Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/07/2004, PH8 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FROM SERVICES AND MANUFACTURING (C-S-SP- Gounat ,/o j ac Enda nEpoin CITY OF SAN LUIS 0 B I S P 0 FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development DirecV,,.l Prepared By: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FROM SERVICES AND MANUFACTURING (C-S-SP-PD) TO OFFICE (O-SP) FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 715 AND 735 TANK FARM ROAD (GPA/SPA/R/ER 52-04). CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt a resolution approving a Negative Declaration of environmental impact (ER 52-04) and amending the General Plan Land Use Element map and Edna-Islay Specific Plan map to change the land use designations of the site from Services and Manufacturing to Office. 2. Introduce an ordinance changing the zoning on the subject properties from Service Commercial Specific Plan Planned Development (C-S-SP-PD) to Office Specific Plan (O-SP). DISCUSSION Data Summary Address: 715 & 735 Tank Farm Road Applicant: Edna Valley Office, LLC Representative: Michael Hodge Zoning: C-S-SP-PD (Service-Commercial with the Specific Plan & Planned Development overlays) Edna-Islay Specific Plan: Service Commercial General Plan: Services and Manufacturing Environmental Status: A Negative Declaration was recommended by the Deputy Director on October 21,2004 (ER 52-04). Situation The City has received an application for a General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment and Rezoning (GPA/SPA/R) for two parcels totaling 5.15 acres located at the southeast corner of Broad Street and Tank Farm Road (Attachment 1). Specifically, the applicant would like to amend the properties' land use and zoning designations from Services and Manufacturing (C-S- SP-PD) to Office (O-SP) to allow fora broader range of professional office uses without floor area limitations. The properties are developed with two commercial office buildings totaling 9—/ A � f Council Agenda Report—GPA/SPA/R 52-04 December 7,2004 Page 2 approximately 65,000 square feet, parking areas and landscaping. On September 7, 2004, the City Council denied an appeal of the Planning Commission's determination that two specific attorney firms at 735 Tank Farm Road were hot allowed uses per the underlying C-S zoning or approved Planned Developments, and directed staff to process a General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment and Zone Reclassification for both 735 and 715 Tank Farm Road. Planning Commission Action On November 3, 2004, the Planning Commission, on a 6-0 vote (Loh absent) recommended that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration and amend the General Plan Land Use Element Map and Edna-Islay Specific Plan map to change the land use designations of the sites from Services and Manufacturing to Office, and adopt an ordinance changing the zoning on the subject properties from Service Commercial Specific Plan Planned Development (C-S-SP-PD) to Office Specific Plan (O-SP) (Attachment 3). The draft Planning Commission hearing minutes and staff report are attached(Attachments 5 & 6). General Plan Consistency The Planning Commission found the project consistent with General Plan Land Use Element policies regarding office locations because the site is already developed with 65,000 square feet of commercial office space, is already approved for construction, .architecture, engineering, industrial design and certain professional office uses, has street frontage and access from a Highway/Regional Route and Parkway Arterial and the project will not significantly increase traffic in residential areas. In addition, the project is consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element and Air Pollution Control District land use planning strategies designed to reduce dependence on vehicle travel because it can be expected that some of the new tenants will live and shop nearby using alternative transportation. The attached Planning Commission report (Attachment 6) includes a complete General Plan analysis for the project. CONCURRENCES The Airport Land Use Commission reviewed this project on August 18, 2004. The Commission found the proposal consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Amending the General Plan for this location will not significantly alter revenues since the new designation will not result in a significant loss of property within the C-S zoning district. Since the existing and planned buildings on the site will be maintained for office uses, the proposed amendments will not, individually or cumulatively, affect the City's fiscal stability. "oZ Council Agenda Report—GPA/SPA/R 52-04 December 7,.2004 Page 3 ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may deny the project, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan or other policy documents. 2. The Council may continue review of the project,. if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Land use and zoning map 3. Planning Commission Resolution 5411-04 4. Initial Study of Environmental Impact (ER 52-04) 5. Draft Planning Commission minutes 6. Planning Commission staff report 7. Draft Resolution "A" as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff 8. Draft Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff 9. Alternative Draft Resolution `B" to deny the proposed project G:\tcorey\CC\GPA-SPA-R 52-04\GPA-SPA-R 52-04 rpt.doc �- 3 I4 ?. . r- fr tit inti► �4 , 1 ■■ Attachment 2 lz 0.0 CM ✓ 1:Ca r � `�' y mn I * \\ _ d LI V N 14 TOM Ik • Re Y� ♦ - � V � C Ol- o r N o `' °� c LOIL ad a� • LO 09 l / 9FMM IL � F t, 8_s Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO. 5411-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP,EDNA-ISLAY SPECIFIC PLAN MAP AND ZONING MAP FROM SERVICES AND MANUFACTURING (C-S-SP-PD) TO OFFICE (O-SP), AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 715 AND 735 TANK FARM ROAD (GPA/SPA/R/ER 52-04) 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 November 3, 2004, for the purpose of considering GPA/SPA/R/ER 52-04, a request to amend the City's Land Use Element map, Edna-Islay Specific Plan map and.Zoning map designations from Services and Manufacturing (C-S-SP-PD)to Office (O-SP); and WHEREAS, said public hearing was 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 hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration of environmental impact for 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. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings in support of the General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment and rezoning of the site: 1. The proposed General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment and rezoning (GPA/SPA/R) is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element policies on office locations for the following reasons: 1) The site is already developed with 65,000 square feet of commercial office space, parking and landscaping; 2) The site is already approved for construction, architecture, engineering, industrial design and certain professional office uses via Large Office Planned Development's 51-93 and 182-02; 3) The site has street frontage and access from a Highway/Regional Route and Parkway Arterial; and 4) The project will not significantly increase traffic in residential areas. 2. The GPA/SPA/R will not create non-conforming uses at the site because all existing uses are �-G Attachment 3 Planning Commission Resolution#5411-04 GPA/SPA/R 52-04 Page 2 allowed within the.Office zoning district. 3. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on October 21, 2004. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend adoption of the proposed Negative Declaration. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of application GPA/SPA/R/ER 52-04, as shown on attached Exhibit A. On motion by Commissioner Aiken, seconded by Commr Christianson, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Miller; Osborne, Boswell, Caruso NOES: REFRAINS ABSENT: Loh The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 3`d day of November 2004. AonajdVhisenand, Secretary Planning Commission by: 97 i [Ton, • . � ;r'..'l��,e►`!•• `� (•^.� tf '�Y+"Y R�;' �/� ` ,• �f Fes•t �t ' 41 ft i �! r �•--eE} R 4 ` '1 't` \� `fit \. 00i' Ir r ,.+ j.r! '^�",.(�< !•t �'�''� �j�T y `. �•v -.['�'ta ,�` // t.E�y •\ �i+mss':rf ., 1• {,y y\ te`4T j7% , •Y �}"r'- �, yy�•_�� •1. 1 r_ �, �. i'i` �i� '� vi • \' /tea►Wa c& w _' ��'�/n13.3• �•'\ "��=-�!'.`E� �13 '1 3'r"�'��✓' \. , °+ .�`.\ AL lim ax • ♦ ,t 'r♦ � .� ni.�s'��. �,�`�--'�'i' i. "�2_. .\lame X33 :D�tN�=/ r/''< �__.�.�Y r.,f. i �.,✓ ':. ` •1 + 7s k, .r . `\ a \, C.. 4'i •.�� � F l '_ __ i.a'''te �. T /yY�"� J, 4 • Io ...C`=�,wl.�.S,Oa..f' t .lam • `�:.�+.1R.r•' •_ � � 'Yr \ �• •'� + ad�9NI�I�I�IB���� II�III�Ipattachnierrt 4 Illlllull I' �� I IIII IIIA OBISPO Cl ® Sa1�11�5 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER 52-04 1. Project Title: Edna Valley Office General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment and Rezone GPA/SPA/R 52-04 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: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner(805) 781-7169 4. Project Location: 715 & 735 Tank Farm Road 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Edna Valley Office, LLC 735 Tank Farm Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Michael Hodge as representative for the applicant 6. General Plan Designation: Services and Manufacturing 7. Zoning:C-S-SP-PD (Service Commercial Specific Plan Planned Development) 8. Description of the Project: General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment and rezone to change the land use and zoning designations from Services and Manufacturing (C-S-SP-PD) to Office (O-SP) to allow a broader range of professional pffice uses without floor area limitations for properties located at 715 & 735 Tank Farm Road. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site consists of approximately 5.15 acres (224,160 square feet) located oar the southeast comer of Broad Street and Tank Farm Road. The site is located within the Edna-Islay Specific Plan area and has street access and frontage from Broad Street and Tank Farm Road. The properties are developed with two commercial buildings totaling approximately 65,000 square feet, parking areas and landscaping. On August 16, 2004, the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC) granted final approval of a new 25,000 square foot commercial building located at 715 Tank Farm Road. `� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. �j Attachnient 4 The surrounding area is a mix of residential and commercial uses. The properties to the north across Tank Farm Road are developed with the Mangold Shopping Center. The properties to the south are developed with an auto repair business and single-family residences. The properties to the east are developed with residential condominiums and apartments. The properties to the west across Broad Street are vacant. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1). 10. Project Entitlements Requested: The applicant is requesting a General Plan (Land Use Map) amendment, Specific Plan amendment, rezone and environmental review. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. VCm OF SAN Luis OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY EWIRONMENTA..CHECI =2004 f'10 Attachment 4 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&Traft� Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing 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 fora de ni•nimic waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.. The project has potential to impact.fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish- and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. 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)). CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 H - Attact ment 4 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and X a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because 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 reared. 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 beaddressed 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. October 21,2004 Signa Date - Ronald Whisenand,Deputy Director of Community Development For:John Mandeville, Printed Name Community Development Director `� CITY OF SAN Luis OaiSao 4 -- - - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004: — _�' Attachrnent 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect.as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 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. _� CITY OF SAN(LIDS OBISPO _ _ 5 _ INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 Attachment 4 Issues, Discussion and Suppon nformation Sources Sources Po ly Potentially Less Than No Sigmucant Significant Significant impact ER it 52-04 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited 1,11 X to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 1,11 X the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,which would 1,12 X adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Evaluation a) b) c) d) The Circulation Element of the General Plan shows Broad and Tank Farm as roads of high to moderate scenic value with views of the Santa Lucia foothills and mountains to the east.The proposed General Plan amendment,Specific Plan amendment and rezoning (GPA/SPA/R) will allow for a broader range of professional office uses without floor area limitations,but will have no impact on the physical appearance of the site. Conclusion:No impact. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of 14 X Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural rue? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a 10 X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to 12 T X their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Evaluation a) b) c) The site is developed with two commercial buildings, parking areas and landscaping. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency designates this property as Urban Land. There is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the project site. Conclusion:No impact. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 12,15, X existing or projected air quality violation? 16 b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 12,15, X quality plan? 16 c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 12 X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 12 X people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 12,15, X pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an 16 applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? `� CRY OF SAN Luis Owspo 6 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 Auach;igen# 4 Issues, Discussion and Support nformation Sources Sources Po ly Potentially Lcss Than No Sigmucant Significant Significant Impact ER#52-04 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Evaluation a) b) c) e) Approval of the GPA/SPA/R will allow for the expansion of the types, but not necessarily affect the proportion, of office uses allowed because the existing Planned Developments (PD's 182-02 & 51-93) approved for the site already allow construction, architecture, engineering, industrial design and certain professional office uses. No significant increase in trip generation is expected as a result of these changes. d) No objectionable odors will emanate from the project. Conclusion:No impact. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 12 X through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional 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 12 X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 12 X biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident 12 X or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation 5,12 X Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected 12 X wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? Evaluation: a) b) According the Natural Diversity Database of the California Department of Fish and Game, there are no species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on or near the project site, nor is riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified. c) There are no tree removals proposed with the project,as the site is developed. d) The property is completely surrounded by urban development and the proposed GPA/SPA/R will not interfere with the movement of any wildlife species or migratory wildlife corridor. e) The proposed project will not conflict with any local policy protecting biological resources nor any adopted habitat conservation plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. f) The site is not near any natural waterway and will therefore have no adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands. ��tl CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 Attacf�, 4 Issues, Discussion and Support nformation Sources sources Pc ay Potentially Less Than No Signuicant Significant Significant Impact ER#52-04 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Conclusion:No impact. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 10,21, X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 150645) 22 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 21-,22 X archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 11,21 X or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of" 23 X formal cemeteries? Evaluation a)b)Based on review of the City's Historic Site Map and Land Use Information System,the project is not located on or near a known sensitive archaeological site or historic resource. c) There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project site. d) The project site is outside of the areas designated on the City's Burial Sensitivity Map as potential burial sites. Conclusion:No impact. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theProject: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 6 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient 6,12 X manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 6 X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? Evaluation a) b) The GPA/SPA/R will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or promote the use of non-renewable resources in an efficient manner because the site has been developed in compliance with the California Energy Code, which establishes energy conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction. c)No known mineral resources exist within the project vicinity. Conclusion:No impact. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the 25 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? II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 25 X M. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? 13 X IV. Landslides or mudflows? 10 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 13 X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 13 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 13 X ��r CITY OF SAN LUIS Owspo 8 - INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECIO.IST 2004 Attachment 4 Issues, Discussion and Support nformation Sources Sources Po ly Potentially less Than No Sign.,,c= Significant Significant Impact ER#52-04 Issues Unless lmpact Mitigation Incorporated Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or ro ? Evaluation a) b) c)d)The project site is generally flat and is developed with two commercial buildings, parking areas and landscaping. There are no known fault lines on the project site or in the immediate vicinity. However, the City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4,a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking should be expected during a large seismic event. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the r('ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 28 X through the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 28 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 28 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 28 X emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 12 X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 659625 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 27 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 4,12 X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, 4 X or death,involving wildland fres,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation a) The project does not involve the routine use,transport,or disposal of hazardous materials. b)d)There is no known contamination on the project site. c) The project will not involve hazardous emissions or include handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste. e) The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5. f) The site is located in Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) Zone 5 —Potential moderate conflict with airport operations. The subject property is also located within an Airport Safety Area where aircraft operations are less than 500 feet above ground level. The ALUP requires general plan amendments, specific plan amendments and rezones to be consistent with ALUP Safety Policies when located within an Airport Safety Area. On August 18,2004,the Airport Land Use Commission(ALUC) �� CITY OF SAN Luis OBlsao 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 Attach;nent 4 Issues, Discussion and Support nformation Sources Sources PO iy Potential], Less Than No Sign—cant Significant Significant Impact ER#52-04 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated found the project consistent with the ALUP and safety policies established for the Airport Safety Area. g) The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal and will not conflict with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the site as having a low potential for impacts from wildland fires. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALrff. Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 12 X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 12,19 X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local 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 12,19 X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters (including,but not limited to,wetlands,riparian areas,ponds, springs,creeks,streams,rivers,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays, ocean,etc.)? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X arra in a manner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 26 X a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 26 X would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into 12 X ground or surface waters? i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, 12 X temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity? Evaluation a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) The GPA/SPA/R will allow for a broader range of professional office uses without floor area limitations,but will not create water or drainage impacts. Conclusion:No impact. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 1,8 X an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? 1,10 X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 1,12 X community conservationplans? �� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIsPo 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 Attachm d Issues, Discussion and Support iformation Sources Sources Po(, .y Potentially Less Than No Sign,...ant Significant Significant Impact ER #52-04 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Evaluation a) The proposed GPA/SPA/R does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The GPA/SPA/R would change the land use designation of the site from Services and Manufacturing to Office to allow for a broader range of professional office uses without floor area limitations.The potential impacts of the rezone on the Citywide supply of Services and Manufacturing properties would be evaluated by the Planning Commission and City Council with their review of the project. b) c) The GPA/SPA/R will not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans. Conclusion: No impact. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise 3,18 X levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 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 3,18 X vibration or groundbome noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 27 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) d) Office cues are generally quieter than many service and light industrial types of uses allowed in the C-S zone. Therefore, the establishment of additional office uses may actually have a positive impact on ambient noise conditions at the site. Likewise,the surrounding area does not contain any unusual noise generating uses that could provide conflicts for office tenants. Conclusion:No impact. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 12 (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 12 X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Evaluation a) b) With approval of the GPA/SPA/R a broader range of office uses without floor area limitations could be established at the site. It is not anticipated that potentially allocating more space within the building to a wider range of office uses would directly affect the supply of City-wide housing. The GPA/SPA/R may result in increased numbers of people working in some of the proposed tenant spaces. However, assuming an increased number of employees is speculative since certain types of office uses are already allowed by PD's 182-02 &51-93. Therefore, any increase in anticipated employees and customers at the site is not a large enough number to significantly increase population levels or create a demand for new housing. �� CtrY OF SAN LUIS OBI8P0 1 1 INmAL STuBY EN%nRONMEkTAL CHECKLIST 2004 Attacnmant 4 Issues, Discussion and Support nformation Sources Sources Pc iy Potentially less Than No Sigi..—ant Significant Significant Impact ER#52-04 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Conclusion:Less than significant impact. 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? 12 X b) Police protection? 12 X c) Schools? 12 X d) Parks? 12 X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 12 X Other public facilities? 12 X Evaluation a)b)c)d)e)f)The proposed GPA/SPA/R will not impact the levels of public services and programs available to the site. Conclusion: No impact. 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 proposed GPA/SPA/R will not impact recreational facilities and programs. Conclusion:No impact. 15. TRANSPORTATIONfMFFIC. Would the project. a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 2,12 X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 2,12 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 12 X curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 12 X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 9 X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 2,12 X transportation(e.g. bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land 27 X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a chane in air trafficpatterns? Evaluation a) b) c) d) e) f) Broad Street and Tank Farm Road provide access to the project site. The City's General Plan Circulation Element designates Broad Street as a Highway/Regional Route ind Tank Farm Road as a Parkway Arterial. Highway/Regional Routes connect the City with other parts of the County and are used by people traveling throughout the L� CITY OF SAN Luis OBispo 12 _ INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT 2004 Attachment 4 Issues, Discussion and Support. nformation Sources sources pot :y Potentially Less Than No Sigmncant Significant Significant Impact ER#52-04 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated County and State and are designated as primary traffic carriers. They have a desired level of service (LOS) of"D" and a desired maximum speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). Parkway Arterials are arterial streets with landscaped medians and roadside areas, where the number of cross streets is limited and direct access from fronting properties is discouraged. They have a LOS of"D"and a maximum speed of 45 mph.The proposed project will not result in changes to this criteria. Approval of the GPA/SPA/R will allow for the expansion of the types, but not necessarily affect the proportion, of office uses allowed because the existing PD's already allow construction,architecture,engineering,industrial design and certain professional office uses. In addition, research and development uses, which typically are organized in an "office style' arrangement are also allowed under the existing PD's. Therefore, earlier mitigation that was adopted with site development plans will adequately address traffic and circulation impacts. g)The project site is located within Zone 5 of the ALUP,but is not directly in a flight path where occupants would be subject to excessive noise levels or hazards associated with airport operations. Conclusion:Less than significant impact. 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 12 X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 12 X treatment,wastewater 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 12 X from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, 12 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 24 X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations 24 X related to solid waste? Evaluation a) b) c) d) e) f) The GPA/SPA/R will not impact utilities and services systems because the project site has already been developed with adequate services for office uses. Conclusion: No impact. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of.California history or prehistory? As discussed in the biological section of this study, there are no species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on or near the project site, nor is riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified. With regard to historical resources, the prgject is not located on or near a known sensitive archaeological site or historic resource. There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project site, and the project site is outside of �� CITY OF SAN LUIS Oeispo 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 20b4 Attac, i hent 4 Issues, Discussion and Suppor, nformation Sources Sources Pc ty Potentially Less Than No SignLucant Significant Significant Impact ER#52 04 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated the areas designated on the City's Burial Sensitivity Map as potential burial sites. b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable futureprojects) No cumulative impacts are expected to occur from the GPA/SPA/R. c)Does the project have environmental effects,which will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? No adverse effects on human being are anticipated with the GPA/SPA/R. 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. N/A b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. N/A 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. N/A 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,September 2004 2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,November 1994 3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996 4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000 5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation Element,July 1973 6. City of SLO General Plan Energy Conservation Element,April 1981 7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,July 1996 8. City of SLO General Plan EIR 1994 for Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements 9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 10. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database 11. Site Visit 12. Staff Knowledge 13. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County 14. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FNMP/ 15. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District, 2001 16. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Air Pollution Control District,2003 17. Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation Manual,6 1h Edition,on file in the Community Development Department 18. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook,May 1996 - 19. 2002 City of San Luis Obispo Water Resources Report 20. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development Department '`jam CITY OF SAN Luis Om spo 14 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKUST'2004 t Pnt 4 Issues, Discussion and Support Momiation Sources Sources Pc :y Potentially Less Than No Sigi,._..ant Significant Significant Impact ER#52 04 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 21. City of San Luis Obispo,Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Develo went Department 22. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma 23. City of San Luis Obis o Burial Sensitivity Ma 24. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element,on file in the Utilities Department 25. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990 26. Flood Insurance Rate Ma (Community Panel 0603100005 C)dated July 7, 1981 27. San Luis Obispo County.Airport Land Use Plan 28. 2001 Uniform Building Code Attachment: ��i CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 15 INMAL STUDY ENYIRONMENTAL.CHECKLtsT 2004 `7 Attachment 5 Draft SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 3, 2004 ALL TO.ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The n Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wedne y, November 3, 2004, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis 'spo. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Andrea Miller, Orval Osborne, Michael. Boswell, Carlyn Christians o Jim Aiken, and Chairperson James Caruso Absent: Commr. Loh Staff: Associate Planner Tyl Corey, Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand, Assi nt City Attorney Gil Trujillo, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, discussed her conce with the amount of growth within the city and how uncontrolled growth will damage the munity. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. 735 and 715 Tank Farm Road. SPA, GP/R and ER 52-04: Request to amend the Edna-Islay Specific Plan land use designation from Services .& Manufacturing to Office and to rezone the property from C-S-SP-PD to O-SP, and environmental Associate Planner Tyler Corey presented the staff report recommending that the Commission recommend City Council approve a resolution adopting a Negative Declaration and amending the General Plan Land Use Element Map and Edna-Islay Specific Plan map to change the land use designations of the sites from Services and Manufacturing to Office, and adopt an ordinance changing the zoning on the subject properties from Service Commercial Specific Plan Planned Development (C-S-SP-PD) to Office Specific Plan (O-SP). L?-./ Attachment 5 Planning Commission Minut.._ May 28, 2003 Page 2 Marshall Ochylski, applicant's representative, noted they are in full concurrence with the staff report. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, commented that she does not support this project and reiterated her concerns over uncontrolled growth. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Aiken moved the staff recommendation. Seconded by Commr. Christianson. AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Christianson, Miller, Osborne, Boswell, and Caruso NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Loh ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 6:0 vote. OMMENT_ AND DISCUSSION: 2. tall: A. A en Forecast: Deputy Communi Development Director Ronald Whisenand gave a forecast of upcoming Commissio agendas. Due to a lack of sufficient hearing items, the Commission's meeting o ovember 17th was cancelled. The Commission was also advised of the Council's hea for the Bridge Street project. The Commission chose to not have the Chairman a e meeting to present the Planning Commission perspective and recommendation 3. Commission: ADJOURMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the eting adjourned at 7`20 p.m. to a regular meeting scheduled for December 1, 2004, 7:00 p.m. in Council Chamber._ Respectfully submitted by Irene Pierce Recording Secretary g'-�S Attachment 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM# 1 BY: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner(781-7169) DATE- November 3, 2004 FROM: Ronald Whisenand,Deputy Director of Community Development FILE NUMBER: GPA/SPA/R 52-04 PROJECT ADDRESS: 715 &735 Tank Farm Road SUBJECT: General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment and Rezone for properties located at the southeast corner of Broad Street and Tank Farm Road; C-S-SP-PD zone. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Planning Commission resolution which recommends that the City Council: 1. Approve a resolution adopting a Negative Declaration (ER 52-04) and amending the General Plan Land Use Element map and Edna-Islay Specific Plan map to change the land use designations of the site from Services and Manufacturing to Office. 2. Adopt an ordinance changing the zoning on the subject property from Service Commercial Specific Plan Planned Development (C-S-SP-PD) to Office Specific Plan (O-SP). BACKGROUND Situation The City has received an application for a General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment and Rezoning (GPA/SPA/R) for two parcels totaling 5.15 acres located at the southeast comer of Broad Street and Tank Farm Road. Specifically, the applicant would like to amend the properties' land use and zoning designations from Services and Manufacturing (C-S-SP-PD) to Office (O-SP) to allow for a broader range of professional office uses without floor area limitations. On September 7, 2004, the City Council denied an appeal of the Planning Commission's action denying two specific attorney firms at 735 Tank Farm Road, and directed staff to process a General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment and Zone Reclassification for both 735 and 715 Tank Farm Road (Attachment 3). The Planning Commission reviews general plan, specific plan, zoning amendments and environmental documents and makes a recommendation to the City Council, which takes a final action on such requests. Data Summary Address: 715 &735 Tank Farm Road Applicant: Edna Valley Office, LLC Representative: Michael Hodge Zoning: C-S-SP-PD (Service Commercial Specific Plan Planned Development) GPA/SPA/R 52-04(Edna Valley Office, LLC) 715 & 735 Tank Farm R Attachment 6 Page 2 Edna-Islay Specific Plan: Service Commercial General Plan: Services and Manufacturing Environmental Status: A Negative Declaration was recommended by the Deputy Director on October 21, 2004 (ER 52-04). Final action on the initial study will be taken by the City Council. Site.Description The two parcels consist of approximately 5.15 acres on the southeast corner of Broad Street and Tank Farm Road. The rezone area is located within the Edna-Islay Specific Plan area and has street access and frontage from Broad Street and Tank Farm Road. The properties are developed with two commercial office buildings totaling approximately 65,000 square feet, parking areas and landscaping. On August 16, 2004, the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC) granted final approval of a new 25,000 square foot office building at 715 Tank Farm Road. The surrounding area is a mix of residential and commercial uses. The properties to the north across Tank Farm Road are developed with the Mangold Shopping Center. The properties to the south are developed with an auto repair business and single-family residences. The properties to the east are developed with residential condominiums and apartments. The properties to the west across Broad Street are vacant but have planned commercial uses. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1). EVALUATION General Plan Consistency The site is designated as "Services and Manufacturing" on the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map. The General Plan contains several policies on office locations that apply to the project. Those policies are listed below in bold print and staff s analysis follows in italics. 1. General Plan LUE Policy 3.4.1 states, "The City should have sufficient land for Office development to meet the demands of City residents and the specialized needs of County Residents.." Staff's Analysis: The applicant has not submitted any factual data that quantifies whether the City is lacking sufficient office space for City and County residents. However, the site is already developed with 65,000 square feet of commercial office space and has recently received approval from the ARC for anew 25,000 square foot office building. Office uses are limited to those approved under the previous Large Office Planned Developments (PD's 51-93 and 182-02). The GPA/SPA/R will allow for the expansion of the types of offices, but not necessarily the proportion, of office uses allowed, and will incrementally add to the supply of office zoning within the City. 2. General Plan LUE Policy 3.43 .states, "Existing office buildings outside the areas described in policy 3.4.2 may continue to be used and may have minor expansions if they: a7 GPA/SPA/R 52-04(Edna Valley Office, LLC) 715 & 735 Tank Farm R(' ,i �', : Attache hent 6 Page 3 A. Have access directly from collector or arterial streets,not local residential streets; B. Will not significantly increase traffic in residential areas; C. Will not have significant adverse impacts on nearby uses." The project site is located adjacent to shopping and residential neighborhoods with street frontage and access from Broad Street and Tank Farm Road. The General Plan Circulation Element designates Broad Street as a Highway/Regional Route and Tank Farm Road as a Parkway Arterial. The GPAISPA/R will provide additional employment opportunities and customers for the Enda-Islay neighborhood where alternative forms of transportation (pedestrian, bicycle and transit) can be used to provide safe and convenient access to and from the site. Based on this information, the project will not significantly increase traffic in residential areas and may reduce the average daily trips generated by the Edna-Islay neighborhood because it can be expected that some of the new tenants will live and shop nearby using alternative transportation consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element and Air Pollution Control District land use planning strategies designed to reduced dependence on vehicle travel. In addition, adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood are not anticipated because office uses are generally considered compatible with residential uses and are low noise generators. 3. General Plan LUE Policy 3.4.1.G states, "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 ..." Currently, the existing buildings have an occupancy rate of approximately seventy percent. These occupying uses/tenants were reviewed for consistency with this policy when the site's Large Office PD's were approved. New tenants and long-term business turnover could attract other businesses that may not be consistent with this policy. However, it is not anticipated that the GPA/SPA/R will draw tenants requiring frequent access to downtown government services to this particular site given its remote location. In staffs opinion, market conditions will dictate suitable locations for businesses given their nee&yrequency for services. Edna-Islay Specific Plan The project site is located within the Edna-Islay Specific Plan area. This specific plan provides a comprehensive plan for land use, circulation, parks and open space, and utilities in the Edna-Islay neighborhood. On September 21, 1993, the Enda-Islay Specific Plan Land Use Map was amended from Neighborhood Commercial to Service Commercial for the project site. This corrected an inconsistency between the General Plan and Specific Plan, and allowed large professional offices to locate at the site with approval of a PD rezoning. Amending the Edna- Islay Specific Plan from Service Commercial to Office for the site will allow for the expansion of the types, but not necessarily affect the proportion, of office uses allowed because the existing PD's approved for the site already allow construction, architecture, engineering, industrial design and certain professional office uses. GPA/SPA/R 52-04 (Edna Valley Office, LLC) 715 & 735 Tank Farm R Affachi neat 6 Page 4 - Zoning Regulations The PD's approved for the properties' contain a list of p ` allowed and conditional) - � '' nay CzC *' `: E allowed uses. These PD , ordinances will be rescinded ?., as part of the project action and only uses allowed under 1 a . c-S sp. the standard Office zoning ,. district will be permitted at " -g -pp y tf. �PTJ ti- the site. Existing uses include an insurance t ,4.. `ti` company, real estate $"� , r , v ate, ` rA brokerage, mortgage �Y 715 8 735 Tank Farm Road brokerage & banking, (Proposed C-"P-PD to OSP) f. �y ti `;.' e•- contractor's office, i 'I, ublishin company, ' P g software design, and title company. Staff has ,Owl reviewed these uses for consistency with the Office zoning district to determine if non-conforming land use situations will be created by the project. Based on staffs preliminary analysis, no non-conforming uses will be created by the land use modification. Conclusion The GPA/SPA/R from Services and Manufacturing to Office seems appropriate at the site based on existing site and neighborhood conditions. In staffs opinion, the project could be supported for the following reasons: 1. The site is already developed 65,000 square feet of commercial office space, parking and landscaping, and has recently received approval of a new 25,000 square foot office building. 2. Large Office PD's 51-93 and 182-02 approved for the site already allow construction, architecture, engineering, industrial design and certain professional office uses. 3. Approval of the GPA/SPA/R will not create non-conforming uses at the site. 4. The GPA/SPA/R will provide additional employment opportunities and customers for the Edna-Islay neighborhood, which is developed with alternative transportation infrastructure, consistent with land use planning strategies to reduce dependence on vehicle travel. 5. Office uses are generally considered compatible with residential uses and are low noise generators. GPA/SPA/R 52-04 (Edna Valley Office, LLC) 715 &735 Tank Farm Rf, Attachment 6 Page 5 -J 6. The project site is accessed from a Highway/Regional Route and Parkway Arterial and will not significantly increase traffic in residential areas. CONCURRENCES The Airport Land Use Commission reviewed this GPA/SPA/R on August 18, 2004. The Commission found the proposal consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Commission may recommend approval of the project with modified findings and/or conditions. 2. The Commission may approve a resolution recommending that the City Council deny the proposed GPA/SPA/R, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan as specified by the Planning Commission. 3. The Commission may continue review of the project, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants. ATTACHMENTS 3. Applicant's project description and statement Attachment 6 Proiect Description: The proposed project involves the following: 1. A General Plan (Land Use Map) Amendment FROM Services and Manufacturing TO Professional Office; 2. A Zoning Map Change FROM C-S-SP-PD (Service Commercial with specific plan and planned development overlays) TO 0-SP (Office with a specific plan overlay); 3. An amendment to the Edna-Islay Specific Plan Land Use Map to change the property's designation FROM Service-Commercial TO Professional Office; and 4. An amendment to the Edna-Islay Specific Plan text to: 1.) add Professional Office to the Land Use Summary (page 4); 2) add Professional Office purpose statement and permitted uses under Commercial Land Use Chapter (page 18); and 3) modify Zoning Consistency chapter (page 73) to include Professional Office/O-SP to the list of zoning districts within the Edna-Islay neighborhood. Prosect Statement: . The subject properties, 715 & 735 Tank Farm Road (Edna Valley Office) are general-planned Services and Manufacturing, and zoned Commercial Service with specific plan and planned development overlays. They are developed with existing office buildings, parking, landscaping and other site improvements. In 2002, the City approved a large-office planned development for 735 Tank Farm Road, to allow 2,500 square foot office uses on the property. While the existing large-office PD conditionally allows some business-related offices, it does not allow offices for traditional business, financial and professional uses. According to real estate data and newspaper publications, the City has been experiencing a shortage of office land, which has resulted in office space rents rising dramatically over the past few years. Consequently, businesses looking to locate in San Luis Obispo have had to establish in other communities in the County. The City is currently in the process of amending its General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to allow medical offices on certain C-S-zoned properties. The purpose of this General Plan amendment/rezone is to allow professional offices with limited public visitation to locate at two existing commercial buildings at 715 & 735 Tank Farm Road, and to increase the supply of office space available to business professionals. The project carries out existing General Plan goals relating to the City's desire to be the County's hub for professional, medical and social services (Goal 24); to �'G Attachment 3 Attachment 6 provide a resilient and diverse economic base (Goal 21); and to emphasize more productive use of existing commercial buildings and lands already committed to urban development (Goal 12). The proposed GPA/ZC would allow an existing office development to be utilized for a variety of low-intensity office uses, with. no minimum space requirement. The project carries out General Plan policies relating to land availability for office development and appropriate locations for offices. Policy LU 3.3.2(b) says that the City should provide sufficient land for office development to meet the demands of City residents and specialized needs of County residents. The proposed. GPA/ZC will incrementally increase land available for professional and medical offices. Policy LU 3.3.2(e) notes that not all offices are appropriate in or near the downtown commercial area given building size and patronage. Policy LU 3.2.2(f) notes that certain business and professional offices having substantial. public visitation or limited need for access to downtown government services may be located in other areas of the city. The GPA/ZC would allow for offices with limited public visitation to locate on the two properties. The proposed GPA/ZC meets the intent of the Zoning Regulations, which implement the City's General Plan. The properties are appropriate for office uses for several reasons. First, they are:located near established business services in the Marigold Shopping Center and Creekside Center. Second, situated on Tank Farm Road near Broad (S.R. 227), the properties have convenient access to public transportation, and they can be accessed without driving through residential neighborhoods. Third,the GPA/ZC will not create a land use conflict as offices areconsidered to be compatible with residential uses, and provide a transition from commercial to residential uses. Finally, designating the properties Office will not create a shortage of C-S or M-zoned land available for service commercial and industrial development. Based on these reasons, the proposed GPA/ZC is consistent with the General Plan. PG Attachment 3 4"-3z Attachment 7 Draft Resolution "A" RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT MAP AND EDNA-ISLAY SPECIFIC PLAN MAP FROM SERVICES AND MANUFACTURING TO OFFICE FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 715 AND 735 TANK FARM ROAD (GPA/SPA 52-04) 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 November 3, 2004, and recommended approval of the General Plan Land Use Element map and Edna-Islay Specific Plan map amendments; and WHEREAS, the City 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 December 7, 2004, for the purpose of considering the General Plan Land Use Element map and Edna-Islay Specific Plan map amendments (GPA/SPA 52-04); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed General Plan Land Use Element map and Edna-Islay Specific Plan map amendments are consistent with other policies of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project, as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; 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. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration. SECTION 2. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: 1 The proposed General Plan and Specific Plan amendments are consistent with General Plan 33 - ' Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 2 Land Use Element policies regarding office locations for the following reasons: 1) The General Plan will remain an internally consistent document; 2) The site is already developed with 65,000 square feet of commercial office space, parking and landscaping; 3) The site is already approved for construction, architecture, engineering, industrial design and certain professional office uses via Large Office Planned Development's 51-93 and 182-02; 4) The site has street frontage and access from a Highway/Regional Route and Parkway Arterial; and 5)The project will not significantly increase traffic in residential areas. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan because office uses are considered compatible with residential uses and will provide additional employment opportunities and services for surrounding neighborhoods. 3. The proposed General Plan and Specific Plan amendments will not create non-conforming uses at the site because all existing uses are allowed within the Office zoning district. 4. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on October 21, 2004. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby approve an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element Map and Edna-Islay Specific Plan map from Services and Manufacturing to Office for properties located at 715 and 735 Tank Farm Road, as shown on Exhibit A. SECTION 4. The Community Development Director shall cause the amendment to be reflected in documents which are on display in City Hall and which are available for public use. SECTION 5. This amendment shall take affect at the expiration of 30 days following approval. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 9"3y Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 3 The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2004. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jona well, City Attorney �-3S' Attachment 7 EMM "R' i. tz POk o ® • � �� �` � ULM ►/ '7 .y Yom•. � � � G" �1 �` .� rte' .• i''' � � �,� �. \ 10V ` �' C t wN eeAA T + � 4 LO ♦1.' �f� �, � t Y H od is ad oil ? `�' LOas Attachment 8 ORDINANCE NO. (2004 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM SERVICE- COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT(C-S-SP- PD)TO OFFICE SPECIFIC PLAN (O-SP) FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 715 AND 735 TANK FARM ROAD (R 52-04) 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 November 3, 2004, and recommended approval of the amendment to the City's Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, the City 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 December 7, 2004, for the purpose of considering the Rezoning (R-52-04); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed revision is consistent with the General Plan, the purposes of the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances; 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 reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project, as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration. SECTION 2. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings: 1. The proposed Rezoning is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element policies on office locations for the following reasons: 1) The site is already developed with 65,000 square feet of commercial office space, parking and landscaping; 2) The site is already approved for construction, architecture, engineering, industrial design and certain professional office uses via Large Office Planned Development's 51-93 and 182-02; 3) The site has street frontage and access from a Highway/Regional Route and Parkway Arterial; and 4) The project will not significantly increase traffic in residential areas. 9' 27 Ordinance No. (2004 Sei� Attachment 8 R 52-04 (715 &735 Tank-'arm Road) 2. The proposed project is consistent with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan because office uses are considered compatible with residential uses and will provide additional employment opportunities and services for surrounding neighborhoods. 3. The proposed Rezoning will not create non-conforming uses at the site because all existing uses are allowed within the Office zoning district. 4. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on October 21, 2004. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby approve the Zoning Regulations Map amendment (R 52-04), as shown on Exhibit A, and rescinds Ordinances 1247 & 1433 (Large Office Planned Developments 51-93 & 182-02). SECTION 4. The Community Development Director shall cause the amendment to be reflected in documents which are on display in City Hall and which are available for public use. SECTION 5. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the 7`s day of December, 2004, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of , 2005, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jon_ Lowell; City Attorney S1-3P Affachmen4 8 EXHOM 0All t CM IL ;Alt 0 � ' c y �c� f U LL `y [/MJ IL `I 1f Q CD cm 1 LO • A p. a A% ,p�� ' Ea \ \ m EE r �% r Attachment 9 Draft Resolution `B" RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT,SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 715 AND 735 TANK FARM ROAD (GPA/SPA/R/ER 52-04) 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 November 3, 2004, and recommended approval of Application GPA\SPA\R\ER 52-04; and WHEREAS, the City 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 December 7, 2004, for the purpose of considering Application GPA/SPA/R/ER 52-04; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project, as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; 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. Findings. Based upon all the evidence; the City Council makes the following findings: [Council specifies findings] SECTION 2. Denial. The General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment and Rezone proposed at 715 and 735Tank Farm Road (GPA/SPA/R/ER 52-04)is hereby denied. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: kl"7 0 Attachment 9 Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 2 The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2004. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney v / �IIIIIIIIII�I��������IIIII`II � council memovAnOum city o�san Luis osispo, community aEv�LopmEnt aEpaiitmEnt _ DATE: December 6, 2004 RECEIVED i DEC 0 6 2co4 TO: City Council SLO CITY CLERK VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direci� BY: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Planning Commission Resolution No. 5411-04 (715 &735 Tank Farm Road) A Council member has identified an error in the voting count reflected in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5411-04 for Planning Application GPA/SPA/R/ER 52-04. Staff has attached a revised version that accurately reflects the voting. OUNCIL -TCDD DIR CAO Z-FIN DIR RED FILE 2�ACA0 r 'IRE CHIEF MEETING AGENDA ATTORNEY ` Pw DIR 2� CLERK/ORIG 2",rDOUCE CHF DATE ITEM # IS R ° T HEADS I-R-C DIR �,UTIL DIR _e--- -- � 'Ci DIR GPA-SPA-R 52-04,doc RESOLUTION NO. 5411-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP,EDNA-ISLAY SPECIFIC PLAN MAP AND ZONING MAP FROM SERVICES AND MANUFACTURING (C-S-SP-PD) TO OFFICE (O-SP), AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 715 AND 735 TANK FARM ROAD (GPA/SPA/R/ER 52-04) 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 November 3, 2004, for the purpose of considering GPA/SPA/R/ER 52-04, a request to amend the City's Land Use Element map, Edna-Islay Specific Plan map and Zoning map designations from Services and Manufacturing (C-S-SP-PD) to Office (O-SP); and WHEREAS, said public hearing was 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 hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration of environmental impact for 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 ComrWssion of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings in support of the General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment and rezoning of the site: 1. The proposed General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment and rezoning (GPA/SPA/R) is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element policies on office locations for the following reasons: 1) The site is already developed with 65,000 square feet of commercial office space, parking and landscaping; 2) The site is already approved for construction, architecture, engineering, industrial design and certain professional office uses via Large Office Planned Development's 51-93 and 182-02; 3) The site has street frontage and access from a Highway/Regional Route and Parkway Arterial; and 4) The project will not significantly increase traffic in residential areas. 2. The GPA/SPA/R will not create non-conforming uses at the site because all existing uses are l Planning Commission Resolution # 5411-04 GPA/SPA/R 52-04 Page 2 allowed within the Office zoning district. 3. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on October 21, 2004. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend adoption of the proposed Negative Declaration. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of application GPA/SPA/R/ER 52-04, as shown on attached Exhibit A. On motion by Commissioner Aiken, seconded by Commr Christianson, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Aiken, Christianson, Miller, Osborne, Boswell, Caruso NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: Loh The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 3`d day of November 2004. Rod Whisen , Secretary 796 Planning Co ssion by: