Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/1996, 4 - PD 60-96: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING TO ALLOW LARGE OFFICES IN A PROPOSED NEW BUILDING, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PACIFIC STREET, BETWEEN ARCHER AND CARMEL STREETS. council M.,ftD 'R_ ,1 _940 j acEnaa Report hm C ITY O F S AN LU I S O B I S P O FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Develop t Director Prepared By: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PD 60-%: Planned Development rezoning to allow large offices in a proposed new building, on the south side of Pacific Street, between Archer and Carmel Streets. CAO RECOMMENDATION Pass to print an ordinance approving the rezoning, as recommended by the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION The attached Planning Commission report summarizes the request and provides an evaluation. Situation The applicant wants to build an office building in a Service Commercial (C-S) zone. Most types of offices are not normally allowed in the C-S zone. Large offices, however (2,500 square feet or larger) can be permitted with approval of a planned development rezoning. Therefore, the applicant has requested approval of a planned development rezoning to allow large offices. The Zoning Regulations currently do not allow planned development rezonings in this zone on parcels smaller than one acre. A text amendment to eliminate the one-acre limitation is to be considered at this same meeting, as part of a package of zoning amendments to implement the General Plan Land Use Element. The draft ordinance includes a provision that the rezoning will be effective when that amendment is effective. Planning Co _csion action The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request on June 12, 1996. CONCURRENCES No department had concerns with this request. FISCAL IMPACT The zoning map change will have no fiscal impact on the City. PD 60-96 355 Pacific Stfeet Page.2 ALTERNATIVES The City Council may deny the request, if it makes findings for denial. The Council may continue action. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant. .The.Council. may approve the request with conditions. Attachments vicinity map draft.ordinance Planning Commission report Planning Commission minutes: Jund 12, 1996 _ Environmental initial study G/ Z . i. c A 07 All, Ooa 9 T MA 9 9 A� lb �aC fro �titi1 y �J ti atE55 �. t16 r� A. O oa Py i 3 T 0P 3 N It ti r 3 t,\ k �6qp q� R- 3 03 Atop P 3 2 �3� 3 sV A Y� 0e yrs! v (at' PTh M1 qy Sr ^] nJ 3 3 p� 7 VICINITY MAP ARC 60®96 NORTH 355 PACIFIC ORDINANCE NO. (1996 SERIES) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM SERVICE COMMERCIAL(C-S) TO SERVICE COMMERCIAL, WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT(C-S-PD), FOR PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PACIFIC STREET, BETWEEN ARCHER AND CARMEL STREETS. (PD 60-96) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 12, 1996 and recommended approval of the amendment to the City's Zoning map; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on September 17, 1996 and has considered testimony of other 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 map amendment is consistent with the General Plan, the purposes of the Zoning Regulations, 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 City 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 amendment to the Zoning map, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration. SECTION 2. The Zoning map amendment PD 60-96, changing the site from Service Commercial (C-S)to Service Commercial, with a Planned Development (C-S-PD), as shown on the attached Exhibit ,, is hereby approved, based on the following findings: EwhzL 1. The project will be compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the area, because it should blend with the diverse uses in the area and is not expected to create conflict for any of them. 2. The project's location or access arrangement do not significantly direct traffic to use local or collector streets in residential zones, because the project is in a commercial area, and should not draw any greater number of drivers that will use nearby residential streets than would any other commercial development at the site. 3. The project will provide adequate mitigation to address potential impacts related to noise, light and glare, and loss of privacy, among others, imposed by commercial activities on Ordinance no. (1996 Series) 355 Pacific Street Page 2 nearby residential areas, by using methods such as setbacks, landscaping, berming and fencing. 4. The project does not preclude industrial or service-commercial uses in areas especially suited for such uses when compared with offices, because this area is better suited for offices than for industrial and service-commercial uses because of its nearness to residences and the Office zone. 5. The project does not create a shortage of C-S and M zoned land available for service-commercial or industrial development because there are many similar- or larger-sized vacant lots with the same zoning in the city. and subject to the following Code ui_rements: 1. The following types of offices are excluded from this development: banks, real estate offices, financial institutions, medical clinics an doctors' offices and lawyers' offices. 2. Large professional offices, except those noted in no. 1, above, may locate in the proposed building, but no single tenant office space may be smaller than 2,500 square feet. SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance,together with the names of the Council Members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) prior to its final passage, in the Telegram- Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect upon the effective date of an ordinance amending the Zoning Regulations to allow Planned Developments on any size lot in commercial zones. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at a meeting held on the day of on motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: L�S 4 Ordinance no. (1996 Series) 355 Pacific Street Page.3__ ATTEST: — - -- - _— City Clerk — - Mayor Allen Settle -" -- APPRO VED: y ...prn -- - Lf �. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMM4,5SION STAFF REPORT mM x 3 BY: Judith L a trier ssociate Planner MEETING DATE: June 12, 1996 FROM: Ron hi �d, Development Review Manage(X1 FILE NUMBER: PD 60-96 PROJECT ADDRESS: 355 Pacific Street SUBJECT: Planned Development rezoning to allow large offices in a proposed new building, on the south side of Pacific Street, between Archer and Carmel Streets. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the rezoning to the City Council, based on required findings. BACKGROUND Situation. The applicant wants to build an office building in a Service Commercial (C-S) zone. Most types of offices are not normally allowed in the C-S zone. Large offices, however (2,500 square feet or larger) can be permitted with approval of a planned development rezoning. Therefore, the applicant has requested approval of a planned development rezoning to allow large offices. Data Summary Address: 355 Pacific Street Applicant: Mike Cannon Property owner: Haywood B Page Trust et al Representative: Brian Starr, SDG Zoning: Service Commercial (C-S) General Plan: Services and Manufacturing Environmental status: Negative declaration prepared by the Director May 20, 1996. The City Council will take the final action on the environmental study. Project action deadline: No State-mandated deadline on legislative actions. Site description The site is a trapezoidal-shaped lot, 12,786-square-feet in area, on the south side of Pacific Street, between Archer and Carmel. It is vacant except for a shed and fencing. There is no significant vegetation on the site. The lot is surrounded by a mix of industrial, retail, and residential uses. Industrial and service uses dominate this side of the street, while a fabric store, hair salon, and offices are across the street. The property backs up to a medium-high-density residential area, which is developed with apartments and a nonconforming warehouse. y PD 60-96 355 Pacific Street Page 2 $Wiect Description The project is a planned development rezoning to allow the use of a proposed 5,525-square-foot shell building for large offices. EVALUATION 1. The request doesn't meet the lot size requirement. The general plan Land Use Element (LUE) and the Zoning Regulations allow large offices in the C-S and Manufacturing (M) zones with approval of a special kind of planned development rezoning. At present, the zoning regulations say that only sites of one acre or larger may be considered for this type rezoning (except in the Central Commercial zone). The site is about 0.29 acre in area. However, the LUE says that planned developments on any size commercial lot should be allowed in commercial zones. Staff is in the process of processing changes to the zoning regulations that will make them consistent with the newly-adopted LUE. One of the changes is the elimination of the one-acre minimum lot size for planned developments in commercial zones. If the Commission recommends approval of this request, it should be contingent upon this amendment being passed by the City Council. This request will not be scheduled to be heard by the Council until that amendment has been reviewed. 2. Findings can be made. The zoning regulations say that To approve a planned development allowing large professional office buildings which can include multiple tenants but with no single tenant space less than 2,500 square feet in the C-S or M zones, the Planning Commission or Council must find that it meets each of the criteria listed below.... 1. The project will be compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the area. comment. The project should blend with the diverse uses in the area and is not expected to create conflict for any of them. 2. The project's location or access arrangement do not significantly direct traffic to use local or collector streets in residential zones. comment:The project is in a commercial area. It is possible that some drivers will use nearby residential streets in getting to the site, but no more than they would to get to any commercial development at the site. 3. The project will provide adequate mitigation to address potential impacts related to noise, light and glare, and loss of privacy, among others, imposed by commercial PD 60-96 355 Pacific Street Page 3 activities on nearby residential areas, by using methods such as setbacks, landscaping, berming and fencing. comment. The project is adjacent to a warehouse at the rear, but the warehouse is in a residential zone. The proposed substantial planting at the rear should mitigate effects of headlight glare into that area. Office uses are generally compatible with nearby residential because the peak hours for the two uses tend to differ and office uses rarely continue into the night. 4. The project does not preclude industrial or service-commercial uses in areas especially suited for such uses when compared with offices. comment.This area is better suited for office than for industrial and service-commercial uses because of its nearness to residences and the Office zone. S. The project does not create a shortage'of C-S and M zoned land available for service-commercial or industrial development. comment.As of May 1994, there were 291.53 acres of Service Commercial land in the city, 38.13 of which were vacant. Only two zones in the city have more available vacant land: Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) and Low-Density Residential (R-1). Most of the C-S parcels available for development are similar-or larger-sized lou. Because this lot was part of an older subdivision, it is smaller than C-S parcels are now allowed to be. The development will not create a shortage of C-S land available for service-commercial or industrial development. 3. Certain types of offices are excluded. Even if the planned development rezoning is approved, these types of offices are specifically excluded (by the LUE and the zoning regulations) from locating here: banks, real estate offices, financial institutions, medical clinics and doctors' offices and lawyers' offices. ALTERNATIVES The Commission may recommend approval with conditions. The Commission may recommend a denial of the request to the Council. The commission may continue the request, with direction to the applicant or staff. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Other departments had no concerns with the request. y-� PD 60-96 355 Pacific Street Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the request, contingent on the approval of a zoning regulations amendment allowing planned developments in commercial zones on sites smaller than one acre, based on the following Findings: 1. The project will be compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the area, because it should blend with the diverse uses in the area and is not expected to create conflict for any of them. 2. The project's location or access arrangement do not significantly direct traffic to use local or collector streets in residential zones, because the project is in a commercial area, and should not draw any greater number of drivers that will use nearby residential streets than would any other commercial development at the site. 3. The project will provide adequate mitigation to address potential impacts related to noise, light and glare, and loss of privacy, among others, imposed by commercial activities on nearby residential areas, by using methods such as setbacks, landscaping, berming and fencing. 4. The project does not preclude industrial or service-commercial uses in areas especially suited for such uses when compared with offices, because this area is better suited for offices than for industrial and service-commercial uses because of its nearness to residences and the Office zone. 5. The project does not create a shortage of C-S and M zoned land available for service- commercial or industrial development becuase there are many similar- or larger-sized vacant lots with the same zoning in the city. and with the following Code requirements: 1. The following types of offices are excluded from this development: banks, real estate offices, fmaincial institutions, medical clinics an ddoctors' offices and lawyers' offices. 2. Large professional offices, except those noted in no. 1, above, may locate in the proposed building, but no single tenant office space may be smaller than 2,500 square feet. attached: vicinity map representative's statement SDGRECEIVED architecture MAY 17 19% p l a n n i n g CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BUILDING VVISION c o m p u t e r visualization May 17, 1996 Ronald Whisenand Development Review Manager P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 RE: Proposed Cannon Engineering Building, 355 Pacific Street, San Luis Obispo Dear Mr. Whisenand: On behalf of our client, Michael Cannon, we would like to amend our present planning application for the above referenced project to include a request for a Planned Development. Although the present City Zoning Regulations allow engineering offices to locate in the CS zone, conflicting policies in the recently adopted Land Use Element of the General Plan require that our client file a PD request to comply with both the General Plan policies and the proposed changes to the Zoning Regulations. Presently, Cannon Associates is located across Pacific Street (364 Pacific Street), in a two story office building constructed for their use three years ago. The proposed building for which this request is being made will allow Cannon Associates to expand two departments of their growing business. Initially they will occupy the second floor of the proposed 5,525 square foot two story building. The first floor will be leased to a separate tenant for a period of three to five years at which point Cannon Associates anticipates occupying the entire building. It is imperative to the viability of Cannon Associates that they be allowed to expand their business operations on Pacific Street from the original building approved by the City only three years ago. Specific General Plan LUE Policies and Zoning Regulations that relate to this request are noted below. GENERAL PLAN LUE GOALS & POLICIES Community Goals #11 - "Retain existing businesses and agencies, and accommodate expansion of existing businesses, consistent with other goals." The request herein is for the specific purpose of expanding an existing business. S t U d i 0 D e s i g n G r 0 U P 6 4 1 H i g u e r a S t r e e t S u i t e 2 0 0 • S a n L u i s O b i s p o , C A • 9 3 4 0 1 8 0 5 5 4 1 . 3 8 4 8 F A X 8 0 5 . 5 4 1 . 9 2 6 0 • 5 6 G _ S L 0 0 A 0 L C O M • B r i a n S t a r r C 1 5 1 7 5 /[I n Cannon Engineering building May 17, 1996 Page 2 Community Goals #12 - "Emphasize more productive use of existing commercial buildings and land areas already committed to urban development". The subject site is presently used as a car storage area. This use is inappropriate due to the proximity of the site to the downtown area and nearby residential zones. LUE Policy 3.3.2 (E) & 3.5.2 (F) - "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 the Service and Manufacturing districts, subject to approval of a Planned Development zoning application". These two policies were specifically included in the LUE to allow "large" office projects such as the subject of this request. ZONING REGULATIONS The General Plan LUE cited above, specifically requires the request of a Planned Development rezoning of the subject property to accomplish the intent of LUE Policy 3.3.2 (E) & 3.5.2 (F). In order to receive approval of a PD request, a project must meet one or more of six criteria as outlined in Sec. 17.62.040 of the Zoning Regulations. Unfortunately, most of the six criteria refer to housing or provision of amenities that only a larger site could provide. None of the six criteria relate to the intent of LUE Policy 3.3.2 (E) & 3.5.2 (F) which is to allow location of larger offices in Service and Commercial districts when considered appropriate. Nonetheless, we are proposing that the resource and energy saving features of the proposed project meet the criteria of Sec. 17.62.040 (A)5, which states, "It, (the project), incorporates features which result in consumption of less materials, energy or water than conventional development." Such features proposed for the subject project include: Shaded glazing to minimize heat gain. Maximize availability of daylighting to all building occupants. Daylighting controls to reduce lighting demand. Energy efficient lighting systems. Occupancy sensors that reduce and/or eliminate lighting in unused portions of the building. Rain sensor that overrides the automatic irrigation system on rainy days. Use of building products that utilize recycled materials wherever possible. 'l_�z Cannon Engineering building May 17, 1996 Page 3 Section 17.62.040 (C)of the Zoning Regulations further requires that requests to allow larger office uses in the CS zone must meet each of the following conditions: 1. "The project will be compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the area." As stated earlier, the proposed project is the expansion of an existing office building across Pacific Street. The proximity of the site near downtown and near the intersection of the Commercial Retail, Commercial Service and Residential districts is ideally suited to an office type use as a transition between these zones. 2. "The project's location or access arrangement do not significantly direct traffic to use local or collector streets in residential zones." As an office use, the proposed project will generate significantly less traffic then many comparably sized public serving businesses allowed in the CS zone. Marsh Street serves as a main arterial street for this area and provides access to and from the freeway. The many stop signs purposely placed on Pacific Street discourage traffic from using it for more than very localized access to the site. It is anticipated that most auto traffic accessing the site will be via Carmel or Archer Streets from Marsh Street. 3. 'The project will provide adequate mitigation to address potential impacts related to noise, light, glare, and loss of privacy, among others, imposed by commercial activities on nearby residential areas, by using methods such as setbacks, landscaping , berming and fencing." With the exception of the neighboring property to the south, all adjacent properties are zoned CS, and should.be compatible with the proposed project. The property to the south is presently occupied by a large warehouse building, however it is zoned R-3. With regard to potential noise generated by the subject project, the proposed office use is much more compatible with any future residential development of the adjacent property than development of most of the uses allowed in the CS zone. Nonetheless, the proposed project has been setback sixty feet from the rear setback line as a buffer to protect the privacy of any future residential development. Additionally, all site lighting on the project will be shielded to eliminate glare on all adjacent properties. 4. "The project does not preclude industrial or service-commercial uses in areas especially suited for such uses when compared to offices." Subject to the approval of a Planned Development zoning application, LUE Policy 3.5.2 specifically recognizes the compatibility of large offices with all other uses allowed in the Service and Manufacturing districts. The location of the existing Cannon Associates offices has not precluded any other allowed uses from locating in this area. Cannon Engineering building May 17, 1996 Page 4 5. "The project does not create a shortage of C-S and M zoned land available for service-commercial or industrial development." Because of the small size of the subject site (slightly larger than 1/4 acre), the project's impact on the existing inventory of C-S and M zoned land will be minimal. As stated previously, because of the site's proximity to downtown and its adjacency to residential areas, the proposed office use is likely a more compatible use than most uses allowed in the CS zone. Recent and proposed annexations in the South Higuera and Airport Areas will provide additional inventory of CS and M zoned properties in a more appropriate area. We believe that our request to allow the expansion of Cannon Associates is consistent with the General Plan LUE Policies, the proposed PD Zoning Regulations and with past City policies and approvals of the original Cannon Associates office building described above. Thank you for your assistance on this project. Sincerely STUDIO DESIGN GROUP Brian Starr Vice President BS/tb cc: Mike Cannon Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1996 Page 4 Commissioner Ready stated there are two categorie for allowing for discretionary exceptions. One is when there is a recorded easement and the se nd is when the Director makes certain findings. Mr. Rossi stated he is not familiar with the cr' eria for discretionary exceptions. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Jeffrey moved to uphold the pplicant's appeal and approve the exception, based on findings that no public purpose is served by trict compliance with the yard requirements from five feet to three feet. Commissioner Veesart sec ded the motion. Commissioner Jeffrey cited the Zoning Regulation section on yard requirements. He felt the intent is to provide flexibility to meet the real needs of r l situations. Mandating the wall be located 2' askew of a presently standing wall to accom odate the letter of the ordinance seems counterproductive. There seems to be no real public purpose served by such rigid interpretation in this unique situation. Commissioner Veesart stated he can understand sta s position in ruling the way that they did. Staff is complying with the letter of the law. From hi experience as a builder and having looked at the floor plan, he can see no good reason to deny he appeal. It isn't going to harm anyone and the neighbors are amenable to it. It isn't going to ch nge the existing nonconforming use. The applicant has gone through a great deal of effort to bri g this to the Commission's attention. AYES: Commissioners Jeffrey, Veesa , Senn, Ready, and Chairman Karleskint NOES: Commissioner Kourakis ASSENT: Commissioner Whittlesey The motion passed. 3. 355 Pacific Street: PD 60-96: Planned Development rezoning to allow large offices;Mike Cannon, applicant. Commissioner Ready refrained from participating because of a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Lautner presented the staff report, recommending approval of the rezoning to the City Council, based on required findings. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1996 Page 5 Brian Starr, representative, stated the project is an expansion of an existing business. This expansion is critical to Cannon & Associates for the viability of their business in the coming years. Mr. Star said that initially the top floor will be occupied by Cannon & Associates. They expect to occupy the first floor as well within five years. The ground floor will be leased until then. Mike Burturis (Inaudible), business owner at 393 Pacific St., stated he is in favor of Cannon & Associates doing business, but parking is a problem. The existing Cannon building has 17 parking spaces on-site. Only three to four parking spaces are used during the day and the employees all park on the street. Another building is just going to add to the parking problem. There are a number of auto accidents on the corner of Carmel and Pacific. M. Burturis asked the Commission to take the parking situation into consideration. Commissioner Jeffrey asked Mr. Burturis if he would be in favor of this project if they were able to control the parking issue, and Mr. Burturis said he would. Mr. Burturis stated he has spoken with Cannon employees about the use of their lot several times. He was told the parking spaces are reserved for their clientele. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Jeffrey moved to recommend approval of the rezoning to the City Council, on the approval of a zoning regulations amendment allowing planned developments in commercial zones on the sites smaller than one acre, based on the following: Findings: 1. The project will be compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the area, because it should blend with the diverse uses in the area and is not expected to create conflict for any of them. 2. The project's location or access arrangement do not significantly direct traffic to use local or collector streets in residential zones, because the project is in a commercial area, and should not draw any greater number of drivers that will use nearby residential streets than would any other commercial development at the site. 3. The project will provide adequate mitigation to address potential impacts related to noise, light and glare, and loss of privacy, among others, imposed by commercial activities on nearby residential areas, by using methods such as setbacks, landscaping, berming and fencing. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1996 Page 6 4. The project does not preclude industrial or service-commercial uses in areas especially suited for such uses when compared with offices, because this area is better suited for offices-than for industrial and service-commercial uses because of its nearness to residences and the Office zone. 5 The project does not create a shortage of C-S and M zoned land available for service- commercial or industrial development because there are many similar or larger-sized vacant lots with the same zoning in the city. and with the following: Code Requirements: 1. The following types of offices are excluded from this development: banks, real estate offices, financial institutions, medical clinics, doctor offices and attorney offices. 2. Large professional offices, except those noted in No. 1 above, may locate in the proposed building, but no single tenant office space may be smaller the 2,500 square feet. Commissioner Senn seconded the motion. Commissioner Senn asked Starr about the use of existing parking spaces. Mr. Star stated he is puzzled by the parking issue. There is employee parking available. This is the first he has heard that the parking isn't being used by employees. He said he does not know how many employees work there. Commissioner Jeffrey stated he spoke to Mr. Cannon and Mr. Cannon said he would speak to his employees about not parking in the street. Mr. Cannon said he is going to relocate some of his employees to the new building because the existing building is becoming crowded. Commissioner Veesart stated even if Mr. Cannon's employees were using the parking lot, there is a great deal of parking demand in this neighborhood. He doesn't feel this proposed project is really Wing to cause any more problems. Parking in this area is a problem and employers should be looking at programs for ways to encourage their employees to find alternative ways to get to work instead of driving their cars. Commissioner Kourakis stated she is troubled by the parking also. The ordinance requires prescribed parking,but use of the parking is left up to the owner or the manager of the property. She suggested Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1996 Page 7 Mr.Burturis bring this issue up before the City Council. This has been on ongoing problem and this is not an isolated incident. Commissioner Veesart stated there has been a great deal of discussion by the City Council of increasing demand for parking and many solutions are listed in the Circulation Element. There are trip deduction programs in place in this City and a solution will be found eventually. Chairman Karleskint asked staff if it would be appropriate to place a condition on the planned development requiring a parking management plan. Ms. Lautner stated it is possible. It is staffs experience that it is difficult to enforce parking conditions. Chairman Karleskint asked Mr. Starr to relay the Commission's concerns about parking to Mr. Cannon. AYES: Commissioners Jeffrey, Senn, Veesart, Kourakis, and Chairman Karleskint NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Whittlesey, Ready The motion passed. 4. 1772 Calle Jog uin: GP/R and R 31-96: General Plan Amendment and rezoning to change about 2.7 acres from Tourist ommercial (C-T)to Office, with Special Considerations (0-S), also revise policies on office Nation; KSBY (Richard Armfield), applicant. Commissioners Senn and Ready refrained from p rticipating due to potential conflicts of interest. Associate Planner Matteson presented the staff eport, recommending affirming that no additional environmental study is required and that the Cit Council amend Land Use Element Policy 3.3.3 to allow Office designations in some additional, li ' ed locations and amend the General Plan Land Use Element map from Tourist Commercial to ice; and rezone from tourist Commercial (C-T) to Office, with Special Considerations (0-S), hich would require use permit review for any future substantial development or use other than a roadcast studio. Commissioner Jeffrey asked staff to explain t e zoning status of antennas. f II cit of san vu�s OBISPO � y 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ER 60-96A 355 Pacific Street 1 . Project Title: Cannon Office Planned Development 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: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner (805) 781-7166 4. Project Location: 355 Pacific Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Assessor's Parcel No. 02-507-04 Portion of Block 50, Reed Addition, City of SLO 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Mike Cannon 364 Pacific Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Services and Manufacturing & 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. �_ �1 l�►����������iiii���►��IIIIIIIIIII►@i����►►�i� III cit Of san l�u�s OBISPO y 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 355 Pacific Street Page 2 7. Zoning: Service Commercial (C-S) 8. Description of the Project: The project is a request for a planned development rezoning to allow large offices in a proposed building. 9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The site is surrounded by a mix of industrial, retail, and residential uses. Industrial and service uses dominate this side of the street, while a fabric store, hair salon, and offices are across the street. The property backs up to a medium-high-density residential area, which is developed with apartments and a nonconforming warehouse. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). No other agencies have an interest in this development. /ft The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the 2sabled in all of its services, programs and activities. V` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. //�U ER 60-96A 355 Pacific Street Page 3 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. Land use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources Resources Geological Problems Hazards Recreation Water Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality Public Services Transportation and Utilities and Service Circulation 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. 3 �� ER 60-96A 355 Pacific Street Page 4 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. May 22, 1996 ignat Date Ronald Whisenand, 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. 4 ,;22 ER 60-96A 355 Pacific Street Page 5 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. 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 60-96A Issues unless Impact 355 Pacific Street Mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1,2 X General Plan Land Use Element(LUE):The site is designated for"services and manufacturing" on the General Plan Land Use Element map.The LUE encourages a wide range of uses, including "light manufacturing, research and development, and laboratories". The shell building can accommodate these types of uses. The LUE also allows for "large offices", with the proper approvals. Therefore, if the planned development rezoning is approved, large offices would be able to locate in the new building. Zoning Regulations: The Zoning Regulations (ZR) (source 2) allows service commercial uses, consistent with the LUE "services and manufacturing" designation. The ZR allows large offices with the approval of a planned development rezoning, on parcels of one acre or larger. The recently-adopted LUE (1994) calls for elimination of this one-acre limit in all commercial zones. The City is currently in the process of amending the ZR to be consistent with this direction. If the zoning text amendments are approved, and subsequently the planned development rezoning.is approved, then large offices will be allowed at the site. If the amendments are not approved, then the building can still be used for other appropriate service commercial uses. Conclusion: No impact. 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 d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact X to 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 X projections? 6 issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Lass Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 60-96A Issues unless Impact on 355 Pacific Street Incioncorrpporraa ted b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or 3 X indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? I I I 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 X c) 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 X conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? X h) Expansive soils? X i) Unique geologic or physical features? X 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: 7 �S Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources potentially potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 60-96A Issues Unless Impact 355 Pacific Street Mitigation Incorporated a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the 3 X rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards 3 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 A 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 3 existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance with APCD Environmental Guidelines)? 8 ,/ ,ssues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 60-96A Issues Unless Impact 355 Pacific Street Mitigation Incorporated 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 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp X curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby X uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 3 X Eighteen parking spaces are required for an office development, according to the Zoning Regulations, and 18 are provided. This number should be adequate for the use. e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative 3 X transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan)? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect: 9 -27 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Lose Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 60-96A Issues Unless Impact 355 Pacific Street Mitigation Incorporated 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 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 X inefficient 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. 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 X or emergency evacuation plan? 10 tissues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 60-96A Issues unless Impact 355 Pacific Street Mitigation Incorporated c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential X health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, X grass, or trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 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 11 �-may Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 60-96A Issues Unless Impact 355 Pacific Street Mitigation Incorporated b) Communications systems? X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution X facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? X e) Storm water drainage? X f) Solid waste disposal? X g) Local or regional water supplies? X 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 3 X c) Create light or glare? X- 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? 3 X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X See a), above. c) Affect historical resources? X See a), above. 12 '7- 3D issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 60-96A Issues Unless Impact 355 Pacific Street Mitigation Incorporated 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? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks X or 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 3 X of the environment,-substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a 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, X to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Short-term and long-term environmental goals are the same. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, 4 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) 13 #- 3l Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 60-96A Issues unless Impact 355 Pacific Street Mitigation Incorporated All new construction projects will generally contribute to cumulative air quality impacts. The EIR for the City's recently- adopted General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements concludes that air quality impacts from full buildout under these elements will be within state and federal air quality guidelines, and therefore will be less than significant. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly) There is no indication that any aspect of the office project would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, 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. The Environmental Initial Study 60-96 was used. This document is available for review in the Community Development Department. 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. All impacts related to the physical construction of the building were analyzed in the previous review. One mitigation measure was imposed on the development as a result of that 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. The one mitigation measure recommended as part of ER 60-96 is a requirement for additional bicycle parking. The project building plans will be reviewed for compliance with this measure, if adopted by the hearing body (the Architectural Review Commission, in that case). It is not necessary to incorporate the measure into this study as well. 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; Sundstfom 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 General Plan Land Use Element text and map, city of San Luis Obispo, August 1994 14 2 Zoning Regulations and map, City of San Luis Obispo, 1995 E43 Environmental Initial Study 60.96, City of San Luis Obispo, May 22, 1996 Environmental Impact Report, 1994 Land Use and Circulation Elements, Fugro-McClelland (West), Inc., certified by the City Council on August 23, 1994 15 J/ ? Applicant Acceptance of Mitigation Measures Project: ER 60-96 355 Pacific Street This agreement is entered into by and between the City of San Luis Obispo and Mike Cannon on the 30th day of May , 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 Measure: Three bicycle parking spaces shall be provided, two of which must be long-term and one short-term, in accordance with the Bicycle Transportation Plan. Monitoring Program: Building plans will be checked for compliance with this requirement. 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. 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. RoKald Whiserland ike Cad n Development Review Manager I:1.-660.96.mit