HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21_1/1992, 3 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING GP/R1537- CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING THEN GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C-N) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL- SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS (C-N-S) Illlylll��llllln�l�l��lll
city r MEETING GATE:
N II h�u�� c� o san �.��s oB�spo f -
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director a
PREPARED BY: Greg Smith, Associate Planner '
SUBJECT. General Plan Amendment and Rezoning GP/R 1537-Consideration of amending
the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning map to change the designation from
Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) to Neighborhood Commercial - Special
Considerations (C-N-S) for property located at the southwest comer of Foothill
Blvd. and Tassajara Street.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Pass to print an ordinance rezoning the site from C-N to C-N-S, and identifying the
special considerations which are the basis for the overlay zone.
DISCUSSION:
Background
The Council and Planning Commission have held several hearings to consider rezoning for this
property. Most recently, on March 17, 1992, the Council directed staff to provide public notice
for a hearing to consider adding an "S" overlay zone. At a Planning Commission hearing on
rezoning the parcel conducted on January 29, 1992, the Commission recommended that the
parcel be retained in the C-N district, and that the Council consider adding a special
considerations ("S") overlay zone to enhance compatibility between future uses on the site and
adjoining residences. Draft minutes of the Commission hearing are attached.
Data Summary
Address: 399 Foothill Blvd.
Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo
Record Owner. Dan Lemburg
Current Zoning: C-N
Current General Plan: Neighborhood Commercial
Proposed Zoning: R-1
Proposed General Plan: Low Density Residential
Environmental Status: Addition of "S" overlay zone is categorically exempt: Class 5, Minor
Alterations in Land Use Limitations.
Project Action Deadline: None
Site Description
The site is a 70x146 parcel, developed with an 1800 square-foot commercial building and eight
parking spaces. The site is surrounded by houses and apartments. There are several small
trees on the site, but there is no other significant vegetation. An underground storm drainage
pipe crosses the rear of the site.
GP/R 1537
Page 2
Development History
The existing building was originally constructed as a neighborhood food market, and apparently
pre-dated the adoption of the City's first zoning regulations in 1947. The market existed as a
legal nonconforming use with R-1 zoning until the citywide rezoning program (following the
General Plan update in 1977), when it was rezoned to C-N.
In 1982, the market was replaced by a bicycle shop, and the building is currently vacant. The
Architectural Review Commission approved demolition of the existing building and construction
of a new neighborhood commercial structure in 1990, but that approval has since expired.
EVALUATION
The previous staff report (attached) summarized policies in the Land Use and Housing
Elements regarding circumstances where small-scale neighborhood commercial uses may be
appropriate in predominantly residential neighborhoods, and the policies relevant to
appropriate locations for low density residential uses. Constraints to site development were
also analyzed.
After considering the adopted policies, development constraints, Planning Commission
recommendation, and public testimony, the Council decided that residential uses were not
appropriate for the site. However, significant concerns were noted with compatibility of
neighborhood commercial uses with adjoining residential uses.
An "S" overlay zone cannot specifically add to or delete types of uses which are listed as
allowed or conditionally allowed uses in the Zoning Regulations. The "S" zone does require
approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission for most changes to existing uses, or for
new development. The ordinance which implements the overlay rezoning lists the issues which
are to be considered by the Planning Commission in reviewing use permit applications.
Staff recommends that the overlay rezoning ordinance address the following issues:
1. Appropriate Uses
The Planning Commission, neighbors, and City Council have all noted concerns that
commercial use of the site may adversely affect nearby residents. Staff suggests the rezoning
ordinance include the following:
Compatibility with Surrounding Residential Uses The special considerations overlay zone
is intended to insure that type and intensity of uses which may locate on this site are
compatible with surrounding residential uses, and are consistent with General Plan policies
regarding the type and scale of commercial uses allowed within residential neighborhoods.
2. Neighborhood Scale
It may be appropriate to consider the limiting the scale of future buildings on the site, to insure
consistency with the scale of the structures in the neighborhood.
Scale of Development. The special considerations zone is intended to ensure that future
GP/R 1537
Page 3
development on the site will be consistent with the scale of other structures in the immediate
vicinity.
3. Traffic Generation and Hazards
Considering the high volume of traffic on Foothill, and the proximity of the lot to the
intersection, Planning and Engineering staff believe traffic generation and driveway location
should be considered when future development plans are reviewed.
ra The special considerations zone is intended to insure appropriate location of
driveways serving the site, and to limit uses to those which will not generate volumes of
traffic which cannot be handled safely by adjoining streets.
FISCAL IMPACT
No significant impact on City revenues or expenses are anticipated.
ALTERNATIVES
The council may decide not to adopt the "S" overlay zone. A resolution stating the reasons
the basis for that action should be adopted.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the council pass to print the attached draft ordinance rezoning the property
from Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) to Neighborhood Commercial-Special Considerations
(C-N-S).
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
Vicinity Map
Previous Staff Report
PC Minutes 1/29/92
Owner's Statement
Neighbor Petition 1/29/92
Neighbor Petition 7/8/91
Council Resolution and Minutes (Previous Rezoning)
Initial Study ER 32-91
gtsd:R1537CC.wp
ORDINANCE NO. (1992 SERIES)
'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL MAP TO REZONE PROPERTY AT
399 FOOTHILL BLVD. FROM C-N (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) TO C-N-S
(NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL - SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS) (GP/R 1537)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public
hearings on application No. GP/R 1537 on January 29, 1992, and
recommended approval of the proposed rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing
on April , 1992, and has considered the testimony and statements
of the applicant, and other interested parties, and the records of
the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff;
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The council approves application No. GP/R 1537,
thereby amending the Official Zoning Map designation for the site
from Neighborhood Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial - Special
Considerations, as shown on Exhibit A attached, based on the
following findings:
SECTION 2. Findings.
1. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is consistent with
adopted policies in the Land Use element of the General Plan.
2 . The resulting pattern of land uses will be appropriate for
this section of the community.
3 . The site is suited for neighborhood commercial uses.
A. The proposed amendment is categorically exempt from
environmental review requirements.
SECTION 3. Special Considerations Overlay Zoning Designation
Review of development proposals at the site shall . take into
account the following special considerations:
1. Compatibility with Surrounding Residential Uses. The special
considerations overlay zone is intended. to insure that type
and intensity of uses which may locate on this site are
compatible with surrounding residential uses, and are
consistent with General Plan policies regarding the type and .
scale of commercial uses allowed within residential
neighborhoods.
Ordinance No. (1992 Series)
GP/R 1537
Page 2
2 . Scale of Development. The special considerations zone is
intended to ensure that future development on the site will
be consistent with the scale of other structures in the
immediate vicinity
3 . Traffic. The special considerations zone is intended to
insure appropriate location of driveways serving the site, and
to limit uses to those which will not generate volumes of
traffic which cannot be handled safely by adjoining streets.
which exceed standards normally acceptable for residential
uses.
SECTION 4. This ordinance, together with the names of council
members voting for and against, shall be published once in full,
at least (3) 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 day of
1992, on motion of ,
seconded by and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Ordinance No. (1992 Series)
GP/R. 1537
Page 3
APPROVED:
1ty A inistrative Officer
C' t ne
Community Dev pment Director
y�
� 0 .
0 OJ(i
O O O O O O A
Wo
ns rw. • Z
ROMAULDO Q
O O O O O 0 0 0 •_.. �� O �Ln-\
�� CC 0 :W
.� 0 U
W
O It2_1
O Q RL
= ,
U. 8 0 : opo
o .....,
o 0 0 0-
1010 O o <.�
n. >a tic � 7c 7!f sw - a... � ,».,.. afs •m ... -
FOOTHILL BLVD.
JAN 2.4 i•� nc w�• -
n :er +. ...i.•
fU� O O O ....O
O Q O ,•..c
at.rM � y
� c r 0
.00
M µ
r..•r
V L
Nil,,—
,•
s a0fLTiR-1 L 'Y�I iY
II
LU
EIR-1 01
�O0 /
o 10 O O o d
RAMONA DRIVE J14
"'• O O O �� O 0 ��01
.• ti3 O � O
II
0= 0 O I 0 o►Q o' I
O 0 0 `
COURT go 2A1 ls 0 0 :W :0081 O N O R-1 O
0 q 700 !00 ue man LJ _
`- - I 0 i0 O 0 gl-� 0 09
VICINITY MAP GP/CR 1537 NORTH
Rezone from C-N to CN-
S
MEETING OATS:
��cm�tH��VhIIIIIuP° �IUIN city of San LL OBISp0 3- ,7 - z
ITEM NUMBER:
COUNCIL AGENDA REP T
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Greg Smith, Associate Planner ]
II �
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment and Rezoning GP/R 1537-Consideration of amending
the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning map to change the designation from
Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) to Low Density Residential - Special
Considerations (R-1-S) for property located at the southwest corner of Foothill
Blvd. and Tassajara Street.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt a resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Map designation from
Neighborhood commercial to Low Density Residential.
i
2. Pass to print an ordinance rezoning the site from C-N to R-1-S, and identifying
the special considerations which are the basis for the overlay zone.
DISCUSSION:
Background
On August 6, 1991, the Council denied a previous rezoning request (C-N to O-S) for this site.
At that time, the Council initiated consideration of rezoning to R-1 or R-2.
At their meeting on January 29, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended that the parcel
be retained in the C-N district, and that the Council consider adding a special considerations
("S") overlay zone to enhance compatibility between future uses on the site and adjoining
residences.
' i
Data Summary
I
Address: 399 Foothill Blvd.
Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo
Record Owner. Dan Lemburg
Current Zoning: C-N
Current General Plan: Neighborhood Commercial
Proposed Zoning: R-1
Proposed General Plan: Low Density Residential
Environmental Status: Negative declaration approved by Director
12/27/91.
Project Action Deadline: None
Site Description
The site is a 70x146 parcel, developed with an 1800 square-foot commercial building and eight
. 3-8
GP/R 1537
Page 2
parking spaces. The site is surrounded by houses and apartments. There are several small
trees on the site, but there is no other significant vegetation. An underground storm drainage
pipe crosses the rear of the site.
Development History
The existing building was originally constructed as a neighborhood food market, and apparently
pre-dated the adoption of the City's first zoning regulations in 1947. The market existed as a
legal nonconforming use with R-1 zoning until the citywide rezoning program (following the
General Plan update in 1977), when it was rezoned to C-N.
In 1982, the market was replaced by a bicycle shop, and the building is currently vacant. The
Architectural Review Commission approved demolition of the existing building and construction
of a new neighborhood commercial structure in 1990, but that approval has since expired.
EVALUATION
Staff has identified several policies from the adopted Land Use and Housing Elements which
the Council should consider in reviewing the proposed amendments.
Staff has also summarized the position of the Planning Commission, and draft minutes are
attached. This staff report focuses on issues related to appropriate residential density and
special considerations issues, since the Council considered the issue of residential vs. non-
residential uses on the site at their August 6, 1991 hearing on the previous rezoning proposal.
1. Land Use Element Policies
"Scattered, small-scale, convenience commercial stores within established residential
neighborhoods may be retained where their operation has proven compatible with
surrounding uses. Existing stores should be evaluated as to the conditions and character
of their operations and encouraged to improve, where necessary, to better integrate with
surrounding residential land uses. Where evaluations show compatibility [problems]
and/or lack of market needs, the city should prohibit the intensification and/or
expansion of isolated neighborhood commercial facilities and should provide for their
long-term replacement with land uses typical of the surrounding neighborhood." (Land
Use Element, page 16.)
"Low density residential development, allowing a maximum of 7 units per acre, will be
encouraged within neighborhoods clearly committed to this.type of development... ."
(Land Use Element, page 14.)
"Medium density residential development , allowing a maximum of 12 dwelling units per
acre,shall be encouraged in close proximity to neighborhood and community commercial
and public facilities, where utilities, circulation, and neighborhood character can
accommodate such development. Medium density projects should be designed to be
compatible with neighboring low density development." (Land Use Element, page 14.)
"Residential neighborhoods should be separated from incompatible nonresidential land
uses and buffered from major circulation facilities." (Land Use Element, page 14.)
3- �
GP/R 1537
Page 3 _
'The City will encourage replacement of detrimental, nonconforming uses in residential
neighborhoods, to provide additional housing and improve neighborhood quality."
(Housing Element, page 7.) [Note: The existing commercial structure is not technically
a nonconforming use, under current C-N zoning.]
The above and other policies in the adopted and draft elements of the City's General Plan tend
to favor residential uses over commercial uses for this site. General Plan policies support
consistent patterns of residential density within established neighborhoods, but also favor
higher densities adjoining major streets.
Either R-1 or R-2 zoning could be considered conforming with adopted General Plan elements.
2. Land Use Compatibility
If the property is rezoned to R-2, up to 2.82 equivalent units might be built on the site. Under
R-1 zoning, only one house would be allowed.
At hearings concerning the previous office rezoning application, neighbors expressed support
for maintaining a uniform pattern of R-1 zoning. Among other concerns, they cited the
possibility of multi-family rental units generating more noise than single family residences,
and the possibility of reduced property values.
Rezoning of an individual parcel to other than R-1 might be considered a "spot zoning' which
granted privileges inconsistent with the limitations which apply to other properties in the
vicinity.
3. Site Development Constraints
There are several factors which affect the site's development, and which should be considered
prior to rezoning-
- Existing structure. It seems likely to staff that the existing structure will be demolished
under most development scenarios, although an R-2 rezoning might make remodeling
feasible. Since the ARC has determined that the structure does not have architectural
or historical significance, preservation should be considered a secondary issue.
- Storm drainage easement. An existing storm drain and ten-foot easement cuts
diagonally across the southerly 70 feet of the site, underneath the parking lot. The
remaining area appears to be sufficient for typical development patterns with either R-
1 or R-2 zoning.
- Traffic noise. Noise Element standards identify 60 dBA (Ldn) as the highest average
noise level normally acceptable for residential uses, with levels between 60 and 75 dBA
acceptable only where barriers can be erected between the noise source and outdoor use
areas. R-2 development patterns - where yard areas are typically smaller than in R-
1, and located closer to residential units - may provide more flexibility in dealing with
noise problems.
The mitigated negative declaration approved by the Community Development Director
requires an "S" overlay zone designation to insure mitigation of outdoor noise impacts.
.3-�0
GP/R 1537
Page 4
Staff suggests the following language be included in the rezoning ordinance:
The Special Considerations zone is intended to insure mitigation of adverse impacts
of traffic noise levels which exceed standards normally acceptable for residential uses.
- Circulation. Staff and city commissions have previously noted concerns with potential
traffic conflicts related to driveway locations too close to the Foothill/Tassajara
intersection, and related to generation of significant amounts of traffic. R-2
development would generate more than twice as much traffic as R-1, a total of
approximately 20 to 30 trips per day. Even at that level, however, no significant adverse
effect is expected to occur. Circulation issues related to residential development can be
adequately addressed through the City's development, review regulations, without
imposition of a special considerations overlay zone.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
At their January 29, 1992 hearing on this rezoning proposal, the Planning Commission took'two
actions regarding this site (draft minutes attached):
1. Recommended that the site not be rezoned for residential use. Commissioners believed
that the noise and traffic levels were too high for low or medium density residential
development Commissioners concluded that development of the 10,200-square-foot
parcel with a single house - the maximum allowed with R-1 zoning - would result in a
type of development inconsistent with that which is desired and appropriate for that
zone.
2. Recommended that the Council initiate rezoning to C-N-S, with the special
considerations overlay zone to address compatibility with adjoining R-1 development.
Commissioners supported neighborhood commercial uses as providing an opportunity
for a continuation of traditional mixed use neighborhoods, and as a more practical
alternative to development of the site with a single house.
At the Commission hearing, neighbors expressed support for R-1 zoning on the site. A petition
signed by neighbors is attached.
Also at the Commission hearing, the property owner reiterated his opposition to residential
zoning. His views are outlined in his letter to the Commission, which is attached.
FISCAL IMPACT
No significant impact on City revenues or expenses are anticipated.
ALTERNATIVES -
The council may approve rezoning to R-2-S or deny the rezoning proposal. The Council may
also consider rezoning to C-N-S as recommended by the Planning Commission, or to any other
zone.
�l
GP/R. 1537
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the council adopt the attached draft resolution amending the General Plan
Land Use Map, and pass to print the attached draft ordinance rezoning the property from
Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) to Law Density Residential - Special Considerations (R-1-
S).
Attachments: Draft Resolutions and Ordinance for approval, denial
Vicinity Map
PC Minutes 1/29/92
Owner's Statement
Neighbor Petition
Council Resolution and Minutes (Previous Rezoning)
Initial Study ER 32-91
gtsd:cc.wp
Draft PC Minutes
January 29, 1992
Commr . Kourakis said she would support the motion and mentioned that
she could also supp\Ricci
e occupation at this location .
VOTING : AYES - Hoffman , Karleskint , Kourakis . and
.
NOES -
ABSENT - Schmidt . Williams . and Gurnee .
The motion passed .
Commr . Gurnee rejoieeting .
Associate Planner Peft the meeting and Associate Planner
Greg Smith arrived ting .
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 4 . General Plan Amendment & Rezoning GP/CR 1537 . Consideration
of amending the Land Use Element map and zoning map to
change designations from Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N) to
Low-density Residential (R-1 ) ; 399 Foothill Boulevard ; City-
of San Luis Obispo , applicant .
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Smith presented the staff report and explained the City Council
had asked for the rezoning to be initiated and recommended the
Commission indicate support for a rezoning to R-1 to the City Council .
In answer to a question by Commr . Gurnee . Greg Smith said that
although R-1 is not generally encouraged on -arterial streets , the
surrounding existing uses override that concern for this site .
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing .
Donnie Conner , chairperson for the Residents for Quality
?neighborhoods . said the group supports the summary recommendation
changing the designation from Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N) to Low-
density Residential (R-1-S) . She said the area is surrounded by R- 1
zoning . She said a small grocery store on the site was grandfathered
in before zoning changes . She said several offices up the street are
now vacant .
Dan Lemburg , 10 Santa Rosa . asked Commissioners if they received his
letter (The Commissioners had received the letter ) . He said he talked
to people in the neighborhood and most of them felt the site was not
appropriate for residential use because of noise , traffic . and
building constraints of the site . He said an office use would serve
as a buffer in between Foothill Boulevard and R-1 behind the site .
Mrs . Kenneth Wright . 400 Foothill Boulevard ,- representing herself and
her son who owns property adjacent to the site , said she did not know
what was in Mr . Lemburg' s letter . She said the City Council
unanimously felt R-1 was appropriate for this site in a meeting on
August 20 , 1991 . She mentioned a petition signed by 34 neighbors
supported R-1 zoning . She felt neighbors ' property values should be
considered. She said the site has been vacant for three years .
Staff gave Mrs . Wright a copy of Mr . Lemburg ' s letter .
- 3-13
In answer to a question by Commr . Peterson . Mrs . Wright said the
street was quiet except for traffic during morning and evening rush
hours .
Stephanie Valliere, 348 Ferrini Road, said the speed of
the traffic exceeds the 40 mites per hour speed limit and it would be
dangerous for cars turning in and out of a business .
Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing .
Commr . Gurnee said although the City Council initiated the rezoning
and would be making the final decision , he felt he could not recommend
a residential dwelling on the site and force people to travel to mini-
malls for neighborhood services . He said he saw rezoning as a victory
for suburbia and a defeat for community .
Commr . Karleskint said he originally opposed the project because he
did not believe office use should expand on Foothill Boulevard . He
felt it was still a residential neighborhood and suggested the owner
move an older house onto the site . He said because the City Council
had initiated the change , he saw no opportunity to do anything but
support R-1 .
Commr . Peterson said he could sympathize with Mrs . Wright . but felt
the site was inappropriate for R-1 because traffic on Foothill
Boulevard would be unsafe for children.
In answer to Commr . Hoffman , Greg Smith explained residential use is
allowed in the C-N zone on the first floor with an administrative use
permit .
Commr . Hoffman said he had seen the traditional use of the site over
the years and felt the current zoning allows common sense to dictate
what occurs on the site and the owner should be allowed to make that
decision . He said he would like to recommend to the City- Council that
the site remain C-N .
Commr . Kourakis said she has never supported this site as a
residential use because of the traffic projections for Foothill
Boulevard. She said the street is projected to be an arterial street
in the Land Use Element update . She said the corner location makes it
a good commercial lot .
Commr . Kourakis moved to recommend to the City Council that the Land
Use Element Map and the Zoning Map not be changed from Neighborhood -
Commercial to Low-Density Residential .
Commr . Gurnee seconded the motion.
Commr . Karleskint suggested an "S" designation for the site .
VOTING : AYES - Commrs . Kourakis . Gurnee . Peterson . and Hoffman .
NOES - Commr . Karleskint .
ABSENT - Commrs . Schmidt and Williams .
The motion passed .
In answer to a question by Commr . Kourakis . Cindy Clemens advised that
the Commission could recommend the C.ity Council consider an " S"
designation for the Commernial site .
Commr . Kourakis moved to recommend that the Citv Ccunci' consider adding an""5
designation to the Neighborhood-Commercial zoning for the site to
insure uses compatible with neighboring R-1 properties .
Commr . Karleskint seconded the motion .
VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Kourakis , Karleskint . Gurnee , Peterson .
and Hoffman.
NOES - None .
ABSENT - Commrs . Schmidt and Williams .
The motion passed .
- ------------------------------------------------------- -- -------
Item 5 . Tract o . 2090 . Consideration of a tentative map creating
an 18-gni residential airspace condominium conversion : 1330
Southwood rive : R-2-PD zone ; John Atiya . subdivider .
-------------------- -----------------------------------------------
Greg Smith presented t e staff report and recommended the Commission
forward a recommendati to the City Council to approve the tentative
map subject to findings and conditions .
Commr . Kourakis expresse concern about requiring professional
maintenance fees in condo iniums because the purpose of condominiums
is to give people an oppo tunity for home ownership who cannot affor,
to buy. a single family hom and professional maintenance can be
costly .
Chairman Hoffman opened the ublic hearing .
Jerry *Michael of Tierra Engin ering . 710 Fierra Lane . said the
applicant has already complied with several of the conditions
including a fire hydrant , remov ble barricade , and individual water
meters . He said the applicant a rees with the conditions in the staff
report .
Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing .
Commr . Gurnee moved to approve tenta ive map 2090 subject to findings
and conditions recommended by staff .
Commr . Karleskint seconded the motion.
Commr . Hoffman asked if the word "proles ional " regarding maintenance
in Condition 10-a could be deleted .
Commrs . Gurnee and Karleskint agreed to the deletion .
VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Gurnee , Karleskin , . Kourakis . Peterson .
and Hoffman .
NOES - None .
ABSENT - Commrs . . Schmidt and Williams .
The motion passed .
cOWT.. w® XTEM , -�s
RECEIVE ®
STATEMENT BY PROPERTY OWNER
General Plan Amendment & Rezoning GP/CR 1537
399 Foothill Boulevard
CO MVOEEVeAftriR
In regard to the proposed change in zoning from CN to R1 for 399
Foothill Blvd. , please consider this statement as a request that
such action be abandoned by the city. As the property owner, I
consider this action grossly unfair. It is my opinion that not
only would a change to single family residential be unfeasible, it
would be severely financially damaging. I estimate that the prop-
erty's value would drop to between one third to one half its
present value should this rezoning take place.
I have spent time talking with both property owners and tenants
proximate to the property (all within approximately 100 yards) .
Please find attached a petition signed by these residents. I have
found practically unanimous support for my position among these
people. Given time, I am convinced that I can obtain three times
this number of signatures within the given 100 yard radius.
Further investigation will reveal that many of these residents
formerly signed a petition circulated by Naoma Wright calling for
the conversion of the property to residential. use. I believe the
signatures on this petition were solicited based on information
which is not factual. To substantiate this claim, I have enclosed
a copy of a letter written by Gerald Craig of 111 Cuesta Dr.
Everyone seems to agree that a residence simply would not be a
reasonable use for this busy corner. There is, in fact, common
agreement that the property has always been used for business
purposes and should remain so. Most feel an office use is ideal.
I challenge both City Council and Planning Commission members to
physically visit the residences which now front Foothill Blvd. You
will find that the vast majority of these residences are rentals.
For the most part, homeowners simply do not wish to live on such a
busy thoroughfare, much less at this busy intersection.
One of the most surprising aspects of going door to door was the
stark decrease in the level of noise experienced by walking back to
a secondary residence built at the rear of one of these properties.
The city is interested in mixed use developments which create a
buffer zone. to shield residences from noise for this very reason.
Why can't 399 Foothill help create such a buffer instead of being
converted to a use practically no one would want? Since a drainage
culvert easement cuts across the rear of the property, the struc-
ture must be located at the front further adding to the problem. I
am convinced that the property would sit vacant for years because
the cost of the lot, expense of demolition, and cost of rebuilding
simply would not make sense for a residential re 1.
Regarding: Gent,al Plan Amendment & Rezoni►,g GP/CR 1537
To: San Luis Obispo City Council
San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
I, the undersigned, do not feel that the rezoning of 399 Foothill
Blvd. to R1 (Single Family Residential) is appropriate since the
location of the property makes it unsuitable for -use as a single
family ' residence.. I also feel that such action by the city is an
infringement upon individual property owner' s rights and is dam-
aging to the owners of the property. I request that the current
zoning be retained or that the property be used as an office.
NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
—<lq t/92
s�
M A rill Md 1-a-5
So. T71s5 A�
7/� L
.4e3
�JbY 5 LA/Erz ' 411 Fo�rt��u & 4 ' Z5 - 9Z_�
i
I
U
'as ;
SCI
I_ 5-�z
Ivz - r
{z&cc a CV Yo"Rc,,to UD 1 5.9y
661 10tou C
Regarding: Ger, A Plan Amendment & Rezon. GP/CR 1537
To: San Luis Obispo City Council
San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
I, the undersigned, do notfeel that the rezoning of 399 Foothill
Blvd. to R1 (Single Family Residential) is appropriate since the
location of the property makes it unsuitable for use as a single
family residence.. I also feel that such action by the city is an
infringement upon individual property owner' s rights and is dam-
aging to the owners of the property. I request that the current
zoning be retained or that the property be used as an office.
NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
l�iFayr� �i�Y I�satX{� /�3 N.T►�s+r,��'A�,..s �,, � /�7/y�
rY\
04r- r S 3114 A ro6r i k fit- YN C".
i
K r wt
4"AVA
+i i
— _
h c c /e// 3S9
JOV15 A Oftgm Sys Foo-raw,- - 2 -qz
7yes �Z
:5- T4 5s
S �
le e—
T l l b 7� ► . l W25 7/11 �c
aa\.a u.Ic aa �1
Page 1 of C:P�-
PFTITION
Re : Land Use for 399 Foothill Boulevard
i
The San Luis Obispo City General Plan (Paragraph C. 3 .a. 6 )
"Neighborhood Convenience Commercial Policy" states that"where
evaluations show compatibility (needs ] and/or lack of market needs ,
the city should prohibit the intensification or expansion of iso-
lated neighborhood commercial facilities and should provide for
their long-term replacement with land uses typical - of the surrounding
neighborhood. "
We , the undersigned, request that the land use of 399 Foothill
Boulevard (File #GP/R 1510) , located at the southwest corner of
Foothill Boulevard and Tassajara Street, follow the General Plan
and be replaced with the land use typical of the surrounding
neighborhood, which is residential.
14ArnAC y ADDRESS
�Q1+v►+�3. GtJ/u-�r�i,t. v.�� l�W%ef-, ,cum•
" ------- - S L s h
-- -
60
1
2.3
(57
""ri —f- --
z7L vs '
n �
7 �Y - -- - /$.3 �LU 3 5
153 Cujslr� r. 5 LO 9 � y
c�� � 1
Page Z of o2.
PETITION
Re : Land Use for 399 Foothill Boulevard
i
The San Luis Obispo City General Plan (Paragraph C. 3 .a. 6 )
"Neighborhood Convenience Commercial Policy" states that"where
evaluations show compatibility [needs ] and/or lack of market needs ,
the city should prohibit the intensification or expansion of iso-
lated neighborhood commercial facilities and should provide for
their long-term replacement with land uses typical of the surrounding
neighborhood. "
We, the undersigned, request that the land use of 399 Foothill
Boulevard (File #GP/R 1510) , located at the southwest corner of
Foothill Boulevard and Tassajara Street , follow the General Plan
and be replaced with the land use typical of the surrounding
neighborhood, which is residential .
NA E ADDRESS
ci S 2,61
39 / a4t
jn+ G,ti l s 1_C)
Y
0 Fo ahslI ' AIj SCO
,�1 stud-C. Cc.ct.� zaC �7 r 'Lzc ,/
Z,-L— —IIJ 1�� a6, r_- LM CT-. :5 - L . O .
s
'G -
7
s
TQI -
79
City Council Minutes Page 3
Tuesday,August 20, 1991 -4:00 pm
Charles Senn,2840 EI Cerrito and representing TRW,stated he was available for questions.
Mayor Dunin declared the public hearing closed.
Atter brief discussion,moved by Pinard/Ranna to adopt Resolution No.7015 (3-0-2, Councilmembers
Reiss and Roalman absent) approving the amendment of the Land Use Element map to Medium-
High Density Residential and to Introduce Ordinance No. 1198 (3-0-2, Councilmembers Reiss and
Roalman absent) to print rezoning property at 1190 Laurel Lane from M-S to R-3-S as recommended.
Councilman Reiss returned to the dins.
C. GP/R 1510-FO0TRIL.L BOULEVARD
Council held a public hearing to consider a Planning Commission recommendation to amend the Land
Use Element map and zoning map to change the designations from Neighborhood-Commercial (C-
N) to Office-Special Considerations (O-S) for property located at 399 Foothill,Boulevard; Dan
Lemburg,applicant (continued from 8/6/91).
Arnold zonas.Community Development Director,reviewed the agenda report with the recommendation
that Council adopt a resolution and introduce an ordinance to print approving the General Plan
amendment and rezoning of the property. He stated it was questionable whether the rezoning was
consistent with the General Plan and, at a minimum, some limitations on the types of office uses
allowed would be needed. Development of the site under the proposed office zoning would likely be as
compatible with neighboring residential uses, or more compatible, than C-N development. Further,
residential zoning may be more consistent with relevant policies than either C-N or 0 zoning.
Regardless of the type of development which occurs,some limitations on driveway locations and traffic
generation would be appropriate.
Mayor Dunin declared the public hearing open.
Mrs. Ken Wright speaking on behalf of her son who is a neighboring property owner, urged the
Council to support a residential zoning for this property.
Tom Wdliver. 424 Foothill Boulevard, spoke in support of the proposed use and urged the Council
not to rezone it.
Dan Lembv= 10 Santa Rosa Street, spoke in support of his request and further urged that the S
designation be eliminated.
Dottie Connor, representing the Neighborhood Association, spoke in support of preserving R-1
designations and particularly at this location which is surrounded by R-1.
Councilwoman Pinard spoke in support of preserving the R-1 neighborhood and denying the change
to office She recommended sending it back to the Planning Commission and urging rezoning the
General Plan as R-1.
Councilwoman Ranna also supported R-1 or R-1-PD.
Councilman Reiss stated he did not support the zoning to office; he could allow it as C-N or R-1.
Mayor Dunin supported the R-1 designation.
30
City Council Minutes Page 4
Tuesday,August 20,L991 -4.00 pm
Atter brief discussion, moved by RapRa/Pinard to adopt Resolution No. 7016 (4-0-1, Councilman
Rodman absent) denying the application to amend the General Pian Land Use Element map for
property at 399 Foothill Boulevard.
Atter further discussion,moved by Pinard/Ranna to refer this item to the Planning Commission with
the recommendation that R-1 would be appropriate. Motion carried unanimously(4-0-1, Councilman
Roalman absent).
2. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING PD 1521 MCMILLAN AVENUE (File No.463)
Council held a public hearing to consider amending the zoning map from Industrial(M) to Industrial-Planned
Development (M-PD) and a preliminary development plan allowing large offices for an existing
commercial/industrial comples located at 2992 McMillan Avenue; Roger Brown and Jack Foster, owners
(continued from 8/6/91).
Arnold Jonas.Community Development Director,briefly reviewed the agenda report with the recommendation
that Council pass to print an ordinance approving rezoning M to M-PD and approving the preliminary
development plan allowing large offices. This would be consistent with the General Plan policies subject to
deletion of some of the uses originally proposed by the applicants
Mayor Dunin declared the public hearing open.
Mike Hernandez representing the owners,spoke in support of the proposed rezoning.
Brett Cross.1217 Mariner's Cove, urged Council to Include shower and locker rooms on this site.
Mavor Dunin declared the public hearing closed.
Councilwoman Pinard encouraged this project be looked at with the possibility of including showers as well as
lockers.
Atter discussion, moved by Pinard/Reiss (3-1-1, Mayor Dunin voting no, Councilman Roalman absent) to
introduce Ordinance No. 1199 to print rezoning the property at 2992 McMillan Avenue from bI to NI-PD,
approving a preliminary development plan for large offices,and exploring the inclusion of changing rooms and
shower facility options on the project.
Atter additional discussion,moved by Pinard/Raooa(4-0-1,Councilman Roalman absent) to add an additional
finding stating that the proposed cellular business and EOC had been reviewed as part of the process and
found to be appropriate as allowed uses.
3. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CONCIIi.Tprrr (File No.461)
Council considered an agreement for preparation of an EIR scope for the General Plan Update(continued from
Arnold Jonas. Community Development Director, reviewed the agenda report with the recommendation that
Council provide any additional desired direction for the work scope;further,to authorize staff to negotiate an
agreement with Fugro-McLelland(West),Inc.to prepare an EIR for the General Plan Land Use Element update
and the Circulation Element update at a cost not to exceed $85,000.
Moved by Pinard/Ranna to authorize staff to negotiate the agreement as recommended. Motion carried
unanimously (41-1, Councilman Roalman absent).
,3-�3
RESOLUTION N0. 7016 (1991 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
399 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (APPLICATION GP/R 1510)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public
hearings on application No. GP/R 1510 on May 22 and June 26, 1991,
and recommended approval of the application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing
on August 6; 1991, and has considered the testimony and statements
of the applicant, and other interested parties, ' and the records of
the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff;
NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves to deny application
No. aP/R 1510 to amend the General Plan Land Use Map and Official
Zoning Map designations for the site from Neighborhood Commercial
to Office, based on the following findings:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map is
not consistent with adopted policies in the Land Use Element
of the General Plan.
2 . The resulting pattern of land uses will not be appropriate for
this section of the community.
3. The site is not suited for office uses.
On motion of Councilwoman Rappa
seconded by Councilwoman Pinard and on the
following roll call vote:
R-7016 3��y
Resolution No. 7016 (1991 Series)
GP/R 1510
Page 4
AYES: Councilmembers Rappa, •Pinard, Reiss and Mayor Dunin
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Roalman
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 20th day
of Augugl- , 1991. -
-' r
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST•
City qerk pam ges
APPROVED:
City A inistrative Officer
Citfr At rn
Y
Community Develop e t Director
city o� san lues oBispo
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION APPLICATION NO.
PROJECT D SCRIPTION
Oil
b -
APPLICANT
STAFF RECOMMEND ON:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT R OUIRED
PREPARED BY DATE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: n DATE��I21 '
v
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ..................... ...................... ... .....
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH ..........................................
C. LAND USE ...................................................................... . l Y
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ..............................................
E. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................
F. UTILITIES........................................................................
G. NOISE LEVELS ...................................................................
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS ....................
1. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS...............................................
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ..............................................
K. PLANT LIFE......................................................................
LANIMALLIFE.....................................................................
M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL ... ...................... ..........................
N. AESTHETIC .......................................................................
O. ENERGYIRESOURCE USE ..........................................................
P. OTHER ..........................................................................
Ill.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
*SEE ATTACHED REPORT
ER 32-91
Page 2
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City has initiated consideration of amending the General Plan Land
Use Map designation for the site from Neighborhood Commercial to Low
Density or Medium Density Residential, and concurrently making a
corresponding amendment to the Zoning Map (C-N to R-1 or R-2) .
The site is located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and
Tassajara Drive, and is developed with an 1800 square-foot commercial
building and eight parking spaces. The building is currently vacant,
but was most recently used as a bicycle shop. The site is surrounded
by houses and apartments. There are several small trees on the site,
-but there is no other significant vegetation on the site. An-
underground storm drainage culvert crosses the southerly portion of the
site.
The site is surrounded by houses and apartments.
II. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW
A. Community Plans and Goals
Either low or medium density residential use would be consistent with
most relevant Land Use Element and Housing Element policies (attached).
The Land Use Element includes a policy that "Residential uses should be
separated from incompatible nonresidential uses and buffered from major
circulation facilities" . Elimination of a commercial use from a
predominately residential could be considered consistent with the first
portion of that policy; expansion of residential use adjoining Foothill
Boulevard could be considered inconsistent with the latter portion.
On balance, staff concludes that the proposed amendment is consistent
with adopted community plans and policies. No significant adverse
impact will occur.
B. Population Distribution and Growth
The proposed amendment will not significantly affect commercial or
residential growth rates for the city. The small effect which will
occur will be toward improving the balance of jobs and housing within
the city.
C. Land Use
As noted above, replacing commercial use with residential use will
eliminate a potential conflict with existing residential uses.
Staff judges that either low or medium density residential use will be
compatible with adjacent R-1 development, and with the land use patterns
in the neighborhood.
The potential for non-residential uses which might be considered by some
to have potential for conflict - day care centers, churches, etc. - will
be similar under either R-1 or R-2 zoning. In either case, the
ER 32-91
Page 3
potential will be less than under the existing C-N zoning.
D. Transportation and Circulation
Residential development at the density allowed by current R-1 or R-2
zoning would generate less traffic than under C-N zoning. R-2 zoning
would generate slightly more traffic than under R-1, but not enough to
cause significant effects related to traffic congestion or hazards .
E. Public Services
No significant effects will occur.
F. Utilities
Existing utility infrastructure appears adequate to serve the proposed
uses.
G. Noise Levels
Current traffic Foothill Boulevard generates an average noise level of
60 to 65+ dBA (Ldn) on most of the site, and expected future traffic
levels will increase noise levels by approximately 2 dB, reaching 70 dBA
(Ldn) at the northerly 20 feet . of the property. These levels are
considered "Normally Unacceptable" for residential uses.
Exposure of future residents on the site to unacceptable noise levels
could be considered to constitute a significant adverse effect. The
following mitigation measures are feasible, however, and would
effectively reduce noise levels to acceptable ranges for indoor and
outdoor use areas:
- Special construction measures as required by State building
regulations. These measures would be evaluated at the time o:
construction, and would likely include the following:
- Stucco or soundboard construction on exterior walls.
- Limitation of glazing area to 20% or less of the floor-area.
- Mechanical ventilation systems, allowing doors and windows
to remain closed.
- Low infiltration and/or sound rated windows.
- Special site planning measures to provide a barrier up to eight
feet in height between the roadway and outdoor use areas. This
could be accomplished with concrete block walls or by placing
buildings between the roadway and outdoor areas.
Implementation of the mitigation measures for interior noise levels is
assured by existing laws which are routinely enforced by City staff
during the building permit plan check process, and no further measures
need to be adopted.
The City currently has no ordinance requiring compliance with noise
standards, which are contained in the Noise Element of the General Plan,
unless the project is subject to review under CEQA. Since development
ER 32-91
Page 4
of the site might be judged to be exempt from CEQA, a "Special
Considerations" overlay zone should be added to ensure that necessary
mitigation measures will be implemented when the site is developed with
residential uses. The overlay zone requires approval .of a conditional
use permit by the City Planning Commission, and specifies special
factors which must be addressed (such as noise- exposure) .
H. Geologic and Seismic Hazards and Topographic Modifications
No unusual seismic or geologic conditions are known to affect the site.
Minimal topographic modification would be needed to develop the site
with residential uses. No significant adverse effect will occur
I . Air Quality and Wind Conditions
No significant effects on air quality or wind conditions will occur as
a result of rezoning and development with residential uses .
J. Surface Water Flow and Quality
The underground storm drainage culvert will not be affected by
residential use of the site, nor will the site be subject to significant
hazards from flooding. No significant adverse effect will occur.
K. Plant Life
No significant effect will occur.
L. Animal Life
No significant effect will occur.
M. Archaeological/Historical
The existing structure on the site is not known to have any special
historic or architectural significance. The structure was apparently
built more recently than 1926, although City records do not indicate
when. The structure was a neighborhood market for many years, prior to
its conversion to a bicycle shop in 1982 .
The site has not been identified as one which contains, or is likely to
contain, historic or prehistoric structures or artifacts.
N. Aesthetic
No significant adverse aesthetic impact will occur as a result of the
amendment or subsequbnt development.
O. Energy/Resource Use
The proposed rezoning may increase the amount of water consumed by
future users of the parcel, since residences consume more water than do
many commercial uses. Although the city' s reliable annual water supply
from all sources is less than the normal demand, the city has adopted
water conservation regulations and development allocation programs
ER 32-91
Page 5
(retrofit requirements) which will effectively mitigate cumulative
adverse effects on water availability which might otherwise occur. No
significant adverse effect will occur.
P. Other
No other significant environmental factors or conditions occur which
could cause significant adverse effects .
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the following mitigation measure be adopted to
ensure effective mitigation of potentially significant adverse effects
of exposing future residents of the site to unacceptable noise levels:
Modification of project description to include rezoning to R-2-S, and
inclusion of language in the rezoning ordinance which requires provision
of . appropriate sound barriers to reduce noise levels in outdoor use
areas to 60 dBA (Ldn) or less, to be installed at the time of
development for residential use.
gtsd:ER3291.wp
3-3a