HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/2009, PH 1 - CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SO council
j acEnoA Repom 1w.N.
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director;
By: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SOUTHWOOD DRIVE, WEST OF
LAUREL LANE (GP/R ER 177-08; 1050 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission:
1, Adopt a Resolution approving a Negative Declaration (ER 177-08) and amending the
General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map to change the land use designation of 1050
Southwood from Services & Manufacturing to Office, based on findings.
2. Introduce an Ordinance approving an amendment to the Zoning Map for 1050 Southwood
from Manufacturing Planned Development(M-PD) to Office (0), based on findings.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City has received applications for a General Plan
Amendment and Rezoning to remove an antiquated land
use designation and zoning category for a developed 4-
acre site on Southwood Drive,just west of Laurel Lane
F '
near Sinsheimer Park. The site is currently designatedP0 �
o
as Service & Manufacturing on the LUE map and zoned .,. +'' PF
M-PD, Manufacturing with the Planned Development s-" *„ '°" �"
44
overlay, on the zoning map, but is surrounded primarily M-PD M
by residential zoning(see Figure 1). The requests would
change the land use and zoning designation of the site to w 4 R
Office.
At:
Ar
The Planning Commission reviewed the project on
September 9t' and is recommending that the Council
approve the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning, h _
along with adopting the Negative Declaration of
environmental impact. The Commission found that the M MU �Y
proposed Office land use and zoning better reflected the , . Figure 1
0.long-standing use of the site as an office building,
allowed the applicant more flexibility on the range of office tenants that could be established at
the site, and provided a better transition to adjacent residential uses.
fA I6 I
Council Agenda Report—GP/R, ER 177-08 (Cannon Property Rezoning)
Page 2
Data Summary
Addresses: 1030, 1040, 10507 1060 and 1070 Southwood Drive
Applicant: Michael F. Cannon
Representative: Todd Smith, Cannon &Associates
Existing Zoning: M-PD (Manufacturing with the Planned Development overlay)
Proposed Zoning: O (Office)
Existing General Plan: Services & Manufacturing
Proposed General Plan: Office
Environmental Status: A Negative Declaration was recommended by the Planning Commission
on September 9; 2009 (ER 177-08).
Consistency with the General Plan
General Plan conformity is an essential element in the review of this application. The Council
must make a finding that a development approval is consistent with the General Plan. The
Council must also find that the proposed changes to the Zoning and General Plan LUE Maps
would maintain consistency with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
The Planning Commission found that the proposed Office zoning for the site is consistent with
the City's General Pan. The attached report prepared for the Commission (Attachment 4)
highlighted a community goal and a policy from the LUE to help document this. Community
Goal No. 12 suggests that reusing existing buildings already committed to urban uses is a
beneficial and a sustainable thing to do. This is the case here as the exiting facilities would
continue to be used. Land Use Policy 3.4.3 below was cited in the Commission report which
gives performance standards for offices in outlying areas.
• LUE Policy 3.4.3 Offices Outside Designated Areas
Existing office buildings outside the areas described in policy 3.4.2 may continue to be
used and may have minor expansions if they:
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.
In terms of satisfying Standard B, a traffic study referenced in the initial study looked at the
potential concern for increased traffic and concluded that LOS would not increase at the nearby
intersections as a result of the rezoning. The Commission agreed that Standard C has been
satisfied based on the site's longstanding record of accommodating commercial uses at the site
without a significant record of complaints or other apparent land use conflicts.
Standard A elicited the most discussion. Laurel Lane, which is located about 200 feet to the east
of the project site, is designated as an arterial street, but Southwood Drive is designated as a local
street. However, the Commission was convinced that the intent of this standard was met since
Southwood Drive functions like a collector, rather than a local street, as it provides access to a
Council Agenda Report—GP/R, ER 177-08 (Cannon Property Rezoning)
Page 3
variety of land uses including the park and YMCA and the residential uses along the street do not
directly access it.
Planning Commission's Action
On September 9, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed the requested entitlements that are
now before the City Council. On a 6:0:1 vote (Vice Chairperson Multari absent), the Planning
Commission recommended to the Council approval of the General Plan Amendment and
Rezoning, and Negative Declaration (Attachment 2). There was some discussion about the
General Plan Policy 3.4.3 cited in the Planning Commission staff report as previously mentioned
and a few questions regarding traffic and parking, but overall the Commission agreed that the
proposed land use and zoning changes better reflected actual use of the site as an office building
and provided better long-range protection to adjacent residential uses.
Citizen Participation
Mike Cannon, applicant, spoke in support of the project and described to the Commission the
improvements they have made to the building, parking lot, and landscaping. He noted.that a
previous request to rezone the property to R-4, High=Density Residential was withdrawn after the
Airport Land Use Commission concluded that the request was inconsistent with the Airport Land
Use Plan. There was no other public testimony received.
CONCURRENCES
On March 18, 2009, the Airport Land Use Commission concluded that the requests to amend the
LUE map designation from Services & Manufacturing to Office and rezone the property from M-
PD to O was consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. The Transportation Division of Public
Works commented that a trip reduction plan and bicycle parking consistent with current
standards would be conditions of an administrative use permit to allow a shared• parking
reduction if one is pursued.
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. While there is a General Plan
Amendment associated with the request, it does not increase the overall area proposed for
development or affect planned land uses. Therefore, the proposed project can be found to be
consistent with the General Plan, and accordingly have a neutral fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny the proposed GP/R based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan.
2. Recommend approval of a modified zoning proposal for the site such as an "S", Special
Council Agenda Report—GP/R, ER 177-08 (Cannon Property Rezoning)
Page 4 .
Considerations overlay or a different zoning category. Depending on the alternative
recommendation, a new initial study may need to be prepared.
3. Continue the project with direction to the staff and applicant if the Council desires further
information or analysis to render a decision. ..
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity map
2. Planning Commission follow-up letter with adopted Resolution No. 5532-09
3. September 9, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes
4. September 9, 2009 Planning Commission Agenda Report including initial study ER 177-08
5. Resolution approving the General Plan Amendment
6. Ordinance approving the Rezoning
G:\CD-PLANU'RICCI\ZONING\Cannon(GPR 177-08)\Staff Reports\GPR 177-08 Cannon CC report).DOC
✓ r .r -� � r �7� � �n'
f
�.tt�.YJ
Yr\•,, ° V-4v
� C/
[(� ;` t IEv�['n CI IT �.' y 2 `•` \//� rY{Y"r
e r
�'A •y 1 N •'F y �j��
/ t �
ZZ
<t _ t • is
$firI r
J a IJ/
-1�2.. +t�Z_-`y f F� f �W�>I� v � /•r�y'� ri+ 'iW:rF`• " ' r
,$
i �;.'T ' ..�:�i�An � �. f'•-�..n. :,rl .:,:� ��.��i i�,'i`•j � •��_.*..Allr��
I
VICINITY MAP GP/R
177=08
0 0 0TIT 0 •
�►Il��lllllllllll 11111111111 =Attachment 2
I�III IIID II INI�@ � ���
ISM luls OBIS
Community Development Department•919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
September 14, 2009
Michael Cannon
1050 Southwood Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: ER/GP/R 177-08— 1050 Southwood Drive
Environmental Review and General Plan Map Amendment from
Manufacturing and Services to Office and zone change from M-PD
to O
Dear Mr. Cannon:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of September 9, 2009, recommended that the
City Council approve application GP/R 177-08 to amend the land use designation from
Services & Manufacturing to Office and its zoning.from Manufacturing with the Planned
Development overlay (M-PD)to Office.(0) for the property located at 1030, 1040, 10501
1060, and 1070 Southwood Drive, based on findings and subject to conditions noted in
the attached resolution.
The action of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council and,
therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for public hearing
before the City Council on October 20, 2009. This date, however, should be verified with
the City Clerk's office at (805) 781-7102.
If you have any questions, please contact Pam Ricci at (805)781-7168.
Sincerely,
r
Doug Davidson, AICP
Deputy Director of Community Development
Development Review
Attachment: Resolution No. 5532-09
cc: SLO County Assessor's Office
Todd Smith
1050 Southwood Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. 1 1
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO. 5532-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE SA,N LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN
AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT MAP
FROM SERVICES & MANUFACTURING TO OFFICE AND AN AMENDMENT
TO THE ZONING MAP FROM MANUFACTURING WITH THE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (M-PD) TO OFFICE (0) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 1030, 1040, 1050, 1060 and 1070 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE (GP/R/ER 177-08)
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
September 9, 2009, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/ER 177-08,
Michael F. Cannon, applicant; 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 General Plan
Amendment; Rezoning, and Environmental Review; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's Negative
Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed
project entitlements, and reflects the independent judgment of the Commission..
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
Section 1. General Plan Amendment & Rezoning Findings. Based upon all the
evidence, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve
"application GP/R 177-08 to amend the land use designation from Services & Manufacturing to
Office and its zoning from Manufacturing with the Planned Development overlay (M-PD) to
Office (0) for the property located at 1030, 1040, 1050, 1060 and 1070 Southwood Drive, based
on the following findings:
1. The proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and Zoning Maps furthers the goals of
the General Plan for compatible development because the proposed Office zoning and land
use is considered a transitional use to residential development that borders the site and
more accurately reflects the existing and proposed land uses planned for existing facilities
at the site.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, and welfare of those living and working in the vicinity since the proposed changes
Div � � �
M M
Resolution No. 5532-09 Attachment 2
Page 2
to the City's maps accommodate the existing development of the site with uses and
improvements that will be compatible with other properties in the surrounding vicinity.
3. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone will not adversely affect the amount
of area within the City set aside fot Manufacturing uses as the total site area of 4 acres only
represents 1.5% of the City's current supply of sites zoned Manufacturing.
4. On March 18, 2009, the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission
determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the site from
Manufacturing & Services, M-PD, to Office, O, was consistent with the San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport Land Use Plan.
5. The Community Development Director recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration
on July 17, 2009. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's
Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts
of the proposed project.
On motion by Commissioner Draze, seconded by Commissioner Whittlesey, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Draze, Whittlesey, Singewald, Stevenson, Boswell, and Meyer
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commr. Multari
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 9h day of September, 2009.
h,
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission
Pit I
Attachment 3
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 9, 2009
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Michael Boswell, Michael Draze, Eric Meyer, Airlin
Singewald, Mary Whittlesey, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson
Absent: Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari
Staff: Community Development Director John Mandeville, Deputy
Community Development Directors Doug Davidson and Kim Murry,
Senior Planner Pam.Ricci, and Recording Secretary Janet Miller
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 1050 Southwood Drive. ER/GP/R 177-08: Environmental Review and General
Plan Map Amendment from Manufacturing and Services to Office and zone change
from M-PD to 0; Michael Cannon, applicant. (Pam Ricci)
Pam Ricci, Senior Planner, 'presented the staff report, recommending the Planning
Commission adopt a resolution (Attachment 6), which recommends to the City Council:
1. Approval of a Negative Declaration (ER 177-08) and amendment to the
General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use designation of
1050 Southwood from Services & Manufacturing to Office.
2. Approval of an amendment to the Zoning Map for 1050 Southwood from
Manufacturing Planned Development (M-PD) to Office (0).
Commr. Draze requested clarification on the status of Southwood Drive as a collector
street in relationship to the policy staff cited from the Land Use Element discouraging
access from local residential streets. Ms. Ricci replied that Laurel Lane is an arterial
street, but that Southwood Drive is not a collector or an arterial street. However, she
noted that the street did not function like a typical local street since it served several
community uses and the residential uses along the street did not have direct access to
the street.
Chairperson Stevenson asked if staff had looked into landscape maintenance as site
enhancements progressed. Ms. Ricci noted that the applicant has been actively
��} � - 9
Attach111en
Planning Commission Minutes C�ef1t
September 9, 2009 3
Page 2
Working on enhancements to the site such as repaving the parking lot and improving
landscaping. Mr. Davidson added that a minor or incidental architectural review had
been approved which included provisions for enhanced landscaping and ongoing
maintenance.
Commr. Meyer questioned if enough parking was available to accommodate the change
of use. Ms. Ricci noted that there was not a specific change of use proposed, but that
the rezoning could potentially accommodate different types of office uses at the site
including medical offices that have a higher parking requirement. She noted that the
applicant could accommodate some medical offices at the site and still comply with
parking requirements with the current amount of parking. She added that site parking
could still potentially work for all of the remaining 10,000 square feet of vacant space as
medical offices with the approval of a 10% shared parking reduction.
Mike Cannon, applicant, noted that landscaping in the area had been improved and
would continue to improve over time.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Meyer asked if the medical overlay would limit the amount of space that could
be dedicated to medical offices. Ms. Ricci replied that the request for rezoning and
General Plan Amendment to Office does not include an overlay. Staff clarified that
Office zoning allows medical office uses in addition to other types of offices. Ms. Ricci
noted that the applicant is looking to offer a range of tenant options but, at this time,
does not have a specific tenant.
Commr. Draze questioned the report that Cannon had provided on traffic. Ms. Ricci
replied that Public Works provided the parameters for the study and that Public Works
as well as other City departments had reviewed the report and its conclusions. After
reviewing multiple drafts of the analysis, staff concluded that it adequately evaluated the
potential traffic and circulation impacts of the project.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Draze, seconded by Commr. Whittlesey to support the
recommendation to adopt the presented Planning Commission resolution based on
findings and subject to conditions which staff outlined.
Commr. Singewald supported the motion made. Mr. Singewald requested clarification
on the 10% parking reduction. Ms. Ricci replied that a reduction had not been
requested yet but potentially could be supported and would include requirements for a
trip reduction plan and upgraded bicycle parking. Mr. Singewald noted concern for
congested parking in the area.
F4 Jo
Planning Commission Minutes -
Attachment 3
September 9, 2009
Page 3
AYES: Commrs. Draze, Whittlesey, Boswell, Meyer, Singewald, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Multari
The motion passed on a 6;0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2. Staff
a. Community Development Department Work Program:.
John Mandeville, Director, provided a presentation of the work assignments
and projects the six operating programs in the Community Development
Department are responsible for in the upcoming two years. Mr. Mandeville
indicated that the Department has a key role in five of the nine Council goals
and objectives adopted in the 2009-2011 Financial Plan.
Chairperson Stevenson voiced his support for the Long-Range work being
undertaken.
Commr. Meyer asked when the Commission would be reviewing the Housing
Element. Kim Murry, Deputy Director, replied the draft would come back to the
Commission in October.
Commr. Meyer asked for clarification of the project to define Neighborhood
Boundaries.
Mr.*MandeviIle noted that this effort would help provide opportunities to define
neighborhood issues and could improve outreach and strategies. Mr.
Mandeville discussed the criteria that would go into the project.
Commr. Meyer noted that this effort may give the public voice that it maynot
otherwise have.
b. Agenda Forecast: Deputy Director Doug Davidson provided a forecast of the
agenda items scheduled for the September 9t' Planning Commission hearing.
c. Deputy Director Kim Murry provided a copy of the General Plan Annual Report
staff report to the Council and described how the Planning Commission's
recommendation was being carried forward.
3. Commission
11A /I
Planning Commission Minutes
September 9, 2009 Attachment 3
Page 4
Chairperson Stevenson commended Vice-Chair Multari for his presentation at the
City Council regarding the Planning Commission's recommendation for the
Prefumo Creek Commons project.
ADJOURMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Janet Miller
Recording Secretary.
Approved by the Planning Commission on _September 23, 2009_
Ryan'be
Supervi " g AdministrativeAs istant
M Attachment 4
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#1
BY: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner(781-7168) pfZ, DATE: September 9, 2009
FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director of Community Development FID
FILE NUMBER: GP/R& ER 177-08
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1050 Southwood Drive-main address for project file, other addresses
for site listed on agenda and below.
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment and Rezone for property located on the north side of
Southwood Drive, west of Laurel Lane.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached Planning Commission resolution (Attachment 6), which recommends to the
City Council:
1. Approval of a Negative Declaration (ER 177-08) and amendment to the General Plan
Land Use Element map to change the land use designation of 1050 Southwood from
Services& Manufacturing to Office.
2. Approval of an amendment to the Zoning Map for 1050 Southwood from Manufacturing
Planned Development (M-PD) to Office(0).
BACKGROUND
Situation/Proiect Description
The City has received an application for a General Plan amendment and Rezoning (GP/R) on a
4.04 acre parcel on the northeasterly side of Southwood Drive, east of Laurel Lane. Specifically,
the applicant would like to amend the property's land use designation from Services &
Manufacturing to Office and its zoning from Manufacturing with the Planned Development
overlay(WD) to Office(0) (see Figure 1 on Page 2).
The applicant has requested a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of the site to Office to
allow for a greater range of office uses to potentially be established at the site (see Attachment 2
— project statement from the applicant). There is an existing 60,000 square-foot building on the
site originally developed for light manufacturing uses that has been remodeled over the years and
is now occupied by office uses. No physical changes to the site are proposed along with the
requested general plan amendment and rezoning.
The Planning Commission's role in reviewing the general plan/zoning amendments and
environmental document is to make a recommendation to the City Council, which will take a
final action on the requests.
so
ER, GP/R 177-08 (Cannon) At4whme -_
Pi$ 4
1050 Southwood Drive
Page 2
Data Summary
Addresses: 1030, 1040, 1050, 1060 and 1070 Southwood Drive
Applicant: Michael F. Cannon
Representative: Todd Smith, Cannon&Associates
Existing Zoning: M-PD (Manufacturing with the Planned Development overlay)
Proposed Zoning: O (Office)
Existing General Plan: Services & Manufacturing
Proposed General Plan: Office
Environmental Status: A Negative Declaration was recommended by the Deputy Director on
July 17, 2009 (ER 177-08). Final action on the environmental determination will be taken by the
City Council. -
Site Description
The subject property, which is
addressed as 1030 — 1070
Southwood Drive is a
rectangular-shaped parcel that is
approximately 4.04 acre (176,010 Y
square-feet) in size. The property V r
is developed with a 60,000
Currently M-PD
square-foot building used as Preposed O
offices by the EOC of San Luis
Obispo County and Cannon
Associates.
M-P
The properties to the north and
east are designated for High-
Density Residential uses (R-4),
and are developed with a mixture
of senior residential facilities,
including an Alzheimer's facility
on the property to the immediate
east (Sidney Creek Memories
Center) and other high-density
residential apartments and °
condominiums. Immediately to ?
the west of the site is Johnson
Park, which is zoned for Public t
Facilities (PF). Properties to the M�
south are zoned R-3-PD and
developed with the Laurelwood
Estates homes and the Parkwood Village condominiums. Other surrounding uses include Fire
Station #3, the Community Gardens, the Laurel Lane shopping center, Sinsheimer Elementary
and Park, and various residential uses. 1011
ER, GP/R 177-08 (Cannon) Attachment 4
1050 Southwood Drive
Page 3
Zoning& Land Use History
Originally built in 1957 and enlarged to its current size of 60,000 square feet in 1970, the building
was originally used mainly for offices and light assembly. Under a Planning Commission use
permit (Res. No. 34-64), office uses began with TMC Research in 1964, and were continued by
Vidar Corporation in 1969 (U0130). Between 1978 and 1991, the building was the division
headquarters for TRW Electronic Products, Incorporated. In 1991, when TRW decided to
consolidate their operations at a larger existing facility in Colorado Springs, Colorado and sell their
San Luis Obispo facility, they requested a PD rezoning to allow a broader range of uses than is
normally allowed in the M(Manufacturing)zone.
On March 19, 1991, the City Council approved the current M-PD zoning for the site through
Ordinance No. 1185 (Attachment 3). While the list of allowed uses includes a range of other uses
that could be compatible with adjacent residential developments, the main purpose of the PD was to
allow a greater range of office uses. The City Council adopted amendments to the General Plan and
Zoning Regulations in March 1987 that allowed some large offices in the C-S and M zones with the
approval of a planned development rezoning. The enabling ordinance was adopted because the
existing office zones did not provide adequate room to accommodate the number of large (over
2,500 square feet) offices expected to need space within the City (Office Supply and Demand
Study, Quad Engineering, 1986). The approved PD overlay zoning was consistent with a prior
Land Use Element Policy 3.3.2 E, which stated that "large offices, with no single tenant space less
than 2;500 square feet, and having limited need for client visits or need for access to downtown
government services, may be in the Services and Manufacturing districts, subject to approval of a
Planned Development(PD) zoning application".
EVALUATION
When the property was first developed with the existing building, the M zoning category was more
logical given the smaller scale of the community and its location closer to the City's southern
periphery. Over the last several decades as the City has gown and expanded, the project site has
become more centrally located. While the building originally housed some light manufacturing
uses, it has been essentially used as an office building for many years without significant land use
conflicts with adjacent uses.
The site's Manufacturing zoning is considered antiquated since it is located in a principally
residential area. Staff is supportive of the request because it makes the site's zoning more
compatible with adjacent land uses and is a zoning category that better reflects the established
office uses already existing at the site.
The following paragraphs evalaute the request to rezone the property to Office in terms of
1. its consistency with the General Plan;
2. its consistency with the Zoning Regulations;
3. its consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan; and
4. its effect on the overall supply of manufacturing property within the City. s
TIT �/
ER, GP/R 177-08 (Cannon) Attachment-`-
1050 Southwood Drive 4
Page 4
1. General Plan Consistency
General Plan conformity is essential in reviewing this application. The Council must make a
finding that a development approval is consistent with the General Plan. The Council must also
find that the proposed changes to the Zoning and General Plan LUE Maps would maintain
consistency with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
The proposed Office Land Use designation is more reflective of the site's actual use over the past
couple of decades as an office building and is considered a more transitional land use to adjacent
residential uses than the existing Services & Manufacturing designation. Given the unique
circumstances related to the project, there is some, but not extensive guidance in the General
Plan. Staff has identified a goal and policy from the Land Use Element that are particularly
germane. The General Plan goal and policy that apply directly to the review of the request are
noted in italics followed by a brief analysis by staff regarding the project's compliance with the
goal and policy.
• Community Goal#12
Emphasize more productive use of existing commercial buildings and land areas already
committed to urban development.
Staff's Analysis:
The proposal to continue to utilize the existing structure and facilities is consistent with this
goal. The range and type of uses established at the site has evolved over time as the City has
grown and the General Plan policies and preferences for different land uses in certain
locations have changed.
• LUE Policy 3.4.3 Offices Outside Designated Areas
Existing office buildings outside the areas described in policy 3.4.2 may continue to be
used and may have minor expansions if they:
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.
Staff's Analysis:
Direct access to the project site is off of Southwood Drive, which is located about 200 feet
beyond Laurel Lane, which is designated on the Street Classification Map of the City's General
Plan Circulation Element as a primary arterial street. Because the proposed rezoning could
increase the range of office uses established at the site including medical offices, there is the
potential for the number of vehicle trips generated to and from the site to also increase. The City
asked the applicant to prepare a traffic analysis of the potential impacts on the adjacent roadway
system. As noted in the attached initial study, the Level of Service (LOS) at the nearby
rn ( ,/.6,
ER, GP/R 177-08 (Cannon) M Attachment 4
1050 Southwood Drive
Page 5
intersections studied was not reduced by the anticipated additional vehicle trips which factored in
some medical offices at the site.
2. Consistency with the Zoning Regulations
The current M-PD zoning was approved for the site in 1991 (Attachment 3). The approved PD
was consistent with a General Plan policy in place at the time which allowed larger scale offices,
defined as having minimum floor areas of 2,500 square feet, as potentially being appropriate in
outlying C-S and M zones with the approval of a PD. In addition to this minimum threshold for
office spaces, the PD also prohibited the following uses: banks, real estate offices, financial
institutions,medical clinics, doctor's offices, lawyer's offices, and government agency offices.
Many of the elements of the current PD zoning for the site are no longer consistent with the
City's Zoning Regulations. In 2003 the City's Zoning Regulations related to commercial uses
were overhauled and a broader range of uses were allowed in the C-S and M zones including
banks and more types of office uses in the categories of processing and production and
administrative. At that time the regulations related to using the PD process for large-scale offices
were eliminated. In 2004 medical offices were added as conditionally allowable uses in the C-S
and Business Park zones.
The main point with the discussion of this zoning history is that manipulating the archaic zoning
for the site has run its course and is no longer relevant. In terms of protecting neighborhood
compatibility and providing the property owner with more flexibility in the range of uses, the
Office zoning makes more practical sense and is also more consistent with City regulations and
current land use policies.
The intent of the Office zoning stated in Chapter 17.34 of the Zoning Regulations is "to provide
for offices and related functions close to medical facilities and the downtown, convenient to
public transportation and related government and business services. " The site meets this intent
since it is adjacent to the Alzheimer's facility at the comer of Laurel and Southwood, in close
proximity to the Laurel Lane shopping center, and also nearby other office zoning at the corner of
Laurel and Orcutt. The site is also a relatively short distance to the downtown by car and the
Railroad Safety Trail is nearby opening more opportunities for people to walk or bike from other
areas of town to the site.
a. Medical Offices — The applicant has expressed an interest in allowing some medical
offices at the site. Part of the motivation for exploring this was the proximity of the site
to the Alzheimer's facility. The proposed office zoning at the site would allow medical
offices to be established as long as parking requirements could be met. Medical offices
have a parking demand of one space per 200 square feet of floor area, while other office
uses have a requirement of one space per 300 square feet of floor area. There is also
some flexibility in the code to interpret certain types of medical uses, such as medical
imaging facilities, to be parked at the regular professional office ratio because they have a
lower anticipated patient density with the space demands of the large equipment used.
PA I- 7--
ER, GP/R 177-08 (Cannon) Attachment 4
1050 Southwood Drive
Page 6
The property is developed with a 60,000 square-foot building used as offices by the EOC
of San Luis Obispo County and Cannon Associates. About 10,000 square feet of the
building's floor area is currently vacant. 212 parking spaces currently exist to serve the
site as developed. If all of the remaining 10,000 square feet was leased to a medical
tenant, then the project parking requirement would be 217 spaces. Per Section 17.16.060
of the Zoning Regulations, the applicant could apply for an administrative use permit to
allow a 10% shared parking reduction because the project meets the established
performance standard of having two or more uses sharing common parking areas. With
an approved use permit for the 10% shared parking reduction, site parking would more
than conform to ordinance requirements if all of the remaining 10,000 square feet were
leased to medical uses.
The City will have the ability to monitor available parking as tenant improvement permits
are requested. Beyond the shared parking reduction option, the applicant could
potentially explore adding tandem parking if there were some arrangement that could
work efficiently and additional parking for employees was desirable. Tandem parking
would need to meet newly adopted performance standards and would also be subject to
approval of an administrative use permit.
b. S-Overlay Zoning — The applicant has applied for the proposed rezoning in order to
attract a greater range of office uses at the site and to make it simpler for tenants to
become established. Because there do not appear to be any compelling reasons in terms
of policy consistency or neighborhood compatibility to further limit the range of allowed
uses at the site beyond the limitations of the Office zoning, staff has concluded that a S,
Special Consideration, overlay zoning is not necessary.
3. Consistency with the Airport Land Use.Plan
The project site is designated in the Airport Land Use Plan as being within Safety Area S72
which includes areas with aircraft operations at 501 to 1000 feet above ground level. Policy S-2
covers allowable densities for parcels within the Airport Land Use Plan. The proposed zone
change for a non-residential office use would allow 150 persons per acre. The project site is 4.35
acres; therefore, the maximum density is 650 persons total. The building is 60,400 square feet;
30,000 square feet is currently occupied by Cannon, housing 80 employees, and the EOC
occupies an additional 20,000 square feet with about 75 employees. Therefore, even with
additional potentially more intensive office uses being added to the building, the density
standards would be met.
Given the request for a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning, the Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) reviewed the project at a hearing held on March 18, 2009. The ALUC
determined that the project was consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport
Land Use Plan (Attachment 5). A previous effort by the applicant in 2006 to rezone the property
to High-Density Residential (R-4) was withdrawn after the ALUC indicated that the proposal for
residential development here was inconsistent with the ALUP.
P�41 -18'
ER, GP/R 177-08 (Cannon) N Attachment 4
1050 Southwood Drive
Page 7
4. Supply of Manufacturing Properties
Prior to the annexation of the Airport Area to the City of San Luis Obispo in September of 2008,
the supply of properties zoned Manufacturing within the City limits was 167 acres. With that
annexation a total of 89 acres of manufacturing zoning was added to the City increasing the
supply to 256 acres. The proposed zone change would remove 4 acres from the M zoning, or
about 1.5%of the City's overall supply of manufacturing sites, which is an insignificant impact.
Environmental Review
The Initial Study of Environmental Impact does not identify any significant impacts associated
with the rezoning that require mitigation measures (Attachment 4). A Negative Declaration of
environmental impact is recommended. The attached initial study has some more detailed
discussion in the Land Use and Traffic & Transportation sections, some of which has been
reiterated in this staff report.
Conclusion
The staff report has provided a factual basis for support of the proposed General Plan amendment
and rezoning of the site from Services & Manufacturing, M-PD, to Office, O emphasizing the
following points:
1. Office zoning is consistent with the current use of the site and such uses have been
operating from the site for decades without significant land use compatibility issues.
2. Office zoning is considered an appropriate transitional use to residential zoning.
3. The proposal makes use of existing facilities.
4. The rezoning allows the property owner more flexibility in attracting tenants.
5. The rezoning does not adversely affect the supply of manufacturing sites Citywide.
6. The ALUC supports the continued use of the site for commercial enterprises.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The Transportation Division of Public Works commented that a trip reduction plan and bicycle
parking consistent with current standards would be conditions of an administrative use permit to
allow a shared parking reduction if one is pursued.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Commission may approve a resolution recommending that the City Council deny the
proposed GP/R, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan as specified by
the Planning Commission.
2. The Commission may recommend approval of a modified zoning proposal for the site
such as an"S", Special Considerations overlay or a different zoning category. Depending
on the alternative recommendation, a new initial study may need to be prepared.
ER, GP/R 177-08 Cannon~ Attachment 4
(Cannon)
1050 Southwood Drive
Page 8
3. The Commission 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. Project statement and site plan
3. Ordinance No. 1185 (1991 Series) approving current M-PD zoning
4. Initial Study(ER 177-07)
5. ALUC letter dated May 29, 2009
6. Draft Planning Commission Resolution Cnpf A Ched)
LAZONING\Cannon(GPR 177-08)\Staff Reports\GPR 177-08 PC(Cannon).doc
� 11
- -
.�■ ILI
IfF4
glims
Q► ME �' �►
ATT HM
R-
PF /
/ F
R/4 �
�Ra3
PF /
Currently M- PD R-4Proposed O /
/ `� F
i
-N
M-PD
\ 0 R-4-S
f
R-3 PQ \
F-A,I...- ��.
Cannon Attachment 4
PROJECT STATEMENT
General Plan Amendment Applicant: Michael F. Cannon
io5o Southwood Dr. APN: oo4-982-o2o
The property owner,Michael F. Cannon, is requesting a General Plan Amendment, Rezone and
Multi Use Parking Reduction for his property located at 1050 Southwood Drive in the City of
San Luis Obispo. The property is currently zoned M-PD. The property currently has an existing
office building of 6o,600 square feet. The surrounding land use designations are High Density
Residential to the north and east; Public Facility to the west and Medium Density Residential to
the south. More of note is the uses surrounding the property. To the east is the Sydney Creek
medical facility; to the north is a nursing home; to the northwest is a medical office and
commercial use. The existing Manufacturing zone is not consistent with the surrounding uses
and is an antiquated land use designation for the property and area. It is proposed that the
property be rezoned to an"O"Office land use designation. That would be more consistent with
the present and future uses. It would also be more consistent with the surrounding area.
The rezone of the subject property removes a zone that is no longer appropriate for the area.
The building has been extensively renovated and any manufacturing use opportunities have
diminished. The building has now become a professional office. The M zoning will not serve for
the future uses. It really will only restrict opportunities for locating space for a wider variety of
professional jobs that will enhance the community.
One example of this would be the possible addition of an oncology clinic as a tenant. The
potential medical use is consistent with the medical uses that surround the property and is
compatible with the office professional uses that currently occupy the building. The addition of
an oncology center is of great service to the community. This type of use is difficult to site. It is
better suited to ground floor or single story facilities. The existing building meets these
requirements.
In addition,the need for oncology centers is increasing. Cancer rates for those under 65 average
about 2%while those over 65 average about 20%. As the"Baby Boomers"head into this age
bracket,this service becomes more necessary. There is evidence that this is already happening.
That makes this opportunity for medical services timely as you consider the increase in demand
in conjunction with the specific building and property needs; it is easy to see that a necessary
and productive service could go unfulfilled. However this is just one example of how the zone
change will help in location options for businesses.
1050 Southwood Drive,San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
T 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863 Fu I - a3
CannonCorp.us
Attachment
Cannon
The transition from"M"zone to"O"zone is consistent with the pattern of the community. The
area now includes compatible land uses like the nearby insurance brokerage and law firm and
the rest of the ATOLL Business Park,or medical uses like the nursing home, Sydney Creek
medical facility and adjacent medical office. The other adjacent uses are high density housing
and commercial. The loss of the"M"zone will be offset by the emergence of other planning
actions such as the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP). The AASP contains many parcels with
the"M"zoning. These parcels provide a better use of the"M"designation as it is adjacent to the
airport in a more logical and appropriate location for the zoning.
The change makes sense from a planning perspective and from a land use compatibility
perspective and is consistent with the general plan. The medical use is encouraged to be located
in close proximity to a hospital. The subject property is less than 1.5 miles by road to French
Hospital. The office zoning will not impact nearby uses but will compliment them. The zone
change will not add to traffic historically associated with this site. In fact the largest tenant,
Cannon,uses a flexible schedule where employees are staggered at different start times and off
on alternating Fridays which helps reduce peak traffic surges. The flow in and out of the
property is very low impact. The EOC is the other primary tenant at this time.
The property is consistent with the development standards of the Office zone. It complies with
the front yard requirement of 15 feet and side and rear yard requirements. The FAR is far less
than 1.5(about.35) and the lot coverage is about 35%,significantly less than the maximum of
6o%. The parking required for 6o, 600 square feet of Office Professional use is 202. The
property has 212 spaces. If the medical use is added with io,000 square feet(i space per 200
square feet) and 5o,000 square feet of office professional(1 space per 300 square feet)the
required parking is 219 spaces. The property could then be 7 spaces short(212 in place but 219
needed). For this cause is the reason a parking reduction for shared multi use facilities is being
requested. Section 17.16.o6o(B) allows for a 1o%reduction in the required parking where there
is a shared use on the same property. There are presently two uses on the property, Cannon, the
EOC and there will soon be a third. The property could have adequate parking depending on the
use. In the event that a medical tenant comes to fruition,the property would be short 7 spaces
or about 3%. A 1o%reduction is being requested for flexibility in accommodating different uses
and parking lot design(striping,space location, drive aisles and ingress egress).
The proposed rezone and General Plan Amendment removes the antiquated zoning on the
property and creates a more appropriate and compatible zone for the area. It creates
opportunities for a wider variety of professional offices nearer to existing housing. It does this
in an area suitable for this type of use where it will not be detrimental to the public health,safety
and welfare but will help serve the overall public good. The change will not create additional
noise impacts. The request is consistent with the intent of the General Plan. The request is also
consistent with the current planning trend favoring Smart Growth concepts. This is a sensible
land use adjustment that is appropriate and compatible with the surrounding community and
the overall policy and planning of the City of San Luis Obispo.
CannonCorp.us
Attachment 4
�1
i
i
i
i ® F
i
i
i •
i
i
i
i
W
I° o
\ w
•
1s-
s a
o ° I
ORDINANCE NO. 1185 (1991 SERIES) Attachment 4
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN AT 1050
SOUTHWOOD DRIVE, AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONE MAP FROM M TO M-PD
(PD 1499)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have
held hearings to consider rezoning the subject property in
accordance with Section 65800 et. seq. of the California Government
Code, and Chapter 11.62 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the propoded PD rezoning
is consistent with the general plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed rezoning
will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San
. Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The proposed PD
rezoning has been evaluated according to the California
Environmental Quality Act and the City's!Environmental Guidelines,
and has been granted a negative declaration (ER 1-91) ; and after
review and consideration, the determination of the Community
Development Director to grant a negative declaration of
environmental impact is hereby approved.
SECTION 2. Zoning Mao Amendment. That 1050 Southwood Drive
be rezoned from M (manufacturing) to M-PD (manufacturing - planned
development) as shown on the attached map, Exhibit "B", and
included herein by reference
SECTION 3. Findings and Conditions. That the preliminary
development plan (PD 1499) as shown in Exhibit "A" is hereby
approved subject to these findings and conditions:
Findings
I. The planned development will be compatible with existing and
allowed land uses in the area.
2. The planned development will notadversely affect public
health, safety and welfare.
3. The planned development's location or access arrangements do
not significantly direct traffic to use local or collector
streets in residential areas.
4 . The planned development adequately mitigates potential impacts
related to noise, light and glare, and loss of privacy, among
others, imposed by commercial activities on
0 U85
Attachment 4
Ordinance No. 1185 (1991 Series)
Page 2
nearby residential areas using methods such as setbacks,
landscaping, earthberming, and fencing.
5. The planned development does not preclude industrial or
service commercial uses in areas especially suited for such
uses when compared with offices.
6. The planned development does not create a shortage of C-S and
M zoned land available for service commercial or industrial
development.
7. The proposed text amendment has been evaluated under the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
City's Environmental Guidelines, and has received a negative
declaration.
8. Features of the particular design achieve the intent of
conventional standards (privacy, usable open space, adequate
parking, landscaping, and neighborhood compatibility) as well
as or better than the standards themselves.
Conditions
1. Except as otherwise noted in these conditions of approval, all
Zoning Regulations for the M zone shall apply to this planned
development.
2. More than one office tenant may occupy the site, but no single
office tenant shall occupy less than 2,500 square feet of
adjacent, interconnected floor area.
3. The following types of office-related uses are prohibited:
banks, real estate offices, financial institutions, medical
clinics, doctor's offices, lawyer's offices, and government
agency offices.
4. Allowed or conditionally allowed uses shall be as shown on
Exhibit "D", attached.
SECTION 4. Publication. This ordinance, together with the
names of councilmembers voting for and against, shall be published
once in full, at least (5) days prior to its final passage, in the
Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this
city. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of
thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the 5th day of
March , 1991, on motion of Councilwoman Pinard
seconded by (buncilman Roalman , and on the following roll call
vote:
do ve
Attachment -
4-Ordinance No. 1185
page 3
AYES: Cbuncilnnmbers Pinard and Roalman, and Mayor Dunin
NOES: None
ABSENT: Cbuncilmembers Rappa and Feiss
CMW
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk Pr Voges
APPROVE
City - inistrative Officer
t e
Community Devel ent Director
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Preliminary PD plan
Exhibit "B" - Zoning Map amendment
Exhibit "D" - List of approved PD uses ¢
' I`Attachment 4
PayJ
.�J • 6�
do
43
•s.1�:, - � t � �•'t Ii� i�SS rw:a,.,•,i i ti e y
w 1 X11 .
.., ..� `•cam. ..v���^r`�:`�+}`._�ti {:$ i ' �,S
. 1Y�`• . 1A�:::�,�y�,r;''_y�j•� ♦t'•ti..'•��ilj. .tel`+y_'- �.0 �.93 t. �.iy.l; 1
' n•�j`".. '.. .w t— , ; i ; is - a1 _a� '_i..;
T � !j _ t'
t
lu
owl
. :�. � �� }�' .. _ •• � ru tai i ' .
Jy( r • �w 6.Og= t 1 i
L• /` t ��5 � : � • t � l� o
Y ► ;i4 ;'yv i i• '� 1
99 a •I 1
• i .��.� b.+uM►w• ,•.`"�" !�•• � `yyy,^^�/��(I ISL
a'4';..gyp('-7 '. ..: •�.. ': .�r�wi.• �{ �/
V Ji�U+s� IJ . . .� •�_.T �I .p ■yJ'1CJJ,
,.'.' lrr+. :� - •i, y,� " :-').�r•y .� •: �t �'+r ) ,�, =•- r.�.• .�s...
A.
A.-� hmen# 4
,_ .n L, ....�;�:•+•:^�•�:)'.'�:i it 'v�',A` )�^•��.?,,�• r-<�'i TS<.% - -e `�C .CC, 'v< y.
f
v
t
t` 1 ••C
' "::::':I;n:^,.i.,a ;;{'11 ;`tn':^�"•,^.t t.2.i)- , ') •.2' �'�rr {'. - _
.•�..i,•Yr•(, iy.j...:;•r.::•.1..:.-].n,., ��i' n_"t1^):,) ,..i l', .•,.R�:i l'):it�8_K�' .I'•ni/`(�~' - - � , aeKi:� fj;'<:J•
,i'.M1.:.;�".�:�:.f^.,,.:�^,• ],i' •,�:1 1,1, ,\ ,M1.L:":L`" �•a `I';+<..C�':. _ � 1 Z'. 5,rn��.,a
•y "•''' .' •}• y tiiiiiEiPi5L'iiiii
• .,11.•4• ., . , ,l?� .•,-. :'rn!":.r ..�S.C).�'5.,7•
:.i': .,�: ,t.•J,. 1, .), L a.lti. 1.r=♦ ,1,..
'i Ei"rj`dci^�• r
...........
...........
r
�1i`'lJ+ .r;14rf :�i: _:::.:•�"i�lJ•♦" • s • , . ..• ... -.;•_ .tr>:;£..:r.r :E:r�dS::v:::::::E::dii - w tiL .f.¢�'\!•:
-
'�.-,.. �.0'�{eI'rr e..y}�*:E:: ..........:. ::. � : .r 1 t, ,,,V.,. ��.,Mf.f ria' ♦C♦♦ F .�di!i
r+,�• r .... .::::.........:. :, :.}1,1st 1 .1 , ••., W �v�,a,.a. rAC'r ..........._.. _
vi'.LCC ..Cf ':. s 1' r 4 1',.oya 1, ;,�',;t",.M;„"„�rpr ♦♦♦ _ cr» mpg}�
f
: LL�
...:.:::�::::::;;: .c-:e:::::::-�ii is
., , ...... ..:•1 r :::' :...
'._�.r. ............ ....... .. ........... • ..,,_ ,tl.l ., ..:II r11. r ,,,.1.' 1•It '• ♦♦
: �
...... .:r.:.... 12
.1 R
Is
e t
1 .
.....-.1 ..............._. ..... r:l♦• ..•1 ,.:: •111•' -.I1::::.::•/'j71�} ',' 1VY
.. �:::::::: ............ .::.. ....:. .... .11 I •... 111. - - _ .) ',� _ i'S:
- ii5ir:rc .. .............. }•, r: 1 1 1, \A .:i.`ii.::: '� ).11 rI 1 :1;
........ ........
e
1,
♦
'L 3W
s '
95
` ' :, ♦\\♦\ �r,l , .F '¢•:°".';.t1•",A!'yy�
c
d •� Cd
'901
co
a\,♦♦` ryas 1, v y • M Y •r♦ •rl -.
`3°iei _r"'�^i_�� '•. ..�i)), f •fr s. ' 15 7 Jlt�'11 �. N O r� a
p . :i-.xe e.:::: i::_:e: 'moi" )1 ) i 7:�)l),\)�) ))`, N S•< O :''a.::''�::.:,':'.(. :<iit'i�.,.:
ce
.,.f,, �i�: - °moi,•::% ,^ ) ) 1 -
t
=
Mm
17.71 \`
�f�i� ,�: __r.•-•: �, .�.yQ• / ) 111\Il y ,� 1),))] Q•1
i'•°a $ i:»::SS°:i: + Au:1= . '-,)1]�l)),\ r:v...:.. )))t)t e
l �.. ? °::..�;,�?�r. ��R)wOr �' rt),))tttl\)} 7 Y}�t _ n t`•
i$I('y°I t 1 :. +y7"�.• +_,d 7'ry�i- " , Fes• �"t1yfto I . .•. y f
Tot"
' i� .t_�a y rd,gs't;J•"+. t, idt IIS'' I ���
•y. � .?•�'F��>�' r' �..)")}1�)I)}')III 11).)r`�13 ^''t/ q u�O,
'J:"� �. oA`te'. ) 1111 r ,l ♦:'i•L� Ih,t�. Ir"q
Ile
..+�.., +a:a;• ,•�,N' .revYY...,l N ra ll) U,IJ C7 ♦. F I� Igtlr r �CHi•�IT B
.,r . F:'L":."+S�i�,�.(n."„T,a-.-..�- I)1,,, '3}r}1•1) '. ,r: �ci '+a� �f .
1 . J ;n,. `Y.0 - N r•. ) >Y,,. "lL..yt sr`7Yr,"t♦ � r I
,,}1}'.11}11•'Ir l.' r+r. , 1.'S=$:•A'�$?��x .,if'I�'J I I .I
•.J=�I.i.t •ft •1�'•, : J fDl}3 j�.yl���""((,. :
�•:.),�, , � ',•�31%. :l'�' '.,•,} t,i.,K]',•j•GN'�'t;w'Jca�4au ;
'1•t �. ��.I ..:.. l:•} ,,1.,1,. ,111 i',l,l r}I,•l�'{lu, •, '�•.M�' •r�yy� � I�P_
'.)I •�\:: � I{i•,` -'r ' • ,I, .Y I :I ,}y��d,ll�1 .;11 `}1.}.};1 ,. VLY �g, , ), -
,f��'.Y.`.. �'�C.�.•.L L7,.,'Y.>::j�-t. 1•,1'',.•,r Ir,� W• )',..i'.}' ). I'r`Nl } �`"�C^ 11,',!1) 3,.'.
Attachment 4
Approved February 13, 1991
Planning Commission Resolution No.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 1499
1050 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE
Allowed Uses
-Advertising and related services (graphic design, writing,
mailing, addressing, etc. )
.-Broadcast studios
-Catering services
-Computer services
-Construction activities (Zoning Regulations, Section 17.08.010G)
-Credit reporting and collection
-Delivery and private postal services
-Detective and security services
-Insurance services - local and regional offices
-Laboratories (medical, analytical)
-Manufacturing - electronic, optical, computer and instrumentation
products; research and development; jewelry, musical instruments;
clocks.
-Offices (contractors)
-Offices (professional) architects, engineers, accountants,
appraisers
-Photofinishing - wholesale; and blueprinting and microfilming
service
-Printing and publishing
-Secretarial and related services (court reporting, typing,
telephone answering, etc. )
-Utility, engineering and administrative offices
-Warehousing, ministorage, moving company
-Wholesale and mailorder houses
Uses Allowed with Administrative Use Permit:
-Antennas (commercial broadcasting)
-Caretaker's quarters
-Nursery schools, child day care
-Business, trade, recreational, or other specialized schools
-Temporary sales (Zoning Regulations, Section 17.08.010J)
-Temporary Uses (not otherwise listed in Zoning Regulations,
Section 17. 08.0108)
Uses Allowed with Planning Commission Use Permit:
-Manufacturing - food, beverages; ice; apparel; sporting goods; art
materials; basic metals, chemicals, building materials,
fabricated metals, textiles, paper
and cardboard ; machinery,
transportation equipment ' - -31
*** EXHIBIT D
Attachment 4
Ordinance No. 1185
FINALLY PASSED this 19th day of March
19 91 on motion of Councilwoman Rappa , seconded by
Councilman Roalman and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Pappas Roalman,:.P.inard, and Mayor Dunin
NOES: None:.:'...- . ... :. :..
ABSENT: Councilman Reiss
ayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
amity drk.Pam Vo
N Attachment 4
Attachment 4
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 177-08
I. Project Title: General Plan Amendment&Zone Change
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
3. Contact Person: Pamela Ricci, Senior Planner (805) 781- 7168
4. Project Location: 1050 Southwood, San Luis Obispo, CA
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Michael Cannon, Cannon Associates
1050 Southwood, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation: Services and Manufacturing
7. Zoning: M—PD, Manufacturing with the Planned Development overlay
8. Description of the Project:
The applicant has applied for a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of 1050 Southwood. In
this case, the project site is already developed, zoned Manufacturing and designated as Services
& Manufacturing on the General Plan Land Use Map. This industrial zoning category is
considered antiquated since it is located in a principally residential area. The applicant has
requested a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of the site to Office to make the site zoning
more compatible with adjacent land uses and a zoning category that better reflects the established
office uses already existing at the site. No physical changes to the site are proposed concurrent
with the requested general plan amendment and rezoning.
9. Project Entitlements
The applicant is requesting a General Plan (Land Use Map) amendment and rezone to Office
which would allow for a greater range of office uses on site.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The subject property, which is addressed as 1030 — 1070 Southwood Drive (even numbers), is a
rectangular-shaped parcel that is approximately 4.04 acre (176,010 square-feet) in size. The
'au 1 --- 33
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Attachment 4
property is developed with a 60,000 square-foot building used as offices by the EOC of San Luis
Obispo County and Cannon Associates.
The properties to the north and east are designated for High-Density Residential uses (R-4), and
are developed with a mixture of senior residential facilities and other high-density residential
apartments and condominium. Properties to the south are designated Medium High-Density
Residential with the Planned Development overlay (R-3-PD) and are developed with a mixture
of single- and multi-family housing. Immediately to the west of the site is Johnson Park, which is
zoned for Public Facilities (PF). Other surrounding uses include Fire Station#3, the Community
Gardens, the Laurel Lane shopping center, Sinsheimer Elementary and Park, and various
residential uses.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required
The site is within Airport Safety Area S-2, which mandates that General Plan and Zone
reclassification requests be brought before the Airport Land Use Committee for a determination
of compliance with the Airport Land Use Plan.
I -f.
�� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
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 Geolo /Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Transportation &
Quality Traffic
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
X adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife
depends. As such, the project qualifies for a no effect determination from Fish and
Game.
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)).
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
M M Attachment 4
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of the 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 the mitigation measures described on
attached sheets have been added to the project. 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 significant effect(s)on the environment,but at least
one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact' or is "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1)
have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
im osed upon the proposed project.
0' 77� 4WV��
717 (0�
Sign ture Date
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director, Development Review John Mandeville, Community Development
Director
Printed Name for
_1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OEISPO 4 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Attachment 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 Administrators Code. 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 LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Tian No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 102-07 Mitigation
Incorporated
Pae No.6
1. AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? - X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but X
not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings, open space,
and historic buildings within a local or state scenic
highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare X
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
The General Plan Amendment/Rezoning (GPA/R) will allow a wider range of offices uses in an
existing building,but will have no other impacts on the physical appearance of the site.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or X
Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland), as 1
shown on the maps 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 X
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion.of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
Evaluation
a), b) The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency classify the
project site as Urban or Built-Up Land, which is defined as "land occupied by structures with a building
density of at least 1 unit to 1:5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel."The project will
not cause the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to
any non-agricultural use or conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use.
c) Land in the vicinity of the project site is already developed for urban uses.
Conclusion: No impact.
The project will have no impact on agricultural resources..
3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X
applicable air quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 102 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 7
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial X
number of people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of X
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard(including releasing
emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for
ozoneprecursors)?
Approval of the General Plan (Land Use Map) amendment and rezone will allow for the expansion of
office uses allowed on the parcel, which could result in increased vehicle trips to the site. However,
based on the analysis included in the traffic study prepared for the project, the increase in trips is not
considered significant in terms of long-range air quality standards. In fact because of the site's location
in close proximity to several residential neighborhoods, more persons may be able to use alternative
means of transportation to access the site or the distance of vehicle trips may be reduced.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X
indirectly or 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 X
habitat or 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 X
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance(e.g. Heritage
Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any X
native resident 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 X
Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally X
protected 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?
" 31
CITY OF SAN LUIS oaLSPo 7 INITIAL.STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentiauy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 102 07 Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 8
a), b), c), d), e), f) - The project site is currently developed and is located in an urban setting. Given this
setting and the fact that the site does not contain a creek or other open, natural features, the project will
not result in adverse effects on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species,
riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities, and protected wetlands. There are no local
ordinances or habitat conservation plans that affect the property or identify the site as potential habitat
for any protected species of plant or animal.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the roject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the X
significance of a historic resource? (See CEQA
Guidelines 15064.5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the. X
significance of an archaeological resource? (See
CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred X
outside of formal cemeteries?
The structure that occupies the property is not listed as a Master List or Contributing Historic building.
There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project site. The
project site does not disturb any human remains, including those in cemeteries. Based on the criteria in
the checklist section above, the project will not have an impact on cultural resources.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and X
inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the State?
Rezoning of the site to allow a wider range of office uses is not anticipated to significantly increase
energy use. In fact tenant improvements for new uses would need to meet current, more stringent
energy standards and may increase efficiency.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial X
adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death
involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as X
delineated in the 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? X
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including X
liquefaction? 'j�
CITY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1071 ' �
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially-- Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 102-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No.9
N.Landslides or mudflows? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, X
or that 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- X
1-B of the Uniform.Building Code(1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property9
The project site is generally flat and is already developed with an office structure, paved designated park
areas and landscaping.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would theproject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X
environment through the routine use,transport or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or X
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of X
hazardous emissions or hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of X
hazardous 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, 2 X
or within 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 X
with, the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of X
lose, injury, or death, involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residents are intermixed with L` r�
^
r, .� I 1
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 102-07
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 10
The General Plan Amendment/rezoning (GPA/R) will allow for a wider variety of professional offices
nearer to existing housing, including medical offices. Medical offices do use hazardous substances in
moderate amounts that do require special disposal techniques. Tenant improvements for any medical
uses at the site would need to include details of how these materials would be safely stored on site.
f) The project site is designated in the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) as being within Safety Area S-2.
Projects involving General Plan Amendments in areas covered by the ALUP require the review of the
Airport Land Use Commission(ALUC). The ALUC reviewed the project at a hearing held on March 18,
2009 and determined that the project was consistent with the ALUP. See also discussion under
Transportation/Traffic section of this initial study(15.g. below).
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the roiect:
a) Violate any water .quality standards or waste X
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or X
interfere 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
gran)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would. X
exceed the 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 X
site or area in a mariner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the. X
site or area in a manner which would result in
substantial flooding onsite or offsite?
fl Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as X
mapped on 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 X
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
h) Will the project introduce typical storm water X
pollutants into ground or surface waters?
i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water X
quality, temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity?
_ p- 1 -y a-
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporti __, rmation Sources Sources Po Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 102-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 11
The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project
site is generally flat and is already developed with a commercial structure.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or 3,4 X
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation X
plan or natural community conservationplans?
The GP/R would change the zoning of the site from Manufacturing with the Planned Development
overlay (M-PD) to Office. The site is currently occupied by two tenants, the EOC (Economic
Opportunity Commission) of SLO County and Cannon. Both of these uses are categorized as office
uses. The established uses would continue to be conforming land uses with the approval of the proposed
change to the site's zoning designation. The building has been extensively renovated and any
manufacturing use opportunities have diminished. The rezone of the property from Manufacturing (Iv>)
to an office designation will increase the amount of building area available for office uses, somewhat
reducing opportunities for those seeking to establish industrial uses in the City. In the years since the
former manufacturing building was established at the site, the City has expanded to the south. Notably
in the last few years significant amounts of Services and Manufacturing sites in the Airport area have
been annexed to the City eliminating concerns with the proposed rezoning having a significant impact
on the overall supply of industrial zoned land in the City.
The proposed GPA/R does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project. The proposal to designate the property for office development
is consistent with the general plan and is a more suitable land use designation for the area.
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of X
"unacceptable" noise 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 X
increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport Iand use plan, X
or within 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?
Offices uses are generally quieter than many service and light industrial types of uses; therefore,
rezoning the parcel to incorporate increased office uses on site may positively impact ambient noise.
oil I -q3
CnY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sonifies Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 102-07
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 12
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the prqiect:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, X
either directly (for example by proposing new homes
or businesses). or indirectly (for. example, .through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or X
people necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
With approval of the rezoning, 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
rezoning could 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 right with the underlying zoning. 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.
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
As an already developed urban site, adequate public services (fire,police, roads and other transportation
infrastructure, and other public facilities) are available to service the property and will not significantly
alter the levels of public service available to the site.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional X
parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the X
construction or expansion of recreational facilities,
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
The project site is located near existing recreational facilities such as Sinsheimer Park; therefore, and the
demand for recreational type activities will not experience a significant increase with the general plan
amendment and rezoning to office.
Q14 I -y�f
1� CITY OF SAN.LUIS OBISPo 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potensia* Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 102-07
Mitigation
Incorporated
Pae No. 13
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the prqiect:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the 5, 6 X
street system?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the:county congestion 5,6 X
management agency for designated roads and
highways?
c)- Substantially increase hazards due to design features X
(e.g. sharp 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 X
offsite?
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County
Airport Land Use Plan resulting in substantial safety 2 X
risks from hazards,noise, or a change in air traffic
attems?
a) c) The project site is accessible from Laurel Lane, which is designated on the Street Classification
Map of the City's General Plan Circulation Element as a primary arterial street. Arterial streets provide
circulation between major activity centers and residential areas. Areas surrounding the parcel are
designated as residential collectors and local streets. The proposed rezoning could increase the range of
office uses established at the site including medical offices, which has the potential for increasing the
number of vehicle trips generated to and from the site.
A traffic analysis was prepared to evaluate the potential impacts of project traffic on the adjacent
roadway system. The analysis included the potential use of medical offices. Traffic counts were taken
at both Southwood/Laurel and Laurel/Orcutt intersections. Because Laurel/Orcutt has been funded for
signalization, the analysis assumed that the intersection was signalized. The analysis concluded that the
project would result in a small increase in trips and the Level of Service(LOS) for each intersection
would remain unchanged with the project. The Southwood/Laurel intersection operates at LOS B and
the Laurel/Orcutt intersection at LOS C. As a result of this analysis, no mitigation is recommended.
e) Although there is the potential for parking demand to increase with approval of the rezoning which
would accommodate a wider range of office uses, including medical offices, it is not anticipated that this
increased demand will result in significant impacts to the site or the vicinity. The City will have the
ability to monitor available parking as tenant improvement permits are requested. Medical offices have
a parking demand of one space per 200 square feet of floor area, while other office uses have a
requirement of one space per 300 square feet of floor area. There is also some flexibility in the code to
interpret certain types of medical uses, such as medical imaging facilities, to be parked at the regular
professional office ratio because they have a lower anticipated patient density with the space demands of
the large equipment used.
CITY OF SAN Luis Osispo 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 102-07
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 14
The property is developed with a 60,000 square-foot building used as offices by the EOC of San Luis
Obispo County and Cannon Associates. About 10,000 square feet of the building's floor area is
currently vacant. 212 parking spaces currently exist to serve the site as developed. If all of the
remaining 10,000 square feet was leased to a medical tenant, then the project parking requirement would
be 217 spaces. Per Section 17.16.060 of the Zoning Regulations, the applicant could apply for an
administrative use permit to allow a 10% shared parking reduction because the project meets the
established performance standard of having two or more uses sharing common parking areas. With an
approved use permit for the 10% shared parking reduction, Site parking would more than conform to
ordinance requirements if all of the remaining 10,000 square feet were leased to medical uses.
f) The project's location near residential neighborhoods and its surrounding uses, such as the adjacent
elder care facility specializing in dementia cases, will accommodate alternative transportation strategies
such as walking, bicycling, and vanpools, which will help offset impacts in terms of increased vehicle
trips as well as parking demand. Because of the scale of the project building, the City will be requesting
that the applicant prepare a trip reduction plan as a condition of the administrative use permit to allow a
shared parking reduction. .This plan would strengthen the project site's ability to accommodate various
alternative transportation strategies by making them more formal requirements of on-site employers.
g) The project site is designated in the Airport Land Use Plan as being within Safety Area S-2 which
includes areas with aircraft operations at 501 to 1000 feet above ground level. Policy S-2 covers
allowable densities for parcels within the Airport Land Use Plan. The proposed zone change for a non-
residential office use would allow 150 persons per acre. The project site is 4.35 acres; therefore, the
maximum density is 650 persons total. The building is 60,400 square feet; 30,000 square feet is
currently occupied by Cannon, housing 80 employees, and the EOC occupies an additional 20,000
square feet with about 75 employees. Therefore, even with additional potentially more intensive office
uses being added to the building,the density standards would be met. .
Given the request for a General Plan Amendment and rezoning, the Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC) reviewed the project at a hearing held on March 18, 2009. The ALUC determined that the
ro'ect was consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of X
new water 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 X
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new and expanded water resources needed?
P.l k -`J
��i CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 102 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 15
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X
provider 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. X
capacity to accommodate the projeWs solid waste
disposal needs?
f) .Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X.
re ations related to solid waste?
Since the existing site is developed, utilities are currently in place to serve it. The proposed rezoning
would not negatively impact existing utilities.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential'to degrade the X
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population.to drop below self-sustaining
levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community,reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory9
The General Plan amendment/rezone will not degrade the quality of the environment. The initial study
indicates no physical changes will be made on site; therefore, not increasing the current effects the
sub
ject property may have.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually X
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the
past projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable futureprojects)
The impacts identified in this initial study are specific to thisproject and would not be categorized as
cumulatively significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which X
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
The project will not produce substantial environmental effects on human beings.
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 anal es and state where they are available for review.
N/A
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBI$PO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 102-07 tvtiiigation
Incorporated
Page No. 16
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 pro ect: .
N/A
19. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMNT/
2. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan, May 2005.
3. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element.adopted 1994; amended 2006.
4. City of SLO Zoning Regulations and Ma
5. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, adopted 1994; amended 2006
6. Traffic analysis prepared by Cannon Associates dated
Attachments:
1) Vicinity Map
2) Traffic Analysis
VIA
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
r
NOW RU � -*' a �/ , , - --
a.. 1 ,y� W
w
"Gl
t�.�rhl iy�25�11 t� i
�x. '` �'' 'f� ej.ti C'S �'T ;5� Tc �1. �} 31,5 ":.•:ti,
�• , "tom Y-:� 1C.;.. �� .� +°t fy t "'
�.� F '., \.. rtl a s�• xe � ���.
�< w
I ,s Inti \�,•r�x, I.JT ��..'1�
�' \1i �"9• � L Y �� � 4 {���,i �h�Ti,.Tv.:�' �,�' W SY.� � •
\:1
a ��:_ y::9�'.Tee:�.:T, �.ZS'r\°� u"+y �' i�Y'• � vS:6�3i ��
p t c e
Cannon /Attachment 4
June 11,2009
Ms. Peggy Mandeville
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
PROJECT: 1030-1050 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE TRAFFIC STUDY
Dear Ms. Mandeville:
This analysis was prepared to evaluate the potential impacts of project traffic on the adjacent
local roadway system due to a proposed zone change under review by the City of San Luis
Obispo. The present land use designation for the property is Manufacturing (M). The
proposed request is to change the land use designation to a combined Medical (10,000 SF)
and Office(O- 50,000 SF) which would be more consistent with the neighborhood and the
existing uses currently in operation on the property. The project is located at 1030-1050
Southwood Drive in San Luis Obispo, California.
The primary access for this project is Southwood Drive. Southwood Drive is an east-west
divided roadway with 3 lanes(2 east/1 west)west of Laurel Lane and 2 lanes east of Laurel
Lane. Laurel Lane is a north-south 4 lane roadway that connects to Orcutt Road to the south
and Johnson Avenue to the north. There is no posted speed limit on Southwood Drive. The
posted speed limit on Laurel Lane south of Southwood Drive is 40 mph and north of
Southwood Drive is 30 mph.
Traffic counts were taken at the intersection of Southwood Drive and Laurel Lane to determine
the peak hour period(AM and PM) and directional traffic distribution. For the Orcutt Road and
Laurel Lane intersection PM peak hour traffic data and directional distribution was extracted
from the Orcutt Area Specific Plan EIR, Section 4.11 Transportation and Circulation. Baseline
(existing) level of service at the Southwood Drive/Laurel Lane intersection was determined
using HCM formulas. The Laurel Lane/Orcutt Road baseline (existing) level of service was
taken directly from the Orcutt Area Specific Plan EIR, Section 4.11 Transportation and
Circulation.
�� ff �
Attachment 4
1030-1050 Southwood Drive Traffic Study
Cannon
The following trip generation tabulation, indicating trip differential due to the proposed change
in use, has been developed using the ITE Manual for Trip Generation:
Use Generated Traffic
Project
Land Use Size AADT AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Total Total
Weekday Weekday
Trips In Out Trips In Out
Manufacturing
(140)
(Existing Use) 60,400 SF 221 33 26 1 7 42 1 20 22
Office(710)
(Proposed Use) 50,4.00 SF 756 105 94 11 103 18 85
Medical (720)
(Proposed Use) 10,000 SF 330 33 22: 11 38 15 23
Combined New
Uses 60,400 SF 1086 138 116 22 1 141 33 1 108
Change in Trips L 105 90 15 1 99 13 1 86
Using this data and the traffic distribution information at both the study intersections,the traffic
generation impact due to the proposed use change was projected onto the intersection
movements in order to determine the new intersection levels of service. The comparison of
existing levels of service and those after the use change is shown below. Due to the
unavailability of traffic counts,LOS for the AM peak hour was not determined.
In order to examine the potential impact the increased AM.peak hours trips would have on the
eastbound leg of the Orcutt Road/Laurel Lane intersection,we provided a HCS analyses that
adds the increased 46 left turn movements to northbound Laurel Lane to the PM peak hour
existing traffic volumes. This analysis indicated no decrease in level of service. The analysis
also indicates that the queue length for this movement would increase 27'.
Level of Service Comparison
Laurel Lane/Southwood Drive Laurel Lane/Orcutt Road
Intersection Intersection
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Existing Level of Service B B Unknown`* B'
Change in Use Level of B B Unknown" B'
Service
'LOS analyses were conducted as a signalized intersection.
"Existing traffic counts for this study time phase were unavailable.
P�
2 081119
Attachment 4
M
1030-1050 Southwood Drive Traffic Study
Cannon
Conclusions and Recommendations
The trip generation comparison between the existing use and proposed use shows a moderate
increase in trips would be generated in both the AM and.PM peak hours with the proposed use.
The increase in trips results in no change in LOS on the intersections studied.
The increase in queue length for the eastbound Orcutt Road left turn movement to northbound
Laurel Lane is minimal (2T). Especially notable is that the existing queue length condition for
this movement(261') is beyond the railroad tracks to the west of the intersection, and so the
new trips generated would lengthen the queue which is already beyond the tracks. Also,
operation changes to the traffic signal at this intersection can be made to lessen the queue
length once actual conditions are experienced.
As a result of this investigation,we recommend that no improvements to traffic control
conditions at the intersections be made.
Sincerely,
Brett Gilbert, PE
Senior Civil Engineer
C 61126, Reg. Exp. 12-31-10
�a
3 081119
�tt Attachment 4
.__ .__ �.. '� .'f.t✓' r�_�r'+r.:n1-.-.N ,.'Y� 1� .�.T_+K' `.'11� — _�yy .^QJ_ __.._ `
60
L
O • R4 r " ti�r� ' •' N
+Y.
0t' LL J "sk. z b Jam^ ♦ .t ¢)t .f":�-�, s`�.,h."` sd
9/_9•$03d
0 PEDS-6/8
�' 4 a
N 2947384 m ey m
IY ' 13'_48 1
0 �•. StikY ., � � i, V»
_. 1•-. t' ?' ASE ys,1 flu "f' "� Y � - I
r j.
t tF� +tea
A
�•3,p-iMY JS S'.. �=;4 xJ l .R ,^ A gl \I ..
•"'' 1 -A. P..• zi,•,� � yam: :; ✓.' "f+ls A r` 9
_ � / r • IIVl/3��
�"�O �1 e�~ .1; ' •� 7 a. ai+t a,' ti'u�F4 Y }F�-",'i
Ile
V.
7 p•l �7
nDOO
1A $ .- IR 7•i ' Fly t rb
f
f{ Nf ID
'+.;.. S far .py ' �+�• x{00'' r �n` �y O
•+ r'r a r JTti Y
�4111DP Yld OYb[g0 90-W-/ SDD'{WW10L{203���PD+O W1DMD.cp�.6{D.�ONJ�L{ippp\ypp�(wD�;•
41ttachm n
e t S '�
-R Y l6E D PIA „ 4 1Al Co ihMISsiM
Wo SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
Chairman: Roger Oxborrow
Commissioners: James Gleim
Terry Orton
Richard Pottratz
Allen Settle
Robert Tefft
Gerrit Vanderziel
NOTICE OF AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ACTION
May 29, 2009
ALUC 2009-001
HEARING DATE: March 18, 2009
RECOMMENDATION TO: City of San Luis Obispo
SUBJECT: A Mandatory General Plan Amendment (GPA) referral by the City of San Luis
Obispo; for a determination of consistency or inconsistency regarding a General
Plan Amendment to change the zoning from Manufacturing/Planned
Development (M-PD) to Office (0). The site is located at 1050 Southwood Drive
in the City of San Luis Obispo. The proposed project is located in San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP)Airport Safety Area s-2.
Applicant: Michael F. Cannon City File No:177-08
On March 18, 2009, the Airport Land Use Commission determined the above referenced project
consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) and is
referred back to the City of San Luis Obispo (Planner: Pam Ricci)
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (805) 781-5718.
Sincerely,
Nicole Retana, Secretary
Airport.Land Use Commission
Enclosed: Final Staff Report(Revised)
County Government Center,San Luis Obispo CA 93408
Attachment 5
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX (2009 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING A LAND USE ELEMENT MAP AMENDMENT TO
CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM SERVICES &
MANUFACTURING TO OFFICE AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR.PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103011040, 105091060
AND 1070 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE; GP/R/ER 177-08
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing on September 9, 2009, and recommended approval of the project; 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 October
20, 2009, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/ER 177-08, Michael F.
Cannon, applicant; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Negative Declaration of environmental
impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; 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.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City 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 entitlements in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines, and reflects the independent judgment of the
Council. The Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. General Plan Amendment Approval with Findings & Conditions. The
City Council finds and approves the General Plan Amendment included as part of City
Application No. GP/R 177-08, which amends the Land Use Element map designation for the
property located at 1030, 1040, 1050, 1060 & 1070 Southwood Drive from Services &
Manufacturing to Office as shown on the attached Exhibit A, based on the following findings and
subject to the following conditions:
C>1 ��
Attachment 5
Resolution No.})GYM{(2009 Series)
Page 2
Findings:
1. The proposed Land Use Element map amendment furthers the goals of the General Plan
for compatible development because the proposed Office land use is considered a
transitional use to residential development that borders the site and more accurately
reflects the existing and proposed land uses planned for existing facilities at the site.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety and
welfare of those living and working in the vicinity since the proposed changes to the
City's maps accommodate the existing development of the site with uses and
improvements that will be compatible with other properties in the surrounding vicinity,
3. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the amount of area
within the City set aside for Manufacturing uses as the total site area of 4 acres only
represents 1.5% of the City's current supply of sites zoned Manufacturing.
4. On March 18, 2009, the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission
determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the site from
Manufacturing & Services, M-PD, to Office, O, was consistent with the San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport Land Use Plan.
5. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately
addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project.
Conditions:
1. The Land Use Element Map is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A.
2. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in
documents, which are on display in City Hall and are available for public viewing and
use.
Pit = Sb
Attachment 5
Resolution No. XXXX(2009 Series)
Page 3
On motion of , seconded by , and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of , 2009.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk Elaina Cano
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cit totney Jonathan Lowell
G:\CD-PLAN\PRICCI\ZONING\Cannon(GPR 177-08)\Staff Reports\CC Reso 177-08 Cannon GP-R,ER.doc
R- ATTAC ME TS
Exhibit A
- I R-1
PF
R-4
PF
Currently Services & Manufacturing R-4
Proposed Office '
-N
R-4-S
mN
=PD J�
;-� R-3-Pp
-P
w R-3 '
Attachment 6
ORDINANCE NO. (2009 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM MANUFACTURING WITH THE
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (M-PD)TO OFFICE (0)FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1030, 104091050, 1060 AND 1070
SOUTHWOOD DRIVE; GP/R/ER 177-08
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 9,
2009, and recommended approval of the project; 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 October
20, 2009, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/ER 177-08, Michael F.
Cannon, applicant; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Negative Declaration of environmental
impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; 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.
BE IT ORDAINED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The proposed Rezoning furthers the goals of the General Plan for compatible
development because the proposed Office land use is considered a transitional use to
residential development that borders the site and more accurately reflects the existing and
proposed land uses planned for existing facilities at the site.
2. The proposed Rezoning will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of those
living and working in the vicinity since the proposed changes to the City's maps
accommodate the existing development of the site with uses and improvements that will
be compatible with other properties in the surrounding vicinity,
3. The proposed Rezoning will not adversely affect the amount of area within the City set
aside for Manufacturing uses as the total site area of 4 acres only represents 1.5% of the
City's current supply of sites zoned Manufacturing.
4. On March 18, 2009, the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission
determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the site from
Ordinance No. (2009 Series) Attachment 6
Page 2
Manufacturing & Services, M-PD, to Office, O, was consistent with the San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport Land Use Plan.
5. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately
addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project.
SECTION 2. Action. The Zoning Regulations Map Amendment (GP/R 177-08) to
modify the zoning designation of the site from Manufacturing with the Planned Development
overlay (M-PD) to Office (0) for the property located at 1030, 1040, 1050, 1060 & 1070
Southwood Drive is hereby approved as identified within Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. 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 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 day of 12009, AND FINALLY
ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of ,
2008, on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk Elaina Cano
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
dh�orney Jonathan Lowell
GACD-PLAN\PR1CCWWNING\Cannon(GPR 177-08)\Staff Reports\CC Ord 177-08 Cannon Rezoning.doc
P�t1- 60
c _ 6
kmIK
R � ' - -
Exhibit A
R-
PF
R-4
PF
Currently M-PD
Proposed O
F
-N
M-PD
R-4-S
�A; C-N
�J \
v R.
RD �y _
- 2
�R 3-PSD
RM
XO �� l