HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/03/2000, 2 - REQUEST FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING, AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE USE LIMITATIONS AT 3250 SOUTH HIGUERA STREET (CITY FILE NO.: GP/PD/ER 203-99) Wdl.g;
council
j aGEnba aepoin 1�N.2
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO `,, '
FROM: Ron Whisenand,Development Review Manager 1r'
Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville,Associate Planner
SUBJECT:Request for General Plan amendment, Planned Development rezoning,and modifications
to the use limitations at 3250 South Higuera Street(City File No.: GP/PD/ER 203-99)
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Planning Commission's recommendation to:
1. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact.
2. Introduce an ordinance amending the Zoning Regulations map to change the zoning designation
of the project site from C-N(Neighborhood Commercial)to O-PD(Office Planned Development)
and modifying the use limitations of the existing Planned Development for the Walter Brothers
office complex.
3. Adopt a resolution amending the Land Use Element map of the General Plan to change the land
use designation of the project site from Neighborhood Commercial to Office.
DISCUSSION
Situation
The applicant is requesting a change to the General Plan land use map and Zoning Regulations
map for property located at the northwest comer of South Higuera and Prado Road (see Attach-
ment 1, Vicinity Map) to enable the expansion of the Walter Brothers office complex onto this
property which is currently zoned for neighborhood commercial uses. The applicant is also seek-
ing some modifications to the existing Walter Brothers Planned Development to loosen the re-
strictions on allowed office uses.
Planning Commission Review/Action
On a 5-2 vote(Commrs.Peterson and Osborne voting no),the Commission recommended Coun-
cil approval of the General Plan amendment, Planned Development rezoning and modifications
to the existing use limitations with the addition of a condition to ensure future compliance with
the City's creek setback regulations and the revision of Condition 2 to allow"tenants other than
governmental social service agencies, quasi-governmental social services businesses, private
non-profit social services providers, and private offices whose business relates directly and pri-
marily to social services to occupy not more than 70% of the gross lease spaces on the subject
2-1
GP/R/ER 203-99,Walter Bros.
Page 2
parcels" (see Attachment 3, Exhibit B for conditions). Commission discussion on these requests
focused on three issues:
1. Alternative rezoning to CN-MU. During Commission discussion, Commissioner Peter-
son raised the idea of an alternative strategy of applying a mixed use overly zone(MU)to
the existing C-N zone with the purpose of accommodating the applicant's request for ad-
ditional office space yet not eliminating the Neighborhood Commercial zoning of the
property. The MU zone, in combination with any other zone, permits the combining of
uses on a site which otherwise would not be allowed or required (see Attachment 5,
Chapter 17.55: Mixed Use Zone for details). Such zoning could allow, for example,
neighborhood commercial uses on the ground floor and office uses above. Although the
Commission ultimately chose to recommend approval of the General Plan amendment to
change the land use from Neighborhood Commercial to Office, this alternative land use
concept would be a way to meet the applicant's office space needs while preserving the
opportunity for new neighborhood uses that serve both nearby residents and employees.
2. Adequacy of the environmental document. Several Commissioners commented on the
environmental document and on a second vote of 6-1 (Commr. Ready voting no), the
Commission directed staff to revisit the initial study to further consider the future effects
of the zone change on traffic and circulation as well as air quality. In response, staff has
expanded these sections of the initial study (see Attachment 6, Initial Study) to include
additional information about the short-term and long-term air quality impacts associated
with any further development of the property as well as additional information regarding
potential roadway widenings that could be required as a condition of any future develop-
ment approvals.
3. Proximity of neighborhood commercial uses. The Commission discussed the viability of
the past and current uses of this Neighborhood Commercial zoned property and the loca-
tion of other neighborhood commercial centers in the vicinity should this site be rezoned.
The Commission generally felt that the proposed neighborhood commercial center in the
Margarita Specific Plan should not be considered as an alternative neighborhood com-
mercial site to this one because it is only in the planning stages. Additionally, the Com-
mission indicated that the property owner has had great difficulty maintaining successful
neighborhood serving uses at this location.
General Plan Consistency/Rezoning Analysis
There are numerous General Plan policies that relate to the conversion of this property from
Neighborhood Commercial to Office. City staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed
these policies (see Attachment 7, Planning Commission staff report for analysis) and found the
proposed General Plan amendment to comply with the General Plan.
2-2
GP/R/ER 203-99, Walter Bros.
Page 3
The General Plan calls for areas for Neighborhood Commercial uses to meet the frequent shop-
ping demands of people living nearby. Additionally, the General Plan states that neighborhood
centers provide the most benefit to residents and workers within a one-half mile travel distance,
but are still of significant benefit to those who live or work up to a mile away(see Attachment 7,
Planning Commission staff report).
There are over 1000 dwelling units within one mile of the Padre Plaza center, in addition to of-
fice and service commercial uses. Rezoning the site from Neighborhood Commercial to Office
does not necessarily mean that neighborhood serving uses would no longer be provided in the
area. Many neighborhood serving uses (such as dry cleaners, postal services, restaurants, con-
venience stores and service stations) are allowed in the C-S zone which is located along much of
the corridor of South Higuera Street. Neighborhood serving uses that would not be provided for
because they are not allowed in the C-S zone include florists; retail sales and rental of specialty
items; and the retail sales of general merchandise, groceries, liquor and specialized foods. To
ensure that neighborhood grocery markets and delis can be provided for in the area, the Planning
Commission recommends that they be included as allowed uses in the Planned Development.
Planned Development Amendment Request
Based on a suggestion by the City Council, the applicant is requesting several changes to the ex-
isting Planned Development for the Walter Brothers Center. The Planning Commission supports
these revisions which loosen the restrictions on the types of offices allowed at this location. Spe-
cifically, the Commission supports the applicant's request to allow attorney and financial institu-
tions at this location. In response to the applicant's request to allow 75% of the offices to be
non-social service related, the Commission is recommending 70% (see Attachment 8, Planning
Commission minutes). Current restrictions limit tenants other than governmental social service
agencies, quasi-governmental social services businesses, and private non-profit social service
providers to no more than 50%of the gross lease space.
Airport Compatibility
On May 17, 2000 the Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the proposed zone/land use
change and recommended approval of the request to the City with conditions. The Commission
expressed concem about the potential for increased occupant density at this location if the
zone/land use change is approved. To address this issue,the Commission placed a 21,395 square
footage and two-story limit on any fiA= development of the site (see Attachment 6, Environ-
mental Initial Study for details).
Environmental Review
A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been recommended for this project Recommended miti-
gation measures include a 70%limit on non-social service related office uses,the requirement for
granting an avigation easement, the limitation of new construction to 21,395 st and two stories
2-3
GP/R/ER 203-99,Walter Bros.
Page 4
in height, and the inclusion of neighborhood grocery markets as an allowed use as part of the
Planned Development.
Batching of General Plan Amendments
Pursuant to City Municipal Code Sec. 17.80.050 any element of the. General Plan may be
amended not more than four times each year so that cumulative effects of such amendments can
be considered. Amendments may be grouped to allow several amendments to be considered by
the City Council at one time. This request is the first Land Use Element amendment to go to the
City Council this year. One additional Land Use Element amendment is anticipated to reach
Council before the end of the calendar year. Because there is no possibility of reaching the
maximum number of allowed General Plan amendments this year, it is appropriate for the Coun-
cil to take action on this single request.
CONCURRENCES
No other departments object to the proposed change of land use at the site. Project specific re-
quirements (such as street widenings) from other departments will be incorporated as conditions
of any development approvals.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny the proposed General Plan and zoning map amendments, based on inconsistency with
the General Plan.
2. Approve the proposed General Plan and zoning map amendments without the modifications
to the use limitations as proposed by the applicant.
3. Deny the proposed General Plan amendment and direct staff to return to the Council with a
proposed rezoning request to CN-MU.
4. Continue review with direction to the applicant and staff.
Attached:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Resolution for approval of general plan amendment/Exhibit A
3. Ordinance of introduction for proposed rezoning/Exhibit A,B, C
4. Resolution for denial of general plan amendment and rezoning
5. Chapter 17.55 Mixed Use Zone
6. Environmental Initial Study
7. Planning Commission staff report(including attachments)
8. Planning Commission meeting minutes of August 23,2000
2-4
es
►1
® �-_� ■11111■111111■
'�■ ■111111 X11111
CO �� F����� rs�
v L,8
@ oil rl
cq f
�F� b
l
\\\ \\\v
1 .11 � 11 :11 P . PR 203-99
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO. (2000 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT MAP
TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION AT 3250 SOUTH HIGUERA
FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO OFFICE
(GP 203-99)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 23, 2000, and
recommended approval of the amendment to the City's General Plan Map;and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on October 3, 2000 and has considered
testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the
evaluation and recommendation of staff;and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered .the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission;and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed map amendment is consistent with the
policies of the General Plan;
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 with
the recommended mitigation therein adequately addresses the potential significant environmental
impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The
Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures
into the project:
1. Non-governmental office related uses shall be limited to a maximum of 70%of the gross floor area
2. Neighborhood groceries shall be included as an allowed use in the Planned Development.
3. The total gross floor area of the 2.07-acre site shall be limited to 21,395 st in a maximum of two
stories.
4. The granting of an avigation easement shall be required as a condition of any development
approvals.
SECTION 2. Findings That this Council,after consideration of the request to amend the Land
Use Element map designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Office and the Planning Commission's
recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof:, makes the following
findings:
1. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity because the land use change will result in the property being
2-6
(A,
CK
ENT
ta
Resolution No. (2000 Series)
Page 2
developed with office and neighborhood serving uses.
2. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan including
policies for locating social service related offices at this location
3. As conditioned, the proposed amendments to the existing Planned Development provide for
neighborhood serving services which would not be available under conventional zoning.
4. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately evaluates and mitigates any potential
environmental impacts resulting from the General Plan amendment and PD rezoning.
SECTION 3. Approval. The request to amend the Land Use Element map designation from
Neighborhood Commercial to Office at 3250 South Higuera is hereby approved as shown on attached
Exhibit A.
SECTION 4. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in the
documents which are on display in City Hall and which are available for public use.
SECTION 5. This amendment shall take effect at the expiration of 30 days following approval.
SECTION& This amendment shall take effect at the expiration of 30 days following approval.
On motion of , seconded by ,and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
2000.
Mayor Allen Settle
2-7
NT ?/
ResolutionNo. (2000 Series)
Page 3
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
om ffJ gensen
2-S
EXHIB, IT A
\\\\\\\\\\
ti
Q-
�J
Z
J ..
WALTER CENTER
SOUTH HIGUERA STREET AT PRADO ROAD
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
MAP CHANGE
2-9
Attachment 3
ORDINANCE NO. (2000 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP
TO CHANGE THE ZONING MAP DESIGNATION FROM C-N to O-PD AND MODIFYING
THE USE LIMITATIONS OF THE EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
WALTER BROTHERS OFFICE COMPLEX
AT 3250 SOUTH HIGUERA(PD 203-99)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 23, 2000, and
recommended approval of the amendment to the City's Zoning Map and modifications to the use
limitations of the existing Planned Development for the Walter Brothers Office Complex; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has held a public hearing on October 3, 2000 and has considered
testimony of other interested parties,the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action,and the
evaluation and recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed revisions are consistent with the General
Plan,the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and other applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission;and
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration
with the recommended mitigation therein adequately addresses the potential significant environmental
impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The
Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures
into the project:
1. Mitigation Measure: Non-governmental office related uses shall be limited to a maximum of
70%of the gross floor area
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through review of
business tax certificate applications for the subject property.
2. Mitigation Measure: Neighborhood grocery markets and delis shall be included as allowed
uses in the Planned Development.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review
of business tax certificate applications for the subject property.
3. Mitigation Measure The total gross floor area of the 2.07 acre site shall be limited to 21,395
s.£ in a maximum of two stories.
2-10
Ordinance No. (2000 Series) ;
Page 2 .
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review
of detailed plans submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily by the
Community Development Department staff.
4. Mitigation Measure: The granting of an avigation easement shall be required as a condition of
any development approvals.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored the review of plans
submitted for architectural review and building permits, primarily by the Community
Development Department staff.
SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following findings:
1. As conditioned, the proposed Planned Development rezoning and modifications to the use
limitations of the Planned Development for the Walter Brothers office complex comply with the
City's General Plan including policies for locating social service related office uses at this
location.
2. As conditioned, the proposed PD rezoning and modifications to the use limitations of the
Planned Development for the Walter Brothers office complex will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare of persons living or working in the area.
3. As conditioned, the proposed amendments to the existing Planned Development provide for
neighborhood serving services which would not be available under conventional zoning.
4. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately evaluates and mitigates any potential
environmental impacts resulting from the PD rezoning and modifications to the use limitations.
SECTION 3. The Zoning Regulations map amendment and modifications to the previously
adopted Planned Development use limitations for the Walter Brothers office complex (PD 203-99) is
hereby approved and the property rezoned to Office-Planned Development as shown on attached Exhibit
A(map),Exhibit B (revised conditions), and Exhibit C(allowed and prohibited uses).
SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance,together with the names of Council members voting
for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final .passage, in the Telegram-
Tribune,a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect no sooner
than thirty(30)days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San.Luis Obispo at
its meeting held on the day of 2000,on a motion of
seconded by ,and on the following roll call vote:
2
2-11
71 _ x '
11
Ordinance No. (2000 Series) i �Sy' _ L
Page 3
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
f*b
o J Jo nsen
3
2-12
--,"I vel A�t'a.�,�
l O - P' ,
zpv%oy#NT
VEP7.FARKWG
W i-
A
buILDtw, —
SOCIAL OERV13 srTfDo°'* �' +1
$LGfo..
f7tGe7euncwaMi-i.i
n�er'e7 0-
+l?77�4�<•�A, a/ree c�
i»
ul•w. "M�S2•�f
Dn�cn A
. kI�ES iz;5-78 or qua
K 57-7a 0 0
\ LLAU-111 alq/O wiz /yK •7p
ARa 1
caroascirouL- �t cUi P�`e41 M Az N
LT NS R.EMHB .�•oN
10
LILPY9 i0. m y mK�ago
44e.
'lpp'yy_ 0 lox
X ~ s�
$ MM n
��� � e 9i10(PIN� ceMTeR �
WE
v �
e a
R ¢yrY �Q
. O�
raas"8giK0 <t
S_s y
y \ NDR
y 5 Mea UK%9e Kor
C \ A �•Q ...GN Ulm i N-wx
H -17— R
DWIBIT
WALTER CENTER c
SOUTH HIGUERA STREET AT PRADO ROAD
Emsm
SERZ
PROPOSED ZONE MAP CHANGE pffam
2-13
tXHIBIT B
SECTION 3 . Conditions - Ki5v*ep
1. Except as otherwise noted in these conditions of approval,
all zoning regulations for the Office zone shall apply.
2 . Preference shall be given to governmental social service
office uses; owners shall seek tenants for available lease
spaces among local, state, and federal social service agencies
prior to seeking tenants among alternate office uses.
3 . Tenants other than governmental social service agencies,
quasi-governmental social services businesses, a-i- private
non-profit social services providers, shall not occupy more
0��' an � . of the gross lease spaces onrthe subject parcels.
and F-W tC- o-"' 61 �ab�c b�iaes5 rcl�i-� d�.ccYl a�p� �,c ..) �0 6ou�
4 . Tenants other than those listed in N�. 2 abo� shall not
occupy less than 2,500 gross square feet of adjacent,
interconnected floor area per tenant. .
-5. The following office-related uses shall be prohibited: banks,
real estate offices, medical clinics, a^�
doctors offices, m 1awy ef4+c....
6. Applicant shall dedicate a creek maintenance and pedestrian
access easement over that portion of the site within the San
Luis Creek Channel, and including a 20-foot buffer strip at
the top of bank on both sides of the creek. (Extension of
requirement from-previous Use Permit U1401. )
7. Uses allowed and prohibited within this O-PD zone shall be as
provided in Exhibit ,X, attached.
C,
$, A L,%i FoTum 17eVSI.0?M 1.rr 5tlltw GoMP1.'f WITH THE G l r'f g
G26;Ela rK- S-WsvrzE THS MpcLJTG7 0WC,*.
p� k t'le�ec-n tY G�t � via.cnt rla.sr.
2-14
EXHMIT
EXHIBIT A - PD 1541
ALLOWED/PROHIBITED USES - WALTER CENTER
Uses allowed and prohibited within this O-PD zone shall be as provided in the
following list.
Symbols following each listed use shall have the following meaning:
A - Type of use allowed without use permit approval.
D - Type of use allowed if an administrative use permit is approved.
PC- Type of use allowed if a use permit is approved by the Planning.
Commission.
NO- Type of use which is not allowed.
- Type of use which is no subject to floor area requirements in
Section 4 above.
•�- Type of use for which only incidental and non-customer serving
functions shall be allowed.
Advertising and related services A
Ambulance services NO
Banks and savings and loans NO
Banks and savings and loans A**
.administrative and loan offices only)
Broadcast studios NO
Caretaker's quarters NO
Cemeteries, mausoleums, columbariums NO
Christmas tree sales (see Section NO
17.08.010D)
Churches, synagogues, temples, etc. NO
Circus, carnival, fair, festival, parades NO
(see Section 17.08.010E)
Computer services A
Convalescent hospitals, NO
Credit reporting and collection A
Credit unions and finance companies A` •
Delivery and private postal services D
Detective and security services A
2-15
J
EXHIBIT' S
PD 1541 - EXHIBIT A
Dwellings NO
Employment agencies A*
Government agency offices and meeting A•
rooms
Homeless shelters (see Section PC
17.08.110)
Hospitals NO
Insurance service - local A
Insurance services - regional office A
Laboratories (medical, analytical) NO
Mortuaries NO
Offices (contractors) - all types of A
general and special building contractor's
offices
Offices (engineering) engineers and A
industrial design
Offices (professional) Professional A
offices consistent with the Land Use
Element are allowed. ,
realtors, doctors and medical clinics are
prohibited.
Organizations (professional, religious, A
political, labor, fraternal, trade, youth,
etc.), offices and meeting rooms
Photocopy services; quick printers A
Residential care facilities - 6 or fewer NO
residents
Residential care facilities - more than 6 NO
residents
Schools
-Nursery schools, child day care A
-Business trade, recreational, or other D
specialized schools
2-16
EXHIBIT C 4r A+W3
PD 1541 - EXHIBIT A
Secretarial and related services (court A
reporting, stenography, typing, telephone
answering, etc.)
Social services and charitable agencies A`'
Telegram office A
Ticket/travel agencies A
Utility companies
-Corporation yards NO
-Customer account services (bill A
paying and inquiries)
-Distribution and transmission NO
facilities - see Section 17,08.050
-Engineering and administrative A
offices
-Payment drop points A
Veterinarians NO
2-17
Attachment 4
RESOLUTION NO. (2000 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING A REQUEST FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING
FOR PROPERTY AT 3250 SOUTH HIGUERA
(GP/R/ER 203-99)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 23, 2000,
and recommended approval of the rezoning and amendment to the City's General Plan map;and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 3, 2000 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action,and the project evaluation and recommendationsof staff.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of a request to amend the
General Plan Land Use Element Map and the official zoning map,thereby designating and zoning
the project site Office(O-PD)makes the following findings:
1. It is not desirable to redesignate the site from Neighborhood Commercial to Office because
of the loss of potential neighborhood commercial serving uses that could occupy the site
and serve the neighborhood.
(Council may insert different or additional findings.)
SECTION 2. Denial. The request for approval of the general plan map amendment and
rezoning described above is hereby denied.
On motion of , seconded by ,and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 12000.
Mayor Allen Settle
2-18
7 R6 �
Resolution No. (2000 Series)
.fie 2
ATTEST:
City'C1erk Lee Price
APPROVED-AS TO FORM:
City Attorney-JeffJorgensen
2-19
Attachment 5
C. Use permit approval by the Planning Commission is
Chapter 17.55: MIXED USE required prior to establishing any use within the MU zone,
except that this provision does not apply to changes of use
(MU) ZONE within an existing building. The use permit requirement
allows the Planning Commission to determine proposed
uses compliance with the MU zone,compatibility with each
Sections: other and their surroundings, and consistency with the
17.55.010 Purpose general plan.
17.55.020 Application and procedure
17.55.030 Property development standards 17.55.030 Property development standards
17.55.040 Mandatory findings
Property development standards shall be those of the
17.55.010 Purpose underlying zone. However, use-permit approval may
include more provisions and standards to assure
The MU zone,in combination with any other zone, permits compatibility of uses and surroundings,or less restrictive
combining uses on a site which otherwise would not be standards,to the extent allowed by use-permit approval in
allowed or required. other sections of these regulations,to make particular use
combinations more feasible.
The primary purpose of the MU zone is to permit
combining residential uses and commercial uses on a
single parcel, although any combination of uses may be 17,55.040 Mandatory findings
approved by the City. The MU zone is intended to A. In granting a use permit pursuant to this chapter, the
promote a compact city, to provide additional housing
opportunities(including affordable housing opportunities), planning Commission must make the following findings:
which is the first priority, and to reduce auto travel by
providing services, jobs, and housing in proximity. The e The projects mixed uses are consistent with the
g
City desires the safety provided by having residential general plan and are compatible with heir surrounding'
with neighboring uses,and with each other.
components in commercial areas.
(2)The projects design protects the public health,safety,
17.55.020 Application and procedure' and welfare.
A.Application of the MU zone may be initiated by: (3) The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than
single-use development of the site. This finding must
(1) The City Council or Planning Commission, to ensure enumerate those benefits,such as proximity of workplaces
that mixed residential and commercial uses will be and housing, automobile trip reduction, provision of
included when certain parcels are developed or affordable housing, or other benefits consistent with the
redeveloped;or purpose of this chapter.
(2)An applicant,to obtain permission for a mix of uses not B. To require property development standards more
otherwise allowed. restrictive than those of the underlying zone,the Planning
Commission must make one of the following findings:
B. Each ordinance adopting an MU zone shall specify:
(1) Site-specific property development standards are
(1)The types of uses which are required or allowed to be needed to protect all proposed uses of the site, in
combined; particular residential uses.
(2) Any standards for the uses locations or their (2) Site-specific property development standards are.
relabonshipsto each other, needed to make the project consistent with the intent of .
(3) Any issues specific to the site or the intended these regulations.
combination of uses which must be resolved by the design (3) The preponderance of the development proposed fr
of the project the site is of a type not nominally permitted in tt.
underlying zone, so property development standards for
the zone where such development is normally found are
appropriate. • �16i-20
crty of san Luis oarspo 83 zonrnG Re-x;ulations
Attachment 6
city Of SAn tuis OBI
SW990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
ER 203-99
1 . Project Title: Walter Bros. General Plan Amendment and Planned Development
Rezoning
2. Lead Agency Name: City of San Luis Obispo
3. Contact Person, Phone Number and Address: Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner
781-7175, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 .
4. Project Location: 3250 South Higuera Street
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Walter Bros. Construction, 3220 South
Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation: Existing- Neighborhood Commercial
Proposed- Office
7. Zoning: Existing- Existing- Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Proposed- Office Planned Development (0-PD)
8. Description of the Project: Request for general plan amendment from Neighborhood
Commercial to Office, rezone from C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to O-PD (Office
with a Planned Development Overlay), and modifications to the use limitations for
the existing O-PD zoning for the Walter Brothers complex.
9. Project Entitlements Requested: General Plan Amendment, Planned Development
rezoning, and environmerital review.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The site is located at the northwest corner of
Prado Road and South Higuera and is partially developed with Padre Plaza shopping
center comprised of approximately 8,000 square feet of gross building area.
Approximately one-half acre of the site and the creek channel remain undeveloped.
The site adjoins an existing office complex to the north. To the east lies a
mobilehome park and to the west an auto repair business. Property to the south is
undeveloped land zoned for service commercial uses.
The City of San Luis is committed to include the disabled in all of its services. 2-21
Obispo� Programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
3250 South Higuera 6r l M
ER 203-99HamENT
Page 2
11 . Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval,
or participation agreement): Airport Land Use Commission- approval received.
2 2-22
ER 203-99
3250 South Higuera --; 1,101
ENT
Page 3
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
X 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 ServicesW;
X
Transportation and Utilities and Service � F : r;•^; .. .. -�.�
- 1•- .,
Circulation Systems ,, J „ r?s_;
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.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment
of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the 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
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there X
will .not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on 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.
1 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
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potential)
Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
3 2-23
ER 203-99 /� r
3250 South Higuera f �0
Page 4
,� U cu �Ud �' .Iv 141
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have
been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided o
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are impose
upon the proposed project.
August 17, 2000
.. nature 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.
4 2-24
Issues and Supporting Informa,...i Sources sources per. ji., .,y a
Sr1�t can> 'Si cmlu`
issues Iry
ER 203-99 mitigation
3250 South Higuera Street incorporated
Page 5
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1,3,4 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 lanc
uses?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of ar X
established community (including a low-income o
minority community)?
The applicant is requesting a general plan amendment and Planned Development rezone to
redevelop the neighborhood commercial property as an expansion of the adjoining office complex.
With approval of these requests in conjunction with proper mitigation, the project will be
consistent with the adopted General Plan and Zoning Regulations. General Plan policies relevant
to the request are discussed in the following paragraphs:
Offices
LU 3.3.21): Government social services and regional offices of state and federal agencies should
be located near the intersections of South Higuera, Prado Road and Highway 101.
Comment- Project complies with this policy.
Overall
LU 3.6.2: Convenience Facilities. Convenience facilities serving daily needs, such as small food
stores, branch banks, and child and elder care, and amenities such as picnic areas, will be
allowed in centers of employment. Space for such amenities may be required within large
commercial and industrial developments.
Comment- With the inclusion of neighborhood grocery as an allowed use in the Planned
Development, the project will comply with this policy.
Public Facilities
LU 5.1.2: Private Businesses. Within any area shown as a preferred location for public facilities,
there may be compatible private businesses, so long as they do not displace the preferred public
agencies.
Comment- Because the Planned Development limits the amount of non-governmental office
uses, the project complies with this policy.
LU 5.1.6: Social Services. There should be a social-services area on South Higuera Street near.
Prado Road. The following functions should be located in the social services area: County Social
Services; California Employment Development and Rehabilitation; federal Social Security
Administration. This area should have sufficient space to accommodate regional offices of state
and federal agencies.
5 2-25
Issues and Supporting Informa.. .o Sources
iIt
Impact
"LW i, I �
ER 203-99 mitigation
3250 South Higuera.Street Incorporated
Page 6
Comment- Project complies with this policy.
LU 5.1.7: Related Offices. Public offices not named in LU Policies 5.1.4, 5.1.5, and 5.1.6, but
functionally related to them, should be located in the appropriate area.
Comment- Because the Planned Development allows for related offices, the project complies
with this policy.
LU 5.1 .8: Unrelated Offices. Public offices not named in LU Policies 5.1.4, 5.1.5, and 5.1.6,
and not functionally related to the named offices, should be consolidated at the social services
area, or they be expanded at their present locations or within designated office areas.
Comment- Project complies with this policy
LU 5.1.9: Different Offices. Government and private activities of types not listed in LU Policies
5.1.4, 5.1.5, and 5.1.6. may be established in these identified areas, so long as they are
compatible with and do not displace the government functions which should be located in the
areas.
Comment- Because the Planned Development limits the amount of non-governmental office
uses, the project complies with this policy.
Neighborhood Commercial
LU 3.2.1: Purpose and Included Uses. The City should have areas for Neighborhood Commercial
uses to meet the frequent shopping demands of people living nearby. Neighborhood Commercial
uses include grocery stores, Laundromats, and drug and hardware stores. Neighborhood
Commercial centers should be available within about one mile of all residences. These centers
should not exceed about eight acres, unless the neighborhood to be served includes a significant
amount of high density residential development. Specialty stores may be located in
Neighborhood Commercial centers as long as they will not be a major citywide attractions or
displace more general, convenience uses.
Comment- The elimination of this neighborhood commercial land use designation at this location
will place some dwellings farther than one mile away from an existing neighborhood shopping
center. However, the nearby C-S zoned properties allow many of the neighborhood serving uses.
With the. addition of neighborhood grocery as an allowed use in the Planned Development, the
project complies with this policy.
LU 2.2.1: Mixed Uses and Convenience. Neighborhoods shall include a mix of uses to serve the
daily needs of nearby residents, including schools, parks, churches, and convenience retail stores.
Neighborhood shopping and services should be available within about one mile of all dwellings.
When non-residential, neighborhood-serving uses are developed, existing housing shall be
preserved.
Comment- With the addition of neighborhood grocery as an allowed use in the Planned
6 2-26
Issues and Supporting Informa,.-,i Sources Sam Si 'fidevil%, 110
"Tpact
ER 203-99 Lj ` L; act
3250 South Higuera Street Incorporated
Page 7
Development and the existence of nearby C-S zoned properties that provide for neighborhood
shopping needs, the project complies with this policy.
Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures:
1. Non-governmental office related uses shall be limited to a maximum of 60% of the gross floor
area.
2. Neighborhood groceries shall be included as an allowed use in the Planned Development.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local populatior X
projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly o X
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or major infrastructure?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordabl( X
housing?
Conclusion: Not significant. This general plan amendment and PD rezoning will not impact population.
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
0 Unique geologic or physical features? X
Conclusion: Not significant. No development is .proposed as part of this general plan
amendment. Any future development proposals will be reviewed for potential environmental
impacts.
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
may?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X
movements?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either througl X
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through
7 2-27
Issues and Supporting Information Sources I
" TP.
A .. a W
ER 203-99 " irf"o3250 South Higuera Street — tncorporawd
Page 8
substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X
0 Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X
otherwise available for public water supplies? .
Conclusion: Not significant. The general plan amendment creates no water or drainage impacts.
Any future development proposals will be reviewed for potential environmental impacts.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the.proposa_l:
•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 proposed land use and zoning requests will not cause any air quality impacts. The potential
impacts of future development will be addressed once plans for development come forward.
Short-tern Impacts
During construction of future development, there will be increased levels of fugitive dust
associated with construction and grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated
with heavy-duty construction equipment. Compliance with the dust management practices
contained in Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Secl 3307.2) will adequately mitigate short-
term impacts. No further mitigation is necessary.
Long-term Impacts
San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PM10 (fine particulate
matter 10 microns or less in diameter) air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of
non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year. until the
standards are attained. The 1995 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was
developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to meet that requirement.
The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions form traditional
industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy
1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan.
Motor vehicles account for about 40% of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone
formation, and are also a significant source of PM 10. Thus, a major requirement in the CAP is
the implementation of transportation control measures designed to reduce motor vehicle trips and
miles traveled by local residents. The APCD recommends that site development include
mitigation measures to encourage transportation alternatives to the single occupant vehicle and
make the project attractive to carpoolers, bicyclists and pedestrians.
Conclusion: Not significant. The general plan amendment/PD rezoning will not cause any air
quality impacts. Any future development proposals will be reviewed for potential environmental
impacts. Standard mitigation is recommended to reduce impacts resulting from construction
activity and future site development.
.8 2-28
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sourcesr
Si ifi %.740-
(n
ER 203-99 lss�es _ _ 'Tid}l�etr NOW w
�Y Cid U as r YOL�
3250 South Higuera Street tncocporeud
Page 9
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
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 2 X
with San Luis Obispo Co.
The general plan amendment/PD rezoning will not .create any vehicle traffic impacts. The
potential impacts of future development will be reviewed and addressed in more detail once
development plans come forward. It is already anticipated however, that based on the traffic
study being prepared by the traffic consultant for the Airport Area Annexation, the property
owner will be required to dedicate up to 12 feet of right of way along a portion of the Higuera
Street frontage to accommodate a future right-turn lane from southbound Higuera Street onto
Prado Road and up to 14 feet of right of way along the Prado Road frontage.
The site is within Airport Land Use Zone 3 (under approach and climbout extensions). Because
the site is in an area used for approach and takeoff of aircraft, safety becomes an issue. The
change in land use from neighborhood commercial to office could create an increase the number
of people that work on site or visit the uses. To ensure that an intensification of people does not
occur as a result of this general plan amendment, the Airport Land Use Commission recommends
that development of this site be limited to 21,395 s.f. and a maximum of two stories.
Additionally, the granting of an avigation easement will be required as a condition of any
development approvals for the site
Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure:
1. The total gross floor area of the 2.07 acre site shall be limited to 21, 395 s.f. in a maximum
of two stories.
2. The granting of an avigation easement shall be required as a condition of any development
approvals.
7. IB.OLQGICAL#iESOURCES. .Would the pm saa affect:
a) f_ndaiigered,threatened or rare species or their habitats' X
Gncluding but riot-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 dispersalor migration corridors? X
9 2-29
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Soares Potentiall o anti I
fi P�
ER 203-99 .i �'
I
3250 South Higuera Street _ Incorporated
Page 10
No property will be affected by this amendment physically.
B. 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?
Conclusion: No impact.
10. NOIS.E. .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?
Because the site is within an area used for approach and takeoff of aircraft, noise becomes an issue
Standard noise mitigation measures (soundproofing) will be required at the time of development to ensure
development complies with City and County noise regulations. .
Conclusion: No impact.
11::PUBLIC^$ERVIC.ES _.Would`the:proposal have:an effect upon, or resuk in a need for new or.altered
government sennces;ut;any of the:.following areas:
a).`.,F�e:protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Maintenance of public:facilities, including.roads? X
e) Qthgr..governmental,services? X
Conclusion: No impact.
12:':UTILMES'AND:SERVICE."SYSTEMS. Would the proposal-result in a need for new systems.orsupplies,
or sutistaetial;alteratfons to the,fogowing utlides:
a) Poweror natural gas? X
b) Communications systems? X
c) l ocal.or regional water treatment or distribution X
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
e) Storm water drainage? X
10 2-30
Issues and Supporting Information Sources So
fi
� 5
ER 203-99
3250 South Higuera Street Incorporated
Page 11
f) Solid waste disposal? X
g) Local.or regional water supplies? X
Conclusion: No impact. The general plan amendment and PD rezoning will not result in the need for new
systems or supplies. Any future development proposals will be reviewed for potential environmental
impacts.
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
Conclusion: No impact. The general plan amendment and PD zoning will not result in any aesthetic
impacts. Any future development proposals will be reviewed for potential environmental impacts.
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?
Conclusion: No impact. The general plan amendment and PD rezoning will not result in any impacts t
cultural resources. Any future development proposals will be reviewed for potential environmental impacts.
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
Conclusion: No impact. The general plan amendment and PD rezoning will not result in a demand for par
or recreational facilities.
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.:aniinal or.elimmate impoRant.
examples of the major periods of California history'or
prehistory? _ .... .
Without mitigation, the project would have the potential to have adverse impacts for all of the
issue areas checked in the Table on page 3.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- X
term; to the disadvantage of long-terra,.environmental
goals? - -
Short- and long-term goals are the same.
c) Doesthe 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
l I 2-31
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
. Si' fi " Ilsfflfl�OT
act
ER 203-99 �.. est.;
gan
3250 South Higuera Street Incorporated
Page 12
future projects)
The general plan amendment will increase the area allowed for social service type uses. The PD
rezoning will however allow other types of office uses. Compliance with adopted City policies
and regulations related to neighborhood serving and social service uses and the inclusion of
mitigation measures recommended in this initial study will reduce cumulative impacts to a less
than significant level.
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? T- T
With incorporation of mitigation measures, the project will not result in substantial adverse
impacts on humans.
Conclusion: Not significant.
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEOA process, one c
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (:
(D). In this case a,discussion should identify the following.items:
a) Eaitier 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 scopt
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and stat i
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.
Mitigation Measures:
1. Non-governmental office related uses shall be limited to a maximum of 60% of the gross floor
area.
2. Neighborhood groceries shall be included as an allowed use in the Planned Development.
3. The total. gross floor area of the 2.07 acre site shall be limited to 21., 395 s.f. in a maximum
of two stories.
4. The granting of an avigation easement shall be required as a condition of any development
approvals.
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. General Plan Digest, City of San Luis Obispo, 1997 (includes condensed versions of all elements)
2. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan, 1977
3. List of neighborhood commercial uses allowed in the C-S zone
12 2-32
Attachment 7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM#1
BY: Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner (781-7175 MEETING DATE: August 23, 2000
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager C`
FILE NUMBER: GPR/PD/ER 203-99
PROJECT ADDRESS: 3250 South Higuera Street
SUBJECT: Request for General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning and
modifications to the use limitations of the PD requirements for the Walter Brothers complex.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval of the General Plan amendment and Planned Development Rezoning to
the City Council,based on findings and subject to conditions.
BACKGROUND
Proiect Description
The applicant is requesting a change to the General Plan land use map and zoning regulations
map from Neighborhood Commercial to Office-Planned Development for a 2.07 acre site at the
northwest comer of South Higuera and Prado Road. Approval of this request would allow the
applicant to expand the neighboring Walter Brothers office complex onto this property which is
currently zoned for neighborhood commercial uses. The applicant is also seeking some
modifications to the existing Walter Brothers Planned Development to loosen the restrictions on
allowed office uses.
Data Summary
Address: 3250 South Higuera Street
Applicant- Walter Brothers Construction
Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial (C-N)
General Plan:Neighborhood Commercial
Environmental status: Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact
recommended by the Director August 17,2000. Final action on the
environmental document will betaken by the City Council.
Project action deadline: There are no state-mandated deadlines for legislative actions,
including general plan changes.
Site description
The two-acre site proposed for rezoning is flat and developed with a 7,895 s.f. building that is
partially occupied with a liquor store and deli. The site includes a portion of the channel of San
Luis Creek, with associated riparian vegetation in the channel and on the steeply sloping banks.
The site also includes the adjoining office complex with contains numerous government
agencies.
2-33
T
GPR/PD/BR 203-99, Walter Brothers Construction
3250 South Higuera Street
Page 2
EVALUATION
The current proposal is the fourth in a series of neighborhood commercial to office rezoning
requests affecting the Padre Plaza site (see attached list of previous application requests). The
first two rezonings(approved in Oct. 1989)reduced the useable C-N portion of the site from four
acres to two acres. The most recent rezoning request (seeking to convert the remaining C-N site
to Office) was withdrawn by the applicant prior to City Council action. The Planning
Commission had recommended denial of that request. Several issues have been raised as part of
the rezoning requests. They are as follows.
Neighborhood Commercial Center Needs
Neighborhood commercial centers are intended to meet the convenience shopping needs of
people living and/or working in a particular neighborhood, thereby encouraging non-vehicular
shopping trips and shorter vehicle trips. Neighborhood centers provide the most benefit to
residents and workers within a one-half mile travel distance, but are still of significant benefit to
those who live or work up to a mile away (see attached Neighborhood Commercial zoning
locations).
The land use element favors neighborhood commercial centers which are between two and five
acres in size. Neighborhood commercial centers in the city range from about two acres (Laurel
Lane)to seven acres (Laguna Village). Individual neighborhood-oriented stores and services are
located throughout the city on smaller sites, including some in the C-S zone.
There are over 1000 dwelling units within one mile of the Padre Plaza center, in addition to
office and service commercial employees. The Padre Plaza center is the only neighborhood
commercial zoned facility serving the South Higuera area of the City, and no other C-N property
is located nearby, although the Margarita Specific Plan identifies a neighborhood commercial
zoned site as part of its development in the future. Although not zoned Neighborhood
Commercial, Foods 4 Less and Trader Joe's businesses (located to the north and south of the
site) sell groceries in the area.
Rezoning the site from Neighborhood Commercial to Office does not necessarily mean that
neighborhood serving uses would no longer be provided in the area. Many neighborhood serving
uses (such as dry cleaners, postal services, restaurants, convenience stores, and service stations)
are allowed in the C-S zone which is located along much of the corridor of South Higuera Street
(see attached zoning map of South Higuera Street corridor). Neighborhood serving uses that
would not be provided for because they are not allowed in the C-S include florists; retail sales
and rental of specialty items; and retail sales of general merchandise, groceries, liquor and
specialized foods. To ensure that neighborhood grocery markets can be provided for in the area,
staff recommends that they be included as an allowed use as part of the Planned Development.
2-34
1 it'
v Mv, F
..i v _. .... - .. .
GPR/PD/ER 203-99, Walter Brothers Construction
3250 South Higuera Street
Page 3
Government Office Demand
The land use element states that the expansion of office facilities outside the downtown can be
considered at sites with an established group of offices. Policies relating to the location of public
facilities favor the "tri-polar" concept, with government administrative offices located
downtown, public health care related facilities located on Johnson Avenue, and social services
located on South Higuera near Prado Road(see attached Public Facilities Location Map).
The expansion of office zoning at the Walter Brothers office complex would be consistent with
this policy. Since the policy limits the location of government offices to this general area, an
argument could be made that the City should accommodate the demand for government office
space by allowing the rezoning.
Marketability of the Padre Plaza
The applicant cites difficulty in maintaining the center as a viable neighborhood center. Staff
concurs that smaller centers such as this one and the Laurel Lane center have difficulty
competing financially with larger commercial centers.
Modifications to the Planned Development Overlay
Based on a suggestion by the City Council, the applicant is requesting several changes to the
existing Planned Development for the Walter Brothers center (see attached applicant request).
Staff supports most of these revisions which loosen the restrictions on the types of offices
allowed at this location. Staff however does not support the applicant's request to allow 75% of
the offices to be non- social service related where a 50% ratio has been previously approved. In
response to the applicant's request, staff recommends that a maximum of 60%non-social service
related uses be allowed. Staff also recommends that neighborhood grocery markets (that can
include delis) be considered an allowed use as part of the Planned Development in order to
accommodate such neighborhood needs.
Non-Conforminp,Uses Resulting from General Plan Amendment and PD Rezoning
Approval of the proposed General Plan amendment, PD rezoning and changes to the existing
Planned Development for the Walter Brothers Center, will not result in non-conforming lots or
setbacks, however the liquor store and deli uses will become legal non-conforming uses (see
attached Non-Conforming Use Regulations). The use regulations prevent the expansion of non-
conforming uses, establish the circumstances under which they may be continued and provide for
their removal or change to a conforming use as soon as practical. Staff envisions that the liquor
store would eventually be eliminated and that the deli (which appears to be successful) would
remain non-conforming or made to conform by incorporating it into a neighborhood market
serving the residents and office workers in the vicinity.
2-35
777!-��,, MMENT
GPR/PD/ER 203-99, Walter Brothers Construction
3250 South Higuera Street
Page 4
Airport Land Use Commission Review
The Airport Land Use Commission expressed concern about the potential for increased occupant
density in this area if this amendment is approved. To address this issue,the Commission placed
a square footage and two-story limit on any future development of the site (see environmental
initial study for details).
Environmental Review
A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been recommended for the project (see attached initial
study). Recommended mitigation measures include a 60% limit on non-social service related
office uses, the requirement for granting an avigation easement, the limitation of new
construction to 21,395 s.f. and two stories in height, and the inclusion of neighborhood grocery
markets as an allowed use as part of the Planned Development.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Other departments had no comments regarding this request.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Commission may recommend Council approval of the applicant's request subject to
findings and without conditions.
2. The Commission may continue review of the project, with direction to the applicant
and/or staff regarding additional information.
3. The Commission may deny the request, citing appropriate findings. .Commission action
to deny the project is final,unless appealed to the Council.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend Council approval of the General Plan Amendment, Planned Development rezoning,
modifications to the existing Planned Development, and Mitigated Negative Declaration, based
on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings
1. As conditioned, the proposed General Plan amendment and PD rezoning complies with
the City's General Plan including the policies for locating social service related offices at
this location.
2-36
ft1T I
GPR/PD/ER 203-99, Walter Brothers Construction
3250 South Higuera Street
Page 5
2. As conditioned, the proposed General Plan amendment and PD rezoning will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of persons living or working in the
area.
3. As conditioned the proposed amendments to the existing Planned Development provide
for neighborhood serving services which would not be available under conventional
zoning.
4. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately evaluates and mitigates any
potential environmental impacts resulting from the General Plan and PD Rezoning.
Conditions
1. All conditions of Ordinance No. 1221 shall remain in effect with the exception to
modifications to Conditions 3 and 5.
2. Condition 3 shall read: Tenants other than governmental social service agencies, quasi-
governmental social services businesses, private non-profit social services providers, and
private offices whose business relates directly and primarily to social services, shall not
occupy more than-%% 60%of the gross lease spaces on the subject parcels.
3. Condition 5 shall read: The following office-related uses shall be prohibited: banks, real
estate offices, , medical offices, and doctors offices, emd la"ers
-e€€lees.
4. All mitigation measures associated with Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 203-99 shall
be conditions of this project.
5. Neighborhood groceries shall be added as an allowed use in the Planned Development
Attached: Vicinity map
Project environmental initial study(includes General Plan policies)
General Plan Amendment Exhibit
PD Rezoning Exhibit
PD Ordinance No. 1221 with applicant proposed changes
Zoning map of South Higuera Street Corridor
Map showing Neighborhood Commercial Zoning locations
Existing PD ordinance with applicant proposed changes
Land Use Element map locating Public Facilities Areas
Previous Permit Requests
Non-Conforming Use Regulations
Airport Land Use Plan map
Applicant's request
2-37
V
�� �IINu INT
loan
m 9
0 ii
V4
90
e'` '
s 0 e
00 ��' m lPBPlP
T II ®ppad
s
m►I �)G ewe
Z �
® J
i
MENT
. L" t7 X1.+ 10 B
. . .
Ell
O
Q
AZ,R._ - -
EXHIBIT
WALTER CENTER
SOUTH HIGUERA STREET AT PRADO ROAD B
PROPOSED. GENERAL PLAN
MAP CHANGE
2-39
4
[A 1!•.
O} p a
eMrror�,R m
.. DLYLLG�I�W T DEPT.
• A
% SOCIVIL9.CVI;Ey V.,177,It. ,3
� ARC 71•'J7AYIf01�1i) W
• e•7i Rlee•le7 0-
� A�s•ee '�
44A+ Ari2"/}
iGlr�: IL:S•78 ANN awC
OnIC[i ARS S7- I ]]�
LLA e[•rqi u4eI �Rt 70
ARa �7 m
Mui Pol4uI
an r Ns RE+W6 � •:N9
manwimlow
0 mow
rAM
o�t��� � c �jNdf 6eMiCIC e
ZLO
Y . e
.�Q �� �9 3f7 ' O•,
>s � G �3iai�La'ZiGiW3r �
t '0+�°Nitta uRfs m"Or
Aa�,y AUG" VIN L.r!•l t R•le•R
H -17- R
MIBIT
WALTER CENTER c
SOUTH HIGUERA STREET AT PRADO ROAD
EPASM
SEME
PROPOSED ZONE MAP CHANGE
2-40
Li U b,U NT
ORDINANCE NO. 1221 (1992 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL MAP TO REZONE
THE PROPERTY AT 3190-3240 SOUTH HIGUERA. STREET
FROM O-S TO O-PD AND ALLOWING GOVERNMENT OFFICES_&ff
OTHER LARGE OFFICES (APPLICATION. PD -1541)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearing
on application No. PD 1541 on April 29 and July 29, 1992, and
recommended approval of the application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on
August 18, 1992, and has considered the testimony and statements
of the applicant, and other interested parties, and the records of
the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff;
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Rezoning
The council approves application No. PD 1488, thereby amending the
Official Zoning Map designation the site from Office - Special
Considerations to Office Planned Development, based on the
following findings and conditions:
SECTION 2 . Findings
1. The proposed rezoning complies with General Plan Public
Facility Land Use policies due to its continued emphasis and
priority relating to the location . of governmental social
services offices near the intersection of Prado Road and South
Higuera 'Street.
2. The proposed rezoning complies with General Plan Professional
Office Land Use policies because:
A. The subject professional offices would be located in
close proximity to governmental offices in a "specialized
center. "
B. The subject professional offices would be accessed from
commercial arterial and collector streets, avoiding
impacts on residential circulation.
2-41
0-1221
F 17�7r 11� AM 1
IN T
Ordinance No. 1221 (1992 Series)
PD 1541
Page 2
3 . The proposed rezoning recognizes the need of some larger
professional office uses to locate outside the Central
Business District and adjacent office districts due to the
unavailability of approximately sized office facilities.
4 . The proposed rezoning will not be detrimental to the ppblic
health, safety and welfare.
5. The proposed rezoning will increase consistency and equity in
the application of General Plan policies to a variety of
private office developments.
6. The proposed planned development provides facilities suited
to a particular occupancy group which would not be feasible
under conventional zoning, specifically government office
tenants and large office tenants who cannot be accommodated
within other office and commercial zones within the city.
7. A negative declaration is hereby approved for the project.
SECTION 3 . Conditions
1. Except as otherwise noted in these conditions of approval,
all zoning regulations for the Office zone shall apply.
2. Preference shall be given to governmental social service
office uses; owners shall seek tenants for available lease
spaces among local, state, and federal social service agencies
prior to seeking tenants among alternate office uses.
3 . Tenants other. than governmental social service agencies,
quasi-governmental social services businesses, and private
o non-profit social services providers, shall not occupy more
-7 9 1' an of the gross lease spaces on�the subject parcels.
and FV-vofG a(C6oe0 w1,ac b�zi ,y vrlc3zi� d.��d'!yy 12. FNI 02r. 1 to soup-) S�'�rces
4. Tenants other than those listed in N6. 2 abo shall not
occupy less than 2,500 gross square feet of adjacent,
interconnected floor area per tenant.
S. The following office-related uses shall be prohibited: banks,
real estate offices, medical clinics, a`
doctors offices, and ?= .I ___ _`=ices.
6. Applicant shall dedicate a creek maintenance and pedestrian
access easement over that portion of the site within the San
Luis Creek Channel, and including a 20-foot buffer strip at
the top of bank on both sides of the creek. (Extension of
requirement from-previous Use Permit U1401. )
2-42
77T
... . 4 =4W M E NE
Ordinance No. ' 1221 (1992 Series)
PD 1541
Page 3
7. Uses allowed and prohibited within this O-PD zone shall be as
provided in Exhibit A, attached.
SECTION 5. . A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City
Attorney, together with the names of council members voting for and
against, shall be published at least (5) days prior to its final
passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published , and
circulated in this city. This ordinance shall go into effect at
the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. A copy
of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file in the office
of the City Clerk on and after the date following introduction and
passage to print and shall be available to any interested member
of the public.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council. of the City of
San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the 18th day of
August , 1992, on motion of vice-Mayor Rappa , seconded
by Councilman Reiss and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Rappa, Reiss, Pinard, and Mayor Dunin
NOES: Councilman Roalman
ABSENT: None
i
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City tierk Pam ges
2-43
n IMENT
Ordinance No_ 1221 (1992 Series)
PD 1541
Page 4
APPROVED:
City dministrative Officer
Itf/tt/g/rne
0L."
Ti
CommuniDevelopment Director
2-44
F " ME"T
- gid AC-1
EXHIBIT A - PD 1541
ALLOWED/PROHIBITED USES - WALTER CENTER
Uses allowed and prohibited within this O-PD zone shall be as provided in the
following list.
Symbols following each listed use shall have the following meaning.:
A - Type of use allowed without use permit approval.
D - Type of use allowed if an administrative use permit is approved.
PC- Type of use allowed if a use permit is approved by the Planning.
Commission.
NO- Type of use which is not allowed.
* - Type of use which is not subject to floor area requirements in
Section 4 above.
**- Type of use for which only incidental and non-customer serving
functions shall be allowed.
Advertising and .related services A
Ambulance services NO
Banks and savings and loans NO
Banks and savings and loans A**
(administrative and loan offices only)
Broadcast studios NO
Caretaker's quarters NO
Cemeteries, mausoleums, columbariums NO
Christmas tree sales (see Section NO
17.08.01 OD)
Churches, synagogues, temples, etc. NO
Circus, carnival, fair, festival, parades NO
(see Section 17.08.010E)
Computer services A
Convalescent hospitals NO
Credit reporting and collection A
Credit unions and finance companies A**
Delivery and private postal services D
Detective and security services A
2-45
�
PD 1541 - EXHIBIT A HMEN7
Dwellings NO
Employment agencies A
Government agency offices and meeting At
rooms
Homeless shelters (see Section PC
17.08.110)
Hospitals NO
Insurance service - local A
Insurance services - regional office A
Laboratories (medical, analytical) NO
Mortuaries NO
Offices (contractors) - all types of A
general and special building contractor's
offices
Offices (engineering) engineers and A
industrial design
Offices (professional) Professional A
offices consistent with the Land Use
Element are allowed. Attorneys,
realtors, doctors and medical clinics are
prohibited.
Organizations (professional, religious, A
political, labor, fraternal, trade, youth,
etc.), offices and meeting rooms
Photocopy services; quick printers A
Residential care facilities - 6 or fewer NO
residents
Residential care facilities - more than 6 NO
residents
Schools
-Nursery schools, child day care A
-Business trade, recreational, or other D
specialized schools
2-46
TAU'
PD 1541 - EXHIBIT A UHMENT
Secretarial and related services (court A
reporting, stenography, typing, telephone
answering, etc.)
Social services and charitable agencies A'
Telegram office A
Ticket/travel agencies A
Utility companies
-Corporation yards NO
-Customer account services (bill A
paying and inquiries)
-Distribution and transmission NO
facilities - see Section 17,08.050
-Engineering and administrative A
offices
-Payment drop points A
Veterinarians NO -
2-4
TH
ME NT
Ordinance No. 1221 (1992 Series)
FINALLY PASSED this 1st day of September
1992o.n motion of Councilmember Roalman . , seconded by
Councilmember Rappa , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Rappa, Pinard, Reiss, and Mayor Dunin
NOES: Councilmember Roalman
ABSENT: None
ayor Ron unix
ATTEST:
City C rk Pam Vog
2-48
- e • /1
ILI
c-'s NT
C-S
i
C/OS-10 "
C•S-MU �
w
e '
LLLL
e '
•C-S
i
GPD
� w
C-S-S F
na
' R-2-S
• w ,
C B
GS-S �]
rUy' 3 • • O O • w Y
^�, fC • r, � n Y t
• O tl • T n
/ R-2 '
a
� a
33
a C-S•SP g'
d
o
,4 F a Q
, w Zoe i At.o;..►!h t1-tE
warn] HnoEc uA- Com► ca,
i
CSsP , +� 2-49
C.S.4P i
Neighborhooa-Commercial ( ,�
• tY�,
• i __ ..._ J—__tel. �
• T
• r,
• , , ter,
• • 1 � •• • I .� •
' Pro ect Site ;.... ..
I
O1 Mile Radius(CN Zone Service Area,Common Boundaries Dissolved)
O 1 Mile Radius(Project site) 0.5 0 0.5 Miles n
O1 Wile Radius(Planned Margarita Area CN Zone Service Area) (..l
Neighborhood-Comrrwml(CN)Zones N
/•�✓ City Limits2-50
CHMENT
Land Use Element
Figure 5 - Public Facilities Areas
Civte Center r
Cultural Facilities Area
Health Cafe Area
Social Services Are
City of san Luis oBispo � Pubbc Facilibes Areas Q
canmpnity development department N
LU-4 cieneRal.plan bicieA-city of san,4u'ta�ispo
s 1
Oat
-Rw
IT
PREVIOUS AppRaL%Ls - CP/R 1147
The commission and hearing officer have approved several use permits for projects
at the padre plaza and Social Services sites:
U04&3 was approved in January 1975. This allowed "retail commercial buildings
and liquor store" at 3250 South Rignera Street. The commission reviewed, but did
not Specifically at
a master plan for the entire site located at the corner
of Prado and south Riguera. only the Padre Plaza Liquor and Grocery Store build n
was built pursuant to this use permit (identified as Building A an the new master
plan).
U04M was approved In November 1975, but the approved building was not
constructed. This would have allowed construction of a 3000 squsxe fact building
(in the location shown for Building C an the new master plan), and also allowed
use of up to 50% of the commercial buildings ro be used for Offices "intended to
serve primarily the neighborhood".
00639 was approved In July 1978. This allowed construction Of & 10.000 square
toot building (Building 5 an the new master plan) to.be used for offices.. The use
permit allowed occupancy of 70()o square feet by county offices until May 31. 1982.
BIL 27-79 was approved by the commission. also in july 1978. This use permit
approved a W=man driveway between Padre Plaza buildings and Walter Bros. Construe-
tion to the north.
00682 was approved In August 1978. This allowed construction Of a restaurant
(Building 3 on the new master plan - Bechelli's Restaurant).
U0699 was approved in November 1978. This allowed construction of a 12.000
square foot building ("EDD Building" an new master plan), to. be occupied by state
offices.
U0794 allowed construction of the three-story Social Services Building. The
we permit was approved by the Council January 2, 1980, an appeal from Planning
CommLasion A_4nl, and was amended in 1980 and again In 1982-
0096a was approved July 22, 1981, allowing pacific Telephone Company to
ocenjy�3000 square feet of Building g until May 31, 1982.
A 8-83 was approved February 8, 1983, approving an off-site parking agreement
between the EDD and Social Services lots. amending conditions Of U794- Thia use
permit required closing of the driveway comection between Padre Plaza and Social
Sericaa.
A 41-83, approved May 9. 1983, approved occupancy of 19,4100 square feet of
—
the Social Services Building's third floor by Victor Technologies for a period of
five years.
A 58--93 was approved May, 27. 1983- It allowed occupancy of the SOCUI
Services Bsildiug by Tranacoatimental Service Corp (a finawlal End Investment
company - 3000 square feet. second floor), and State Compensation insurance Fund
(an Insurance, company - 2000 square feet, first floor)-
2-52
1-.0
v
A 116-a3 was approved October 19, 1983, by the Hearing, Officer. It allowed
a clothing store to occupy 1100 square feet in Building. A previously occupied by
a nca-conforming office use.
A 146-83 vas denied without prejudice December 29, 1983. The request was
to allow ®D to occupy 2500 square feet in Building A.
A9•-" was approved by the planning Commission March ?8, 1984, allowing a
door store to occupy space previously occupied by a non-conforming office use.
A 40•-U was approved April 6, 1984. It allowed Commnttications Systems
Compsay to occupy 721 square feet on the first floor and 2500 square feet on
the third floor, and allawed San Luis Ambulance Service to occupy 837 square
feet an the third floor. until April 1989. The third floor approvals super-
sede provisions of use permit A 41-83(lticter Technologies). which was not
exercised and has expired.
G�P�R 14-7- 1 KegL,�,T � l3►ei iox�a�- �c.�nt Art�bt=fA-'r
Df 2.' aGvt.� �AV--C
2-53
R'T; ijTP6Z'2H 0i
1
Chapter 17.10:
NONCONFORMING USES
Sections:
17.10.010 Intent.
17.10.020 Regulations.
. 17.10-010 Intent
A nonconforming use is one which was legally
established on the effective date of applicable sections
of these regulations,but which is not now an allowed or
conditionally allowed use in the zone in which it is
located. The intent of these regulations is to prevent the
expansion of nonconforming uses, establish the
circumstances under which they may be continued,and
provide for their removal or change to a conforming use
as soon as practical. (Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior
code-9202.2(A))
17.10.020 Regulations.
A. Change of ownership, tenancy or management of a
nonconforming use shall not affect its legal,
nonconforming status.
B. A nonconforming use may be continued and a
nonconforming use may be changed to another
nonconforming use provided:
1. A nonconforming use which ceases for a continuous
period of sic months shall lose its nonconforming status
and the premises on which the nonconforming use was
located shall from then on be used for conforming uses.
2. A nonconforming use may be replaced with another,
provided that an administrative use permit is approved
by the Director. The Director must find that the new use
has similar or less severe impacts on its surroundings in
terms of noise, traffic, paridng demand, hours of
operation and visual incompatibility. The applicant shall
submit evidence of the date when the original
nonconforming use was established.
C. A lot occupied by a nonconforming use may be
further developed by the addition of conforming uses
and structures,provided an administrative use permit is
approved. (See Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.080.)
(Ord.941 - 1 (part),1982: prior code-9202.2(6))
2-54
crty or san lies osispo 26 zonmG MPIAtlons
Y
_ � a ��.���:'�.,���►999 V� :ly �:\ ��
1T' , 1
ff
.I;
•
'y r
tA
,
f TT •, f
i%�� ,;_ .` h tee ;���=�• � - _�� ' ���
lit MANN'
INE PROP0.SAL
The applicant requests a oharhge in General Plan designation from Neighborhood Conmercid to
Office and a change in the zoning map from mC-W to 6O-FV as an extension of the neighboring
Waiter Center O-PD zone. This is a map change only and no General Pian tad chatrnge is
rmmstBd
Bing space in the Padre Plaza portion of the larger Walter Center would then be leased to
office and related tenants complying with'O'zone li,,ii ons. Eventually Walter Brothers
Construction anticipates development of the vacant corner site with an adder structure or
structures and paikirxt.
Concarrerd with this requested Gerherd Phan Amendment and Zone Grange,the apptirard would
like to achiate a rruodrficatian to the Planned Development overlay conditions of approval for the
narhainder of Walter Center,as offered by the Cly Council during dsc smo s of tri-polar zoning
enFonoearnerd during the past several years Specifically,they would lake corrdions 3 and 5,
Section 3 of PD-1541 (Ordnance No. 1221, 1992 Series),changed as foacws
'3. Tenants other than gwerrvnertal social service agerhcies, social
services businesses,and primate non-protit social senvioes providers. and private offices
whose lursehess relafies directly and primarily to social services shall not occupy
none thaen 506 75%of the gross lease space on the subject parcels'
05. The fclowmg uses shall be proinftkx:banks, real Mate offices,
iuhsliteugers,medical clinics, and doctors
These eharnges will bring ung restrictions on Walter Center into balance with observed
fluctuations in the funding of gwernrnerdd social services agermes and with the evolution of City
policy whe m approenals are more often extended for the placernert of gaderrhrnerd offroes
outside the identified tri-polar centers.
GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
The applicant rrrairdaii that the requested changes are supportive of,and further, many General
Pian goals,policim and prograrrm
LAND USE ELEMENT;COMMUNITY GOALS
God-11. The requested charges would allow the aplAcard to ruin and accorrnrhodate
ehq a 1131011 of the lora(social service agencies, related businesses, and other offices.
God 12. The lard has been comrnitted to urban developrient the requestedchainges would
re0h3ce uses that are no longer viable with uses that adhtbtt current dernand.
Goal 14. Govementail agencies are a part of politic services and these changes well
3000 i notate their eventual expansion in compliance with ober goals.
Goal 24. The rea dwiges will allow the tri-polar social services center to accmmmdate
more futre awnsion of county aid state goverment offices wid social services.
Goof 29. The pattern of this neighborhood has historically tended crone toward afire uses and
away from refill and service uses
2
2-56
7� IL
AT
1=NEAT
tAND USE FINr:COMMSICIAL AND IImUSTRI%
NEIGHBORHOOD COMLGBCIAL
321 Purpose and lmhKW Uses The abject property doesn't meet shed rnighborinood
conenendal objectives in that it doesn't currently serve the frequent shopping demand
of nearby residents, is riot within one mile of a significant number of residences,and,at .
14W acres� is well under the anticipated C-N development site of up to 8 acres In its
history Padre Plaza has not corutained laundromats,drug stores,or hardware stores
322D Safe and Pleasant Pedestrian Access Because of the volume of traffic and the non-
residential developrient of the neighborhood in general,pedestrian access from nearby
residenoes to Padre Plate is not convenient or oanfortabie for a signifi crit number r of
residents.
LAND USE ELEMENT;OFFICE POLICIES 3.3
3.32D Government Somal Services Offices The requested changes would further Witate
the"i 1: ..ed concerdrafiorr of government social services and the r gioriat offices of
state and federal agencies near the South ftieralPrado intersection.
LAND USE ELENIFNT: PUBLIC AND CULTURAL FACILITIES POLICIES 5.1
5.1.1 Growing for Convenience. Although this proposal does not involve P-F uses,the
requested charges,fame grouping of government affixes by exparx5ng oppmtrrnities
for thern a*cerit to emsfing govermnent offices at Walter Center.
5.12 Private&rsinesses. The requested dmiges, including the proposed moddcuation t D
PD conditions of approval,support the location of moble private businesses
aMMV govertrrrent otTnes
5.1.6 Social Services Offices. Again,the requested changes expand the opportunity to
provide siaficiett space to accommodate regional offices of state and federal agencies.
5.1.7 Related Offices. Public offices fu nckinally related to other sodsi services functions;are
also given I ciVorturdbes;under the
requested chariges-
5.1.8 Unrelated Offices, meant Offices. Public offices,government offices and private
5.1.9 actives not flay rn'<abed to any other idexu5fied tripolar government of5o a.
knafig ns are also given iriaeased opporturdlie s for space under the requested
chai
CIRCULATION ELEMENT,TRANSIT SERVICE POLICIES
21 The requested changes allow' developrrient of government offices and
refabed uses adjacent to an' andmell-used transit stop with weaNer
protection,encouraging use of the bus system by office work=and clientele.
3
2-57
7- zl i M E N T
NARRATIVE STATEMENT AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE
APN 053-041-031, PORTION-033
PADRE PLAZA
3250 A-D AND 3350 SOUTH MGUERA STREET
SAN WIS OBISPO '
THE SETTING
The Neighborhood Cornrmercial Land use desgnation at the nortlnwesterly comer of South
Higuera Street and Prado Road was established at the time of the development of the first-Padre
Plaza"brelding there in 1974. At that time the property owner.Walter Brothers Construction, and
the City Community Development Department expected neighborhood serving retail and service
businesses to remain viable indefinitely as residential growth occurred along the South Krguera
Street corridor.
For most of the urternnin g years only a Circle K ntaricet competed directly with Padre Plaza for
rneighbortrood convenience shopping. However,the primary drerts of the neighborhood
conenen:ial tenants in Padre Plaza's three buildings-groceries and liquor,Baca l essen,
restaurant,sevfthracutan center,hairdresser,and yogurt shop-gradually shitted from
ming do the employees of nemby office uses. More reoerdly the opening of
Cypress Plaza,the Food 4 Less grocery stone,and the Marigold Center have almost completely
efft al: nearby residents from the PfazWs dierrtele. The market for neighbodmod commercial
uses at this tuition has waned so sgndi=y that the original ternant,Padre Liquor,may soon
dose its doors Another shop, Padre Yogurt,quit business an July 1 of this year.
In addition to the anpads of mrrnpelition, Padre Plaza has lost aAtractiveness as a neighborhood
conimerrial center because of the intavNicalim of the South KK.Am Street corridor. As various
commercial and oltioe teres tmedeveloped in the vidndy and baRic volumes have 0ieersed it
has become much less conventent and condatable to walk from surrounding ndinng residermal arm to
Padre Plaza for shopping and services,as anticipated by the General Plan.
The inquiries Walter Bmdx s Consiruc66n receives regarding available lease space are now
almost entirely from pow office tenants,both govermnerdal and.non-govertrrerrrfal The'trF
Polar soudat services cei dw designation for the Kgue aftado resod has proven
sr=esskd in ;H ,ryrg the irk of the irk agerncies and businesses,as well as a general
miK of office types. To the rodent that demand for office lease space exceeds readily wallable
supply the provision of additional otTioe space within developed neighborhoo ft such as Padre
Pima,Will reduce pressure for exi "an onto currently undeveloped lard.
1
2-58
ATTACHMENT 8
Page 1
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 23, 2000
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:06 p.m. on
Wednesday, August 23, 2000, in Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Jim Aiken, Orval Osborne, Mary Whittlesey, Alice Loh,
Stephen Peterson, Allan Cooper and Paul Ready
Absent: None
Staff Recording Secretary Leaha Magee, Development Review Manager
Ron Whisenand, Associate Planner Peggy Mandeville, Community
Development Director Arnold Jonas, and Assistant City Attorney
Gil Trujillo.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director, complimented the Commission and
staff on their dedicated work. Mr. Jonas is retiring after 10 years of service with the
City.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 3250 South Hiauera Street: PD, GP/R, and ER 203-99; Request for a General
Plan amendment and rezone of approximately 2.7 acres from C-N (Neighborhood
Commercial) to O-PD (Office with a Planned Development Overlay) and to modify
the use limitations of the PD requirements for the entire Walter Brothers complex;
and environmental review; C-N zone;.Walter Brothers Construction, applicant.
Associate Planner Peggy Mandeville presented the staff report and recommended the
Planning Commission recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment and
Planned Development Rezoning to the City Council, based on findings and subject to
conditions.
Commissioner Cooper referred to page 5, Conditions 2 and 3, and had staff review the
differences between banks and financial institutions and the allowance for gqgerp rent
Draft Meeting Minutes ATTACHMENT 8
August 23, 2000 Page 2
Page 2
services in this area.
Commissioner Whittlesey had staff review the "S" overlay designations of surrounding
properties. She commented that a rezoning from a relatively less intense C-N use to
21,000 square feet of additional office space would be a more intensive use and yet
traffic hasn't been addressed.
Associate Planner Mandeville stated the Public Works Department indicated that traffic
would actually be reduced because more people would be staying at this location rather
than coming and going. She noted that "new" should be deleted from page 4 of the
Environmental Review paragraph in referring to the square footage and added that the
Airport Land Use Commission's goal was to not increase the intensity from
neighborhood-commercial to office.
Commissioner Whittlesey noted concerns regarding water impacts related to flooding
and asked if the deli would have to be linked to a market in order to be non-conforming.
Associate Planner Mandeville stated the deli could be considered an accessory use for
the office to be included as an allowed use.
Commissioner Whittlesey noted a conflict with Condition 3 "lawyers" and the allowed
uses identified on the Table of Uses. Staff noted this would be corrected.
Associate Planner Mandeville distributed a generic site plan that was viewed by the
Airport Land Use Commission.
Commissioner Loh expressed support for the applicant's request, but noted the
importance of considering land uses immediately adjacent to this property.
Commissioner Osborne felt it didn't make sense to limit this proposal to two stories
when it is in between two- and three-story buildings.
Associate Planner Mandeville comment the three-story buildings were constructed prior
to the establishment of the Airport Land Use Commission. If these buildings were to
come before the Commission at the present time, they would be denied.
Commissioner Peterson asked if the City is limited to a certain number of General Plan
Amendments per year.
Manager Whisenand responded that the City is limited to four element amendments per
year and has processed one prior to this request this year.
Commissioner Peterson voiced concern with environmental impacts associated with
increased vehicle trips, traffic congestion, and the concept of losing this neighborhood
commercial area. He noted a mixed-use overlay would accommodate offices above
commercial uses and felt this may be a better approach.
Chairman Ready asked for the location of the neighborhood-commercial zone that is
2-61
Draft Meeting Minutes ATTACHMENT 8
August 23, 2000
Page 3 Page 3
southeasterly of the project site.
Associate Planner Mandeville replied that is the proposed Margarita area.
Commissioner Loh asked for comment on the creek on the north side of the property.
Associate Planner Mandeville stated the creek is addressed in the existing office
planned development requiring a 20-foot setback.
There were no further comments or questions and the public comment session was
opened.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Bruce Frazier, applicant's representative, explained that the C-N zone in this location is
not viable. The applicant is supportive of the staff report and confident the proposal will
be successful. He requested page 5, Condition 2 be modified to reflect 75% percent
rather than 60% to allow for greater flexibility in potential tenants.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Peterson moved to continue this item to a date uncertain with direction to
staff to revisit the initial study, specifically the transportation circulation section and air
quality section to consider the future effect on vehicle trips of eliminating the C-N zone
and converting it to office space and to consider the feasibility of using an M-U Overlay
to ensure retention of neighborhood commercial uses at the site while allowing
expansion of office uses. Commissioner Osborne seconded the motion.
Commissioner Cooper stated he could not support the motion because he felt the
findings for the motion would lead to denial and not to a continuance.
Chairman Ready felt this is site does not support viable C-N uses. He could not support
the motion.
AYES: Commrs. Peterson and Osborne
NOES: Commrs. Aiken, Cooper, Whittlesey, Loh and Chairman Ready
REFRAIN: None
The motion failed 2-7.
Commissioner Loh moved to recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment and
the P-D rezoning to the City Council based upon findings and subject to conditions and
with an added Condition 6 that would reflect that all future development shall comply
with Creek Setback Regulations. Commissioner Aiken seconded the motion.
2-62
Draft Meeting Minutes ATTACHMENT 8
August 23, 2000 Page 4
Page 4
Commissioner Aiken asked that the motion be amended so that Condition 2 would
reflect, "...shall not occupy more than 70% of the gross lease spaces on the subject
parcels."
Commissioner Loh accepted the amendment to the motion.
AYES: Commrs. Loh, Aiken, Cooper, Whittlesey, Loh and Ready
NOES: Commrs. Peterson and Osborne
REFRAIN: None
The motion carried 5-2.
Commissioner Peterson moved to advise staff to revisit the initial study, particularly the
transportation and circulation section and the air quality section to consider the future
effect on vehicle trips in eliminating the C-N zoning and to provide discussion to the City
Council. Commissioner Loh seconded the motion.
AYES: Commrs. Peterson, Loh, Aiken, Cooper, Whittlesey and Osborne
NOES: Commr. Ready
REFRAIN: None
The motion carried 6-1.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2. Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast:
September 13 —Two Administrative Use Permit Appeals.
September 27 — Annexation request for property inside Airport Area Specific
Planning Area.
3. Commission:
There were no comments made.
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m. to
the next regular meeting scheduled for September 13, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in Council
Chamber.
Respectfully submitted,
Leaha K. Magee
Recording Secretary
2-63