Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/15/2004, PH5 - REVIEW PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ZONING REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS TO PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIB . 0 C council M , j acEnaa RepoRt �H CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director Prepared By: Michael Codron, Associate Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ZONING REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS TO PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY FOR THE LOCATIONS OF MEDICAL SERVICES (GPA/TA/ER 22-04). CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission, take the following actions to provide greater flexibility for the locations of medical services in the City: 1) Approve in concept amendments to General Plan Policies LU 3.4.2.C, LU 3.6.1 and LU 3.6.2 to provide greater flexibility for the locations of medical services. 2) Approve in concept an ordinance allowing certain types of medical services to be located in the C-S and BP zoning districts, with the approval of an Administrative Use Permit. 3) Approve in concept a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the project. 4) Continue this item to the July 6 Council meeting for adoption of the General Plan amendment, introduction of the ordinance, and approval of the Negative Declaration. DISCUSSION Situation On April 14, 2004, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve changes to the General Plan and Zoning Regulations that would allow medical services (doctor's offices and urgent care facilities) to be located in the C-S and BP zoning districts (Planning Commission Minutes and Resolution, Attachment 1). A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared for the project (Attachment 2). The proposed amendments would carry out Council direction given on January 6, 2004 (Council Minutes, Attachment 3). Staff is asking the Council to review and conceptually approve the proposed General Plan amendments, but defer action to the July 6, 2004, Council meeting so that they can be grouped with other proposed changes to the Land Use Element. Background On January 6, 2004, the City Council directed staff to change the Zoning Regulations to allow greater flexibility for the provision of medical office space in the community. This direction was given in response to public testimony provided by five local professionals, including the president of the San Luis Obispo Medical Society. The medical community in San Luis Obispo has repeatedly expressed concerns about the lack of medical office space available in the City. S - � Medical Services Amendments GPAlrAIER 22-04 Page 2 City staff has been exploring the issues surrounding medical office locations since at least December 2002, when the Tribune reported that a shortage a medical office space in the City was causing doctor's offices to relocate to North and South County. A brief discussion was provided on the issue in the 2002 Annual Report on the General Plan. Enabling zoning provisions for some new office space for medical services has been occurring. During 2003, Community Development Department staff worked with individual developers to create new office space, such as the Leopold and Murphy dental office expansion, the new medical office building on 956 Walnut Street, and a medical office project that is soon to begin construction on the comer of Monterey and California. In 2003, the City also approved the Commercial Zoning Revisions, which allowed medical services in the Community Commercial zone, such as the new podiatrist located at Marigold Center. These actions have not been sufficient to meet the needs of the local medical business community. In 2003, staff surveyed property owners in the southern part of the City to detemmine their interest in medical office development. The survey was intended to determine if a strategy targeting certain properties for rezoning would allow adequate development of new medical facilities. As part of the direction provided by Council in January, 2004, staff evaluated the existing information on-hand and provided an analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission (Planning Commission Agenda Report, Attachment 4). Evaluation A summary of the proposed amendments is included as Exhibit A of Attachment 1. Staff has also prepared a detailed General Plan analysis of the changes (Attachment 5). In concept, the proposed General Plan amendments would further the City's goal to be the hub for medical services in the County by allowing medical services to be located throughout the City's major transportation corridors. The Zoning Regulations amendments, which would implement the policy change, establish specific findings that have to be made to insure that new medical uses in the C-S or BP zones are compatible with surrounding development. New medical uses will also have to be located along major streets with access to public transportation, they cannot increase traffic in residential neighborhoods, they must be consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan, and they cannot preclude service commercial uses in areas that are particularly suited for light industrial development. Attachment 6 includes a map analysis to show the areas within the current City limits where this project would permit medical offices to be established with use permit approval.. It is important to note that new medical facilities can also be developed in the following zoning districts - O (Office), C-R (Retail Commercial), C-D (Downtown Commercial), C-C (Community Commercial) - which are not shown on the map. Alternative Alternative Approaches City staff considered two main alternatives to the proposed amendments. These alternatives could be implemented in addition to, or instead of, the proposed amendments, but would involve significantly more time to evaluate and implement. Medical Services Amendments GPAIrAIER 22-04 Page 3 The first alternative was to consider additional land to be designated Office on the Land Use Element map. Sites that may be appropriate for Office zoning include most of the properties already zoned C-S-PD for large office buildings. These sites include Acacia Creek on Broad, Edna Valley Offices on Tank Farm Road, and the Weyrich Building on South Higuera Street, among others. Undeveloped sites in this category include the Cannon site at the corner of Broad and Tank Farm, and the Volny sites along Aerovista, adjacent to the airport. One major problem with this approach is that the change would not be targeted for medical offices. Rezoning to Office would allow all types of professional offices at these sites, which could have the effect of drawing a wide range of professionals away from the Downtown area and into isolated offices on the periphery of the City. Another problem is that this change is much more involved than the proposed amendments because it entails rezoning existing property, necessitating a high level of coordination with impacted property owners. The second alternative considered was to relax the existing parking requirements for medical offices. Staff does not recommend this approach unless the relaxed standard is based on a parking study. Such a study could help determine an appropriate parking ratio and would evaluate how the change would affect neighborhoods adjacent to existing offices, such as the Old Town neighborhood. It is also unclear how many doctors would take advantage of the change, given that many need the required level of parking. If the Planning Commission or the City Council wish to pursue a change to the parking requirements in the short term, it may be possible to use the Administrative Use Permit process to establish alternative parking requirements for medical offices on a case by case basis. Tri-Polar Policy It is worthwhile to note that no changes are proposed to the City's so-called Tri-Polar policy. Land Use Element policies 5.1.4 (Civic Center), 5.1.5 (Health Care) and 5.1.6 (Social Service) are collectively referred to as the Tri-Polar policy because of the three separate areas designated for these uses in Figure 5 of the LUE (Attachment 7). LUE policy 5.1.5 establishes a health-care area by French Hospital and General Hospital, but does not preclude medical services in other areas of the City. The area designated for Social Services in LUE Figure 5 does include some land zoned C-S that could now be developed with medical services (Attachment 7). Approval of medical services in this area would have to be consistent with LUE policy 5.1.9 (Different Offices), which permits other activities in the social services area if they are compatible with, and do not displace, the government functions that should be located in the area, such as the State Department of Motor Vehicles and Federal Social Security Administration. Public Correspondence At the Planning Commission hearing, Dr. Karen Krahl requested that doctor proposed projects be given priority over projects proposed by real estate developers. Her concern is that the recent publicity on the proposed changes has lead to speculation by developers, potentially raising the cost of development in the future. The Planning Commission did not direct staff to consider the request and staff is not aware of any zoning mechanism that could implement the concept. �- 3 Medical Services Amendments GPAITA/ER 22-04 Page 4 Dan Lemburg, a property owner in the City, requested by letter that the proposed zoning changes include allowing medical services in the C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) zone (Attachment 8). The Planning Commission did not support the request and staff believes that the locations and characteristics of the City's C-N zones are too closely tied to neighborhoods to be appropriate for medical services, which are typically parking intensive. In 2003, the City significantly reduced the types of uses that could be established in the C-N zone to insure that development in the zoning district would continue to be compatible with City neighborhoods. Attachment 8 includes other public testimony on the project, including a letter submitted by Joe DeLucia expressing concerns with the proposed changes. Also included in Attachment 8 is correspondence from Dr. Karen Krahl providing significant contextual information about the challenges faced by health care providers and urging the implementation of zoning changes immediately. Finally, correspondence from the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce supporting flexibility in the zoning requirements is also included in Attachment 8. Economic Development Program Perspective For several years now, the City's Economic Development Program Manager has been involved with the issue of the availability of medical office space in the City. In 2000, when the Program began providing listings of available commercial properties in the City, physicians and commercial real estate brokers expressed a concern about the lack of properly zoned medical office space. Over the years, this concern has been repeatedly expressed by the San Luis Obispo Medical Society, group practices, individual physicians, commercial real estate brokers, and the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce. To date, only one real estate broker has indicated a position to the contrary. When Council directed staff to recommend zoning changes that would allow greater flexibility for the provision of medical office space in the community, it also requested specific information about the status of office space available upon the County's consolidation of office space in the Downtown. The County will be vacating several leased spaces when it occupies the newly expanded government center. The County presently occupies approximately 15,000 square feet of office space located in various buildings on Santa Rosa, Palm, Pacific, and Monterey Street. Not all of this office space will be well suited for physicians. The average solo health care provider requires about 1,500 square feet of office space, with partnerships and large sized practices requiring 5,000 square feet and more. At best, the vacated County space could house 15 health care providers, but this assumes all of the properties are available, well suited for the use, and that a high number of one person offices are seeking the space. There are likely to be many types of tenants seeking use of the space and not all of it will be well suited for medical offices. Upon completion of the new County building, staff does not expect the County's adjustment in office leases to result in an abundance of properties available for use by physicians. Related to the issue of space availability is the issue of how healthcare is evolving. Today, many physicians do not need to be located near hospitals. Information, from x-rays to blood tests can be transmitted via fax or email. Some specialists, due to their high rate of hospitalized patients or need to be located near operating facilities, prefer to be located near hospitals. Other [� S, 1 O Medical Services Amendments GPArrA/ER 22-04 Page5 specialists do not require hospital services. Some specialists see lots of patients all day long and need lots of parking spaces. Others see a few patients at set times. Various business models are used by physicians from corporations to partnerships to sole parishioners. Healthcare is no longer a "one-size fits all" model. Today, in our community there are many other factors, separate from the issue of the availability of medical office space, that have created a health crisis. The proposed changes to our zoning regulations will be a minor, but very helpful, step toward solving a much larger problem. CONCURRENCES The Airport Land Use Commission determined that the proposed General Plan Amendments and Zoning Regulations Amendments were consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. FISCAL DIPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. The proposed project amends the General Plan, potentially allowing a greater concentration of office type uses in areas designated Services and Manufacturing. Because of the nature of State-local fiscal relationships in California, the fiscal impact of development by land use type is relatively predictable for cities throughout the state, and San Luis Obispo is no exception. For example, a number of fiscal impact analyses prepared for the City over the past several years (including for the General Plan, Airport Area, Margarita Area, San Luis Marketplace and Court Street projects) all reached the same basic conclusion: 1. Office, business park and industrial uses are largely break-even: service costs are relatively low, but so are related revenues. Some of these uses may have significant sales tax revenues due to "business-to-business" sales (which represent about 15% of total City sales tax revenue); however, because of the wide range of uses allowed in these zones, this is difficult to project, even on a case-by-case basis.. 2. Retail uses may be fiscal winners if they respond to a demonstrated unmet need (typically measured by where sales per capita in the City or region for a specific type of use are below State averages). Otherwise, new retail is largely just redistributing the demand (and related sales tax revenue) that already exists; and in this case, at best it will be fiscally neutral. The effect of the proposed land use change may be to create more office uses and less retail uses in areas designated Services and Manufacturing, but the fiscal impacts are difficult to predict and should be considered minor, based on the discussion above. As such, factors other than fiscal impact should be considered in evaluating the desirability of the proposed change. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may continue this item and direct staff to provide additional research or documentation. This alternative should be pursued if the Council needs more information to Medical Services Amendments GPAITA/ER 22-04 Page 6 make a decision on the proposed amendments. 2. The Council may deny the proposed amendments. This alternative should be pursued if the Council does not believe that the recommended changes will accomplish the goals of providing more flexibility for the location of medical services in the City, or it there are better ways to achieve this goal. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: PC Minutes, 4-14-04, and Resolution No. 5389-04 Attachment 2: Negative Declaration and Initial Study of Environmental Impact Attachment 3: Council Minutes, 1-6-04 Attachment 4: Planning Commission Agenda Report, 4-14-04 Attachment 5: Medical Services Amendments—Analysis and Implementation Attachment 6: Map Analysis—Potential Medical Office Locations Attachment 7: Tri-Polar Policy Analysis Attachment 8: Written correspondence from the public Attachment 9: Draft Council Resolution approving the proposed LUE amendments in concept Attachment 10: Draft Ordinance introducing proposed changes to the Zoning Regulations Admin\smfflstanwyck\agcnda reportAmedical office final Planning Commission Mi. .4s ��� Attachment 1 April 14, 2004 Page 4 4. City-wide GPA/TA/ER 22-04: General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Regulations amendments to allow doctors' offices in service commercial and business park zones, including Environmental Review. (Michael Codron) Michael Codron presented the staff report, recommending the Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Land Use Element and Zoning Regulations amendments. He noted for the record that a letter had been received from Joe Delucia opposing the change. He noted that Dan Lemburg submitted a request to include the C-N zone for medical services. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, voiced her support to the zoning amendments to allow medical services in Service-Commercial and Business Park zones. Dr. Karen Krahl, 1025 Pacific Street, voiced her concern that when discussing the potential for purchasing property for medical offices with City Council, the real estate community started buying up the property in the area for rezoning. She requested that when considering medical office projects, priority should be given to physician-owned projects. Dr. Jeff Hiner, 1308 Garden Street, expressed his concerns with locating to an office that has been converted from a residence because of the difficulties and expense with meeting handicap requirements, and other issues. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Comms. Christianson moved the staff recommendation Seconded by Chairperson Osbome. Commr. Boswell added an amendment to add an additional finding for when doctor's offices can be approved. The motion maker and seconder accepted the amendment. Vice-Chair Caruso and Commr. Loh did not support the motion. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Miller, Christianson, and Osbome NOES: Commrs. Caruso and Loh ABSENT: Commr. Aiken ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 4: 2 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: S " r) Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO.5389-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE ZONING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW CERTAIN MEDICAL SERVICES IN THE SERVICE- COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS PARK ZONING DISTRICTS GPA/TA/ER 22-04 (Citywide) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 14, 2004, for the purpose of considering Application GPA/TA/ER 22-04, a series of changes to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Zoning Regulations to allow medical services in the C-S and BP zoning districts, and environmental review; and WHEREAS, said public hearings were for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the Negative Declaration for the project and has determined that the environmental document adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Recommendation. The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the proposed amendments, as shown in Exhibit A, based on the following findings: 1. The proposed changes to the General Plan and Zoning Regulations are consistent with the goals of the General Plan, which state that the City should serve as the County's hub for medical services. 2. The proposed changes allow greater flexibility for the provision of medical office space in the community, thereby benefiting residents of the City and County who seek these services. 3. The proposed changes will not impact the viability of the Downtown area because the majority of available office space Downtown is under-parked for medical services requirements. Attachment 1 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5389-04 Page 2 GPA/TA/ER#22-04; Citywide 4. The proposed amendments do not change the City's stated preference that medical services should be near the hospitals, but does provide additional opportunities to locate medical service uses outside of these areas. On motion by Commissioner Christianson, seconded by Commr. Osborne and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commrs. Christianson,Miller, Osborne and Vice Chair Boswell NOES: Commr. Loh and Chairperson Caruso REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Comm . Aiken The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 14`h day of April 2004. G Ronald Whisen , Secretary Planning Commission �' 1 Attachment 1 Exhibit A Summary of Proposed Medical Services Amendments General Plan Amendments: Land Use Element Policy 3.4.2: Office Locations C) Medical services should be near the hospitals and may also be located in other_commercial areas of the City. Land Use Element.Policy 3.6.1: Purpose The City should have sufficient land designated for Services and Manufacturing to meet most demands of the City, and some demands of the region, for activities such as business services, medical services, wholesaling, building contractors, utility company yards, auto repair, printing, food manufacturing and other light manufacturing, and retail sales of large items, bulk quantities, and items often stored outdoors (vehicles, building materials, plants). Areas reserved for these uses may also accommodate convenience restaurants and other activities primarily serving area workers. Land Use Element Policy 3.6.2: Appropriate Uses G) Medical services may be allowed if proposed medical uses are found to be compatible with surrounding land uses are located along commercial collector or arterial streets with convenient access to public transportation do not significantly increase traffic in residential neighborhoods and are consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. Zoning Regulations Amendments: The following changes to Table 9 in the Zoning Regulations are proposed to implement the revised General Plan policies: TABLE 9 - USES ALLOWED BY ZONE Peimlt Requitement by Zoning_[list►iat_ SpeiSui"c use Land Use _._:_ AG. /OS .R_t_ Ri2 R 3 R 4,P,F O(1).16 SERVICES- C-C C-D C-R C-T C-S' M B P-..R egulatlons SERVICES-BUSINESS, FINANCIAL & PROFESSIONAL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Medi sellae-Clinic Icborctory.Lrga t=e O I I D I D I A D x721 i Medcd service-Doctor offlml I A A/D A/D A I DI.Mfl JIUMI I_!Key: A =Alloved D =Director's cTyovdregJred PC =PlrnNrgCorrrrission qporovcirecsired L/D =Director'sqpprovdongoundfloor,dloHedonseoondfloorord.�ove 1 i I ` jNote: IFootrotes dfedirgspeiflclmdia�follcw hetdye. Note 12 would be added to the footnotes section following Table 9: J Attachment 1 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5389-04 Page 4 GPA/TA/ER#22-04; Citywide 12. In order to approve a Medical Service use in the C-S or BP zones, the Hearing Officer must make the following findings: 1) The proposed medical service is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2) The proposed medical service is located along a street designated as an arterial or commercial collector in the Circulation Element and has convenient access to public transportation. 3) The proposed medical service will not significantly increase traffic in residential neighborhoods. 4) The proposed medical service is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. 5) The project will not preclude service commercial uses in areas especially suited for these uses when compared with medical services. �i������Ilii�hllllllll pluil��I�II i Attachment 2 IIIlillllII II city of tuisson oBispo BRAIN 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER#22-04 1. Project Title: Medical Services- General Plan and Municipal Code Amendments 2. Lead.Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Michael Codron, (805) 781-7175 4. Project Location: City-wide 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo. 990 Palm Street SLO, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Services and Manufacturing 7. Zoning: C-S (Service Commercial) and BP (Business Park) 8. Description of the Project: A series of amendments to the General Plan and the Zoning Regulations to allow certain medical service uses to be located in the C-S and BP zoning districts. A summary of the proposed changes is attached to this initial study(Attachment 1). 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The changes apply City-wide, but most land zoned C-S and BP is located in the southern section of the City, within the Airport Land Use Plan area. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: General Plan Amendment, Municipal Code Amendment 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Attachment 2 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. Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing o.. Resources FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, 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 Califomia Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). �i CRY OF SAN LUIS OetsPO 2 INRULL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 s-' 1 9J Attachment 2 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X 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 revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. April 5,2004 Signature Date �ML,-AA,-c- For:John Mandeville, Printed Name Community Development Director ""Al CITY OF SAN Luis Osispo 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 Attachment 2 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-specificscreening 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. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question. 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) of the California Code of Regulations. 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. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list.should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 41h;/ CRY OF SAN LUIS Owspo 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2004 S- 1 S Attachment 2 Issues, Discussion and SupoL. tin, ..iformation Sources sources ,e. y Potennatty I=Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#22-04 Medical Services Amendments Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? I X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings X within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area? Evaluation a), b), c), d) The project is not site specific. Future development proposals will be evaluated for their potential to impact scenic vistas, as identified in the Circulation Element. The Circulation Element and the Community Design Guidelines contain policies that provide specific direction for new development adjacent to scenic resources. If a new medical office is proposed in such an area, the specific project will be evaluated for consistency with these policies. If changes to the design are necessary, the Architectural Review Commission routinely requires changes to proposed building design to address compatibility with a given project site and its surroundings. Conclusion The project will have no impact on aesthetics. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps 2 X pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland X to non-agricultural use? Evaluation a),b),c) Land within the City limits of San Luis Obispo is considered Urban Land by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The proposed change would have no effect on Agricultural zoning in the City. The change applies to existing land in the City with C-S and BP zoning and will not result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. Conclusion The project does not have the potential to impact agricultural resources. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an X existing or projected air quality violation? 3 b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? 3 c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? �r CrTY OF SAN Luis 0stsPo $ INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2004 4�;_- 1(.P Attachment 2 Issues, Discussion and Supp ,ir,,, .nformation Sources Sources C. "y Potentially Ills Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Medical Services Amendments Issues unless Impact ER#22-04 ( � Mitigation Incorporated d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an 3 X applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Evaluation a), b), c), d), e) San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PMta(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 1998 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 from 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. Consistent with Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2, the City routes all projects that meet CAP mitigation thresholds to the APCD for comments. Conditions of approval are routinely added to projects to control dust during construction,as well as to promote alternative transportation — such as using bicycles or public transportation for commuting. One of the required findings for approval of a medical service in the C-S and BP zones is that the use have convenient access to public transportation and be located along an arterial or commercial collector roadway. This will provide greater potential that employees and clients use alternative transportation. Conclusion: The project will have no impact to air quality. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional 4 X plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional X plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department 4 of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native X resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved X local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act X (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc. �i CRY OF SAN Luis 061SP0 6 MAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 <;;, I 'I Attachment 2 Issues, Discussion and Supp...In, ,iformation Sources sources .el. ,y potentially Less Than f Significant Significant Significant ct ER#22-04 Medical Services Amendments Issues tImpact ) Mitigatigati on Incorporated through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? IF7 I I I Evaluation a), b), c), d), e), f) Any new project developed as part of the proposed amendments will have to be consistent with existing City development standards and policies, such as the Creek Setback Ordinance. The proposed change allows a new type of use into areas that are currently designated for Services and Manufacturing. This type of change is not anticipated to have any effect on biological resources. Conclusion No impacts to biological resources are anticipated. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) b) Case a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of 5 X formal cemeteries? Evaluation a), b), c), d) Each development project proposed by the City is reviewed for consistency with the standards and policies contained in the Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. This City document requires archeological evaluations for projects located within 250 feet of a major creek, and spells out requirements that apply if resources are discovered during construction. Individual development applications associated with the proposed amendments will be evaluated for consistency with the Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. New development projects proposed in historic districts are reviewed by the City's Cultural Heritage Committee. Conclusion The proiect does not have the potential to impact historical or archeological resources. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 6 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the X State? Evaluation a), b), c) The proposed amendments do not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plan, and will not result in development that uses renewable resources in a wasteful manner or result in the loss of a know mineral resource. Conclusion The project will not have an impact on energy or mineral resources. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 7 INITIAL STORY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 �- lg Attachment 2 Issues, Discussion and Supp..,iny ..itormation Sources Sources C1. ..y Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Medical Services Amendments issues ti gats Impact ER#22-04 ( ) Mitigation Incopoirated 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 7 X effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? 1I. Strong seismic ground shaking? X III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? X IV. Landslides or mudflows? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? Evaluation a) The City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking should be expected. New structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. To minimize this potential impact,the Uniform Building Codes and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. According to a recently conducted geology study,the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault,which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time(the last 10,000 years),portions of the Los Osos fault are considered"active". Other active faults in the region include:the San Andreas,located about 30 miles to the northeast,the Nacimiento,located approximately 12 miles to the northeast,and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone,located approximately 12 miles to the west. b), c), d) New development projects are evaluated for consistency with the policies contained in the Safety Element of the General Plan. Expansive soils are common in San Luis Obispo and recommendations typically included soils reports are sufficient to mitigate potential hazards from building in these areas. In general, the presence of expansive soils requires additional base for roadways and flat work and deeper footings for building foundations. Conclusion No impacts are identified in the area of geology and soils. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the ro'ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X A CrrT of SAN Luis OBHspo 8 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 S- 19 Attachment 2 Issues, Discussion and Supt. .cin. .aformation Sources Sources ,tea. ..y Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Us ER#22-04(Medical Services Amendments) Issues Mitigationg�on impact incorporated emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 8 X two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the 7 X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, 7 X or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation a),b),c), d),e),g), h) Plans for new development that may be proposed if the amendments are approved would be evaluated by the City's Fire Department and would need to be consistent with the policies contained in the Safety Element. Medical waste is the only obvious hazardous material that would be created by new medical uses. The disposal of such waste is controlled by State and Federal law and no specific mitigation is required. f) A large portion of the land zoned C-S and proposed for BP is within the Airport Land Use Plan area. As proposed, the Zoning Regulations amendment would require approval of an Administrative Use Permit prior to approval of new medical services uses in the C-S and BP zones. One of the required findings for approval of the use permit would be consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). The ALUP includes specific safety policies. Hazards are generally classified based on the type of aircraft operations that occur in a given area. Restrictions in the areas surrounding the runways are greatest. Other areas are classified by the elevation of aircraft operations. Where aircraft operate between 0 and 500 feet above ground level, non-residential density is limited to 40 people per acre. Where aircraft operate between 500 and 1000 feet above ground level, non-residential density is permitted up to 150 people per acre. The Airport Land Use Commission has reviewed the proposed amendments and has determined that the project is consistent with the ALUP, provided that overnight services be prohibited. This stipulation is consistent with the proposal and the City's current medical service definitions. Conclusion No impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials have been identified. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUAL171T. Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 9 X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local X groundwater table level(e.g.The production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters X (including,but not limited to,wetlands,riparian areas,ponds, �� CRY OF SAN LUIS OBLSPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 Affachment 2 Issues, Discussion and Sup{. .tr,, .nformation Sources Source e. .ty Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#22-04 Medical Services Amendments (sane unless Impact Mitigation incorporated springs,creeks,streams,rivets,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays, ocean,etc.)? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or X siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 10 area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding X onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map X or other flood hazard delineation trap? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into X ground or surface waters? i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, X temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity? Evaluation a), b), c), d) The City's Waterways Management Plan includes specific requirements for drainage caused by new development. The purpose of the Plan is to control the drainage design of new project to insure habitat quality in creeks and along creek corridors. The plan requires post-development run-off to match pre-development levels. All new development is evaluated for consistency with the requirements of the Plan. e), f), g), h), i) The City's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance includes specific requirements for buildings proposed in flood-plains. The purpose of the ordinance is to avoid impacts from flooding,such as damage to structures. Compliance with the ordinance is required of all new development. Conclusion The project will not have significant impacts with respect to water quality and hydrology. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the X purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X community conservationplans? Evaluation a), b), c) The project will not conflict with any land use plan or policy that mitigates an environmental effect. No development plans are proposed or anticipated that would divide an established community and there are no habitat conservation plans that will be effected by the proposed amendments. Conclusion The project will not create any impacts to land use and planning. Cnv OF SAN LUIS 09ispo 10 INITIAL STunY ENvIRONmENTAL CHEcKusT 2004 �;_' Attachment 2 issues, Discussion and Supr .ir nformation Sources Source cc. Ay Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant SignificantUess Impact ER#22-04(Medical Services Amendments) Issues Mitinl ga tion Impact Incorporated 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise X levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise I I Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent`increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne 11 X vibration or groundbome noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Evaluation a),b),c) The City's Noise Element and Noise Ordinance work together to insure that people are protected from unacceptable noise levels. The proposed change will have no effect on the City's policies that control noise. All office buildings,whether medical or not, are classified as the same land use in Figure 1 and Table 1 of the Noise Element. As a result, the proposed amendments will have no effect on noise exposure for employees and patients of new medical uses established in the C-S or BP zones. All new development is evaluated for consistency with Noise Element and Noise Ordinance requirements. d) A large portion of the land zoned C-S and proposed for BP is within the Airport Land Use Plan area. As proposed, the Zoning Regulations amendment would require approval of an Administrative Use Permit prior to approval of new medical services uses in the C-S and BP zones. One of the required findings for approval of the use permit would be consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan(ALUP). The ALUP includes specific noise policies. Office buildings are considered"moderately noise sensitive"uses. As a result,mitigation of potential noise exposure through building practices is usually possible. Conclusion The project will create noise impacts. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or X indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? Evaluation a),b)The proposed amendments will not induce substantial population growth or displace existing housing or people. Conclusion No impacts to population or housing will occur with the proposed project. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 1 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKLisT 200r�4 r''� d— Attachment 2 Issues, Discussion and Sup, Ji., information Sources Sources &.. Aly Potentially Las Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#22-04 Medical Services Amendments Issues ungMitigatiti impact on Incorporated 13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X Other public facilities? X Evaluation a) b), c), d), e), f) The proposed project will result in physical development that is typical for the C-S and BP zones. No impacts to public services are anticipated. Conclusion The project will have no impacts on public services. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Evaluation a),b) The project is not residential in nature and is not likely to have any impacts on recreation. No recreational features are proposed as part of the project. Conclusion No impacts to recreation are identified as part of the proposed amendments. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service X standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp X curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County rt Land X a_ Cm OF SAN Luis Oetspo 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2004 S� ;-3 Attachment 2 Issues, Discussion and Supl. r., .nformation Sources Sources e" 2 ntiall Potey [ess Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#22-04 Medical Services Amendments Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorpotutcd Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a change in air trafficpatterns? Evaluation a), b), c), d), e), f), g) The project is an amendment to the Zoning Regulations and General Plan amendments to allow medical offices in C-S and BP zoning districts. Medical offices would have to be located along arterial or commercial collector roads,which are designed to handle any increased traffic that may be associated with a specific development project. Parking requirements for medical services are 1 space per 200 square feet of medical office floor area. As long as this requirement is met,there will adequate parking for proposed medical facilities. Conclusion No impacts to traffic or transportation are identified. 16.UTELITIFS AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X treatment,waste water treatment,water quality control,or storm drainage facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations X related to solid waste? Evaluation a),b),c),d),e),f) New development project proposed as a result of this amendments would be served by the City's sewer system and water distribution facilities and no new facilities would be required. The City has recently adopted a solid waste recycling ordinance to insure recycling of construction debris. Conclusion No impacts have been identified relative to utilities or service systems. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the 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 X community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. No significant impacts have been identified during the review of the proposed amendments. Al CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 o '—' ArLachmant 2 Issues, Discussion and Supt. .il.� information Sources Sources ,it.. AY Potentially tis Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Unl ER#22-04 Medical Services Amendments Issuesas Impact Mittigigation Inco rated b) Does the project have impacts that are individually 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, X the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable futureprojects) There are no impacts identified in this initial study. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or X indirectly? The project will not have direct or indirect adverse effects on humans. 18.EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The San Luis Obispo Land Use Plan Element update and Final EIR can be found at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Develo went De artment at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,California. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by mitt ation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. Not applicable. 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO Circulation Element,Figure 6, Scenic Roadways Ma 2. GIS Data downloaded from the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program website: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/firunp/ 3. Air Pollution Control District,Clean Air Plan,April 2003 4. City of SLO Open Space Element 5. City of SLO Informational Map Atlas,Burial Sensitivity Map and Archeological Resource Ma 6. City of SLO Energy Conservation Element 7. City of SLO Safety Element 8. San Luis Obispo Airport,Airport Land Use Plan 9. City of San Luis Obispo,Waterways Management Plan 10. City of San Luis Obispo,Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance 11. City of SLO Noise Element Attachments: Attachment 1: Summary of Proposed Medical Service Amendments I11i:i CITY OF SAN Luis OBlspo 14 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKUST 2004 S, K Attachment 2 Summary of Proposed Medical Services Amendments General Plan Amendments: Land Use Element Policy 3.4.2: Office Locations C) Medical services should be near the hospitals, and may also be located in other commercial areas of the City. Land Use Element Policy 3.6.1: Purpose The City should have sufficient land designated for Services and Manufacturing to meet most demands of the City, and some demands of the region, for activities such as business services, medical services, wholesaling, building contractors, utility company yards, auto repair, printing, food manufacturing and other light manufacturing, and retail sales of large items, bulk quantities, and items often stored outdoors (vehicles, building materials, plants). Areas reserved for these uses may_also accommodate convenience restaurants and other activities primarily serving area workers. Land Use Element Policy 3.6.2: Appropriate Uses G) Medical services may be allowed if proposed medical uses are found to be compatible with surrounding land uses, are located along commercial collector or arterial streets with convenient access to public transportation, do not significantly increase traffic in residential neighborhoods and are consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. Zoning Regulations Amendments: The following changes to Table 9 in the Zoning Regulations are proposed to implement the revised General Plan policies: TABLE 9- USES ALLOWED BY ZONE Permit Requirement by Zoning District Specific use Land Use AG I CLOS I R1 I R21 R31 R41 PF 10(1)1 C-N I C-C I C-0 I C-R I C-T I CS I M I no I Regulations SERVICES-BUSINESS,FINANCIAL&PROFESSIONAL Medical service-Clinic,laboratory,urgent care D D I D I A IPLI_211 IPL1211 Medical service-Doctor office A AID I AID I A I 1PIL21112 Key. A=Allowed D=Directors approval required PC=Planning Commission approval required AID=Directors approval on ground floor,allowed on second floor or above Note: Footnotes affecting speific land uses follow the table. 4/5/2004 Summary of Props _ 1..,edicaI Services Amendments Attachment 2 Page 2 Note 12 would be added to the footnotes section following Table 9: 12. in order to approve a Medical Service use in the C-S or BP zones, the Hearing Officer must make the following findings: 1) The proposed medical service is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2) The proposed medical service is located along a street designated as an arterial or commercial collector in the Circulation Element and has convenient access to public transportation. 3) The proposed medical service will not significantly increase traffic in residential neighborhoods. 4) The proposed medical service is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. 4/5/2004 S' 2� Attachment 3 City Council Meeting Page 2 Tuesday,January 6, 2004,6:30 p.m. The City Attorney reported on the Closed Sessions as follows: 1)No reportable action;ac to be reflected on a future consent calendar,2)No reportable action;action to be reff,eggpron a future consent calendar,3) Council provided direction to its negotiators. INTRODUCTIONS Parks and Recreation Director LeSage introduced Christine e, Recreation Coordinator in the Parks and Recreation Department. Public Works Director McCluskey introduced Horch,the new Parking Manager. P COMMENT Gary Fowler,777 Mill Stree for a list or map depicting underground districts and suggested that the ar een Walnut and Olive at Santa Rosa may be scheduled for undergrounding b been overlooked. Public Works staff will respond to his inquiries. He also sugg at a senior center be included in the San Luis Market Place project and noted the new Parks and Recreation brochure. The following local health care professionals voiced concerns about the lack of sufficient, suitably zoned property for medical office facilities in San Luis Obispo. They urged the Council to consider an interim solution to the problem and,further,to amend the General Plan to provide for less restrictive zoning and parking regulations for medical offices: Fred Vernacchia,1930 Valle Vista Place Karen Krah1,1025 Pacific Street. Gary Donath.357 Montrose Dr.(President of San Luis Obispo Medical Society) James GeaIv.1304 Ella Street(San Luis Obispo Eye Associates) (via written communication) David A.Canvasser. MD(Central Coast Cardio.Surgical Associates). ACAO George provided a status report on efforts to survey local property owners and health care providers in response to this unmet need. Council directed staff to move forward, without further survey and as appropriate, to change zoning regulations to allow greater flexibility in providing medical office space in the community. ordinances from other communities like Los Angeles,Fairfield and Salinas durin consideration of the Housing Element Update. He also suggested careful of the no-net housing loss policy and,further,that the Council ask Cal Poly to cond peer review"of the document. Mary Beth Schroeder,2085 Wilding Lane,complained a e Council's land use decisions. The following urged the Council to reconsidercember 2nd action on the Bridge Street Project: Andrew Carter. 1283 W de Dr. Dawn Legg, 2480 P nd Dan Kallal, 83 cis Phil! No 2557 Greta Geo arcia(Garcia Architecture and Design) emon 245 Bridge St.. �� v O Attachm�4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMI USSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM BY: Michael Codron, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: April 14, 2004 FROM: Michael Draze, Deputy Director for Long Range Plannin� FILE NUMBER: GPA/TA/ER 22-04 PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide SUBJECT: A series of amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) and the Zoning Regulations to allow medical services in the Service-Commercial and Business Park zones. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed LUE and Zoning Regulations amendments. DISCUSSION On January 6, 2004, the City Council directed staff to change the Zoning Regulations to allow greater flexibility for the provision of medical office space in the community (Attachment 1, Council Minutes). This direction was in response to public testimony provided by five local professionals, including the president of the San Luis Obispo Medical Society. The medical community in San Luis Obispo has repeatedly expressed concerns about the availability of medical office space in the City. Their concerns are supported by commercial real estate professionals who have indicated that the major constraints are the City's parking requirements, a flat.leasing market with little turnover, and the lack of office space suitable for doctors who wish to own rather than lease. Current Policies and Regulations The City's current General Plan policies say that medical services should be located near the hospitals, and that professional offices, in general, should be located in the Office zone surrounding downtown. The Zoning Regulations allow doctors' offices by right in the Office (0) zone and Retail-Commercial (C-R) zone. Doctors' offices can also be allowed in the Downtown-Commercial (C-D), and Community-Commercial (C-C) zones with the approval of an Administrative Use Permit. The parking requirement for medical services is one parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area, whereas the parking requirement for other professional offices is one parking space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. The parking requirement in particular presents a constraint that is difficult to overcome with existing office buildings. The character of the City's Office zone is dominated by single-story residential buildings converted to office space. For the most part, use of these buildings for medical services is not possible because the required parking cannot be provided on-site. As a result, the majority of medical office space in the City has been developed specifically for that purpose. Medical office space outside of the hospital zones is concentrated on the 600 block of California Boulevard and on the 1200 block of Peach Street, with individual practices scattered throughout the Downtown planning area. �;_ - Attachment 4 General Plan and Zoning Regulations Amendments for Medical Services Page 2 The Economic Environment and City Goals The current real estate environment has been described to City staff as "flat," meaning that there is generally little tenant movement. There are few opportunities for doctor's practicing in San Luis Obispo to own their office space. Ownership, a factor that is becoming increasingly desirable for practitioners, can often help offset other costs and make the business end of the medical practice more viable. The City Council has heard repeated testimony characterizing the current medical situation in San Luis Obispo as a "crisis," with doctors reportedly leaving the City for other jurisdictions, or leaving the County entirely because San Luis Obispo has one of the lowest Medicare reimbursement rates in the State. The current economic environment and repeated requests from practitioners has motivated the Council to seek a solution that will provide greater flexibility for providing medical office space in the City. There are three General Plan goals that strongly support actions by the City to maintain existing businesses, especially those businesses that help the City continue to serve as the County's hub for medical services. Land Use Element Goal 11: Retain existing businesses and agencies,and accommodate expansion of existing businesses,consistent with other goals. Land Use Element Goal 21: Provide a resilient economic base, able to tolerate changes in its parts without causing overall harm to the community. Land Use Element Goal 24: Serve as the County's hub for: County and State government; education; transportation; visitor information; entertainment, cultural, professional, medical and social services; community organizations;retail trade. Attachment 2 includes a detailed General Plan analysis of the proposed amendments. The Recommended Amendments A summary of the proposed LUE and the Zoning Regulations amendments is attached (Attachment 3). The effect of the changes would be that the land use designations "Medical Service — Doctor Office" and "Medical Service — Clinic, Lab, Urgent Care" would be conditionally allowed uses in the Commercial-Service and Business Park zones. These changes are supported by the Land Use Element goals listed above, and do not conflict with other policies in the General Plan. However, the amendments would mark a departure from long-standing City policy which has restricted professional offices, including medical services, to the Office zone bordering Downtown and the area near the hospitals. The effect of this policy has been to keep professionals and their clients in the Downtown area where they can frequent restaurants, services, and stores, taking care of multiple tasks with a single vehicle trip and, in the process, supporting the economic and social viability of the Downtown core. �;� 0 Attachment 4 General Plan and Zoning Regulations Amendments for Medical Services Page 3 In July 2003, the Commercial Zoning Revisions were approved, including changes to the City's land use classifications and definitions. The City now defines medical services separately from other types of professional offices. This change reflects the obvious differences between medical services and other professional office types. The change also simplifies the proposed amendments because the City already recognizes that medical services are a singular land use classification. The Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed amendments and should discuss the policy trade-offs, which are inherent in the decision. Alternative Concepts City staff considered two main alternatives to the proposed amendments. These alternatives could be implemented in addition to, or instead of, the proposed amendments, but would involve significantly more time to evaluate and implement. The first alternative was to consider additional land to be designated Office on the Land Use Element map. Sites that may be appropriate for Office zoning include most of the properties already zoned C-S-PD for large office buildings. These sites include Acacia Creek on Broad, Edna Valley Offices on Tank Farm Road, and the Weyrich Building on South Higuera Street, among others. Undeveloped sites in this category include the Cannon site at the comer of Broad and Tank Farm, and the Volny sites along Aerovista, adjacent to the airport. One major problem with this approach is that the change would not be targeted for medical offices. Rezoning would allow all types of professional offices at these sites, which could have the effect of drawing a wide range of professionals away from the Downtown area and into isolated offices on the periphery of the City. Another problem is that this change is much more involved than the proposed amendments because it entails rezoning existing property, necessitating a high level of coordination with impacted property owners. The second alternative considered was to relax the existing parking requirements for medical offices. Staff does not recommend this approach unless the relaxed standard is based on a parking study. Such a study could help determine an appropriate parking ratio and would evaluate how the change would effect neighborhoods adjacent to existing offices, such as the Old Town neighborhood. It is also unclear how many doctors would take advantage of the change, given that many need the required level of parking. If the Planning Commission or the City Council wish to pursue a change to the parking requirements in the short term, it may be possible to use the Administrative Use Permit process to establish alternative parking requirements for medical offices on a case by case basis. Environmental Review A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended for the proposed project. The Initial Study is attached to this report (Attachment 4). _ Attachment 4 J _\ General Plan and Zoning Regulations Amendments for Medical Services Page 4 ALTERNATIVES 1. The Commission may direct staff to make revisions to the amendments, or to include additional information, and forward the changes to the City Council. 2. The Commission may continue action if more information or more significant changes to the amendments are needed before they can be forwarded to the City Council. Attachments: Attachment 1: City Council Minutes,January 6, 2004 Attachment 2: Medical Services Amendments—Analysis and Implementation Attachment 3: Summary of Proposed Medical Services Amendments Attachment 4: Initial Study of Environmental Impact and Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 5: Draft Planning Commission Resolution L:Wedical Offices\PCR(4-14-04).doc S- 3a Attachment 5 Medical Services Amendments - Analysis and Implementation POLICY NUMBERING NOTE: THE POLICY NUMBERS USED IN THIS ANALYSIS REFLECT THE NUMBERING CHANGES THAT OCCURRED WITH COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 9462, ATTACHED TO THIS DOCUMENT. THE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHES THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION AND RENUMBERS THE SUBSEQUENT POLICIES IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT. REVISED LAND USE ELEMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN DISTRIBUTED, WHICH IS WHY THE NUMBERS USED BELOW DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR COPY OF THE ELEMENT. Medical Services Amendments - General Plan Analysis City zoning restrictions currently require medical services, such as doctors' offices, to be located in the Downtown planning area or adjacent to the hospitals. A review of the General Plan shows that this zoning limitation is not necessary to implement existing General Plan policy. The proposed changes are supported by specific General Plan goals. Existing Goals Analysis Land Use Element Goal 11:. Retain existing businesses and agencies, and accommodate expansion of existing businesses, consistent with other goals. Land Use Element Goal 21: Provide a resilient economic base, able to tolerate changes in its parts without causing overall harm to the community. Land Use Element Goal 24: Serve as the County's hub for: County and State government; education; transportation; visitor information; entertainment, cultural, professional, medical and social services; community organizations;retail trade. Evaluation On January 6, 2004, the City Council heard public testimony from a number of local medical professionals who voiced concerns about the lack of sufficient, suitably zoned property for medical office facilities in San Luis Obispo. They urged the Council to consider an interim solution to the problem and, further; to amend the General Plan to allow for less restrictive zoning. The doctor's cited low Medicare reimbursement rates as a major problem facing doctors in the County. After some discussion on the matter, the City Council directed staff to move forward with changes to the zoning ordinance to provide flexibility for the development of new medical office facilities in the City and to facilitate the location of medical services in existing office buildings. The amendments proposed by City staff are follow Council's direction and are consistent with the goals listed above. No changes to Land Use Element goals are necessary. �- 33 Attachment 5 General Plan Ani is and Implementation Page 2 Medical Services Amendments Existing Policy Analysis POLICY— LU 3.4 Offices LU 3.4.1: Purpose and Included Uses The City should have sufficient land for Office development to meet the demands of City residents and the specialized needs of County residents. Office development includes professional and financial services (such as doctors, architects, and insurance companies and banks) and government agencies. The City should retain the regional offices of State and Federal agencies. Not all types of offices are appropriate in all locations. Evaluation The proposed General Plan amendments and Zoning Regulations amendments will make additional land available for medical service uses. In some cases, new development would be proposed. In other cases, medical service uses will move into existing buildings. The proposed change is consistent with this policy, because the policy says that the City should have sufficient land for office development, including doctors offices. This policy may also suggest that the City needs more land designated "Office" on the Land Use Element Map. However, such a change would provide additional land for all types of offices and would not specifically address the current acute shortage of medical office space. The proposed amendments are intended to allow medical services throughout the City, where determined to be compatible. Existing Policy Analysis POLICY—LU 3.4.2: Office Locations A) All types of offices are appropriate in the downtown General Retail district, but are discouraged at street level in storefronts of the commercial core. B) All office activities are appropriate in the Office district which surrounds the downtown commercial area,though offices needing very large buildings or generating substantial traffic may not be appropriate in the area which provides a transition to residential neighborhoods. C) Medical services should be near the hospitals. D) Government social services and the regional offices of State and Federal agencies should be near the intersections of South Higuera Street,Prado Road,and Highway 101 (Figure 5): E) Offices having no substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown government services may be in Services and Manufacturing districts. F) Certain businesses and professional services having no substantial public visitation or limited need for access to downtown government services may be in Services and Manufacturing districts. Examples of such uses are computer services, utilities engineering and administration, architects and engineers, industrial design, advertising, building contractors, labor and fraternal organizations, veterinarians, and insurance and financial services that do not directly serve retail customers. 4/6/2004 Attachment 5 General Plan An:, As and Implementation Page 3 Medical Services Amendments G) Certain business and professional services with limited need for access to downtown government services may be located in areas that are away from the downtown, and designated Community Commercial. Appropriate types of offices include those that provide direct"over-the-counter" services to customers and clients. Professional offices may also be appropriate,particularly above the ground floor. Evaluation The history of this policy goes back to 1987, when the City first adopted an ordinance allowing large offices to be located in areas designated Services and Manufacturing. This change was precipitated by an Office Supply and Demand study prepared in 1986 by Quad Consultants. At the time, there was significant concern over the potential for development of large offices in the Office (0) Zone, which could be incompatible with surrounding neighborhoods because of urban design considerations and traffic impacts. By allowing large offices to be developed in areas designated Services and Manufacturing, there would be less pressure to develop large buildings in the "O" zoned area that marks the transition between Downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods. Since that time, the City has seen some major office development in the outlying areas. But, these offices have been restricted to larger offices that do not require "substantial public visitation" or need for access to Downtown government services. Staff is recommending the following change to Land Use Element Policy 3.4.2.0 to enable greater flexibility for where medical offices can be located. C) Medical services should be near the hospitals, and may also be located in other commercial areas. This change reflects the fact that medical services are currently allowed in the Retail Commercial (C-R), Community Commercial (C-C), and Downtown Commercial (C-D) zoning districts. The change supports the amendments to the Zoning Regulations that are currently proposed. It also reinforces the City's desire to maintain existing medical service uses on the Office zoned land bordering the hospitals. The apparent conflict in this change is that medical services typically have substantial public visitation. In the past, offices in Services and Manufacturing districts have been restricted to those that don't involve significant interaction with the public. However, other uses in Services and Manufacturing districts, such as retail sales of large items, rely solely on public visitation for their success. This type of conflict is not uncommon in broad policy documents such as the General Plan. Staff supports the change in this context because the change supports the City's goal to serve as the County's hub for medical services. Staff is also proposing specific criteria to be used in the Zoning Regulations to determine whether or not a proposed medical use is acceptable at a given location. 4/6/2004 s- 3s Attachment 5 General Plan An, lis and Implementation Page 4 Medical Services Amendments Existing Policy Analysis POLICY-LU 3.6: Services and Manufacturing LU 3.6.1: Purpose The City should have sufficient land designated for Services and Manufacturing to meet most demands of the City,and some demands of the region, for activities such as business services, wholesaling, building contractors, utility company yards, auto repair, printing, food manufacturing and other light manufacturing, and retail sales of large items, bulk quantities, and items often stored outdoors (vehicles, building materials, plants). Areas reserved for these uses may also accommodate convenience restaurants and other activities primarily serving area workers. Evaluation This policy spells out the City's purpose in designating land "Services and Manufacturing." The proposed change would require an amendment to this policy. The amendment would include "medical services" in the list of activities and services provided for in the Services and Manufacturing district, including business services, wholesaling, building contractors, etc. The Zoning Regulations currently defines "Medical Services" as follows: Medical Service - Doctor Office. A facility other than a hospital where medical, dental, mental health, surgical, and/or other personal health care services are provided on an outpatient basis, and that accommodates no more than five licensed primary practitioners (for example, chiropractors, medical doctors, psychiatrists, etc.). Counseling services by other than medical doctors or psychiatrists are included under 'Offices - Professional.' Does not include sports therapy that provides on-site fitness equipment, which is instead included under'Fitness/Health Facility.' Medical Service-Clinic, Laboratory, Urgent Care. A facility other than a hospital where medical, mental health, surgical and other personal health services are provided on an outpatient basis. Examples of these uses include: medical and dental laboratories medical offices with sic or more licensed practitioners and/or medical specialties out-patient care facilities urgent care facilities other allied health services Counseling services by other than medical doctors or psychiatrists are included under'Offices-Professional.' Medical Service - Extended Care. Residential facilities providing nursing and health-related care as a primary use with in-patient beds. Examples of these uses include: board and care homes;convalescent and rest homes;extended care facilities;and skilled nursing facilities. Long-term personal care facilities that do not emphasize medical treatment are included under'Residential Care.' Medical Service-Hospital. Hospitals and similar facilities engaged primarily in providing diagnostic services, and extensive medical treatment, including surgical and other hospital services. These establishments have an organized medical staff, inpatient beds, and equipment and facilities to provide complete health care. May include on-site accessory clinics and laboratories, accessory retail uses and emergency heliports (see the separate definition of'Accessory Retail and Services'). 4/6/2004 �� ?� Attachment 5 General Plan An., As and Implementation _ Page 5 Medical Services Amendments The City currently allows "Processing Offices and `Business and Administrative Offices" in the Services and Manufacturing district, with Administrative Use Permit approval. The Zoning Regulations defines these types of offices as follows: Processing. An office-type facility characterized by high employee density, with little or no public visitation, and occupied by a business engaged in information processing, or other computer-dependent and/or telecommunications-based activities. Examples of these uses include: airline,lodging chain,and rental car company reservation centers computer software and hardware design and development consumer credit reporting data processing services health management organization(HMO)offices where no medical services are provided insurance claim processing mail order and electronic commerce transaction processing telecommunications facility design and management telemarketing Production and administrative. An office-type facility used for administrative purposes,and/or occupied by a business engaged in the production of intellectual property. Examples of these uses include: advertising agencies construction contractors(office facilities only) design services including architecture,engineering,landscape architecture,urban planning commercial art and design services educational,scientific and research organizations media postproduction services news services photography studios utility,company administrative offices writers and artists offices "Professional Offices" and "Business and Service Offices" would still be prohibited in areas designated Services and Manufacturing on the General Plan Land Use Element Map. These types of offices are defined in the Zoning Regulations as follows:. Business and Service. An establishment providing direct services to consumers. Examples of these uses include: employment agencies insurance agent offices(small-scale customer service offices,not administrative,see item 5.below) real estate offices travel agendas utility,company payment offices(not administrative,see item 5.below) This use does not include"Banks and Financial Services,"which are separately defined. Professional. An office-type facility occupied by a business providing professional services. Examples of these uses include: accounting,auditing and bookkeeping services attorneys counseling services court reporting services detective agencies and similar services financial management and invesbnent counseling literary and talent agencies management and public relations services psychologists secretarial,stenographic,word processing,and temporary clerical employee services security and commodity brokers 4/6/2004 s, Attachment 5 General Plan An. sis and Implementation Page 6 Medical Services Amendments As evident from the definitions above, the Zoning Regulations currently defines medical services separately from other types of offices. These definitions were adopted as part of the Commercial Zoning Update, which was approved in July, 2003. Previously, doctor's offices were grouped together with professional offices. The change was made as part of an overall program to update, clarify and improve the definitions contained in the Zoning Regulations. It is recommended that Land Use Element policy 3.6.1 change as follows: LU 3.6.1: Purpose The City should have sufficient land designated for Services and Manufacturing to meet most demands of the City, and some demands of the region, for activities such as business services, medical services, wholesaling, building contractors, utility company yards, auto repair, printing, food manufacturing and other light manufacturing, and retail sales of large items, bulk quantities, and items often stored outdoors (vehicles, building materials, plants). Areas reserved for these uses may also accommodate convenience restaurants and other activities primarily serving area workers. Existing Policy Analysis POLICY-LU 3.6.2: Appropriate Uses The following types of uses are appropriate in areas designated Services and Manufacturing. Certain areas designated Services and Manufacturing may be reserved through special zoning. provisions for certain types of uses, to assure compatibility among the wide range of potential uses,and to assure adequate land for certain types of uses. A) Wholesaling,warehousing,and storage; B) Vehicle sales and rental; C) Retail sales of products which require outdoor areas or large floor areas for display and storage, such as warehouse stores, lumber and building materials dealers, home improvement centers,furniture and appliances stores,and plant nurseries; D) Repair shops, printing services, laundries, animal hospitals, sporting goods stores, auto parts stores,and some recreation facilities; E) Light manufacturing,research and development and laboratories. F) Offices having no substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown government services may be in Services and Manufacturing districts. Evaluation It is recommended that this policy be amended as follows: 4/6/2004 r Attachment 5 General Plan Ana__As and Implementation Page 7 Medical Services Amendments G) Medical services may be allowed if proposed medical uses are found to be compatible with surrounding land uses are located along commercial collector or arterial streets with convenient access to public transportation do not significantly increase traffic in residential neighborhoods and are consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. Medical Services Amendments - Implementation Implementation of the proposed General Plan amendments involves two changes to the Zoning Regulations, which will enable certain medical service uses to be located in the Service-Commercial (C-S) zone and Business Park (BP) zone. Before any medical service use can be established in the C-S zone, an Administrative Use Permit would have to be approved by the City. The use permit requirement is necessary to insure that the proposed use or development project is consistent with General Plan policy. Findings will be necessary to show that proposed medical uses or development are compatible with surrounding land uses, are located along commercial collector or arterial streets with convenient access to public transportation, do not significantly increase traffic in residential neighborhoods and are consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. No change to the Manufacturing (M) zone is proposed, because the required findings cannot be made for land located in the M zone. The proposed change would apply to "Medical Service — Doctor Office" and "Medical Service—Clinic, Lab, Urgent Care." "Medical Service—Extended Care" and "Medical Service — Hospital' will not be allowed in the C-S or BP zones because of inherent problems with Airport Land Use Plan compatibility. The following changes to Table 9 in the Zoning Regulations are proposed to implement the revised General Plan policies. TABLE 9-USES ALLOWED BY ZONE Permit Requirement by Zoning District Specific use Lend Use AG I CIOS I R1 I R21 R31 R41 PFJ O(7)1(,N I C-C I C-D I C-R IC•Tle-SIMI BP Regulations SERVICES-BUSINESS,FINANCIAL&PROFESSIONAL Medical service-Clinic,laboratory,urgent pre D D I D I A D J1211 W121 Medical service-Doctor office A aDJAIDJ A I 12LI-211D(121 Key; A=Allowed D=Director's approval required PC=Planning Commission approval required A/D=Director's approval on ground floor,allowed on second floor or above Note: Footnotes affecting speific land uses follow the table. Note 12 would be added to the footnotes section, which follows Table 9: 12. In order to approve a Medical Service use in the C-S or BP zones, the Hearing Officer must make the following findings: 1) The proposed medical service is compatible with surrounding land uses. 4/6/2004 Attacriment 5 General Plan An, sis and Implementation Page 8 Medical Services Amendments 2) The proposed medical service is located along a street designated as an arterial or commercial collector in the Circulation Element and has convenient access to public transportation. 3) The proposed medical service will not significantly increase traffic in residential neighborhoods. 4) The proposed medical service is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. The proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations are consistent with the General Plan and the proposed amendments to allow medical services in areas designated Services and Manufacturing. 4/6/2004 4;-- 40 Attachment 5 RESOLUTION NO.9462(2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN PERTAINING TO SPECIALTY STORES, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL,AND OFFICE USES R/TA/GPR/GPA/ER 32-02(Citywide) WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 17, 2003,for the purpose of considering Application R/TA/GPR/GPA/ER 32-02, a series of changes proposed to the City's Zoning Regulations and General Plan to modernize and enhance standards for commercial development;and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, Council Resolution No. 9451 approved the Proposed Commercial Zoning Revisions Document and a Negative Declaration for the project;and WHEREAS, the proposed changes reinforce the existing policy structure of the General Plan and are necessary to insure ongoing compatibility between the Zoning Regulations and the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the recommendation of the Planning Commission,testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,presented at said.hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis. Obispo as follows: Section 1.Text Amendment. The General Plan Land Use Element is hereby amended to focus the purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial zone, as follows: 3.1 General Retail 3.1.5 Specialty Store Locations Most specialty retail stores should be downtown, in the Madonna Road area, or the Los Osos Valley Road area, and in other community shopping areas identified by the Community Commercial district (see the Community Commercial section below) where they will not detract from the role of the downtown as the City's primary concentration of specialty stores; some may also be in neighborhood shopping centers so long as they are a minor part of the centers and serve neighborhood rather than citywide or regional markets. R 9462 Attachment 5 City Council Resolution No.9462(2003 Series) Page 2 3.2 Neighborhood Commercial 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 smaller-scale grocery stores, laundromats, and drug stores. Neighborhood commercial uses should be available within about one mile of all residences. These uses should be located on sites not exceeding about four acres, unless the neighborhood to be served includes a significant amount of high density residential development. Small-scale specialty stores may be located in areas designated for neighborhood commercial uses as long as they will not be a major citywide attraction or displace more general,convenience uses. 3.2.2 New or Expanded Areas of Neighborhood Commercial Use New or expanded areas of neighborhood commercial uses should: A.Be created within, or extended into, nonresidential areas adjacent to residential neighborhoods; B.Provide uses to serve nearby residents,not the whole city; C.Have access from arterial streets, and not increase traffic on residential streets; D.Have safe and pleasant pedestrian access from the surrounding service area, as well as good internal circulation; E.Be designed to be pedestrian-oriented, and architecturally compatible with the adjacent neighborhoods being served. Pedestrian-oriented features of project design should include: 1. Off-street parking areas located to the side or rear of buildings rather than between buildings and the street; 2. Landscaped areas with public seating;and 3. Indoor or outdoor space for public use, designed to provide a .focus for some neighborhood activities. 3.2.3 Expanding Existing Neighborhood Commercial Areas The City should evaluate the need for and desirability of additions to existing areas of neighborhood commercial use only when specific development proposals are made, and not in response to rezoning requests which do not incorporate a development plan. S �2� Attachment 5 City Council Resolution No. 9462(2003 Series) Page 3 Section 2.Text Amendment. The General Plan Land Use Element is hereby amended to eliminate floor area limitations and rezoning policies for offices located in areas designated for Services and Manufacturing,as follows: LU 3.4.2: Office Locations E. Offices having no substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown government services may be in Services and Manufacturing districts. G. Certain business and professional services with limited need for access to downtown government services may be located in areas that are away from the downtown, and designated Community Commercial. Appropriate types of offices include those that provide direct over-the-counter services to customers and clients. Professional offices may also be appropriate,particularly above the ground floor. LU 3.6.2: Appropriate Uses F. Offices having no substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown government services may be in Services and Manufacturing districts. Section 3. The Community Development Director shall cause the amendment to be reflected in documents that are on display in City Hall and that are available for public use. Section 4. This amendment shall become effective on July 31, 2003, so that the approved changes occur at the same time as the changes approved for the Zoning Regulations. Upon motion of Vice Mayor Mulholland, seconded by Council Member Ewan, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Ewan,Schwartz,and Settle,Vice Mayor Mulholland, and Mayor Romero NOES: None ABSENT: None Attachment 5 City Council Resolution No. 9462(2003 Series) Page 4 The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 17th day of June,2003. Mayor David F.Romero ATTEST: iL Lee Price,C.M.C. City Clerk APPROVED: Jo P.Lowell,City Attorney r Attachment 5 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE ZONING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW CERTAIN MEDICAL SERVICES IN THE SERVICE. COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS PARK ZONING DISTRICTS GPA/TA/ER 22-04 (Citywide) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 14, 2004, for the purpose of considering Application GPA/TA/ER 22-04, a series of changes to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Zoning Regulations to allow medical services in the C-S and BP zoning districts, and environmental review; and WHEREAS, said public hearings were for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the Negative Declaration for the project and has determined that the environmental document adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Recommendation. The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the proposed amendments, as shown in Exhibit A,based on the following findings: 1. The proposed changes to the General Plan and Zoning Regulations are consistent with the goals of the General Plan, which state that the City should serve as the County's hub for medical services. 2. The proposed changes allow greater flexibility for the provision of medical office space in the community, thereby benefiting residents of the City and County who seek these services. 3. The proposed changes will not impact the viability of the Downtown area because the majority of available office space Downtown is under-parked for medical services . requirements. (f �' `'C- Attachment 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. XXXX-04 Page 2 GPA/TA/ER#22-04; Citywide 4. The proposed amendments do not change the City's stated preference that medical services should be near the hospitals, but does provide additional opportunities to locate medical service uses outside of these areas. On motion by , seconded by and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 14`x' day of April, 2004. Ronald Whisenand, Secretary Planning Commission s ` 4-(o � 0, \gyp \p\p• /\p �" >;\�\ ,iA�� �� \. \\ �\I \�i•. ��j••. �\��\/.i/\p''„•../. I\Y"r/ .\bpd:•• \n!i / i� \� � ,\\/i �I� \\\��4� \!�'i'•\�\\�I�- � '� �\,i a//��� ,/�� ����O�Q.��,�•Q\\\\\�/.\\\\tom:6�.�♦,\'\\\\��,`♦�\.,\\\\`;'�����r� ,•��•� \� �\` ♦ ��'' \\�O • ,fes �_� / �- ■III u"NOW!4111 x!1111 IIID 111111 9111!�!►'--i. "-'7T. �• �i'J ,. II O ��_��_°116w'=_:__.m allll Br Sd5�/_ �w:' ..,�•� i1.�r♦♦�•♦��...•� \p♦♦♦i/j -ONE 17, .'� �_ 1■111.�_!q_P_BII=Illle u ■ .e_ e• ♦ J♦♦'�0��• i. � .♦ I�.•�'� FEW ONE I�,� --=111 ow � _- d1:1► ♦ ♦ ♦ �♦ ♦� O ♦ I ♦♦ ,i � _„ __IIILIIIIJIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIILIIIIIIIIIIDIII� �LI �__ - O♦♦•♦t:�••��i,♦o ♦��•��• ,���• � /i v' If �� Lam`--� ____no• .i•y,.♦.i �i� 0� �� •I/ � • II. �' a r����.._-Ihl�:,> \\� �- / r. .•. �1. 1• ♦IOIIIILLIIIIIIIIU.♦- _ \\ `. : ' ` .•. ♦. ' , ��'',��IC-iau-C_�e�O••�OC ul 11.1111:'1= '•�\��I� ♦ , ���c�•o;4. .� _ • we a111111111: ����`� �Q�� � �� ,�•"i nliiuui�••�i•1 111.O11 III 111�•��,\ \\\, ��I�E,�i • ` � G�I.�i.►i.�:111111711111111111111111i'� a 1 dig. 1 � I I■_!111111111�IIIIII!!111111� �• ��. +'' ,` '� �IIIIIIIIII uIII111G-•IIILi , , • lul I�,/. . `11-111�I�liiiiiliiiuliiiiiiiiiiiiu:�' �� \\,/♦:♦O•P��.♦•��1��= Nl. g�•-�. ���:�.'..1�Inm. p♦� 'r �_+ice_=, ;;•�♦,�PJ•O•C•�q� •`.� ` ^,.�f ''',�,,`',,1 Y. _�' �• /...=, 111,7 •/\.I I �0 ' � . � /� �11111.. �• `ill: ��'� .iu.w1-- '� I,` �` �- - ••• ����L •1.711 I �..�,,'� ' ♦ - � •./moi,. - ■ ow ol , •••••I 11.1.1. .:: r , .111,.,;•... I 1111 ,/i' + \\\\„\..;;, ..1111•••• ' ' /�/ . ..� ,. Q:/1■11.1.•..; �..a , * ��. ,',,,, •,,\ ....1111111.. .• w '•'��:� . .-• •. _.1111.111.1111..,,., ,♦V .,, 1^� `�11�1_ /`L ■ I ' la�r����11�..•'`•' `�1��Au.:�r�^/I 40tq�p�qq'` �1, ��✓�''.: .� 1\�I/IIIIiA••,X11 : ;. I is � -•� �.� ' � Attachment 7 crty of san Luis oslspo General Plan—Land Use Element Tri-Polar Policies The tri-polar policies establish the preferred locations within the Cityfor certain public facilities. Policy 5.1.9., below, discusses when other uses can be located in these areas. LU 5.1.4: Civic Center There should be a downtown civic center (Figure 5). The following functions should be located in the civic center, along with compatible businesses: A) City Council offices and meeting rooms, clerk, administration, finance, attorney, personnel, community development, utilities, and public works administration and engineering. Any additional space for these functions should be in or close to City Hall. B) County supervisors offices and meeting rooms, administration, courts, jury commissioner, clerk, auditor,.assessor, counsel, district attorney, personnel, engineering, planning and building, environmental coordinator, and voter registration. Any additional space for these functions should be provided in or close to the County Government Center(Courthouse block). LU 5.1.5: Health Care There should be a health-care area on Johnson Avenue near Bishop Street (Figure 5). The following functions should be located in the health-care area: A) Public Health Department; General Hospital; Mental Health Services. B) Other public or private offices or health facilities found to support the continued viability of General Hospital. If County General Hospital is to be rebuilt, the City will evaluate other sites within the City for public health care facilities, including consideration of convenient access from regional transportation systems. LU 5.1.6: Social Services There should be a social-services area on South Higuera Street near Prado Road (Figure 5). 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. 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. r, N -7-7 Yw wn Ji d tit. a•� tr ..°..�., .^ �rt `"� ....F� r�� t., ' /' ,,.. 06 7/ '�' .. , ��(- �r'Y^• 1 a 2s,. - yy�dy'4. ��-q, :.j �.�1�+,�.i�tZ`�rl�� 17, 1 Undeveloped C-S Land fir- A, _ Via. amt .atid � f /Lr.__e:-_,_�.���.a...Lit .Y}t se_�_._.µ+.1.•• r,ery us. • --s �'4. A 0/ 1 100 200 Michael Codron- Rezonin for medir�i ___ g_ _ _ _ _... . ..___ _ _.�__ __Ea ge - - Attachment 8 From: 'Dan Lemburg" <dlemburg@charter.net> To: <mcodron@slocity.org> Date: 5/10/04 10:31 AM Subject: Rezoning for medical Dear Michael, To follow up our phone conversation the other day, please regard this letter as my request that medical office use now being broadened to other commercial zonings also include the CN zone. If medical offices. are to be allowed in the CS zone, it seems just as reasonable to allow this service to be an allowed use in the CN zone. Thank you for your help with this matter. It is much appreciated. Sincerely, Dan Lemburg (Yl i Kt.. ._ _. . CITY OF SAN L neht 8 APR 1 Q 200 -ii. j Joseph E. DeLucia Commercial Real Estate Services C0„ I`�'iLJ;tl; ! CJCV_Ll)1'!+i..l'� 139 Longview Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 440-4044 Fax(805)782-9840 April 14, 2004 TO: Michael Codron, Associate Planner ALL PLANNING COMMISSIONERS RE: Item#4—File Number : GPA/TA/ER 22-04 Enclosed is a copy of an email that I sent to the council members which simply states my position on the"fictitious medical office space crisis". I would elaborate further, but it would seem useless as this appears to be another council project which seems to be a done deal which requires you to simply rubber stamp the councils wishes. Interestingly however, is that neither any of the council members nor any staff contacted me to follow up on my supporting information. Yet, they claim to have surveyed ALL the commercial real estate professionals. I truly feel that if you are going to create unfair property advantages to alternatively zoned properties,you should at least require a reasonable absorption study to ascertain the true need. It is not that difficult and could even be completed easily by properly training a few poly interns. My biggest concern is that you do not alter or allow for variances in the parking requirements for Medical without allowing the exact same benefit for existing medical properties. Sincerely, Jos E. DeLucia Page I of I .�% Attachment 8 Subj: Fictional "Medical office space crisis" discussion item last night Date: 11W04 To: Council@_slocty.org Council members: My name is Joseph DeLucia and after watching the testimony last night about the supposed medical office space crisis, I couldn't help but to laugh how they are trying to bamboozle you into"GOING OFF HALFCOCKED"on this expedition. You had testimony from staff and speakers that they "spoke with a lot of property owners and brokers" and had full concurrence on this issue. I would like to think that I have quite a bit of experience on this issue. 1. Been a broker in the community for over 13 years. 2. within the past two years alone, I have Developed,owned, or leased over 100,000 square feet of medical space within the county. A major portion of that in San Luis Obispo. 3, Have successfully completed the remodel of the old "Mission Medical Building" or as some of you old timers would know it as"San Luis Medical Clinic". WHICH BY THE WAY, I CHANGED FROM 100% MEDICAL TO 60% MEDICAL!!!! (NOT BECAUSE 1'M STUPID?) Councilmembers Schwartz and Mulholland were on the right track.to get more specifics before going off "half cocked". LET ME SUMMARIZE MY TAKE ON THE ISSUE: (after being intimately involved in the Mission Medical Bankruptcy) There is NO crisis. Our medical delivery system in the county (and city) definitely has a few problems. However, much of the problem is a result of"medical greed"and "medical politics"which was in my opinion the number one reason for the demise of Mission Medical Company. The solution is to not interfere with "the free marketplace"and create unfair advantages my modifying the general plan or zoning, etc. THE SIMPLEST AND BEST WAY TO EXPEDITE (AND MOST COST EFFECTIVE) IS TO COME UP WITH A SYSTEM WHEREIN RENOVATION OR REMODEL PERMITS FOR NON-STRUCTURAL REMODELS COULD BE APPROVED IN A MORE TIMELY MANNER. THE CURRENT EIGHT,TWELVE,OR SIXTEEN WEEK PERMIT PROCESS IS THE PROBLEM. THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB BUT IS SIMPLY OVERWORKED. THESE SIMPLE REMODELS SHOULD HAVE SOME SORT OF A STREAMLINED PROCESS. Please feel free to contact me if you are interested in "truly" understanding the marketplace. Sincerely, Joseph E. DeLucia (805)440-4044 Jgvaslo@aol.com P.S.: Keep up the good woridlll 111-A ..,.a,... A., :l I A ')AAA A.. r Attachment 8 6 Y`- CENTRAL COAST CHIROPRACTIC KAREN KRAHL, DC Ms. Shelly Stanwyck Business Development Director City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo; CA 93401 5/12/04 . .. Dear Ms. Stanwyck, Prior to attending the next City Council meeting where the issue of zoning changes to allow for medical office usage in previously disallowed areas outside the "hospital' downtown corridor will be once again addressed,I wanted to reiterate the concerns of chiropractors, dentists, medical physicians and other health practitioners in this regard. There was some controversy at the most recent City Planning Commission meeting that freeing up some zoning in other areas previously unavailable to doctors, was "only a bandaid fix" for a more serious problem; that of how to keep health care providers anchored in our community. (We have lost some additional doctors again since that meeting.)There was comment to the effect that therefore this complex issue should simply be tabled for further inquiry; spelling for those of us in an unsolvable dilemma, ...more delays with no results and no hope of either leasing or building more affordable office space. That had me on the edge of my seat,yet it did pass the Commission. The City Council seemed to grasp the concept at the earlier meeting; to whit, that this was a time-sensitive issue, and that since doctors are fleeing our city, with several hanging on for the last 2 years to see where the zoning change was going, without a conclusion still more doctors would leave I think you would agree, that the inquiry into all aspects of the matter has been made and environmental impact issues addressed thoroughly. Certainly more involved negotiating between doctors and insurance companies, the state and federal government, will have to happen before the unreasonable reimbursement schedules for this area are changed. That is a lengthy battle that is already being waged by our respective state/federal professional organizations, and could not l e waged by the city of San Luis alone. But, we would however like to reserve your interest in the matter for input when we do address these same issues at higher levels for later, and deal with the zoning now. �� 53 1025 PACIFIC STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 :: TEL:805 544 6846 :: FAX. F0_ Attachment 8 2 zoning change Health care-providers need space for health care offices in business park, and/or industrial/commercial services areas. Why? Because it is more accessible for patients, (serving our community where they live work and play...notjust downtown) and can help keep the overhead for professional offices at a more reasonable ratio than in those areas where we are currently restricted. Why would a gym facility, with physical therapy, medically supervised nutrition programs, etc,be allowed out in the airport area, and not a doctor's office? Not all businesses have the imposed "lid" on them that health care does in a time of worker's comp reform, and HMO's. Additionally, softening the 1 per 200 square feet parking requirement, would mean vacant business offices even downtown we couldn't access with current regulations, could possibly be used by those physicians who are not in higher volume practices, without impacting crowded parking in the downtown area alone. Because doctors are more commonly in group practices now, working more flexible hours, and multi doctorr offices with staggered worker hours makes better use of a leased premise,the ingress and egress of patients utilizing parking means that not all parking places slotted would be occupied at all times. This trend also means that larger blocks of office space are now needed for group practice, which tends to be more available on the outskirts. Retaining doctors is good for business. If San Luis Obispo is to remain the hub of healthcare services, stanching the flow of doctors to North or South County, out of the State or out of practice altogether, must happen now. While the letter from Mr. DeLucia pleads that his property and other existing properties not be excluded from a parking requirement change when indeed it is lifted or reinterpreted, but on the other hand decries the unfair advantage that modifying the general plan would give his med office real estate competitors sounds contradictory. Seems to me, when looked at another way, it may reveal that he's perhaps enjoyed a captive market and unfair advantage for some time, and is loathe to share it with others. Time is clearly of the essence. None of us can take advantage of any of the newer properties available unless, or until the zoning change is final and in writing. After that, there will still be months and in some case years,before building in these new zones commences, or new sites can be purchased, remodeled or leased. The clock is ticking,and opportunities hang in the balance, or have already been lost, due to the time that's elapsed as the issue continues to be discussed. Enough discussion. Let's act, shall we? Help the City of San Luis Obispo, stem the flow of qualified, seasoned health care providers, in order the current populace and those moving in, don't have to think twice about whether to live- here, ivehere, because they can't get an appointment with a physician for themselves or their families. New businesses have changed their minds about setting up shop in San Luis Obispo, due not ,only to the shortage of affordable housing for their employees, but the undersupply of health care providers. Patients who go to other areas for surgery, and return with complications asking for immediate assistance from local physicians, may face being shipped back to wherever they S' 1 Attachment 8 3 elected to h&ve the original surgery. No one seems to think much about their health, or value their doctors until they themselves are sick. Then it's a matter of vital importance! A six or 8 week wait to get in to see a physician is too long to wait when you have a fever or a positive lab test, but this is getting to be quite common. We ask for your support in the upcoming hearings on the matter at the next Council meeting where it appears ori the agenda. We ask for support from the community we serve, and we ask for the support of every council and planning member. I would like to write a letter of intention on a property I am looking at, but without the zoning change, I can't make a move. Last week four of my patients,in a single day complained loudly- Dr. Krahl; you don't have any parking places, what's going on? We had to park two blocks away.!" These are elderly patients, patients with lower back spasmsandleg pain. This is a hardship'for'them. Please, won't you help us? If you do, we'll be able to help you and the community of San L uis Obispo. Sincerely, Karen J. Krahl,D.C. I Attachment 8 San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 (805) 781-2777 • .FAX (805) 543-1255 9 TDD (805) 541-8416 David E. Garth, President/CEO June 1, 2004 Mayor Dave Romero and Members of the City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Zoning for Medical Office Uses, Council Meeting of June 15 Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members: During the city's commercial zoning revisions process last year, the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce formed a subcommittee to study the changes and to also review office needs in today's market. Medical office space zoning surfaced at that time as an area that needed attention and we are pleased to support the action that is now recommended to you by the Planning Commission. One of the most consistent messages we received from our members was the concern about availability of office space for medical use in the city. Both the medical community and commercial real estate brokers indicated that the "tripolar" zoning regulations were not pertinent to today's market needs. In a market such as ours where the availability of quality healthcare is a real and ongoing concern, limiting medical use to a narrowly defined area of the community, i.e., office zones and areas around hospitals, does not serve the best interests of our citizens. Healthcare ranks as one of the top concerns of our members and we believe that it is important to provide ample opportunity via our zoning regulations for doctors to locate and maintain their practices in the City of San Luis Obispo. In meetings with medical groups, we discovered that finding suitable facilities in the city has become more difficult and that being near a hospital is not necessary for most groups. While it may seem reasonable to assume that San Luis Obispo will continue to be the hub for the medical profession because of its central location, there is genuine e-mail: slochamber@slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitsio.com �� -40 Attachment 8 concern that movement to the north and south county is due, in part, to unnecessarily restrictive location choices within the city. For these reasons, we are pleased to endorse the recommendations from the Planning Commission that you have before you and hope that you will approve General Plan amendments to provide greater flexibility for the locations of medical services and an ordinance allowing certain types of medical services to be located in the C-S and BP zoning districts, with an Administrative Use Permit. In taking this action, you will be responding to the needs of health care consumers and providers by supporting zoning which improves accessibility for medical care and at the same time creates greater opportunity for providers to remain in the city. Thank you for your consideration of our request in this matter. Sincerely, L� Laura M h �P Y Chairperson of the Board cc. Ken Hampian, CAO John Mandeville, Community Development Director Shelly Stanwyck, Economic Development Manager Attachment 9 Draft, action to be deferred to July 6, 2004 RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN PERTAINING TO APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS FOR MEDICAL SERVICES GPA/ER 22-04 (Citywide) WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 15, 2004, for the purpose of considering Application GPA/ER 22-04, a series of changes proposed to the City's Land Use Element pertaining to appropriate locations for medical services; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 14, 2004, for the purpose of formulating a recommendation to the City Council on the project; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes reinforce the existing policy structure of the General Plan and are necessary to implement Land Use Element goals of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the recommendation of the Planning Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Text Amendment. The General Plan Land Use Element is hereby amended, as follows: Land Use Element Policy 3.4.2: Office Locations C) Medical services should be near the hospitals, and may also be located in other commercial areas of the City. Land Use Element Policy 3.6.1: Purpose The City should have sufficient land designated for Services and Manufacturing to meet most demands of the City, and some demands of the region, for activities such as business services, medical services, wholesaling, building contractors, utility company yards, auto repair, printing, food manufacturing and other light manufacturing, and retail sales of large items, bulk quantities, and items often stored outdoors (vehicles, building materials, plants). Areas reserved for these uses may also accommodate convenience restaurants and other activities primarily serving area workers. s' Attachment 9 City Council Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 2 Land Use Element Policy 3.6.2: Appropriate Uses G) Medical services may be allowed if proposed medical uses are found to be compatible with surrounding land uses, are located along commercial collector or arterial streets with convenient access to public transportation, do not significantly increase traffic in residential neighborhoods and are consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. Section 2. The Community Development Director shall cause the amendment to be reflected in documents that are on display in City Hall and that are available for public use. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: :AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of Jul r, 2004. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Diane Reynolds, Acting City Clerk APPROVED: J an Lowell, City Attorney Attachment 10 Draft, to be acted on July 6, 2004 ORDINANCE NO. (2004 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW CERTAIN MEDICAL SERVICES IN THE SERVICE COMMERCIAL (C-S)AND BUSINESS PARK (BP) ZONES TA/ER 22-04 (Citywide) WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 15, 2004, for the purpose of considering Application TA/ER 22-04, an amendment of the Zoning Regulations to allow certain medical services in the Service Commercial and Business Park zones; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 14, 2004, and recommended approval of the amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Negative Declaration for the project and has determined that the environmental document adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant,interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Text Amendment. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Regulations, as shown in Exhibit A,is hereby approved based on the following finding. 1. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the General Plan and will help to further general plan goals by insuring that the City of San Luis Obispo remains the County's hub for medical services. INTRODUCED on the 6th day of July, 2004, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the 3rd day of August, 2004, on the following roll call vote: �r W O 1_ Attachment 10 Ordinance No. (2004 Series) TA/ER 22-04 (Citywide) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Diane Reynolds, Acting City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: J6nalbaifLowell, City Attorney Attachment 10 Exhibit A - The following changes to Table 9 in the Zoning Regulations are proposed to implement the revised General Plan policies: TABLE 9-USES ALLOWED BY ZONE Permit Requirement by Zoning District Specific use Land Use AG C/DS R1 R2 R3 141PF O(1) C-N .C-C C-D c-o OT fCS M IBP Regulations, SERVICES-BUSINESS,FINANCIAL&PROFESSIONAL Medical service-Clinic,laboratory,urgent care D D I D I A I ID(12)1 IPLIMI Medical service-Doctor office A AID I AID I A I IDLI211PLI21 Key: A=Allowed D=Directors approval required PC=Planning Commission approval required AM=Director's approval on ground floor,allowed on second floor or above Note: Footnotes affecting speific land uses follow the table. Note 12 would be added to the footnotes section following Table 9: 12. In order to approve a Medical Service use in the C-S or BP zones, the Hearing Officer must make the following findings: 1) The proposed medical service is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2) The proposed medical service is located along a street designated as an arterial or commercial collector in the Circulation Element and has convenient access to public transportation. 3) The proposed medical service will not significantly increase traffic in residential neighborhoods. 4) The proposed medical service is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. 5) The project will not preclude service commercial uses in areas especially suited for these uses when compared with medical services.