element amendment and rezoning were considered by staff, but found to be less desirable for a variety of reasons. The alternative of a Planned Development (PD) overlay was seen as rather cumbersome, since the project includes no significant new development and no exceptions to zoning standards such as height, coverage, setbacks, or parking. The alternative of amending the Land Use Element text and the Zoning Regulations to permit broadcast studios in Tourist Commercial areas was seen as unnecessarily broadening the land.use issue to a citywide setting, and less in keeping with the spirit of the adopted policies for various commercial designations (LUE policy 3.4.3, in particular). s� Council Agenda Report - KSBY Rezoning Page 5 FISCAL EMPACT There are no fiscal impacts associated with the recommended actions. ALTERNATIVES The Council may deny the proposed amendments. The Council may continue action. Attachments Draft resolution amending General Plan text and map Draft ordinance rezoning from C-T to O-S Draft ordinance synopsis Draft resolution denying proposed amendments Tniti77 -nLArnnMPAtP1 ettIA— Planning Comm. Resolution Applicant's statements (letters) CARS-2.KSB s- RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT CONCERNING OFFICE LOCATIONS AND MAP CONCERNING 1772 CALLE JOAQUIN (GP/R 31-96) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 12, 1996, and recommended approval of the amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 2, 1996, and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the rest of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission (ER 31-96). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby takes the following actions: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed text and map amendments, and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration. SECTION 2. The Land Use Element text is amended as shown in Exhibit A, attached. SECTION 3. The Land Use Element map is amended as shown in Exhibit B, attached. SECTION 4. The Community Development Director shall cause the amendments to be reflected in documents which are on display in City Hall and which are available for public use. SECTION 5. The amendments shall take affect at the expiration of 30 days following approval. �-G Resolution No. Page 2 Upon motion of _ __ seconded i;y _. and on the following roll cal]`vote: -� - AYES: NOES' ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of — _— -- - — 1996: Mayor-Allen K: ATTEST: City. Uerk --- APPROVED AS`TO F.ORMe i_ o-- ec-rck.ksb -- 5 7 Resolution No. EXHIBIT A GP 31-96 3.3.2 Office Locations [No change; shown for context.) A. All types of offices are appropriate in the downtown General Retail district, but are discouraged at street level in storefronts of the commercial core. B. All types of office activities are appropriate in the Office district which surrounds the downtown commercial area, though offices needing very large buildings or generating substantial traffic may not be appropriate in the area which provides a transition to residential neighborhoods. C. Medical services should be near the hospitals. D. Government social services and the regional offices of state and federal agencies should be near the intersections of South Higuera Street, Prado Road, and Highway 101 (Figure 5); E. Large offices, with no single tenant space less than 2,500 square feet, and having no substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown government services may be in Services and Manufacturing districts, subject to approval of a Planned Development zoning application. 3.3.3 Offices Outside Besignate4 )<'re� Areas Existing office ti iT x eapt buildings outside the areas described in policy 3.3.2 may contince 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 on nearby uses. r-� Resolution No. EXHIBIT B GP 31-96 OHO _ -- .� ♦����������������\ - Amend Land Use Map TOURIST COMMERCIAL to OFFICE i ORDINANCE NO. (1996 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM TOURIST COMMERCIAL (C-T) TO OFFICE WITH SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS (0-S) AT 1772 CALLE JOAQUIN (GP/R 31-96) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 12, 1996, and recommended approval of the amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 2, 1996, and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission (ER 31-96). BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed zoning map amendment, and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration. SECTION 2. The Zone Map is hereby amended to change the classification of about 2.7 acres at 1772 Calle Joaquin from Tourist Commercial (C-T)to Office with Special Considerations (0-S) as shown in Exhibit A, attached. Ordinance No. Page 2 SECTION 3. The Special Considerations zone is applied to assure that any future substantial development or use of the site by other than a broadcast studio, or other than a one- story building, will be subject to a use permit for determination of consistency with the General Plan. SECTION 4. 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 meetings held on the day of 1996, on a motion of seconded by--------., and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Mayor Allen K. Settle City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: *me rez-ordksb Ordinance No. EXHIBIT A R 31-96 V o 7NE spmy Wi J %C?0 ; ' f i Rezone C-T to o-S �c 100 F-T. C/ 10 S-/z [DRAFT SYNOPSIS] ORDINANCE NO. (1996 SERIES) REZONING AT 1772 CALLE JOAQUIN On July 2, 1996, the San Luis Obispo City Council voted [ vote ] to introduce Ordinance No. , which would rezone about 2.7 acres at the southerly end of Calle Joaquin from Tourist Commercial (C-,f) to Office with Special with Special Considerations (O-S) (map below). The Special Considerations zone would require use permit review of any future substantial development or use of the site by other than a broadcast studio, or other than a one- story building, to assure consistency with the General Plan. The Council must vote again to approve this ordinance before it can take effect. That action is tentatively scheduled for July 16, 1996, at a Regular City Council meeting to begin at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Copies of the complete ordinance are available in the City Clerk's Office, Room No. 1 of City Hall. For more information, contact the Community Development Department at 781-7172. City Clerk ordsum.ksb RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT CONCERNING OFFICE LOCATIONS AND MAP CONCERNING 1772 CALLE JOAQUIN (GP/R 31-96) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 12, 1996, and recommended approval of the amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, the City.Council conducted a public hearing on July 2, 1996, and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission (ER 31-96); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments are not consistent with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby denies the proposed text and map amendments. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 1996. Mayor Allen K. Settle ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: res*hy x&b II City Of SAn luis OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: KSBY Relocation (ER 31-96) 2. Lead Agency: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Glen Matteson; 805 781-7165 4. Project Location: 1772 Calle Joaquin ("Loco Ranchero" site on the hill at the southwest end of Calle Joaquin --see attached map) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: KSBY-TV (Richard Armfield) 467 Hill Street, San Luis Obispo 93405 6. General Plan Designation: Tourist Commercial 7. Zoning: Tourist Commercial (C-T) 8. Description of the Project: The applicant proposes to establish a broadcast studio at the site. The existing 12,000-square-foot building was originally constructed as a restaurant,'and it has been used as a restaurant and nightclub intermittently for the last 25 years or so. The existing building would be remodeled and an addition would be constructed on the southwest corner, to accommodate the studio itself. This addition would be about 40 feet by 60 feet, and about 25 feet tall. Future building additions of up to 10,000 square-feet may be proposed. Several antennas would be installed: Three or four parabolic ("dish") antennas, five to six feet in diameter, for microwave signals to the broadcast antenna on Cuesta Peak; mounted on the ground within the developed area of the site. About 12 satellite dishes, six to 20 feet in diameter; mounted on the ground in the lower (southerly) parking lot; a building about 12-feet by 12- feet and nine feet tall may be needed to house electronic equipment. Several pole antennas for two-way radio communication and conventional television-reception antennas, mounted on the building. 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. Because the current land use designation and zone do not allow a broadcast studio, the developed part of the site, which is designated Tourist Commercial, would be changed to Office. The Open Space designation which surrounds the developed part and which covers most of the site would not be changed. The current designation and zone allow uses such as restaurants, motels, and service stations, and with separate approval, some retail, recreational, and residential uses. Unless restricted by an overlay zone, the proposed designation and zone would allow a wide range of office uses and, with separate approval, hospitals, some types of schools, and group housing. With the proposed additional "S" zone, separate City approval would be needed for a different use to be added to, or replace, the broadcast studio. The site is not specifically included in the Land Use Element's listing of appropriate office locations, so a policy concerning office uses in additional areas would be revised to allow offices in existing commercial buildings, where there would be no adverse impacts to nearby uses (policy 3.3.3). 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The developed part of the site consists of about 2.7 acres on a low hill overlooking Highway 101, at the southwestern edge of the city. Two billboards facing the southbound Highway 101 lanes have been installed on the property near the foot of the hill. The nearest urban uses (motels and restaurants) are about one-quarter mile to the northeast. Except for Highway 101 at the foot of the hill, most surrounding land is used for cattle grazing or field crop cultivation. County land use designations, surrounding the projection of incorporated area that contains this site, are Agriculture on the more level areas and Rural Lands on the hills. The hillsides facing the site have a Sensitive Resource Area overlay, reflecting their scenic qualities and potential for archaeological resources and rare plant species. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (such as permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): The applicant will request that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approve a license for the new location of the microwave transmitter which links the studio with the broadcast antenna on Cuesta Peak. The FCC's interest in knowing the location, type, and power of transmitting antennae is to deal with issues of electronic interference among various broadcast and reception facilities. Approval of the new location is expected to be routine. 5= 17 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 X Geological Problems X Hazards Recreation Water X Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality Public Services Transportation and Utilities and Service Circulation Systems DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and X a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATIVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have 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. 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 S �� Signature: f ' Date: John Mand4/111e, Long Range Planning Manager For: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir. 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 CEOA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063® (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 s�� '%sues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1 X Land Use Element (LUE) goals 11 and 12 support retaining the existing broadcast business in the city, and making productive use of the existing building. No policies prevent or discourage the intended type of use at this loca'ion. The General Plan does not directly address location of broadcast studios. The Zoning Regulations do list them as a separate category, and allow them in several zones. Changes to the land use map designation and zone raise issues of consistency with LUE policies 3.3.2 and 3.3.3, which describe where various types of offices are appropriate. Taken as a whole, these policies discourage the following from locating at the proposed site: - Medical services, which should be near hospitals; - Government social services and regional offices of state and federal agencies, which should be near the intersections of South Higuera Street, Prado Road, and Highway 101; - Offices with substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown government facilities, which Should be in the downtown commercial area or in the Office district which surrounds it. Some of these types of offices are normally allowed by right in the Office zone. To assure that any future use of the 'ite is consistent with the General Plan, the Special Considerations (S) combining zone would be added to the Office .3ne. The "S" zone would make subject to approval by the City any substantial redevelopment of the site or establishment of any new use in addition to, or in replacement of, the broadcast studio. LUE policies 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 imply that office designations should not be dispersed throughout the city. To accommodate the proposed land use map change without opening all areas of the city to potential Office designation, policy 3.3.3 would be revised to allow offices in existing commercial buildings, where there would be no adverse impacts to nearby uses. (This text amendment itself will have no significant adverse impacts.) According to various other policies, it would not be consistent to establish offices or a broadcast studio at this location if doing so resulted in less land being designated for residential or open space uses. There will be no reduction in those designations. b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X The broadcast studio is expected to be compatible in terms of traffic, noise, solid waste or litter, fire hazard, law enforcement services, and property maintenance, which have been concerns with the previous uses. d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to 2 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)? 5 S�-ZO Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or X indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? 3 X b) Seismic ground shaking? 3,4 X Any structure in San Luis Obispo is subject to earthquakes. New construction will be subject to building codes intended to minimize risk to life and property. Relocation of the broadcast studio will allow newly installed equipment to be more firmly attached than at the present location, and therefore improve reliability of broadcast communications in the event of an earthquake. c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 3 X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 3 X e) Landslides or mudflows? 3 X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions 4 X from excavation, grading or fill? Minor changes in topography will be required for the studio addition. This addition will be on the developed part of the site, which is nearly level. Building code compliance will assure no significant impacts. g) Subsidence of the land? 3 7 X 6 'sues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated h) Expansive soils? 4 X Expansive spoils, which are common in the city and are found at this site, can result in damage to structures and utilities if foundations are not properly designed. Building code compliance will assure that the building addition is stable. 1) Unique geologic or physical features? L X 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: X a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? The increase in impervious surface will not be significant. 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 7 J r�Z Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated U 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 existing 5 X or projected air quality violation (Compliance with APCD Environmental Guidelines)? 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? X b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves X or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X While the site is at the end of a long road with access only from the northerly end, City Police and Fire departments have indicated that the project can be adequately served. Demands for emergency response are expected to be lower with the proposed use than with the previous uses. d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X 8 'sues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The site is not convenient to public transportation. However, the total number of trips to the site is expected to be lower with the proposed designation and use than with the previous designation and use. g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility 6 X with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan)? The site is within the area subject to the County's Airport Land Use Plan. According to the plan map, the site is close to the boundary between airport land use zones 5 and 6. According to the use table, office buildings are compatible in both of these zones. None of the proposed broadcast facilities are expected to be incompatible with airport operations. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats 2, 7, X (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals 8 or birds)? I Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, 2, 7 X coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? 2 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? 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? 9 S�i?� Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact 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? Exposure of employees, visitors, and neighbors to electromagnetic fields from electrical and electronic equipment is a growing public concern. Generation of fields is not expected to be significantly different at this location than at the existing location or at other commercial broadcast facilities. The proposed site offers more flexibility for equipment location, and more separation from neighbors, than the existing location. d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health 9,10 X hazards? Electrical transmission lines run about 500 feet southwest of the site. They do not pose a hazard. A petroleum pipeline runs through the site, near the proposed building addition. It's location will be marked so it can be avoided during construction. The project is not expected to increase hazard exposure. e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass 9 X or trees? The project vicinity is designated as having a moderate wildland fire hazard, due to slopes and vegetation. The project is not expected to increase fire risks or risk exposure, due to the type and extent of proposed activities. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 11 X The project is consistent with the noise exposure standards of the adopted Noise'Element and the draft update Noise Element(adoption pending). The predicted noise level due to Highway 101 traffic is about 65 dB Ld„ (which is normally or conditionally acceptable for offices) along the northeastern edge of the developed area, considering area topography. Observed, outdoor traffic noise from Highway 101 is noticeable, but it does not interfere with conversation, which is consistent with the exposure predicted by mathematical modeling. Predicted aircraft noise exposure is less than 60 dB CNEL. Indoor noise exposure, which is a particular concern for a broadcast studio, will be made acceptable for the intended occupant through construction of the building addition and remodel. 10 -,sues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X e) Other governmental services? x L. 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? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? X f) Solid waste disposal) L X g) Local or regional water supplies? X 11 S �6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 12, X 13 The Irish Hills are an important part of San Luis Obispo's scenic setting. This low hill is at the southern end of the Irish Hills. The Scenic Roadways section of the General Plan Circulation Element identifies as "roads of high scenic value:" South Higuera Street from the vicinity of Tank farm Road southward; Highway 101 from the Dalidio area southward; Los Osos Valley Road from Auto Park Way to Highway 101. The project site is visible from most of these road segments. The building addition is not expected to be visible from these road segments, due to the existing building, the brows of the hill, and existing mature trees. The lower parking lot, where the satellite dish antennas would be located, is visible only from a part of Highway 101 northbound, ending about 314 mile south of the site, and from a short section of South Higuera Street near the octagonal barn. Additional trees can screen the satellite antennas from these views. While precise locations for the microwave antennas are constrained by the need for a clear line of sight to Cuesta Peak, there appears to be sufficient space in the vicinity of the proposed addition to locate them to minimize visibility. Rooftop antenna will be relatively small, and can be placed on the roof slopes that face away from principal roads. It will be possible to avoid having any antenna's silhouette visible against the sky when viewed from off the site. Architectural review will be required for the building addition and new antennas. Positions, colors, and screen planting will be subject to architectural review, so significant visual impacts will be avoided. b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X See item "a" above. c) Create light orXIare? X Parking lots are expected to be illuminated. The height and shielding of light fixtures will be subject to architectural review, so glare can be avoided. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X c) Affect historical resources? X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which X would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X potential impact area? 12 sues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or X other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of X the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a 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? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to X the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? 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) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 13 s=z�r 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects hay, been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 0 (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. There is no relevant earlier analysis. 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. Not applicable. 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. Not applicable. 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, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 City of S.L.O. General Plan Land Use Element, pages 36, 38, 39, and 65. 2 City of S.L.O. General Plan Open Space Element. 3 City of S.L.O. General Plan Seismic Safety Element map. 4 Uniform Construction Codes as adopted and amended by City of S.L.O. 5 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, August 1995, S.L.O. County A.P.C.D., page 3. 6 S.L.O. County Airport Land Use Plan, map and page 12. 7 City of S.L.O. Informational Map Atlas. 8 California Natural Diversity Data Base. 9 City of S.L.O. General Plan Safety Element map. 10 U.S.G.S. topographic map, San Luis Obispo quadrangle. 11 City of S.L.O. General Plan Noise Element. 12 City of S.L.O. General Plan Circulation Element, page 39. 13 City of S.L.O. Architectural Review Guidelines. 14 S'-29 9. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM Mitigation will be accomplished by existing code requirements. The Special Considerations (S) zone will be combined with the Office zone, requiring separate City approval for any substantial future development or change in use, thereby assuring consistency with General Plan policies. Architectural review will be required for building and equipment changes. No separate monitoring is required. IES.KSB GM 42496 15 S�30 so �o QPM J= JOP N �R/pp�4 1 �4S PRAD CHUPARROSA LOS VERDES z_ OS VERDE Cp� o � tiTq Q Qa, W jOF�p�4 W� LOS M PALOS W U 7 SITE VJ S VICINITY MAP CP/R 31-96 NORTH 1772 CALLS JOAQUIN � . S-3/ SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5185-96 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct a public hearing in the Council Chamber of the San Luis Obispo City Hall, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 12, 1996, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under City File: GP/R and ER 31-96; KSBY, applicant. LAND USE/ZONING CHANGE REVIEWED: Land Use Element text and map amendments and rezoning, from Tourist Commercial to Office, for a broadcast studio on the hilltop restaurant site at the southerly end of Calle Joaquin. DESCRIPTION: On file in the office of Community Development, City Hall. GENERAL LOCATION: 1772 Calle Joaquin GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT: Tourist Commercial. PRESENT ZONING: C-T WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and studies made by itself, and in behalf of testimonies offered at said hearing, has established existence of the following circumstances: 1. The proposed broadcast studio is a reasonable use for the site, which has had difficulty sustaining allowable uses in the Tourist Commercial designation. This site provides an opportunity for the local television station to better meet its space and location needs, while reducing the impact of a nonconforming use on a residential neighborhood; Resolution No. 5185-96 GP/R 31-96 Page 2 2. The proposed amendments and rezoning are consistent with all other applicable policies of the General Plan; 3. The Negative Declaration adequately describes the potential for the project to impact the environment; 4. The visual prominence of the site makes careful design of future structures very important. Subsequent review of the height and location of future buildings and antennas is vital. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends the following to the City Council: 1. That no additional environmental study is required. 2. (A) Land Use Element policy 3.3.3 be amended to allow Office designations in some additional, limited locations; (B) The General Plan Land Use Element map be amended from Tourist Commercial to Office; and (C) That the site be rezoned from Tourist Commercial (C-T) to Office, with Special Considerations(O-S), which would require use permit review for any future substantial development or use other than a broadcast studio or other than a one-story building. The foregoing resolution was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo upon the motion of Commr. Kourakis, seconded by Commr. Veesart, and upon the following roll call vote: AYES: Kourakis, Veesart, Jeffrey, and Karleskint NOES: None ABSENT: Ready, Senn, and Whittlesey Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary Planning Commission L:%Pc15195-9e.pc S=3 467 KII Sheet San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 Y2 3 ,�Z• qb 805.541-6666 Fmc:805-541.5142 c 2� 0 P/P- KSBY March 11, 1996 Mr. Glen Matteson Mr. John Mandeville City Hall City of San Luis Obispo Gentlemen: This is to support the General Plan Amendment Application checklist for the above property: 1. The completed planning application form is attached. 2. The following provisions in the General Plan Land Use Element support the Amendment and Rezoning: a. Page 7 -Item 11 -The relocation is consistent with retaining existing businesses and accommodating the expansion of existing businesses. b. Page 7 - Item 11 -The re-use of the former restaurant facility is consistent by providing a more productive use of an existing commercial building and land area. C. Page 25 -Relocation of KSBY from the primarily residential neighborhood on Hill Street to Calle Jacquin is consistent with numerous premises on conservation and development of residential neighborhoods. 3. The relocation to Calle Jacquin by KSBY will benefit the community for the following additional reasons: a. Less police related issues at the location. We understand that the previous uses such as Loco Ranchero required regular police activity at 1772 Calle Jacquin. b. The direct"line-of-sight" between the location and our transmission facility on Cuesta Peak will enable us to continue providing good quality TV reception for area residents. C. This will provide a stable, long-term occupant to a building which has been in a state of transition for over ten years. d. The proposed use appears consistent with city elements and the amount of traffic to the subject location should be significantly less than if the subject locations were functioning as a 12,000 sq. ft. restaurant and/or night club. 4. The proposed use is consistent with Item G on page 65. The site will be continued for a commercial use and there will be no further development of the the hill. There will be modification of existing development with an addition to the building. 5. A map from the General Plan Land Use map showing the designated area is attached. 6. The relocation to 1772 Calle Jacquin must be approved by the Federal Communications Commission. To our knowledge there are no other governmental authorities that must approve the relocation other than appropriate officials of the City of San Luis Obispo. Thank you for your help and please call me with any questions. Respectively submitted, Richard B. Armfield President/General Manager �;uis ob'o,CA 93405 RECEIVED 805.541-6666 F=805.541-5142 APR 2 :; 1996 CITY OF SAN LUIS OSISpo "1GAMUNIIY nFVELOPMEMr KSBY April 23, 1996 Mr. Arnold Jonas hand delivered Re: 1772 Calle Joaquin Dear Mr. Jonas: Thank you for your phone call. Please be assured that we are committed to processing the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change as quickly as possible given the highly technical nature of some of our requirements. Inspection of our Hill Street location can provide insight on the general antenna requirements. The Calle Joaquin location, however, should have less visual impact because we can avoid placing the satellite antennas on the roof of the building. In addition, none of the building additions, satellites, or antennas would be located on or near the hillside facing Highway 101. That property is leased to another party and is not available for our use. We are analyzing our long-term requirements with the intention that modifications to the site will be to areas that have already been developed. There may be some modifications, such as a building in place of parking lots, etc. The major changes presently anticipated are: 1. Building a. Studio construction. It will be necessary to add an area approximately 40x60 feet with a ceiling height of approximately 22 feet for a studio. We anticipate this will be located on the south-west corner of the existing building near the current main entrance to the building. b. Probable need to add 5,000-10,000 sq. ft +/- in two to ten years. -,r-36 Any addition or modification will consider the existing terrain, landscaping, mature trees and other qualities. We will do whatever is reasonable to ensure minimum impact. 2. Antenna--Initially we would locate three to four microwave parabolic antennas (generally 1.5-2 meters in diameter). These must have line-of-sight view to Cuesta Peak. They should have minimum visual impact because we believe they can be placed on the ground and designed attractively. 3. Satellite Dishes-- There will be approximately a dozen satellite dishes approximately 2-6 meters in diameter. At this point we anticipate locating these on the lower parking lot since it will provide minimum visibility to all areas and they are shielded by an existing tree line. A small (12x12)building may be necessary in this area to house electronics. 4. Traditional Antenna— On the building there will be located several smaller traditional antennas for two-way radio, regular television reception, etc. These will be designed to provide minimal visual impact. I hope this provides the information you need at this time. If you need anything further on the processing of our General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, please let us know. We will be happy to meet individually with any member of the Staff, the Planning Commission, or City Council to let them conduct a thorough on-site investigation. We look forward to hearing from you. Cordially, 7T: Richard B. Armfield President/General Manager CC: Charles Senn, Patterson Realty S 7 .