HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/17/1998, 8 - GPA 145-97, E-145-97: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A GENERAL PLAN LAND USE TEXT AMENDMENT TO EXPAND THE SOCIAL SERVICES NODE OF THE CITY'S ""TRI-POLAR POLICY"" TO INCLUDE PROPERTIES LOCATED WEST OF SOUTH HIGUERA AND SOUTH OF council M-77
j acEnaa Report
D�'
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Arnold Jonas,Community DevelopmentDirector U
Prepared By: John Shoals,Associate Plauner�p
SUBJECT: GPA 145-97, E-145-97: Appeal of Planning Commission's denial of a General Plan Land
Use text amendment to expand the social services node of the City's "tri-polar policy" to
include properties located west of South Higuera and south of Prado Road.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Draft Resolution"A" (Attachment 1), denying the appeal,and upholding the Planning Commission's
action to deny the General Plan amendment,based on findings.
DISCUSSION
Situation
PIC is working with the State of California Economic Development Department (EDD) and San Luis
Obispo County Social Services to establish a "one-stop center" for providing job training, education,
employer and job-placement services in San Luis Obispo County. Their plans are to relocate 13 government
employees(9 from EDD and 4 from the Social Services GAIN program)into the existing PIC office. With
the relocation of 13 government employees, PIC can be classified as a "government agency office." A
General Plan amendment and PD zoning is needed to allow the relocation of the government employees to
the PIC office at 3566 South Higuera Street.
Proiect Description and Background
The item before the City Council is an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request to amend the
text of the City's General Plan Land Use Element to expand the City's social services area node of the City's
"tri-polar policy" south along South Higuera Street between Prado Road and Zaca Lane. In October of 1997,
the Private Industry Council(PIC)filed a General Plan amendment application to enlarge the social services
component of the City's public facilities areas identified in Figure 5 on page 58 of the Land Use Element. A
map showing the existing social services area is provided on page 2 of this report. Following Planning
Commission action, the applicant has submitted a revised map showing a smaller area of expansion, the
applicant's original and revised proposals are shown on page 3 of this report.
On February 11, 1998,the Planning Commission denied the General Plan amendment finding it inconsistent
with the goals of the General Plan Land Use Element policies on public and cultural facilities. The Planning
Commission felt that enlarging the social services area would be inconsistent with the "tri-polar policy" as
originally envisioned when it was first established in 1977 and amended in the early 1980s with
development of the Walter Center. The intent of the "tri-polar policy" is to concentrate government and
quasi-government offices and services with high public contact in a designated location (generally Prado
Road and South Higuera Street)for accessibility,patron convenience and to reduce auto trips.
r
GPA 145-97 Appeal
3440 through 3730 South Higuera(Private Industry Council)
Page 2
On February 19, 1998, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action. The appellant's
letter is included as Attachment 5. The Council is being asked to review the Planning Commission action,
the public testimony,the appellant's statements,staff recommendations and to make a determination on the
subject appeal.
Proiect Data
Address: 3440 through 3730 S. Higuera(even)
Applicant: Private Industry Council
Representatives: Cannon Associates
Zoning: Service Commercial (C-S)
General Plan: Services and Manufacturing .
Environmental status: Negative declaration of environmental impact, ER 145-97. Final action on the
environmental document will be taken by the City Council.
Project action deadline: There are no state-mandated deadlines for this legislative action.
EXISTING SOCIAL SERVICES AREA OF"TRI-POLAR POLICY"
i
- r
i 1 i
CIVIC CENTER
CULTURAL FACILITIES AREA !
,,—HEALTH CARE
L AREA
az: �
i .
;CI�d SOCIAERNCES
AREA�d� 1 AREA
Tank Farm Rd. '
�c
/ moa
I '
crty of v PUBLIC FACILITIES AREAS
=T- san Luis OBISpO
I
FIGURE 5
GPA 145-97 Appeal
3440 through 3730 South Higuera(Private Industry Council)
Page
113
N Oa
N 2 V .� 1 .a.ae•.i " S N
„ d%3u. is.� I o :Ip 0
� a s J
I \ u tae I S
U nIx
M Z O
IA G O
o
f ems• V) P,
U) m W
F o , V 1 • Z >
o U oa \• N Na
♦ U • O W 1 r• _ W (�
0¢ <w O c � v Z
LL tiN w¢ a U
a Z 0 p V O
XW 20Cc 1=
W!4 a. fA /LL. y \� v • ��
LL 3
P
� 1
Ja a N 'oi i.YO G d I O
n, IL V I ! 1 VSaCewi t (n 2 e1 y
CO 0
O a O
U e c4
. U-
d (f) d'
1 I • z
X, N z c Z
\ U d \ I �„••� N a V
1 M Z CO4•wf j F r�
0 w
V
J F
c° Q QQ O.Q Z
° U W O
U d9� C/) a of 0 \ c
6
CL W LU 4C 0
? U O UO OJ
x w cc CC
W CO a r a to s� a L U • R.
LL
d
i '• � a
GPA 145-97 Appeal
3440 through 3730 South Higuera(Private Industry Council)
Page 4
Planning Staff's Recommendation
Planning staff originally recommended that the Commission recommend approval of the amendment to the
City Council based on fording it consistent with the goals of the General Plan Land Use Element policies on
public and cultural facilities. Staffs project evaluation and basis for this recommendation are contained in
the Planning Commission staff report of February 11, 1998(Attachment 3).
Planning Commission Action
On a 6-0 vote (Commissioner Whittlesey refrained from participating due to a potential conflict of
interest),the Planning Commission denied the General Plan Land Use Element text amendment to expand
the social services node based on the finding that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the
General Plan. The Commission was concerned with the overall affect of expanding the social services
area; if there is a real demand for changing the social services boundaries at this time; and if a General
Plan amendment was needed to accommodate PIC's plans for expansion. A discussion of each of these
issues is provided below. Planning Commission minutes for the February 11te meeting are included as
Attachment 4. The applicant's appeal letter dated February 18, 1998 (Attachment 5) responds to the
Commission's decision and concerns.
Overall Effect of General Plan amendment on Surrounding Properties
At its February I P meeting, the Planning Commission expressed concerns with the overall affect of the
proposed text amendment on vacant properties and existing businesses along South Higuera. The PIC's
present office is located at 3566 South Higuera Street. In order to include this property in the designated
social services area, the area would have to be expanded south of Prado Road and the west of South
Higuera Street. As shown on the vicinity map, the proposed expansion of the social services area overlay
will affect three additional properties and several existing businesses. Although the proposed expansion
would not change these properties' underlying land use and zoning designations, it would allow for
additional governmental type offices in an area which is primarily commercial and industrial in nature.
The Planning Commission received verbal and written testimony on this issue. Two property owners
(CL II INTERVEST of Tenwise Park and Tom Walters) and one business owner (Owens Music
Company) spoke in opposition to the project. Attachment 6 is a copy of the CL H INTERVEST letter
dated January 28, 1998, and received February 10, 1998, and Attachment 7 is a copy of the Owen Music
Company letter dated February 9, 1998.
Demand for Expansion of Social Services Area
The Planning Commission felt that the applicant's support documentation (included in the Planning
Commission staff report of February 11, 1998) did not demonstrate a demand to expand the social
services area. This concern appeared to be based on the amount of space available at the Walter Center
(according to Tom Walter, the Walter Center consists of 115,000 square feet and with 17,000 square feet
available), the 10 acre "40 Prado Road" site which is currently within the social service node and what
appears to be little growth in government offices regionally.The applicant's appeal letter addresses these
two issues along with other physical and economic factors that were considered in the PIC's decision to
request an expansion to the social services area.
GPA 145-97 Appeal y
3440 through 3730 South Higuera(Private Industry Council)
Page 5
General Plan Determination
Although the Planning Commission did not recommend approval of the proposed project, the
Commission was sympathetic to PIC's situation. The Commission did raise the question as to whether a
General Plan amendment is needed to process the Private Industry Council's (PIC) request to expand its
office to add 13 government employees from the State Employment Development Department(EDD) and
the Social Services GAIN program. Staff clarified that 2 or 3 additional government employees could be
considered as accessory to the existing PIC jobs training center, but the addition of more than 3
employees begin to "tip the. scales" where a larger EDD presence would clearly be classified as a
"government office."
Future Social Service Area Expansion
There was some discussion on the existing boundaries of the social services area, and whether the existing
boundaries of the social services area are appropriate or possibly need to be modified at some point in the
future. Some Commissioners felt it might be appropriate to move the area's westerly boundary east along
Prado Road (away from the freeway and closer to South Higuera) and its southerly boundary south of
Prado Road (to include the Prado Road Day Center) and south along South Higuera. However, the
Commission felt that any future expansion of the social services area should be looked at in a more
comprehensive manner with factual data to support such a change.
Anneal Filed
On February 19, 1998, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action denying the
proposed General Plan amendment. The applicant's stated reasons for appeal include: the "Social Services
Area' seems ripe for City Council consideration and policy direction; the changing nature of government
services; the "tri-polar" concept appears outdated: and suitability of relocating PIC to the Walter Center.
Attachment 4 is the appeal letter submitted by the applicant's representative,Cannon Associates.
Social Services Area ripe for City Council Consideration
The applicant refers to the Commission's issue regarding whether there is a need for a General Plan
amendment to augment the existing services offered at PIC. In short, the applicant appears to question
staff's determination to require a General Plan Amendment to accommodate the relocation of 13
government employees (nine from the State Employment Development Department and four from Social
Services GAIN program) to the existing PIC facilities. In PIC's original conversations with the
Community Development Department, staff indicated to them that it was not a problem if they wanted to
add 2 or 3 people to service the needs of PIC students for employment placement. However, the
relocation of a full EDD staff would result in the facility being used as an EDD employment office which
would accept anyone off the street for service. As such, staff maintains its position that the relocation of
two to three employees could be considered accessory, but that the relocation of 13 employees (a more
than 50% staff increase) cannot be considered as accessory. Therefore, a General Plan amendment to
expand the social services node is necessary.
GPA 145-97 Appeal
3440 through 3730 South Higuera(Private Industry Council)
Page 6
Changing Nature of Governmental Services
The applicant has addressed the Commission's concern regarding enlarging the social service node
without a proven demand for increasing governmental services. However, PIC points out that the focus of
governmental services has changed since the "tri-polar" concept was developed in the 1970s. They cite
several examples to support their claim—welfare reform creating an emphasis on providing job skills; the
privatization of services; new federal laws on job training. All of these factors have changed the way
public and quasi-public agencies are conducting business. The applicant feels that the "tri-polar" concept
was devised at a time when government was more rigid in nature and centralized in location. Staff
concurs with the applicant on this issue as governmental operations and functions are constantly evolving
creating a new demand for services and facilities.
"Tri-Polar" Concept Appears Outdated
During the February 11th meeting, the Planning Commission recognized that there have been some
exceptions to the "tri-polar" concept. One example would be the Economic Opportunity Commission
located on South Street in the Westwinds Business Park. The applicant also cites the Prado Day Care Center
as an exception. It should be noted that the homeless services center on Prado Road is not within the social
services area, but that homeless shelters are allowed in C-S and PF zones with Planning Commission
approval. According to the applicant, PIC is trying to work within the "tri-polar" concept. While staff
believes the boundaries of the social services area map may need refinement, staff does believe that the
concept is still appropriate. Obviously, by locating similar and complimentary type land uses (social
services)in a concentrated area, patrons will have greater access to the facilities,ease of convenience and
reduce automobile trips.
Suitability of RelocatingPIC to the Walter Center
The applicant indicates that the Walter Center does not have the floor area to accommodate a consolidated
one-stop center in the context that PIC wishes to operate. PIC cites rents at the Walter Center to be
approximately 50% more than their present rents, and PIC questions the 10%vacancy rate claimed by Mr.
Walter at the Planning Commission meeting.
FISCAL IMPACTS
None
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt Draft Resolution"B" (Attachment 2) to uphold the appeal and conceptually approve a General
Plan amendment to Figure 5 on page LU-50 of the Land Use Element. Direct staff to aggregate the
resolution with other General Plan amendment actions for adoption by a single motion at the end of this
meeting.
2. Continue the matter with specific direction to staff for further analysis. Note,this action would require
this item to be reconsidered with the second batch of General Plan amendments tentatively scheduled for
Council action in June of 1998.
GPA 145-97 Appeal
3440 through 3730 South Higuera(Private Industry Council)
Page 7
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Draft Resolution`B" (Deny Appeal)
Attachment 2- Draft Resolution"A" (Uphold Appeal)
Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Staff Report, dated February 11, 1998.
Attachment 4- Minutes for Planning Commission meeting of February 11, 1998.
Attachment 5 - Applicant's Letter of Appeal,dated February 18, 1998.
Attachment 6- CL II INTERVEST letter received February 10, 1998.
Attachment 7- Owens Music Company letter,dated February 9, 1998.
8-7
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Resolution"A"
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION
DENYING A GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT AMENDMENT
TO EXPAND THE SOCIAL SERVICE AREA, GPA 145-97
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted .a public hearing on February 11,
1998, and denied the General Plan Land Element text amendment to expand the boundaries of
the social services area, GPA 145-97; and
WHEREAS, the applicants filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on
February 19, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 17, 1998, and has
considered testimony of interested parties including the appellants, the records of the Planning
Commission hearings, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Action. The appeal is hereby denied, and the General Plan Land Use text .
amendment is hereby denied.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
�-8
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 17"day of March, 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED:
City Attorney Jeffrey G. Jorgensen
8-9
ATTACHMENT 2
Draft Resolution B
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION,THEREBY APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE TEXT
AMENDMENT TO EXPAND THE SOCIAL SERVICES AREA TO THE SOUTH OF
PRADO ROAD AND WEST OF SOUTH HIGUERA STREET TO INCLUDE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3566 SOUTH HIGUERA STREET (GPA 145-97).
4
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 11,
1998, and denied the proposed text amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element to expand
the social services area south of Prado Road and west of South Higuera Street; and
WHEREAS, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on
February 19 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 17, 1998, and has
considered testimony of the applicant/appellant, interested parties, the records of the Planning
Commission hearings 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; and
BE IT RESOLVED,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 environmental impacts of the proposed amendment
to the General Plan Land Use Element text, and reflects the independent judgement of the City
Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration,ER 145-97.
SECTION 2. The General Plan Land Use text is amended as shown on Exhibit A,
attached.
8-/0
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 3. The Community Development Director shall cause the amendment to be
reflected in documents which are on display in City Hall and which are available for public use.
SECTION 4 Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project
(GPA 145-95), the Planning Commission's action and comments, public testimony, the
appellant's statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following findings:
1. The City Council finds that the proposed text amendment is consistent with other policies of
the General Plan.
2. The General Plan Land Use text amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety and
welfare of persons living or working in the area
3. General Plan amendment (ARC 145-97) is consistent with the General Plan Land Use
Element policies on public and cultural facilities because it will keep government offices in
the area generally designated for social services.
4. The addition of 13 government employees (a more than 50% increase in personnel) to the
existing PIC offices can be considered major and does change the PIC classification to a
government office, which is not allowed in the Service Commercial (C-S) zone and
requires a General Plan amendment to expand the social services area.
5. Based on the information provided by the appellant and the staff report, the General Plan
amendment will not compromise the intent of the "tri-polar" policy concept, and will allow
PIC to operate legally at its existing location (3566 South Higuera Street).
SECTION 5. This amendment shall take affect at the expiration of 30 days following
approval.
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 3
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of , 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Bonnie Gawf, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
4Jeyity ttorJorgensen
ATTACHMENT -PLANNING COMMISSION STS REPORT
FEBRUARY 11, 1998
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBLSPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM# 3
BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner, MEETING DATE: February 11, 1998
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development view Manager f3q 0
FILE NUMBER: GPA 145-97
PROJECT ADDRESS: 3440 through 3730 S. Hiquera (even numbers)
SUBJECT: General Plan Land Use Element text amendment, to expand the social services node
where governmental offices are allowed.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council, based on finding it consistent with
the goals of the General Plan Land Use Element policies on public and cultural facilities.
BACKGROUND
Situation.
The applicant wants to expand the uses allowed in the same building as the Private Industry
Council's office and training facilities at 3566 S. Higuera Street. The City's General Plan Land
Use Element designates four separate "nodes" where specific types of publicoffices are allowed.
Social services offices, which include job training and placement offices, are allowed in the
vicinity of Higuera Street and Prado Road, as defined on the attached excerpt from the Land Use
Element. Because the additional offices requested include governmental job training and
placement services, the applicants are asking that this node be expanded to include their parcel
and more. A general plan text amendment is required to make such a change.
The application was routed to the Airport Land Use Commission on October 28, 1997. However,
a hearing before that commission was not set until January 21, 1998. At that hearing, there was a
motion to deny, based on anticipated occupant density, which failed. The request was then
continued to either the February or March meeting of that commission. Therefore, a final
recommendation from that commission has not yet been received.
Data Summary
Address: 3440 through 3730 S. Higuera(even)
Applicant: Private Industry Council
Representatives: Cannon Associates
Zoning: Service Commercial (C-S)
General Plan: Services and Manufacturing
Environmental status: Negative declaration of environmental impact granted by the
director December 17, 1997. Final action on the environmental
document will be taken by the City Council.
�-/3
GPA 145-97
3440 through 3730 S. Higuera (even)
Page 2
Project action deadline: There are no state-mandated deadlines for legislative actions, including
general plan changes.
Site description
The area included in the map change is irregular in shape, consisting of several lots. Almost all
lots are developed with service commercial buildings, housing a variety of businesses. The area is
roughly bounded by a creek on the west, by Prado Road to the north, South Higuera Street on the
east, and by a mobile home park on the south.
Proiect description
The project is a change to a map (Figure 5) within the text of the Land Use Element (LUE). The
applicant wants to expand the area designated for social services.
EVALUATION
1. The public facilities areas are "grouped for convenience". According to the LUE (section
5.1), "Government offices that provide similar types of services should be grouped for
efficient service delivery." This section further notes that similar private agencies may locate
within the same areas, if they do not displace the preferred public agencies.
There are four "public facilities areas": areas appropriate for different types of governmental
offices. The "civic center" is intended for administration, public hearing bodies, and related
functions. The "health care area" is for the County Public Health Department, the public
hospital and related private medical services. The "cultural facilities area" is for museums,
galleries, libraries, and other cultural enterprises. The"social services area" is for those offices
that provide employment, training, living assistance, and related services. Public offices that
do not fit into one of these designations are encouraged to locate in the social services area or
to expand in their present locations.
2. The areas are shown differently. The Commission may note that the civic center, cultural
facilities area, and health care area are all shown as large dots on the map. This type
representation indicates that these uses would be appropriate in the general area of that dot,
but not specifically within the property bounded by the dots. However, the social services area
is shown as a specific boundary, recognizing property lines.
In the earlier version of this map, all areas were shown as dots. This representation did not
create significant difficulties except in the social services area. Administrative agencies located
anywhere in the downtown area were considered reasonably close together to be convenient
�vl�
GPA 145-97
3440 through 3730 S. Higuera (even)
Page 3
for most users. Health care agencies, including two hospitals and the Health Department, tend
to expand near where they are.
However, the number and type of agencies related to social services has expanded
significantly over the past several years, and now includes offices focusing on the treatment of
alcohol and drug abuse, child protection agencies, agencies specializing in the provision of
transitional homes for at-risk children,job training centers, and many more. Existing agencies
have expanded and new ones have been added. Further, governmental agencies not related to
any of these "poles" are encouraged to locate in this same general area. Because of pressure
for available space, there were many attempts to "interpret" the map to include properties as
far away as the Pacific Coast Center (Madonna Road and S. Higuera). The latest version of
the LUE thus includes a map that defines the social services area specifically. The actual
outline was formed to include the County's social services building on the southeast comer of
Prado and S. Higuera and a proposed development at 40 Prado Road, opposite the City's
corporation yard.
3. The LUE does not discourage further expansion. Nothing in the LUE indicates that the
current area is for all time, that it may not be expanded. Nothing, however, defines how much
expansion is appropriate, either.
Some of the property within the current limits is vacant and development is not expected for
several years because of significant costs associated with such development. Other property is
fully developed and occupied with service commercial uses. Not all of the property within the
present limits is suitable for social services office uses.
Various social services agencies have located outside this pole. There are several such
agencies in Westwinds Business Park on South Street, for example. These relocations outside
the social services area may indicate a need for more space than is currently available or a
need for differently-configured space. It does appear that the space now available within this
pole is not suitable for many agencies for one reason or another.
4. How much is enough? Of the four poles, this one is most likely to be used by consumers
without vehicles of their own. It is also desirable to reduce the number of short-distance trips
between offices, for those consumers with automobiles. Therefore, perhaps an appropriate
way to define the limits of the area is by determining if a citizen could walk from one office
within the area to another in a reasonable amount of time, assuming that the citizen arrives by
bus or parks in one of the parking areas. The City's bus routes are designed to provide bus
service within '/4 mile (1,320 feet) of most locations. The September issue of Public
Investment included an article on "accessibility vs. mobility", in which a distance of/< mile to
a bus is determined to be "accessible" for most citizens on foot. Thus that measure seems a
if-A
GPA 145-97
3440 through 3730 S. Higuera (even)
Page 4
reasonable indication of the degree of convenience represented by the proposed expanded
area.
The distance from the northernmost to the southernmost tips of the proposed social services
area is about 3,000 feet, or about 2/3 mile. Therefore, if a citizen needed to go to offices at
both ends, the distance would appear to be too great for comfortable foot travel. However,
most citizens are likely to be visiting offices somewhere in the middle of the area. There are
also bus stops near the two extreme ends. For these reasons, the area does not appear to
cover too great a distance. Uses within this area could be considered "convenient" to each
other.
5. If the area is expanded, additional approvals will still be needed. Approval of a change to
the LUE text will enable placement of social services governmental agencies within this
defined area, if all other approvals can be obtained. Most types of professional offices are not
allowed in the C-S zone. If a type of use is not one allowed in that zone, a Planned
Development Large Office rezoning will be needed. This type rezoning allows offices larger
than 2,500 square feet in area to locate in C-S or M zones, with certain limitations. Other
office uses may not require the PD rezoning but would require a use permit. Therefore,
approval of this expanded area does not mean automatic approval of anything that is not now
allowed by right in the C-S zone.
6. The Airport Land Use Commission is concerned about density. At its January 21 meeting,
the Airport Land Use Commission expressed concern about the potential for increased
occupant density in this area if this amendment is approved. Uses that are compatible with the
airport are those that do not involve high concentrations of children or adults. The ALUC felt
governmental offices of this type may be too intense a use. The ALUC voted on a motion to
deny the request, but split on a 3-3 vote. The item was continued to the February or March
meetings of that commission.
The City is required to refer projects to the ALUC for a recommendation, but is not required
to follow that recommendation. If the Planning Commission is uncomfortable acting on this
request prior to having a final recommendation from the ALUC, the item should be continued
to a date uncertain. A continuance may result in this request being put off until the next round
of general plan amendments, however, delaying City Council action until at least June. Staff
notes again, however, that approval of this change will not mean automatic approval of all
types of social services agencies within this larger area. Each request will be considered on its
own merits and will be referred to the ALUC for comments.
7. The applicant wants a "one-stop shop." The attached information from the applicant
indicates that the Private Industry Council wants to work with state agencies to develop a job
training and placement center that would all be in a single location. This concept is consistent
GPA 145-97
3440 through 3730 S. Higuera(even)
Page 5
with the intent of the social services area. The location proposed for this center has not been
evaluated on its particular merits, however, and may ultimately be denied, even if this General
Plan amendment request is approved. It appears, in fact, that the applicant was offered
sufficient space for this purpose within the Walter Center some time ago but chose not to
locate there. Evaluation of the applicant's specific request is not an appropriate subject for
discussion at this time.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Other departments had no concerns with this request.
Attached:
vicinity map
excerpt from Land Use Element: map of governmental offices nodes
applicant's request, including map amendment
environmental initial study
letter from Airport Land Use Commission
PF
F: :
�i.... ! .. .........
....................
: Y:.«!•
�cc..�,,��, ;•••
:!.' ::Y. :�.1,:r• �:t::.. Vit' i
W�,�oo :.
r.. IY 1
00
:s;::ttto•�:.......:i '?ss7e
all
•7:;:;;5;1!...!.. :.rt 15.,•:•••t;i•;;: CX::
;t: "•.:..:sig' .:..1. Gl
P
.y.
i —
C
P
t�k':
r
•:t.
:
J'
:-
/
•s.N••
/
•�:r
may, ;�• •�•
•:;tiy:i
0
...:.:. :tits••... ..w•..;.:*7! . ::t
:10:':«tit:••:;•: h
rvo
S. _-�'!ir3�•�s:t��r::t:,.�:t:';�::;!::s:i':'.;:::i::t;::i�:v: GRANADA DRIVE..
:;� ?L^•• I� N'E177NER
LANE
VICINITY MAP G'P�1 145 - 1
NORTH
Land Use Element
-----------
CIVIC CENTER
CULTURAL FACILITIES AREA
HEALTH CARE
AREA
SOCIAL SERVICES
AREA
FIGURE 5
city Of
PU13LIC FACILITIES AREAS
Q 72�� san Us oBispo
FE:B-CC-L ;
58
L---
.7
CIVIC CENTER
CULTURAL FACILITIES AREA
HEALTH CARE
AREA
1-7
nom. SOCIAL SERVICES
AREA
PROPOSED ADDITION,
TO
SOCIAL SERVICES AREA'
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
ASSOCIATES Private Industry Council or-eta
-970623\gpamend.pm5 10.16-97
ND- .'. G. PVIERRi�%l, AIA, AIcP
onDANIEL S. HUTCHINSON, LS
A 5 5 0 C I A T E 5
October 17, 1997
ENGINEERS
PLANNERS
City of San Luis Obispo
SURVEYORS Community Development Department
attn: Ron Whisenand
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA
RE: General Plan Text Amendment (Figure 5)
Private Industry Council
Dear Ron:
Attached is the general plan amendment application to enlarge the social services
component of the City's public facilities areas identified in Figure 5 of the
General Plan text. Approval of this amendment would allow the Private Industry
Council to establish a"one-stop-center" for providing job training,
education,employer, and job placement services. Cannon Associates represents
the applicant, Private Industry Council, in this process. Please copy all
correspondence regarding the application to us, in addition to the applicant and
owner's representative as listed on the application form.
Thank you for meeting with Doug Davidson of my staff the other day to clarify
the intent and confirm the process for this general plan amendment. Please call
Doug if you need any additional information or have any other questions.
Sincerely,
?L ajto��IIiIx
Andrew G. Merriam, AIA, AICP
Principal, Director of Planning
364 PACIFIC STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
93401
CELEBRATING
Aft Alk
805.544-7407
v:x 805.544-3863 YEARS OF EEPVVME
Support Documentation
Applicant requests a general plan amendment to bring the tri-polar concept into conformity with
present conditions. This amendment will allow greater flexibility of action on the part of social
service organizations than presently allowed. This situation could not have been foreseen 27
years ago when the tri-polar concept was conceived to maintain the county seat in the downtown.
Background
A review of the existing situation found that both the medical pole and the downtown core area
for the courts and administrative functions have exceeded the boundaries drawn on the general
plan exhibit. The social services pole was extended once and needs extension again. This results
from changing demographics and social requirements within a community more than twice the
size of San Luis Obispo when the concept was conceived.
The growth requirements of the Private Industry Council (PIC)bring this issue into focus. PIC is
the lead agency for the"one-stop center" for San Luis Obispo County for providing job training,
education, employment, and job placement services as authorized by the federal Job Training
Partnership Act (JTPA). (These services will continue with or without a one-stop center.) As a
result, various social service agencies have instructions to combine operations into a one-stop
center under the management of PIC. Specifically, the Department of Social Services will
provide four GAIN personnel and the State EDD office will provide nine of their staff to make
the operation more efficient. This merger of operations triggers a concern that the tri-polar
concept as identified in the General Plan cannot be met. The PIC offices do not fall within the
area identified for governmental social services. PIC itself as a private non-profit corporation, is
not restricted by these requirements.
A question arises if the total operation can be accommodated within the designated social service
pole. The answer is complicated. The existing Walter Center does not have the floor area
(projected to be between 13 and 14,000 square feet) to accommodate a unified one-stop operation
under one roof. Further, rent for the Walter Center exceeds the present PIC rent by
approximately 50 percent. The cost will be equal to the current Walter Center rent at the end of
the five-year PIC lease in the year 2001. This raises the issue of accountability of taxpayer
dollars. The situation concerns the contributing social agencies. Each dollar spend in rent is not
available for the provision of actual service to their client programs to reduce the number of
welfare recipients and provide job training.
Request
Applicant requests that the non-conformity issues in the medical and administrative/courts
component as well as the requirement to provide reasonable and affordable space for the social
services component be addressed by a general plan map amendment. This amendment will
provide space within easy access of the Prado Road interchange for the new social services
situation. Attached is an exhibit demonstrating this approach.
proJN7-062313upport.doc
PFK0,
CICOS - 40
t
C-T sc
C-S-PO
C-R C-S-S
/os R_2-PD
\ �'oo -5.
� v . F
c
C-R-PD R-2
C/0S-10 C-s-mu
1EXISTING SOCIAL
U
SERVICES AREA
PROPOSED ADDITION
TO SOCIAL SERVICES
-AREA p -2
Ai:.. ..
:)F SITE LOCATION
/01
BON-mr-ri W.
NP
*A G"NAVA DRIVE
------------------------
:-S-P j
C-S C-S-SP- 1)
C-S
C-S R 2 S
• C-T M -sp
/OS-2
TAPE F NO ROAD
R- C- S
/-
--' T
URBAN ROAD
CURRENT ZONING - CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ASSOCIATES Private Industry Council
970623Xdtyzone.pm5 10-16-97
li►1IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIfllllll��;��Illl 11�lllfl 11 11 11
cityof sAn oBispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY
ER 145-97
3440 through 3730 S. Higuera (even numbers)
1 . Project Title: General plan amendment to allow government offices
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
4. Project Location: The commercial property from 3440 through 3730 S. Higuera, on
the westerly side of S. Higuera Street, from Zaca Lane to Prado Road.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Private Industry Council
3566 S. Higuera Street, suite 100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation: Services and Manufacturing
7. Zoning: Service Commercial (C-S) and Service Commercial, with Special
Considerations (C-S-S)
8. Description of the Project: The project is the changing of a map within the general
plan Land Use Element text. The map designates specific areas for different types
of governmental offices. The amendment would expand the area where social
services governmental offices are allowed.
9. Project Entitlements Requested: An amendment to the general plan text.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The area contains several commercial
buildings, most multi-tenant buildings. The site is adjacent to the City's corporation
yard to the west, and to a mobile home park to the south.
fad
I(�I The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
ER 145-97
3440 through 3730 S. Higuera
page 2
11 . Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval,
or participation agreement): None.
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 Ts
There is no evidence before the Department that the project may have any potential adverse
effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore,
the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
F1The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment
of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code.
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a X
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, ther
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on a
attached sheets have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project May have a significant effect on the environment, and a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at leas
one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable lega
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis a
2 f-afli
ER 155-57
3440 through 3730 S. Higuera
page 3
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, ther
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 o
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project.
December 17, 1997
S' ature Date
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review 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 analysis in each section. A"No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact
simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture
zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as
well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on
a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination
is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they
reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)
(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
3 (PSG
Issues and Supporting Informatiun Sources N U C S Npkx»l. Potentialr. Less Than No
Significant Sieniticant Significant Impact
ER 145-97 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
3440 through 3730 S. Hiouera Street Incorporated
Pa.-e 4
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1,2 X
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)?
The Land Use Element (LUE) (part of source 1) calls for grouping of government facilities for
convenience. Three separate areas are designated in the text: a civic center area, a health care
center, and a social services area (see pages LU-48 and 49, and Figure 5 in the text). The civic
center and health care areas are shown as dots on figure 5 in the LUE text, while the social
services area is shown specifically as including a) most of the land fronting on the northerly side
of Prado Road, between Elks Lane and S. Higuera Street, b) the commercial land on both sides of
S. Higuera, between a property line above Margarita Avenue and Prado Road, and c) the
County's social services center on the southeasterly corner of Prado and Higuera.
The LUE text does not specify any geographical limits for these areas or any limitations on how
large they can be, other than stipulating that they should be grouped together "for convenience".
A discussion of what "convenient" means will be included in staff reports to the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Conclusion: Not significant. The proposed extension of the social services area does not conflict
with any land use or planning policies.
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 X
housing?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? X
b) Seismic ground shaking? X
c) Seismic ground failure, including.liquefaction? X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X
e) Landslides or mudflows? 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
4 O ��
issues ano Supporting Informatiun Sources Sources Pot:I. Pownuali% L:s>Tmin \,
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 145-97 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
3440 through 3730 S. Higuera Street Incorporated
Page 5
i) Unique geologic or physical features? X
The proposal is to allow governmental social services offices in an area where they are not
currently allowed. Other office uses of a similar nature are allowed in the vicinity, however, and
the property under consideration is essentially built-out. No physical changes are intended as a
part of this request, nor expected to be needed.
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X
such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of X
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X
body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X
movements?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through X
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through
substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X
otherwise available for public water supplies?
No physical changes are expected as a part of this request, nor are any projected if the request is
approved. Any construction project proposed that would take advantage of the expanded uses
allowed would be subject to separate review.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an X
existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance
with APCD Environmental 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
The change to general plan policy is not expected to change the nature of uses allowed in the
area proposed for change. A request to allow offices .where they are not now allowed would
need separate approvals.
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 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? X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X
5 O6
issues and Supporting Inio.rna:iun Sources Sources Pot-,. PotentisllN Less Than \o
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 145-97 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
3440 through 3730 S. Higuera Street Incorporated
Page 6
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility X
with San Luis Obispo Co.
No changes to existing buildings or property is proposed. If the general plan change is approved,
separate approvals will still be required to allow governmental offices in the expanded area.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect:
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
No property will be affected by this amendment physically.
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?
No construction is proposed as part of this request.
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?
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 "unacceptable" noise levels as X
defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
Element?
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
6 r-02 9
issues and Supporting Informatiun Sources sources Pow. Potentiall% Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 145-97 Issues Unless Impact
3440 through 3730 S.Hiouera Street mitigation
o Incorporated
Page 7
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
e) Other governmental services? X
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? X
b) Communications systems? X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 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? X
c) Create light or glare? X
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?
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 X
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a 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?
No physical changes are proposed.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- X
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals?
Short- and long-term goals are the same.
7 f-30
Issues ano Supporting Informanun Sources Socr�es Niel. Potentia.v- L-isThanM
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 145 97 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
3440 through 3730 S. Higuera Street Incorporated
Pace 8
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually X
limited, 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)
Incremental changes to the social services boundaries could result in effectively eliminating this
"pole" altogether, by widening the area to the point that concentration is no longer meaningful.
However, a general plan amendment is required to amend the boundaries, and environmental
review is required for every general plan amendment. Therefore, each individual change would be
reviewed in context with the previous.
Conclusion: Less than significant.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
No physical changes are proposed or expected from this change.
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one o
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.
No earlier analysis was used.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scop
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and stat
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
No earlier analysis was used.
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 t
which they address site-specific conditions of the project.
No earlier analysis was used.
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. General Plan Digest, City of San Luis Obispo, 1997 (includes condensed versions of all elements)
2. Zoning Regulations, City of San Luis Obispo, August 1997
$ 83/
San Luis Obispo County ;_
1350 0
Planning Department
County Planning Commissionr::a:
Airport Land Use Commission
RECEIVED
January 22, 1998
JAN 2 2 1998
Ron Whisenand/Community Development Dept. CITY OF SAN LUIS O8pO
City of San Luis Obispo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: SLO CITY PERMIT NO. 145-97 (PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL)
The Private Industry Council's application has been continued from the January 21,
1998 Airport Land Use Commission hearing (ALUC) to the next ALUC hearing. The
next hearing will be February 18 or March 18, 1998. The ALUC commissioners had
several questions regarding this project and would like your staff to respond in writing
or in person at the next ALUC hearing.
This is the proposed general plan amendment application (to amend Figure 5/Social
Services Areas of the City's General Plan) submitted by the Private Industry Council
(PIC). The ALUC's concerns centered around potential intensity of
development/volume of users. The 20 acre amendment site is in the airport plan's
Area 3, where schools are not allowed, but public buildings and "other services" are
allowed. However, conditions are required by the airport plan for these two allowable
uses (i.e., soundproofing, and new development to be limited to low density uses so
that large groups of people will not congregate). What makes PIC's proposed job
training center different than a school? And, as PIC's site is only a 6 acre parcel
within the larger 20 acre amendment site being considered, what development
constraints is the city considering for the other 14 acres being affected?
I am available to meet and discuss this item further, if you like. My phone number is
781-5701 .
Sincerely
Ted Bench
Airport Land Use Commission Staff
0
Conditions Area 3 - Approach and ClisLbout Extensicns
NOTE: Avigation Easements required for creation of new parcels , discretionary land
use permits , all new principle structures and the establishment of new land uses .
sCorrUiTUrZAL [:SES
Poultry Farms
1. Chicks should be raised from birth in noise Drone
RF.SIDE?1TIA.L AND INSTITUTIONAL
Rural Residential 5 Acre Lot Size or More
1. Should be soundproofed to reduce noise level as per
State guidelines , (proposed: 40 dba in sleeping areas
and 55 dba for other living areas) .
3. No radio transmissions which would interfere with
aircrafL. operation.
CCL-='ERCI L USES
Flying Schools
I. ' Soundproofing to reduce noise to acceptable level.
"Zh;CL
•
Office Buildings
1. Scundproofirg and/or central air conditioning to reduce
noise to acceptable level.
--�----rise-ef-sate==21=�-espee_a11y-_n_tre-2se=T_wh:ch_a�e--
Public Buildings
1. Soundproofing and/or central air conditioning to reduce
noise to •acceDtable level.
--3:---bee-e_-saieaie1s;-espee.a=?y-=�-the-recfT_wa_ch_are_-
-------tie-� -----
Restaurants and Food Take-outs
1. Soundproofing to reduce noise to acceptable level.
2. Low density so that large gr cups Of Deonle will not
congregate. '
-�---�9�'_"�__��2£$3 i/2-+::a=83`=•a�6-s`<^.-e2-ilS4G�-S�-a�.L'��L���AS_ZSt�_
December 19, 1979
-o-
. 8 33
Retail Stores
I. Soundproofing to reduce noise to acceptable level.
2. Low density so that large groups of people will not
_ congregate.
Other Service Uses
'_. Soundproofing to reduce noise to acceptable level.
2. Low density so that large groups of people will not
congregate.
-----mss-- gs--a^d---
IYDUSTRIP.L USES
Research Laboratories
1. Fearing by Commission to determine whether:
a. Use is compatible with the a-4-"Dor-L.
b. Soundproofing if required. -
Z� --?1or* ma+ar� `� „� = i.-- 'tc�
3. That no radio transmissions inierfere with aircraft
operation.
4. Low density.
Air-Cra t Factories
1. Low density.
-�•--- L'sz �r=z`xx� `�3cut_vi e:= C-iLd s-
3. Soundproofing if required.
Non Air Related Manufacturing
1. Low density.
11fS.nn
3 . Soundproofing if required.
UTILITI-c
Pet_oleu= and Chemical Prcducts Bulk Storage
1. These tanks should be underground.
F.lact_iczl Plants
s
2• =;o transmissions to interfere with. ai-"c=a�� operat'_cr..
ecember 19, 1979
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
February 11, 1998
Page 10
Associate Planner Ricci stated that residential occupancy standards apply to group
housing. She explained that a hostel is a similar use to a motel and is not subject to such
regulations. She confirmed that the lot can accommodate the required six parking spaces.
Commissioner Whittlesey would like the Commission to consider requiring active
membership in a national/international hostel organization and a condition addressing
quiet time in the event the property changes hands and there's a different owner.
City Attorney Clemens noted a problem defining, "quiet time."
Chairman Senn suggested that the applicant provide house rules to the Community
Development Dir.
Commissioner Whittlesey expressed concerns with signage and landscape improvements.
Commissioners Jeffrey and Ewan accepted suggested amendments to Conditions #1 and
#5.
AYES: Commissioner Jeffrey, Ewan, Kourakis, Whittlesey, Ready, Ashbaugh and
Senn
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried 7-0.
3. 3566 S. Higuera Street: GPA 145-97: Request for a General Plan amendment to ,
expand the Social Services area of the Public and Cultural Facilities "tri-polar
policy," to include property at 3566 S. Higuera; Private Industry Council (PIC),
applicant.
Commissioner Whittlesey refrained from participation due to a potential conflict of
interest.
Associate Planner Shoals presented the staff report and recommended recommending
approval of the amendment to the City Council, based on finding it's consistent with the
goals of the General Plan Land Use Element policies on public and cultural facilities.
Commissioner Kourakis asked if the area from Prado to below Zaca would remain C-S.
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
February 11, 1998
Page 11
Associate Planner Shoals replied yes.
Commissioner Kourakis asked if this becomes part of the social service node would the
zoning change?
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated there's no need to. The social service
node allows this type of use with a P-D.
Commissioner Kourakis asked if the Private Industry Council (PIC) is allowed in this
zone.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated PIC has an administrative use permit
for what's termed a job training center\specialized school. It's fully allowed and
permitted at this location.
Commissioner Kourakis asked if PIC has to be part of the social services node because
they want to expand their activity and pull in some government agencies.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated it was determined that the number of
employees from EDD(9) was too large to be consider as accessory.
Commissioner Kourakis questions why there needs to be a change if PIC is allowed in the
C-S Zone.
Commissioner Ashbaugh feels if there's going to be a boundary adjustment, retail use
should be considered on the Sunset Drive-In side of Prado Road.
Chairman Senn understood that the tri-polar policy area has only been on the west side of
Higuera St.
Development Review Manager Whisenand displayed an overhead map and stated it's on
both sides of the street.
The Commission/staff briefly discussed county agencies' exemption from City
regulations.
There were no further questions/comments and the public comment session was opened.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Lee Farrera, 1720 14" St., Los Osos, PIC President and CEO, stated PIC is a nonprofit
corporation created in 1980. They've been at the current location since 1991. The staff
X-36
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
February 11, 1998
Page 12
report is accurate and well written. The one-stop concept is a countrywide trend which
puts like services together to operate more efficiently and better serve customers. After
discussion with City staff, the best solution seemed to be to seek a General Plan Land Use
text amendment to an increase of the social services area.
Andrew Merriam, Cannon & Associates, stated the easiest solution would be a small
office expansion to incorporate these other agencies since the present building can't
accommodate the increase. This change is truly a General Plan mapping issues that
allows PIC to apply for the P-D and development plan process to come back with a
legitimate retail solution to the problem. Parking will be addressed at the appropriate
time. There aren't any major changes in access. This change enables and fulfills the idea
of the tri-polar concept. There was some misconception on the part of the Airport Land
Use Commission that this amendment would allow an increase of activity and density.
Mr. Merriam explained there will be a few additional people, but they would be replacing
people already in the area and that the workshop/training component of PIC was
permitted in 1991 and has not changed in the number of rooms. He requested that PIC be
able to accommodate the state and federal requirements without having to relocate.
Commissioner Kourakis asked if the government agencies will be working under the
aegis of the PIC and PIC is allowed, why is this being requested?
Mr. Merriam replied City staff felt the increased number of employees was more than a
minor ancillary augment.
Commissioner Ewan is concerned about the boundary extending so far south on Zaca Ln..
Commissioner Ashbaugh feels it makes sense to extend the boundary to the west to
possibly include the Prado Day Center and detach property on the north side of 40 Prado
Rd. He noted that Mr. Owens, Owens Music, raised a concern that the more these
government offices are concentrated, the less synergy he has a retailer. He's concerned
about the retailers in the area.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated this application only changes the type
of office allowed. Currently offices are allowed in the C-S district. This amendment
would allow the type of office to be government/social service related.
Chairman Senn asked how many employees PIC currently has.
Mr. Ferrara replied 23. If approved, there would be an additional 9 state and 4 county
employees.
Janell Buttery, JB Enterprises, 2231 Broad St., owner's representative, described the
history/size of the building, noting it was originally built for National Auto Body. After
��7
Draft Minutes —
Planning Commission Meeting
February 11, 1998
Page 13
the body shop left, her business did its best to fill the space with appropriate
users/retailers.
Bruce Frasier, Frasier Seiple Architects, representing Walters Bros. property, feels this
General Plan amendment is misguided. The tri-polar concept requires landowners to set
certain restrictions on who they can rent to and require certain infrastructures. There's
little need to expand this area because there has been little growth. Reasonably priced
lease space is available within the currently designated area on Mr. Walter's property, on
the property to the west, and around the social services building. Offices serving public
social service functions are transportation intensive. Expansion westward towards the
freeway would be better. This proposal constitutes a gerrymandering way of planning to
suit an inappropriately located office.
Commissioner Ashbaugh is concerned about the density and retailers located in the area.
Commissioner Kourakis asked if PIC were to stay where it is and state and county
employees came in and there was no change on the General Plan map, would PIC be in
conflict with the social service designated area?
Mr. Frasier replied yes, because the proposal fits the definitions of the tri-polar concept.
Chairman Senn stated when Mr. Walters originally built this project it had a P-D Overlay.
Later he sough the ability to have other office uses and the P-D was modified.
Tom Walters, 3220 S. Higuera, stated in that 1975 he was approached by the county to
build 10,000 s.f for the social service/welfare dept. In 1978, he was approached by EDD
and he constructed a 65,000 s.f. building. With all this government activity occurring, the
area was zoned to P-F, with the exception of the corner. The DMV went in in 1986 along
with signals on Prado Rd. A bus stop was put in in 1990 with the building for Caltrans.
We have a one-stop government center. Why are we trying to create another?
Chairman Senn asked what percent of Mr. Walters' building is not government occupied
and how much vacancy there is.
Mr. Walters stated he's got 15% non-government tenants and 17,000 s.f. vacancy. There
are no government agencies looking for space.
Mr. Ferrera gave the chronology of PIC, noting they started with 17 employees and were
located on Mill St. They currently occupy 14,000 s.f., but are only using 12,000.
Mr. Merriam stated PIC has an ongoing operation and are desiring to accommodate state
requirements to incorporated GAIN and EDD. He doesn't believe we need to expand the
3�
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
February 11, 1998
Page 14
total space available for the social services, but need to make it relevant to the delivery of
the services.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Ashbaugh is uncomfortable moving forward until he has a better
understanding of supply and demand issues.
Associate Planner Shoals noted Commission action would be a recommendation to
Council. If the request is approved, any use allowed in a C-S Zone could also be
considered because this zoning will remain.
Commissioner Kourakis cited Zoning Text Page 56. She asked if this request is
approved, will the Zoning Ordinance have to be changed as well?
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated there is no proposal to change the
services and manufacturing underlying General Plan land use designation. All we're
doing is taking an overlay shown in the text that says you can have governmental offices
as well.
Commissioner Kourakis moved to deny the requested expansion The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Jeffrey.
Commissioner Kourakis stated PIC is allowed where it is. They can stay where they are
and expand their offices to include more employees.
Commissioner Ewan is concerned about changing or overlaying a use when there are
objections.
Commissioner Ashbaugh supports the motion.
Commissioner Jeffrey feels demand hasn't been sufficiently demonstrated.
Commissioner Ready concurred. This request is similar to spot zoning and the need to
expand hasn't been demonstrated. He supports the motion.
Chairman Senn supports the motion. He doesn't support expanding the tri-polar concept
because there's no demonstrated need.
39
Draft Minutes -
Planning Commission Meeting
February 11, 1998
Page 15
AYES: Commissioners Kourakis, Jeffrey, Ewan, Ready, Ashbaugh, and Chairman
Senn
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion.carried 6-0. Commissioner Whittlesey refrained from participation due to a
potential conflict of interest.
The Commission concurred after discussion that the expansion of this service may be
considered ancillary to what is occurring presently on the site. A second review by the
Director may be necessary.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:/
4. Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast:
Development Review Manager Whisenan presented the agenda forecast for the meetings
of Feb. 25 and March 25.
5. Commission:
Chairman Senn distributed/reviewed update of recently heard Council items. He noted
there are three vacancies on the ARC.
ADJOURNMENT:
The Commission, the meeting was adjourne at 12:07 a.m. to the next regular meeting
scheduled for February 25, 1998 at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Leaha K. Magee
Recording Secretary
I�IIIII III city or sAn IuIS OBISPO
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by.Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of
r�
P&A M I n! Co M m r ss i o h rendered on FQ. Arai a,4 V 9 8
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting.the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) .
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
h Syo« Is �omM &ZV on &-Aryapv l9. ! 99 S
Name/Department (Date)
Appellant: Pri uafa 7�dvgtrry 1414OW-r S7` SLo
NamefT-itle Mailing Address Zip Code)
"7W -ZZoo
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative: Qnatr.Qw 44' riar& 8LjQ�W 3�Y pacl -Pic St . 5L
Name/Title .—T Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
CQ h N O h A SSOG�G-�`.a S
For Official Use Only: p O
Calendared for Date &Time Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s): RECEIVED
FEB 2 01998
SLO C:7'1 CLERK
Original in City Clerk's Office
MICHAEL F. CANNON. PE
ANDRE%- G. MERRIAM, AIA, AICP
D-NIEL S. HUTCHINsoN, LS
annon
A S S O C I A T E S February 18, 1998
Arnold Jonas
Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
ENGINEERS 990 Palm St.
PLANNERS San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SURVEYORS RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision
General Plan Amendment 145-97 - Private Industry Council(PIC)
Dear Mr. Jonas:
The Private Industry Council (PIC)hereby appeals the Planning Commission
decision of February 11, 1998 to deny the General Plan Amendment referenced
above.
The Planning Commission did not adopt specific findings for denial. In response
to their verbal concerns,we have formulated the following reasons for appeal:
Reason: The"Social Services Area" Seems Ripe for City Council
Consideration and Policy Direction.
Discussion: An apparent majority of the Commission questioned the need for a
general plan amendment to simply augment the existing services offered at PIC.
It seemed to them that relocating 13 employees to supplement the 23 employees at
PIC was an ancillary activity. In a letter to Assemblyman Bordonaro dated June
11, 1997,the Community Development Director determined that, "a very limited
placement service (say two employees) could logically be accepted as an
accessory use to the main educational function." The proposal to move nine State
Employment Development Department(EDD) employees and four County
(GAIN) employees to the PIC site seemed to him to be beyond"accessory" and
required an amendment to the General Plan. Thus, PIC filed the subject
application to consolidate job training services by providing limited governmental
functions. With the Commission asking,"why a general plan amendment", it
seems we are back to where we started months ago. Indeed, as the Planning
Commission Chairman stated at the hearing, "PIC is caught in a bureaucratic
maze." PIC believes that the additional EDD and GAIN staff only augment their
ongoing existing operations.
304 PA:Inc STREET Reason: Changing Nature of Governmental Services
Sar: Lu,i OE!spo. CA
93401 Discussion: The Planning Commission's main concern was enlarging the social
service node without a proven demand for increasing governmental services. PIC
305 544-7407
a'•.
805 5 -3363 PROVIDING SERVICE SINCE 1976
cannon
A S S O C I A T E S
points out, however,that the focus of governmental services has changed since the
tri-polar concept was developed in the early 1970's. Less government sometimes
results in new and different demands on social services. Welfare reform is a
perfect case in point. The national program to reduce welfare and unemployment
results in an increased emphasis on providing job skills. The Private Industry
Council is the lead agency in San Luis Obispo County for job training programs
as authorized by the federal Job Training Partnership Act(DTPA). Approval of
this amendment would facilitate the Private Industry Council's establishment of a
"one-stop center"providing job training, education, employer, and job placement
services in proximity to the other social services offered near the intersection of
Prado Road and South Higuera Street. The EDD will remain in its current
location;therefore, only those employees(nine) accessory to the PIC function
would move to 3566 South Higuera St.
Privatization of services is another growing trend in government. Private non-
profit organizations are the ideal vehicle to locally deliver State and County
services. While delivering supplemental government services, PIC would
maintain its primary business function. It is important to provide job training
skills in a business environment, such as PIC's. Government is continually being
packaged into smaller units located in mixed use centers. The tri-polar concept
was devised during a time when government was more rigid in nature and more
centralized in location.
Reason: The Tri-polar Concept Appears Outdated
Discussion: According to the Planning Commission discussion, approval of the
PIC General Plan Amendment would fiuther recognize the exceptions granted to
the tri-polar concept. The Prado Day center, although in the vicinity, is located
outside the"social services area." The Economic Opportunity Commission
(EOC) is located on South Street in the Westwinds Business Park. "Health care"
(Drug and Alcohol Services,Home Health Agency) and"civic center"(Advanced
Planning, County Clerk/Recorder) also have services located outside their
designated areas. PIC, however, chose to work within the tri-polar system. The
General Plan Amendment could also include the day care center and its office.
Reason: Suitability of Relocating PIC to the Walter Center
Discussion: The Planning Commission only generally addressed the suitability
and cost of relocating PIC to the Walter Center. PIC occupies 12,000 square feet
and is prepared to expand into an adjacent tenant space of 2,000 square feet. It is
not reasonable for PIC to relocate their operations to the Walter Center to gain
2,000 square feet. The Walter Center does not have the floor area to
accommodate a consolidated one-stop center in the context in which PIC wishes
to operate. Furthermore,rent at the Walter Center exceeds the present PIC rent by
approximately 50 percent. Finally,PIC finds the 10 percent vacancy rate claimed
by Mr. Walter at the hearing not a viable argument for relocation.
8-443
Oamon
ASSOCIATES
Other Comments
• There was some concern at the Planning Commission over the proposed size
of the expanded area. Much of the property in the"social services area",
existing and proposed, is fully developed or otherwise not suitable for location
of a facility such as that proposed by PIC. For these reasons, we have reduced
the size of the expansion by eliminating the area south of PIC (see exhibit).
• Approval of the General Plan Amendment would enlarge the social services
component of the City's public facilities areas identified in Figure 5 of the
General Plan text. It does not change the underlying Zoning and General Plan
designation. They would remain Commercial Service (Services/
Manufacturing). Likewise, the list of allowed and conditionally allowed uses
in the Commercial Service zone are not affected by this proposal.
• PIC will address specific site and design standards, such as parking and space
allocation, during development plan review. PIC has several solutions that
ensure adequate parking is provided per City standards.
• PIC and Cannon Associates are scheduled for the Airport Land Use
Commission meeting of February 18th to address their concerns over density.
We will address their concerns and clarify PIC's operations prior to the City
Council hearing.
On behalf of the Private Industry Council,we respectfully request that you take
these points into account and support the staff recommendation in approving the
amendment. As an alternative to approving the General Plan Amendment, the
City Council could determine that the proposed expansion of PIC's job training
services is "accessory"in nature.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Agent for Applicant
Andrew G. Merriam,AIA, AICP
Principal, Director of Planning
Attachment- Revised"Social Services Area"Exhibit
97-0623/Vpea1h.dx
8'y�
r._._._._._.
I
I I
I 1
I I
I
1 �
I i 1
I j
I j
CMC CENTER j
CULTURAL FACILITIES AREA !
HEALTH CARE
1 ` AREA
^ i �
: `•� i
. .
I
I \
I `
i7
1 SOCIAL SERVICES
AREA
i
PROPOSED ADDITION
1 TO
SOCIAL SERVICES AREA
I
� ]IZOIZ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
ASSOCIATES Private Industry Council
9706231gpamend.pm5 10-16-97 p J
O 7 �
1 _
-�, LL�
PF g C/OS - 40
Sc C S P D
• ' zR C-R -s-s
1 oyo /Os R-2-PD
\ oo -5
PF `
'D, y
•l C I C
5t. �•C-R-PD R-2
' C/OS-10
C-S-MU
o -
ttAR C
s
�5
EXISTING SOCIAL s
E
� SERVICES AREA
V /
_ I PROPOSED ADDITION
TO SOCIAL SERVICES , PF <' _2
AREA :AAAA
PF* SITE LOCATION
w o
• �;4 F/ BONET71 DR
r
°'C - - SP
`C_S_P C-S-SP- �D CRT�RRf
'• \ \
C \
— —
—' � R 2 S �' I
cS
—T
' C
.D' �. M -S P
C/OS-2C
V
TANK R R■ ROAD
j R- C- S
""C-T
— r.4 {•r 5.1.0 Su0uR0.• ROAD
� lOrl CURRENT ZONING - CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ASSOCIATE 5 Private Industry Council
9706231cityzone.pm5 10-16-97 p Al/
P. / 5�
ATTACHMENT 6 - CL II INTERVEST LETTER OF FEBRUARY 10, 1998
TRI-POLAR POLICY EXPANSION oiCVJtIVlCD
FEB 10 1998
CITY CL II INTERVEST ' BOX 3990 * SANTA BARBARA, CA * 93)MuNrry pEVEL PLUIS M, 0
FOR • TENWISE PARK 3536 AND 3546 SOUTH HIGUERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO NT
January 28, 1998
#1. We do not want our property at 3536 and 3546 South Higuera in the Tri-Polar Policy of
Government zoning. We want it to remain private property that caters to the individual business
person.
#2. The Government does not need to expand the Tri-Polar Policy. The government agencies
just need to USE those Buildings that are already available for their use. As rents go up, the
government just keeps expanding their authority to encompass what is best for them instead of
what is best for the community as a whole.
#3. Government agencies need to use Buildings and areas of the City with adequate parking
spaces on their own premises, and in areas where there is space to expand their parking
directly next to the existing agency. The Walter Complex, where the EDD is now located, has
adequate parking on their premises. Don Walter added a three story parking garage there.
The new Social Services Building also has adequate parking. Yet I have heard that neither of
these buildings are being used to their best capacity.
A friend in the Social Services told me that the Social Services Building has mostly part-time
employees.. Why not put the EDD, Gain and the Welfare programs there and/or keep them in
the Walter Complex where they do not encroach upon private businesses and their parking.
The Walter Complex was built for government usage. Mr. Walter was required to pay for Bus
Stops and Stoplights, because he built the big government complex. He told me by telephone,
he has approximately 12,000 square feet that the EDD is occupying on a month to month basis
and another 7 thousand square feet vacant. This is approximately 19,000 square feet available
that is already zoned for government and yet they want more. I have never Met Mr. Waker, buy .
seems the government is penalizing him by not leasing the available spaces he has built just f<;r
them. Is there something political going on here that we ordinary people are missing?
#4. Now, the government is pushing for expansion of the Tri-Polar Policy so they can put the
EDD, Gain and the welfare at the Campanile Building, along with the Private Industry Council.
A building which is not adequate to carry the load of all of these government agencies. All by
itself, the Private Industry Council has overloaded the Building past it's present parking capacity.
Government should not be allowed to progressively encroach into more and more private
business sectors. Two or three years ago the government was able to have the area behind the
drive-in movie re-mapped clear to Elks and Prado Roads. Mr. Walter states he also has two
more acres to be built out in the existing government mapped area. Why not use those areas
that are already mapped government, instead of encroaching further into the private sector. We
have too much government already. I thought government was supposed to be rutting back,
but the indications are the opposite.
#5. These days, there is "Parking Rage"just as there is "Road Rage", and it frightens me. If the
government agencies are allowed to put their services where there is inadequate parking, but
next to a complex like ours at Tenwise Park, which has parking lots for our tenants and their
Tri-Polar98.1.xls r arm 1
TRI-POLAR POLICY EXPANSION
customers ONLY, there are going to be problems. We have had many occasions already
where aggressive people from the Campanile try to park where they want to park, and they are
not allowed to park in our private parking lot. If the Campanile people think they can park in our
parking lot and not be towed they are mistaken. The police will be callea to assist us in
keeping the peace and the preservation of our private property. I know of this "Parking Page"
because the Campanile had, as one of their first tenants, a man who conflicted with the roan
who owns the gym business on our property at Tenwise Park. When these two men conrl.cted
the police had to send three police cars on a frequent basis. This has not been the case since
that Campanile tenant moved out, but it frightens me that this could occur again if people from
the Campanile aggressively attempt to use Tenwise parking. If the same people would come to
the Campanile everyday, they know where they can and cannot park, but when you have new
people each day, as the government agencies have, then there are going to be problems that
will become more and more unmanageable for us and the City as each confrontation occurs.
If the City approves more density in confined areas there are going to be serious problems
The sociologists have recorded the conflicts caused by overcrowding. Overcrowding magi��ics
ordinary problems, and causes tempers to flare. Overcrowding is against the normai hurnan
nature.
#6. The Campanile Building is a very long narrow building with inadequate parking of it's Own '
The Building was not designed for businesses with heavy parking needs. 1,v4as designed rno;e
on the industrial building scale, with very large units, very littie parking and a pool traffic tiow
around the Building from the front to the rear. People don't like to park in the rear of the
Campanile Building. It is secluded and there aren't many spaces there. As a woman. I riou'd
not want to be parking in the back of the Campanile after dark because of the seclusion, nor
would I want to walk the two blocks to the Eagle's Lodge parking lot. !t is esnec iall�� ar r�ninq
when I know there is a three story parking facility built especially for government just two
the other direction.
#7. The Tri-Polar Policy area does not belong South of Padre on the West side of Hig,]era
because of the confined area between Higuera and San Luis Creek. There is limited Space and
no expansion areas there. The area is too small for government density and if government is
allowed there, they will have to hire their own policeman to patrol the parking lots because of the
potential conflicts they will cause. I will not except the liability of the Campanile parkin-Ig ii-I my
parking lots. Both of my lots are well posted, that they are for Tenwise Park ONLY. i ne skins
clearly state, "NO Campanile, NO PIC, and NO Central Coast GYM, and 1 mean to enforce it.
My tenants do not have the authority nor the right to allow parking by the Campanile inim y lots
#8. Government expansion eats up property values and taxpayer dollars. Let them use the
vacancies that were built for them in the zoning that exists.
#9. What the government means by one-stop shopping is that persons seeking those cervi^=s
now park their car and leave it for 4 to 5, or more, hours instead of moving on to the next
government agency. This will cause a more severe overloading at Campaniie, which is already
overloaded. If you have ever been to the EDD, you are familiar with at least ten to twenty people
waiting in line or sitting around waiting to be taken care of. The majority of ti iese pe3ple will sail;
be there when the people in the next hour come for service. The welfare department and the
training center of the Private Industry Council bring in even more people thpt stay/for meetings.
TRI-POLAR POLICY EXPANSION
and large training sessions. There is simply not room for all of these people at the Campanile
and it is not fair to our business tenants, at Tenwise Park, to have to contend with the
Campaniles' parking problems. The private sector businesses need the space they are paying
for in order to make a living and should be able to do so without harassment, if not, they are
going to beat the Private Industry Council looking for jobs too. Why not be ronsiderate of the
business person who is already out there working to-make a living. Why not put our tax dollars
to good use by using government space that is already available and yet not being used.
Thank you.
Tri-Pnlw98 1 As -.��
RFrFIVED
ATTACHMENT 7 - OWENS MUSIC LETTER OF FEBRUARY 99 1998
rto U9 1998
OWENS MUSIC COMPANY, INC. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
3536 S. HIGUERA #220 201 E. MAIN ST. 205 W. OMANYAW.PMENT
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA SANTA MARIA,CA LOMPOC, CA
543-9588 922-4551 736-3407
PLANNING COMMISSION,
RECENTLY,WE WERE INFORMED OF A MEETING TO CHANGE THE ZONING
IN THIS AREA SO PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNSEL CAN BRING OTHER
GOVERNMENT SERVICES INTO THE ZONE. WE THOUGHT WE SHOULD TAKE THE
TIME TO SHARE SOME THOUGHTS WITH YOU.
AS WE ALL KNOW, SAN LUIS OBISPO IS HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME
COMPETING FOR RETAIL BUSINESS AND A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF OUR
RETAIL BUSINESS, (i.e. TAX DOLLARS)IS GOING TO OTHER CITIES( SANTA MARIA
AND PLACES WITH MORE SHOPPING AREA) SO IT SEEMS WE ARE BEING A BIT
FOOLISH TRADING OFF AREAS ZONED FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL,RETAIL AND
SERVICE AND ZONING IT FOR GOVERNMENT FACILITIES.
ONCE YOU APPROVE THIS ZONING CHANGE IT IS NST A MATTER OF TIME
BEFORE RETAIL AND INDUSTRIAL BUSINESSES ARE REPLACED BY GOVERNMENT
FACILITIES. WE CAN TELL YOU FIRST HAND ABOUT HOW GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES GROW AND EXPAND.
WE WERE ONE OF THE FIRST OCCUPANTS OF CAMPANELLA PLAZA. WHEN
WE FIRST MOVED THERE IN FEBRUARY 1989 IT WAS NATIONAL AUTO BODY,
WHICH OCCUPIED THE FRONT AND BACK OF THE BUILDINGS. EVERYTHING IN
BETWEEN WAS TO BE SERVICE AND RETAIL SHOPS. IT REMAINED THIS WAY,
FIRST WITH A RETAIL BOAT STORE AND LATER A FURNITURE STORE BETWEEN
NATIONAL AUTO BODY'S OFFICE IN THE FRONT AND OWENS MUSIC. AFTER
SEVERAL YEARS NATIONAL AUTO BODY CLOSED. P.I.C. THEN TOOK OVER THE
FRONT OFFICES. SLOWLY EACH YEAR AFTER THAT THEY EXPANDED. AFTER
THE THIRD EXPANSION WE GOT A LITTLE NERVOUS SO WE ASKED IF THEY
INTENDED TO EXPAND FURTHER. SINCE WE WERE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THEM
BY THEN. WE WERE TOLD,BY THE P.I.C. MANAGER, THEY WERE NOT
EXPANDING FURTHER. A FEW MONTHS LATER WE RECEIVED AN EVICTION
NOTICE.
WE WERE NEVER LATE WITH RENTAL PAYMENTS ,WE DID NOT CREATE
PROBLEMS FOR THE LANDLORD AND WE WENT OUT OF THE WAY TO
COOPERATE WITH OTHER TENANTS. WE GOT AN EVICTION NOTICE BECAUSE
P.I.C. WANTED TO EXPAND.
�SO
HERE WE HAVE A RETAIL BUSINESS WHO , IN ESSENCE, HAS BEEN IN SAN
LUIS OBISPO SINCE THE 19501S (AS BENNETT MUSIC AND FROM 1973 AS OWENS
MUSIC). AFTER THE EVICTION NOTICE WE GAVE CONSIDERABLE THOUGHT TO
LEAVING SAN LUIS OBISPO AND POSSIBLY RELOCATING IN FIVE CITIES OR
ATASCADERO. HOWEVER,WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN LOYAL
TO US OVER THE YEARS, AND WE REALLY DO LOVE SAN LUIS OBISPO SO WE
DECIDED TO RELOCATE IN TOWN.
WE ARE NOW VERY CONCERNED ABOUT OUR DECISION. IF THE ZONING IS
ALLOWED TO CHANGE IT WELL COMPLETELY CHANGE THE MAKE-UP OF THE
AREA AND MAKE IT HIGHLY UNDESIRABLE FOR RETAIL AND SERVICE
BUSINESSES. NO SERVICE OR RETAIL BUSINESS, OUTSIDE OF THE FOOD
INDUSTRY, WANTS TO BE IN THE MIDST OF GOVERNMENT FACILITIES.
ON ANOTHER MATTER, SINCE WE WERE THE TENANT THAT CAME OUT OF
THE FACILITY THEY ARE NOW ADDING .WE FEEL IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU
REALIZE THAT WHEN WE WERE THERE, WE HAD ONLY EIGHT(8)PARKING
PLACES ALLOCATED TO US. OF THE EIGHT (8)PARKING PLACES ONLY FIVE(5)
WERE REALLY AVAILABLE TO US, WE COULD NEVER USE THE OTHER THREE.(3)
AS THEY WERE ALWAYS OCCUPIED BY OTHERS. IN THE EIGHT YEARS WE WERE
THERE THE ONE THING WE CAN TELL YOU IS THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME
THE ONLY PARKING PLACES AVAILABLE WERE THE THREE(3)PLACES IN FRONT
OF OUR STORE, SUITE 203. THEY WERE ONLY VACANT BECAUSE WE
CONSTANTLY ASKED PEOPLE NOT TO PARK (THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE
WHO EITHER PARKED THERE OR TRIED TO WERE P.I.C. CUSTOMERS). IT WAS AN
EXTREMELY BAD SITUATION. NOW YOU WANT TO PUT OFFICES IN THERE WITH
SEVENTEEN(17)EMPLOYEES. IF YOU DO THE MATH YOU SEE THE
IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE SITUATION. WE HAVE HEARD THEY, P.I.C., ARE LOOKING
FOR OFF SITE PARKING. REMEMBER, ONCE YOU CHANGE THE ZONING AND
ONCE YOU ALLOW THEM TO GO AHEAD WITH THEIR EXPANSION, IT WILL BE
NEXT TO R%IPOSSIBLE TO UNDO. UNLESS THEIR OFF SITE PARKING AGREEMENTS
ARE TWENTY FIVE(25) YEAR UNBREAKABLE CONTRACTS YOU ARE GOING TO
HAVE PROBLEMS. IF THEY LOSE THERE OFFSITE PARKING THEY ARE GOING TO
CLOG THE ENTIRE AREA. THEREFORE,.OUR FEELING IS NOBODY SHOULD BE
ALLOWED IN,ESPECIALLY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, IF THEY CANNOT MEET
THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENTS ONSITE.
WE BEG YOU NOT TO SUBJECT US TO THE FIASCO THAT WILL OCCUR IF
YOU CHANGE THE ZONING. DO REMEMBER THIS WAS NAMED "CAMPANELLA
PLAZA" NOT GOVERNMENT PLAZA.
:� ..: ter- {•_ ..•}' 7/�0 i
aria /f'/ar U-itiieChool i3tnict
602'ORCHARbtf.,ARROYO GRANDE;CA 93420
- 6)41.34 AX;(845)48
X300 F 91398,
ARROYO GRANDE - NIFQMO ,-GROVER!BEACHi OCEANO. - PISMO BEACH
OFFICE`OF-; uHL S_IJPEmINTE NDENI
March 17i 1998'
Mayor Settle and Members of the City'Council!
City of San;Luis Obispo}
990 Palm Street:
$an Luis:Obispo; CA 93.4.0,1
Dear,Nlayor Settle,and City Council Members;:
This letter'is provided'+'to'you,in:support of the conceptof a One Stop;Career
Center located at the,,Privafe ladustiy Council(PIC)offices,mlSan L`uis.Obispo . .
I:.'
Apparently there Area couple of ways lto accomplish this My belief is that
regardless of.how�this is done, it is most .importantthat:one stop services should'.
ibe allowed;to tt providedd oma private non,profit4' '_zahon such as the one
found at the PICI., The addition of some government services at.the PIC`is theddeal,
way for-customers tobe treated:
`Whether this is accomplshedtlirougli a general plan amendment or by not
designatingthe PIC. s,a government agency is.less imporfant'tl an how the needs'
of_local citi2ens andi-employers:areserved.
Thank'you for.this:opportunity to voice my concems:
Sincerely,
3
osep It.;Boeckx ;
Superintendent`
MAS. ,
S_Ot ,IF
(�'Pn - Pry 3� #
CALIFORNIA
FNE
WIRE COMPANY
March 16, 1998
Dear Mayor Settle and Members of the City Council:
This letter is provided to you in support of the concept of a
One-Stop Career Center located at the Private Industry
Council (PIC) offices in San Luis Obispo.
Apparently there are a couple of ways to accomplish this . My
belief is that regardless of how this is done it is most .
important that one-stop services should be allowed to be
provided from a private non-profit organization such as the
one found at the PIC. The addition of some government
services at the PIC is the ideal way for customers to be
treated.
Whether this is accomplished through a general plan amendment
or by not designating the PIC as a government agency is less
important than how the needs of local citizens and employers
are served.
Thank you for this opportunity to voice my concerns .
Sincerely,
Michael A. Greenelsh
President/CEO
California Fine wire Company
MAG/cg
REO;i V E D
MAR 1 R 1997
SLO C; a�OUNCIL
P.O.BOX 446 • GROVER BEACH,CALIFORNIA 93483-0446
338 SOUTH FOURTH STREET • GROVER BEACH,CALIFORNIA 93433-1999
FAX(805)489-5352 • (805)4895144
http://www.calfinewire.com