HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/2001, PH7 - GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CHANGES TO: A. AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP FROM C �
council
Aacenc>a Repom ItemNumber��,�
CITY OF SAN L U IS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directq�
Prepared By: Jeff Hook, Associate Planl ?�
SUBJECTS: GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CHANGES TO:
A. AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP FROM
SERVICES AND MANUFACTURING (C-S-S-H) TO PUBLIC (PF-H) FOR THE
RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION CENTER AND SAN LUIS OBISPO RAILROAD
MUSEUM (GPARJER 14-00); AND
B. AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TO CLARIFY THE TEXT AND
MAP AS THEY PERTAIN TO THE WOODLAND DRIVE AREA(GP/R/ER 111-01).
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a resolution and introduce an ordinance to print that changes the general plan land
use designation and zoning from Services and Manufacturing (C-S-S-H) to Public (PF-H)
for the Railroad Transportation Center and San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum.
2. Amend the Land Use Element text to require preparation of a specific plan for trxe
Woodland Drive Area.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Affirm the Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt a resolution and introduce
an ordinance to print that changes the general plan land use designation and zoning from
Services and Manufacturing (C-S-S-H) to Public (PF-H) for the Railroad Transportation
Center and San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum.
2. Amend the General Plan Land Use Element to clarify the development review process for
the Woodland Drive Planning Area, and rezone the area from R-17SP to R-1, with the
area to be rezoned to R-I-SP or R-1-PD prior to development..
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Reflecting the Railroad Transportation Center's public-serving uses, the Planning Commission
endorsed a change in the zoning of the Center and SLO Railroad Museum to Public Facilities
(PF-H). This zoning allows or conditionally allows a wide range of public uses, including bus
depot, public parking, museums and other cultural facilities, government.offices, and accessory
uses related to the allowed uses. The Commission noted that the current Services and
Manufacturing (C-S-S-H) land use designation did not allow museums, and that the proposed
N
Council Agenda Report—General Plan Amendments/Rezoning
Page 2
amendment and rezoning were needed to implement the Railroad District Plan and proceed with
the San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum.
To clarify the development review process for the Woodland Drive Hillside Planning Area, the
Commission endorsed a change in the General Plan Land Use Element text to make a specific
plan mandatory for any new development. Current policies allow developers to submit either a
specific plan or"development plan", however this policy is inconsistent with the area's R-1-SP
zoning and the Woodland Drive Planning Area boundary map which both indicate a specific plan
is required. The specific plan requirement had first been applied to the property in 1984. In
1994, the Land Use Element was revised to also allow either a"development plan" or a specific
plan, however related map designations were not updated to reflect the option for either type of
plan.
The Planning Commission favored changing the Land Use Element text to remove the
"development plan" option. The CAO's recommendation differs from that of the Planning
Commission with regard to how the text and maps should be made consistent. It recommends
changes to the Zoning Map and General Plan Land Use Map to preserve the option of preparing
either a"development plan" or specific plan for this area.
Both General Plan amendments have been combined into one Council Resolution to comply with
the City's allowed limit of four general plan amendments per year, since the General Plan has
already been amended three times in 2001. The analysis for each is presented below as `A' and
`B' discussions.
A. RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION CENTER AND RAILROAD MUSEUM
DISCUSSION
Background
Last year the City Council approved plans and specifications and a construction contract for the
development of the new Railroad Transportation Center (RTC), a 121- space public parking lot
in the Historic Railroad District. That facility is complete and serves Amtrak passengers, nearby
businesses, bicyclists, bus passengers, and visitors. As shown in the approved Railroad District
Plan, the RTC will also include a Railroad Historic Museum to be developed in the former
Southern Pacific Freight Warehouse. The RTC and the Railroad Museum were approved in
concept by the City Council as part of the Railroad District Plan. The Council has allocated
approximately $450,000 in state transportation funds for the historic warehouse's rehabilitation,
and the City has entered into a contract with a local architectural firm to prepare plans and
specifications for the project..
The RTC and proposed museum are on City-owned land and will serve as public facilities. As
such, staff believes the most appropriate General Plan land use designation and zoning
designation is "Public" with the Historic overlay zone, or PF- H. The site is currently designated
"Services and Manufacturing" on the General Plan Land Use Map, and zoned C-S-S-H for
7-Z
Council Agenda Report—General Plan Amendments/Rezoning
Page 3
Commercial Services, with Special Consideration and Historic overlay zones. The Special
Consideration overlay requires approval of a conditional use permit before a new use can be
established. The site is located within the Railroad Historic District, so provisions of the adopted
Railroad District Plan apply to new development. A general plan amendment and rezoning is
necessary to bring City land use and zoning designations in line with the property's actual land
uses.
Planning Commission Recommendation
At its October 10`s meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended
the City Council approve changes to the General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map to
accommodate the proposed Railroad Transportation Center and the San Luis Obispo Railroad
Museum (Planning Commission resolution, Attachment 2). The Commission's vote was 6-0
(Commr. Loh absent). There was no public comment on the item.
Data Summary: (see Vicinity Map, Attachment 1)
Applicant and Property Owner: City of San Luis Obispo
Zoning: C-S-S-H
General Plan: Services &Manufacturing
Environmental status: Negative Declaration
Site Description: The site area is approximately 2 acres. It is a long, narrow parcel that slopes
from the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way on the east towards Santa Barbara Street on the
west. Existing slope banks along Santa Barbara Street are about 1.8 to 2 meters (5.9 to 6.56 feet)
high adjacent to the Railroad Square building and diminish in height as you move southward.
The historic Southern Pacific Freight Warehouse is located on the eastern boundary of the site..
Evaluation
Under the General Plan, the City plans for and designates appropriate locations for various types
of public and cultural facilities, and these locations are designated "Public" on the Land Use
Element Map and zoned PF on the Official Zoning Map. The PF zone is intended to provide for
the wide range of public uses likely to be located on public property, such as government offices,
public parking, social services, museums and other cultural facilities. Public uses are those
conducted by governmental or nonprofit agencies. However this zone also allows
complementary private and commercial uses that, within the overall guidance of the General
Plan, provide a public benefit.
The RTC provides these facilities:
1. Vehicle parking for existing and anticipated AMTRAK patrons.
2. New San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum within the former railroad warehouse.
3. Vehicle parking for the uses to be housed within historic railroad warehouse.
4. Bus parking for the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) as a "layover
facility."
7-3
Council Agenda Report—General Plan Amendments/Rezoning
Page 4
5. Pedestrian and bicycle connections to and through the site.
6. Opportunities for the display and movement of historic rail cars and equipment.
The RTC's current Commercial-Service designation allows "parking as a principal use" but does
not allow museums. Three zones allow museums: PF, C-C and C-R. Of these, staff believes PF
base zone is most appropriate for the RTC because it reflects the predominantly public-serving
nature of the use and will be compatible with adjacent C-S-S-H uses. Museums are allowed in
the PF zone, subject to approval of a Planning Commission use permit. Incidental uses related to
the primary public uses, such as small food concessions, caretaker's quarters, public meeting
rooms and exhibit, and other related, public-serving uses would also be possible with use permit
approval.
With the proposed change, many types of services and manufacturing currently allowed under C-
S-S-H zoning, such as retail sales of cars, appliances and furniture, architectural and engineering
offices, and manufacturing would no longer be allowed. These uses would continue to be
allowed in other C-S-S-H zoned areas within the Railroad District, and in the South Higuera and
Broad Street corridors.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Retain the site's current land use designation and zoning and amend the Zoning Regulations
to allow museums in the C-S zone. Under this approach, use permit approval would be
required for any new use due to the "Special Considerations" S overlay zone already in effect
on the site. This approach would have the advantage of continuing to allow a wide range of
commercial uses if the City ever decided to sell or lease all or a portion of the warehouse for
commercial uses, but might have unintended consequences of dispersing cultural facilities
into service-commercial or light-industrial areas inappropriate for such uses; or
2. Amend the General Plan and rezone the site to allow Retail-Commercial (C-R-S-H) uses.
The Railroad Square area adjacent to the RTC site is already zoned C-R-S-H and allows a
broad range of retail, tourist, residential and commercial uses, reflecting the historic mixed-
use character of the railroad area. The C-R base zone would allow the proposed uses while
retaining a broad range of uses typically allowed in commercial zones. C-R zoning allows
museums "by right" and would not require a use permit to establish a museum or to modify
the museum use.
B. Woodland Drive Planning Area
DISCUSSION
Background
The proposed amendment was originally viewed as a clean up to remove an inconsistency among
the General Plan text and Land Use Map, and zoning as they pertain to the Woodland Drive
Area. General Plan Policy 6.2.6.B requires that a specific plan or a "development plan" be
7'
�� X11
Council Agenda Report—General Plan Amendments/Rezoning
Page 5
approved for the Woodland Drive Area before it can be developed (see policy excerpt below).
The General Plan defines "specific plan" and "development plan" as different instruments,
though the following discussion will reveal that either type of plan can achieve the same result
for the Woodland Drive Area. The use of the term "development plan" appears in quotes to
distinguish it from a generic plan for development for any property. The General Plan Land Use
Map graphically shows the Woodland Drive Area as requiring a specific plan, contrary to the
LUE text. The Zoning Map's R-1-SP designation also requires a specific plan prior to
development. The clean-up amendment would achieve consistency between the policy, Land
Use Map, and zoning.
The City has received an application to create a 23-lot residential subdivision in the Woodland
Drive Area, plus one open space lot. Staff recommended to the applicant that they submit an
application for a "development plan", as allowed by the General Plan policy. Staff believed this
type of plan best suits the single ownership and development requirements of the property. The
"development plan, application is currently under review. The proposed amendments are
independent of the "development plan" application and are intended to apply to any future
development proposal within the Woodland Drive Area. However, if a "development plan" and
a PD zoning are removed as application options for the site, the applicant will need to revise and
resubmit their application materials.
Planning Commission Recommendation
At its October 10`h meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended
the City Council achieve consistency by amending the General Plan Land Use Element text to
delete the option of preparing "development plan" for the Woodland Drive Planning Area,
instead requiring preparation of a specific plan (see Attachment 5). The Commission determined
that a specific plan is the best way to ensure that new development in the Woodland Drive Area
is designed to address all the relevant planning issues. Consequently, the Commission
recommended the following change to the second sentence of LUE Policy 6.2.6(B) (change in
strikeout text):
"Before further subdivision or development of any of certain vacant land near Woodland Drive
(Figure 7), a specific plan should be approved."
The Commission's vote was 6-0 (Commr. Loh absent). There was significant public comment
on the item, mostly from neighbors supporting a specific plan requirement. The neighbor's
comments focused on two primary areas of concern:
1. Environmental protection would be reduced unless a specific plan was prepared.
2. A specific plan would provide better planning for the Woodland Drive Area.
These concerns are discussed in more detail below under the "Evaluation" heading.
7,5_
Council Agenda Report—General Plan Amendments/Rezoning
Page 6
CAO Recommendation
Staff recommends the Council achieve consistency among the policy text, Land Use Map and
zoning designation for the Woodland Drive Planning Area by deleting the specific plan
requirement boundary from the General Plan Land Use Map and rezoning the 40 acre site from
R-1-SP to R-1. This would bring the maps into compliance with the policy text. This approach
would maintain the option of doing either a specific plan or "development plan" for the
Woodland Drive Area, and continue to ensure the any future development addresses key hillside
planning issues. The Woodland Drive Area would later be rezoned to either R-1-SP or R-1-PD,
prior to development, depending on the type of plan approved by the Council.
Staff is recommending that the amendment be based on the policy language for the following
three reasons, discussed in more detail below in the Evaluation.
1. A "development plan" and PD zoning were intentional alternatives adopted for the
Woodland Drive Area during the Land Use Element update, representing a community
consensus on the policy;
2. A "development plan" can accomplish all of the intended planning and development
goals for the area; and
3. Asking the applicants of the "development plan" proposal currently under review to
change their application would create a time and cost burden for them that is not likely to
produce any corresponding community benefit.
Data Summary: (see Vicinity Map, Attachment 4)
Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo
Zoning: R-1-SP
General Plan: Low-Density Residential
Environmental status: Negative Declaration
Site Description: In-city portion: 40 acre site located at the western base of the Santa Lucia
foothills, consisting of gently to moderately sloping hillsides, adjacent to San Luis Obispo High
School, historic La Loma de la Nopalera Adobe, County General Hospital and houses, with
access from Lizzie Street, Woodland Drive, Wilding and Skylark Lanes. Outside-city portion:
200 acre, mostly steeply sloping hillside area bordered by vacant land designated Rural Lands in
the County of San Luis Obispo and by City-owned open space in Reservoir Canyon and the
"Hastings Property." The overall 240-acre site consists of a variety of habitat, including riparian,
chaparral and Oak woodland areas.
Evaluation
The "project" that is the subject of this report involves possible amendments to the General Plan
Land Use Element text, General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map to remove an
inconsistency among the three documents. The inconsistency became apparent when the City
received the application for the "Bowden Ranch Estates" development project (Tract 2420, ER
7'6
y I,
Council Agenda Report—General Plan Amendments/Rezoning
Page 7
11-01). This application is not before the Council at this time. As allowed by the General Plan
Land Use Element (LUE) and advised by staff, the developer opted to submit an application for a
"development plan" and PD zoning rather than a specific plan. The General Plan Land Use Map
and the property's R-1-SP zoning, however, require submittal of a specific plan and therefore
need to be changed if a "development plan" is to be approved. The Land Use Map must be
changed. Appropriate zoning to correspond to the policy, until the City approves a plan for
future development of the site, would be R-1.
Why The Inconsistency?
When the Hillside Planning Program was adopted in 1984, this area required a specific plan
while some other hillside areas required a "development plan". When the Council adopted the
1994 Land Use Element Update, the requirement was revised with the following text as part of
Hillside Development policies. Changes to the Zoning Map and General Plan Land Use Map to
implement the policy change were overlooked in 1994 when citywide zoning was made to
comply with the newly updated Land Use Element, resulting in the inconsistency that exists
today.
Land Use Element Policy 6.2.6
B) The Woodland Drive area. The Woodland Drive area includes vacant land where residential
development may occur in the vicinity of the high school and residential or medical-care
facilities may occur in the vicinity of the hospital. Before further subdivision or development of
any of certain vacant land near Woodland Drive, a specific plan or development plan
(emphasis added) should be approved. This plan should address the following, in addition to
relevant items as noted in LUE Policy 2.3.1:
l) The location and design of new public streets and private drives serving several owners, and
any necessary changes to existing streets in the area;
2) Water and sewer systems, including new storage tanks pumps, main pipes, and access roads,
and changes to existing facilities necessary for adequate service to the area;
3)New parcels and existing parcels to be changed or combined;.
4)Location of building sites on parcels next to or crossing the urban reserve line;
5)Areas to be kept open through easements or dedication of fee ownership;
6) A program for transferring development potential, consistent with these hillside planning
policies;
7) Location of creek easements to provide flood protection and to protect existing creekside
vegetation; and
8) Phasing of development and public improvements.
(Policy 2.3.1, referred to in Policy 6.2.6.B, lists the requirements for residential specific plans,
thereby insuring that the "development plan" or a specific plan would address the same issues.)
No Difference In Environmental Protection Between A Specific Plan and A"Development Plan"
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will apply equally to the consideration of a
specific plan or a "development plan". Either plan will address the same issues and will undergo
7�7
f i
J �
Council Agenda Report—General Plan Amendments/Rezoning
Page 8
the same environmental review process. Pursuant to CEQA, an initial study should be prepared
to determine what types of environmental impacts are likely to result from either plan. If
environmental impacts are likely but can be mitigated by modifying the project or by
conditioning the project with specific mitigation measures, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will
be prepared. If it does not appear possible to mitigate all of the environmental impacts, an
Environmental Impact Report will be prepared. The same process and same standards and
thresholds are required for either type of plan.
Specific Plan v. "Development Plan'?
The General Plan Land Use Element policies that require a"development plan" or a specific plan
to address the same topics eliminate almost any difference between a specific plan and a
"development plan" for the Woodland Drive Area. Attachment 6 contains an excerpt of the key
General Plan policies. As these policies require, either plan would address:
1) Desired types and intensities of development, compatible with the surrounding area;
2) Measures to protect resources and open space, including, among other types, permanent
wildlife habitats and corridors, and farm fields;
3) Location and design of new public streets and private drives, and needed changes to existing
streets;
4) The desired types of public facilities and the means to provide them;
5) Design of utility systems, including water and sewer systems, new storage tanks, pumps, main
pipes, and changes to existing facilities;
6)New parcels and existing parcels to be changed or combined;
7) Location of building sites on parcels next to or crossing the urban reserve line;
8)Areas to be kept open through easements or dedication of fee ownership;
9) Program for transferring development potential;
10)Location of creek easements for flood protection and to protect existing vegetation;
11)Phasing of development and public improvements.
Because of the specificity of the General Plan policies for the Woodland Drive Area, the only
real differences between a specific plan and a"development plan" are:
Differences Between A Specific Plan And"Development Plan'For The Woodland Drive Area:
Specific Plan "Development Plan"
1. Specific plan allows for the collection of impact 1. Not necessary. The cost of preparing the
fees to pay for the cost of preparing and "development plan" is borne by the applicant.
administering the plan.
2. Specific plans can be adopted by resolution or 2. "Development plans" as defined by the City's
ordinance. General Plan are adopted by ordinance and result
in a PD overlay zone.
Staff advised the applicants of the pending project for the Woodland Drive Area that a
"development plan" and PD zoning would be the most appropriate vehicle to accomplish the
-7-
�S
,
l'
1
Council Agenda Report—General Plan Amendments/Rezoning
Page 9
General Plan goals and policies for their project. The reasons staff gave this recommendation
were that specific plans typically address large or complex urban settings where a mix of uses,
circulation modes and public facilities are tied to future, often phased, land uses. This is not the
case for the Woodland Drive Area. Examples of specific plans in San Luis Obispo include the
Edna-Islay, Higuera Commerce Park, Margarita and Airport specific plan areas. Specific plans
typically establish planning frameworks that guide numerous subsequent development projects.
A "development plan" differs in that it typically applies to a specific development project — a
"planned development" or "PD." If the approved project changes it must go back through the
development review process.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Amend the Land Use Element text to require preparation of a specific plan for the Woodland
Drive Area, as recommended by the Planning Commission.
2. Leave the policy and maps as they are, direct staff to amend the General Plan at the time the
Council reviews a PD application. If the Council favors the "development plan" and PD
zoning proposed by the applicant, the Council would continue the item and direct staff to
amend the General Plan Land Use Map to remove the specific plan boundary from around the
Woodland Drive Area. This amendment would be reviewed by the Planning Commission
and brought back to the Council. The Council could then approve the continued application
for the "development plan" and PD rezoning. This option would create uncertainty and
expense for the project applicant. Changing plans would result in plan revisions meaning
additional planning service costs and project delays that translate into added carrying costs
for the property.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map—Railroad Transportation Center, Item A.
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5325-01 and Exhibit, Railroad Transportation Center
3. Proposed Rezoning, Railroad Transportation Center
4. Vicinity Map—Woodland Drive Specific Planning Area
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5324-01, Woodland Drive Area
6. General Plan Policies Directing Contents Of A "Development Plan" Or Specific Plan In The
Woodland Drive Area.
7. Draft Planning Commission Minutes
8. Draft Council Resolution and Exhibits
9. Draft Ordinance and Exhibits
Council Reading File: Planning Commission Agenda Reports and Initial Environmental Studies,
ER 14-00 and ER 111-0 1
jKlUgeneralplan/ccreport12-11-OIC
7-�
\❑",• ``� `, 5 , ``\\ i�v \`\\ /, (\O ❑ v `\\`\\\ �`lbw ,� '\
❑y Attachment 1
if
i
\❑� i -H
o
JQ�P ❑❑ o ❑ � 1 �
CO I �
_ ti 1_ _ }❑ ❑
003-651-009 uj❑r -- ; R-2
CO
- I I ! ❑ o F- CO `-- —j ❑
❑ j / ET
}
❑ ❑❑
� � \\ �• ALJ--_i�
❑ i --ol Ei
CS-H ❑ !�
— i IO
HIGH \ �----
❑ oi \
v� b b
icit, Iy General Plan Amendment/Rezoning
Railroad Transportation Center and
SLO Railroad Museum
N 950 High Street
Ao 90 180 270 Feet G P/R 14-00
Attachment 2
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5325-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT
TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND THE ZONING MAP
TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM SERVICES AND
MANUFACTURING (C-S-S-H) TO PUBLIC (PF-H) FOR THE RAILROAD
TRANSPORATION CENTER AND THE SAN LUIS OBISPO RAILROAD
MUSEUM AT 950 HIGH STREET
APPLICATION #GP/R 14-00
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 October 10, 2001, for the purpose of considering Application GP/R 14-00,
a staff-initiated request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map to
change the designation from Services and Manufacturing (C-S-S-H) to Public Facilities
(PF-H) for the Railroad Transportation Center and the San Luis Obispo Railroad
Museum; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and
forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
regarding the project; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Negative
Declaration of environmental impact prepared for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence,
including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the
following findings:
1. The proposed amendments are necessary to accommodate uses planned and
approved as part of the Railroad District Plan.
2. The proposed amendments will clarity development requirements within the
Railroad Historic District.
3. The proposed amendments will encourage public- and tourist-serving uses by
allowing cultural facilities not currently allowed under the Services and
Manufacturing designation and C-S-S-H zone.
Resolution No. 5325-01 Attachment 2
Page 2
4. The proposed amendments are consistent with the intent of the General Plan to
provide adequate parking and provide support services for the railroad passengers
and related businesses in the Railroad Area, and will allow the Planning
Commission to address special land use or compatibility issues through use permit
review prior to establishing a museum or other conditionally allowed land use.
Section 2. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council approval of the following amendments:
1. Amend the General Plan Land Use Map, Attachment 2 (excerpt), to change the
property's designation from Services and Manufacturing to Public; and
2. Rezone the site from C-S-H to PF-H, as shown in Attachment 3.
On a motion by Commr. Caruso, seconded by Commr. Aiken, and on the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Caruso, Aiken, Osborne, Peterson, Cooper, and Boswell.
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commr. Loh.
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 10th day of October, 2001.
Michael Draze
Planning mission Secretary
Attachments
5 ✓ +1"\•�Jt7y , e'.\ t, l `.� 1/ +.(..1'� `\\ `.`,�r`7 .�'�i l?`� \ %., •�.i/. 1/
,, / ' - tj \ <: ♦ f `�� \\ \ Attachment 2
ly
.t \t \ �'.Y - '\! t\ r' \ ✓^y/ ? 'rte Tn-1-
General Plan Amendment GP 14.0
, I
t
Jff
t
• 4� v�t,Y
1 /
r �l
Ip I
1 SII
\
6-
+a :>'an
Change from Services and
lanufacturing to Public
xy / •'. ,. t♦�\ �: .<',�� atm},, h ?, \ - '�.*' ,r \, ,, ,'�� (I,
` .' ' \ \ r- ,>- .. .ray' ✓ Y ,• y � �t -� � . 'J
t `\i Y `\tom ` \' X✓♦ \T'' ✓Y•'.J,r,.1 t T
114
MW
r
-t A[
'♦a ar.J..
t•"'Y I-
1 '-t'T-- � Y .+,.�y.J.�� �: t.F�T„�;�'y�k'� � 1 t.,rte'' _ � / � ___ ♦,.
`•r�•'-{•'--{ :T^"1�" _`-��-� -.�-•-'a. •ice--'•_ --- - , .I
1.1
l
I
7_/�1
! !
s
y� R-2-S
;'��s C/OS
0. ♦1,
ro
' 3-H U�
* Attachment 3
,•tea ,°�
°
a 2 bi .°
oCp
ro !
1� A
! C-S-S- z
�
�+ o`'o R
'ma °'
0
2
7 7f
!
10
C- -S- R-2-S Z°
C-S-S- a ° 121 `1 a
1880moo
� 'o
, 2 a
�!a e
Rezone from C=S-S=H to PF=H -2
,�, ,• a �.�
10,
... _._ ...
.. ........ .
2 oio m
N
¢5 (2024)
cc
N 2000 2009
2
MOTE TO USER
The bui Iding locations and number of units
e''0`111"On these Maas may not be accurate
or city o� sen lui s OBISPO
w E reflect the legal status and sbould be used as a
t..¢..sy. l
5 retereaceonly. E 7-:� oa0Vdm5riser/GmtO111ceBoaBI00;m1u130w3poCA0003.SIM (F10
20
° zo ao so e° �°° e�s
JUNE 1999 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
7S— 'g
Attachment 3
Z-2
,96 V�y ,91A
c
I oN
N
Rezone from C_S=S=H to PF=H
I
zoo,
A 2006 2005 2006 2010
B 2015 2013
2014
202' R-2
2034 2017 2022
1940yW 2040 2030
2041
2043 H
� 45
2035 2040
1960 2048 J
2047 W
2049 2047 V 2052
2050 2055 Q
980 A-B It
� 2056 2056
205548
2067 2064
(i
C-
204'
2072
I
I
i
2090
C-S-H 2095
2080
1998
2798 m rn rn w
HIGH RACHEL
2,25 rn
I
C- -S- R-2-S
N • isC-S-H N
FLORE
i
I m
N N
2155
Land Use Element Attachment 4
Figure 7 - Woodland Drive Specific Planning Area
O
C
O a2aa
O &I-0
E
O
O �:
Specific Planning Area
O `5k. d\,at\d
e
� O os ',
V\
city of san Luis oBispo
,e \/ Urban Reserve Line
community development department Specifi6 Planning Area
LU-66 coenenaL plan Oiliest-city of san Luis oBi
PLANNING COMMISSION Attachment 5
RESOLUTION NO. 5324-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
INITIATING A GENERAL PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE
PREPARATION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT OF
THE WOODLAND DRIVE AREA
APPLICATION #GP/R 111-01
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 October 10, 2001, for the purpose of considering Application GP/R 111-
01, a staff-initiated request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map
to delete the "SP" (Specific Plan) map designation and thereby removing an
inconsistency between the General Plan and Zoning Map; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and
forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
regarding the project; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence,
including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the
following findings:
A. Preparation of a specific plan is necessary to ensure that new development in
the Woodland Drive area is designed to address specific planning issues listed in Ch.
6.2.6. (B) of the General Plan Land Use Element, and that a "development plan" is not
an appropriate method to achieve.General Plan goals in this area.
Section 2. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council approval of the following amendment to Chapter 6.2.6(8) of the San Luis
Obispo General Plan Land Use Element (change in strikeout text):
"Before further subdivision or development of any of certain vacant land near
Woodland Drive (Figure 7) a specific plan -2- d2d_!9^. e.,-t ^'"^ should be approved."
On a motion by Commr. Osborne, seconded by Commr Caruso, and on the following
roll call vote:
-1-17
Resolution No. 5324-01
Attachment 5
Page 2
AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Caruso, Peterson, Aiken, Cooper, and Boswell.
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commr. Loh.
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 10th day of October, 2001.
Michael Draze
Planning Commission Secretary
7-If
Land Use Element
D) Have adequate water supply for domestic service and fire
suppression;
E) Avoid areas with high wildland fire hazard;
F) Be next to existing development;
G) Avoid significant visual impacts.
LU 6.2.6: Hillside Planning Areas
Hillside policies apply to all hills in and around the City. Specific policies to address
particular concerns for the areas as shown on Figure 6 are listed below. For each of
these areas, land above the development limit line should be secured as permanent
open space.
A) The Cal Poly - Cuesta Park area includes the hill east of Cal
Poly and north of Highway 101 near Cuesta Park. Development
should be separated or protected from highway traffic noise
and should have adequate fire protection. Architectural review
should be required for developmauLaf lot
e
B) The Woodland Drive area includes vacant land where gg
residential development may occur in the vicinity of the high I
school and residential or medical-care facilities may occur in
the vicinity of the hospital. Before further subdivision or
development of any of certain vacant land near Woodland Drive
(Figure 7) a specific plan or development plan should be
approved. This plan should address the following, in addition
to relevant items as noted in LU Polity 2.3.1.
1) The location and design of new public streets and
private drives serving several owners, and any necessary
changes to existing streets in the area;
2) Water and sewer systems, including new storage tanks,
pumps, main pipes, and access roads, and changes to
existing facilities necessary for adequate service to the
area;
3) New parcels and existing parcels to be changed or
combined;
city of san Luis osispo - renewal plan direst LU-61
Attachment 6 _
Latnd Use Element
4) Location of building sites on parcels next to or crossing
the urban reserve line;
5) Areas to be kept open through easements or dedication
of fee ownership;
Pill
6) A program for transferring development potential,
consistent with these hillside planning policies;
7) Location of creek easements to provide flood protection
and to protect existing creekside vegetation;
8) Phasing of development and public improvements.
C) The Idtree a ends u the hill from a Alrita S e
nei This is or are can
accommodate single-family houses.
1) In addition to meeting the usual criteria for approving
minor annexations, this area should: -
a) Provide a gravity-flow water system
giving standard levels of service to all
developed parts of the expansion area
and correcting water-service
deficiencies in the Alrita Street
neighborhood;
b) Correct downslope drainage problems
to which development within the
expansion area would contribute.
2) A development plan or specific plan for the whole
expansion area should be adopted before any part of it
is annexed,subdivided, or developed. (Existing houses
inside the urban reserve line need not be annexed along
with any new subdivision.)
3) All new houses and major additions to houses should
be subject to architectural review.
D) The Orcutt area includes land on the western flanks of the
Santa Lucia foothills east of the Southwood Drive neighborhood
and Orcutt Road.
Before further subdivision or development of land between
the 320-foot and 460-foot elevations, land above the 460-foot
elevation should be secured as permanent open space. All
building sites should be below the 460-foot elevation.
LU-62 Geneual plan birest-city of san Luis oBispo
140
Attachment 6
Lend Use Element
texture, places for people to walk through them at regular
intervals, and planting.)
I) Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such
as front porches, front yards along streets,and entryways facing
public walkways.
J) Buffers from hazardous materials transport routes, as
recommended'by the City Fire Department.
LU 2.2.13: Nonresidential Activities
Residential areas may accommodate limited nonresidential activities which generally
have been compatible,such as child day care, elementary schools, churches, and home
businesses I es cr'
VO
LU 2.3: Residential Expansion Areas
LU 2.3.1: Specific Plans
Specific plans for the Margarita Area and Orcutt Area residential expansions shall include:
A) Desired types and intensities of development, compatible with
the surrounding area;
B) Phasing of development and public facilities, subject to
availability of resources;
C) Measures to protect resources and open space, including,
among other types, permanent wildlife habitats and corridors,
and farm fields;
D) Desired types of public facilities and the means to provide them,
to City standards, including water supply, sewage collection,
storm water drainage, streets, bikeways, walking paths, and
passive and active park space;
E) Desired levels of public services and the means to provide
them, including fire, police, and schools;
F) A variety of owner and rental housing, including a broad range
H 5.2.5 of prices, sizes, and types. (See also LU Policy 2.5 below.)
H6.3.4 G) Trees to help reduce wind exposure, and water-frugal
landscaping;
H) Public parks and open space, and other land that is not to be
built on,such as yards,and community gardens for multifamily
areas;
LU-2 cieneual plan Diciest-city of san Luis osispo
Atta hment 6
Land Use Element
1) Dual water systems allowing use of treated wastewater for non-
potable uses.
J) Energy efficient design, utilizing passive and active solar
features;
K) Amenities to facilitate public transportation within the area;
Q Opportunities for individuals or small groups, other than the
specific plan developer, to build homes or to create living
environments suited to small groups or to special needs.
U 2 Separaw Paths ih,
Wit n the mayor e n ar le s separate from
roadways should connect residential areas with neighborhood commercial centers, CI 3.3
schools, parks and, where feasible, other areas of the City. CI 3.6
CI 3.7
CI 4.2
LU 233: Residential Neighborhood Designation
The major residential expansion areas are shown as Residential Neighborhood on the
General Plan Land Use Map. They may be developed as adequate utilities and services
are made available. They should be developed as residential neighborhoods,with a wide
range of housing types and costs, and supporting uses such as small parks, elementary
schools,and shopping and services to meet the daily demands of neighborhood residents.
The estimated residential capacities of the major expansion areas are shown in Table 3.
These capacities are based on the amount of land suitable for development according to
policies of this element, and average densities on the housing sites in the range of eight
to ten dwellings per acre (excluding public streets, parks, and other land dedicated to
public use).
LU 23.4: Transfer of Development Credits
For each major expansion area,Table 3 indicates a low capacity which may be developed
without transfer of development credits and a high capacity which may be used with OS 1.3.6
transfer of development credits. Development credits would be transferred from areas
in the City, the urban reserve, or the greenbelt where development would be less
appropriate, generally those designated conservation/open space or, on the County's
map, agriculture or rural lands.
crty of san lues oBispo - Gsncttal plan bicest — — LU-25
7�v
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
October 10, 2001 Attachment 7
Page 10 —
Chairperson Peterson stated h s not supportive of adding the two noise violations
element into this and felt they ready have enough regulation.
Deputy Director Whisenan stated he felt there is adequate language in the conditions
of approval that would allow em to come back fora review hearing.
Assistant City Attorney Trujillo state taff has been trying to develop a uniform policy
and they are continually developing it. noted these conditions will be seen on every
other fraternity or sorority that applies for a se permit before this Commission.
There was much discussion about the se condition.
AYES: Commrs. Cooper iken, Caruso, Boswell
NOES: Commr. Osborn nd Peterson
ABSENT: Commr. Loh
The motion carried 4-2.
3. Woodland Drive Area. GP/R and ER 111-01; Environmental review; and request to
amend the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map by rezoning the Woodland
Drive area to eliminate the specific plan requirement;; City of San Luis Obispo,
applicant.
Associate Planner Jeff Hook presented the staff report recommending that the Council
amend the General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map to achieve consistency in
development plan requirements for the Woodland Drive Area.
Commr. Cooper stated the two types of approval processes are almost identical, that
the only difference in the Land Use Element text is that the specific plan states "it's a
document adopted by the City" and the development plan states" it is a plan for
development of certain site". He asked if this is a semantic discrepancy.
Commr. Boswell asked if LUE Policy 2.3.1. would apply to a specific plan or a
development plan.
Planner Hook stated that a development plan is going to provide the same kind of
information that would be in a specific plan, the only exception being financing and
infrastructure plans in the Specific Plan.
Commr. Boswell stated it would not be relevant in a development plan because the
developer would provide the financing, whereas in a specific plan, which is a City action,
they would have to decide who is paying.
Planner Hook stated that typically in a specific plan there would be City involvement in
financing the infrastructure and other capital improvements.
Commr. Boswell noted the developer would be paying for everything in the development
plan. He asked how the review procedure would differ.
7'23
t
Draft Planning Commission lVnnutes Attachment 7
October 10, 2001
Page 11
Planner Hook stated the state law allows cities to adopt a specific plan by either a
resolution or ordinance. A Development Plan is part of a Planned. Development
rezoning and is only adopted by ordinance. In the case of specific plan, the City is
moving towards adopting them by ordinance. He stated they are both considered
legislative acts under State law and are subject to referendum. He stated the
procedures are very similar and both require review by the Planning Commission and
the City Council before they can be adopted.
Commr. Boswell asked if the voting would require a majority for general plan
amendment.
Community Director Mandeville stated the specific plan adoption is not a general plan
amendment.
Commr. Boswell asked if there is a procedural difference.
Associate Planner Hook replied there isn't any difference in voting.
Commr. Osborne inferred that the developer is recommending a development plan and
asked if this means there would be no public funding of the infrastructure.
Planner Hook replied that he believes nothing has been discussed about City
involvement in any infrastructure for this project.
In response to a question, Director Mandeville explained that a specific plan implements
the General Plan. In this particular case, the General Plan has designated the land use
for a portion as residential and a portion for open space. The specific plan and the
applicant's application must both be consistent with the general plan. If the City initiates
a specific plan for the area during the course of the review, it may be that the Planning
Commission or the Council may ask that a general plan amendment be considered as a
part of the process. Both a specific plan and a development plan will be held to the
same general plan policies and the same general plan consistency requirement.
Commr. Caruso stated there is an important difference between the specific plan in
process and a developer submitting a development plan application.
Planner Hook stated when there is a specific plan prepared and adopted for an area,
there is the possibility of an exemption under CEQA for the development of subsequent
residential uses under that specific plan.
Director Mandeville stated the development plan for the Woodland Drive area must also
address all of the items that a specific plan has to address, according to the General
Plan.
Chairperson Peterson asked if the project would go through two levels of review in the
specific plan.
-7�zy
Draft Planning Commission Nmiutes
October 10, 2001 Attachment ?
Page 12
Director Mandeville replied that a specific plan, a tract map and the other approvals
could all be reviewed concurrently.
Chairperson Peterson asked if the City has the option of pulling the specific plan and
reviewing it first.
Community Director replied the City would probably only exercise this option if the City
were going to fund the preparation of the specific plan.
There were no further comments or questions and the public hearing was opened.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Wendy Brown, 1865 Wilding Lane, requested that the zoning not be changed to R-1.
She felt the proposed project would impact the neighborhood. She felt that if a
development plan is more appropriate than a specific plan, then the PD zoning should
be applied to the area. If it is premature to apply a PD zone, then do nothing and if a
specific plan is appropriate let the SP zone remain. She asked that two items be
addressed: First, there is currently a trailhead access proposed for the large open space
that the City hopes to obtain from this project. She felt there should be parking for this
access that does not impact the existing neighbors and protects the new owners from
trespassing, traffic, and vandalism. The second issue is drainage protection for
downstream neighbors, which appears to be inadequate..
Commr. Osborne asked if these items were addressed through the development plan,
would this satisfy her concerns.
Mrs. Brown replied she would be concerned if the property were to stay vacant for a
period of time.
Planner Hook stated if the SP designation were deleted and it became an R-1 zone,
and the current project did not proceed, then the next project would have to do a
specific plan or a development plan.
Director Mandeville stated the General Plan is their primary land use document and
whatever project comes in will be reviewed with respect to this general plan policy.
Commr. Osborne asked if the parking that is related to the trailhead access would have
to be addressed through a development plan.
Planner Hook replied that it would have to be addressed.
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, agreed with Mrs. Brown's concept.
Marla DeMarco, 2084 Skylark, voiced her concern about the significant issues that are
involved with this parcel and any changes in designation that they have between the
specific plan and the development plan that would diminish in any way the review of
these issues.
7��
Draft Planning Commission Minutes J`
October 10, 2001 Attachment 7
Page 13
Ken Palmer, 2018 Skylark Lane, stated this is a pristine and environmentally fragile
area, and asked that all the 'issues be looked at because it concerns the future of the
city.
Adele Clemsack, 2021 Wilding Lane, stated her concern is the protection of the forest,
cactus patch, and wildlife. She stated the environmental review recommended
protecting this area and hopes the Planning Commission will respect this.
Garrett Delang, 2056 Sweeney Street, said he hopes the review process would never
allow this area to be threatened in any way.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public hearing was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Boswell noted two differences; one is if they left it a specific plan and there was
some sense that the City would initiate a specific plan in process, and CEQA Review;
once a specific plan has gone through an EIR, the development plan would not require
one.
Director Mandeville stated the subsequent development does not require environmental
review provided it is consistent with the specific plan.
Commr. Boswell stated they might get better mitigation measures because they could
identify the very specific impacts of a development plan.
Director Mandeville stated the General Plan requires the development plan to address
the same issues as a specific plan.
Commr. Boswell asked they don't wait for the development plan before making this
change.
Director Mandeville stated the primary issue the Commission is being asked to look at is
not whether a specific plan or development plan is better, but to make the General Plan
intemally consistent and make zoning consistent with the General Plan.
Commr. Caruso suggested deleting the words, "development plan," and stick with the
specific plan process.
Commr. Osborne made a motion that the Commission modify the Land Use Element
text to eliminate the option of submitting a development plan in lieu of a specific plan for
any new development proposal in the Woodland Drive area. Seconded by Commr.
Caruso.
In response to a question, Planner Hook stated this was one of the alternatives he had
mentioned; another alternative was to take no action and give direction to the applicant
to pursue a PD rezoning, and live with the General Plan inconsistency for the next two
or three months while the project is being processed. .
7��
Draft Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 7
October 10, 2001
Page 14 -
Commr. Boswell stated if the project comes before the Planning Commission as it
currently stands, the applicant is guaranteed it would get a thorough environmental
review.
Chairperson Peterson stated the Commission is being lobbied to make this change and
he feels there is not.much of a difference between which ways it is handled.
Director Mandeville stated staff's recommendation is the simplest course to maintain
consistency between the general plan and zoning map.
AYES: Commrs. Osbome, Caruso, Cooper, Aiken, Boswell, and Peterson
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commr. Loh
The motion carried 6-0.
4. 950 High Street. GP/R and ER 14-00; Request to amend the General Plan Land
Use Map from Service-Commercial (C-S) to Public Facility (PF) and to amend the
Zoning map from C-S-S-H, to allow the SLO Railroad Museum, and environmental
review; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Associate Planner Hook presented staff report recommending the Council amend the
General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map to accommodate the planned Railroad
Transportation Center and San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Caruso moved to approved, per the staff recommendation. Seconded by
Commr. Aiken.
AYES: Commrs. Caruso, Aiken, Osbome, Cooper, Boswell, and Peterson
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commr. Loh
The motion carried 6-0.
5. Staff
Agenda Forecast:
October 24, 2001: Joint /ARC workshop regarding telecommunications; General
Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment that would open up other commercial
and residential areas for telecommu ' ation installations.
November 14, 2001: Nothing on the a nda at this time.
November 28, 2001: Use permit fo residential condominium subdivision along with a
government office use in a O-PD z e on South Higuera.Street.
�'7i
Attalchl"M 8,
RESOLUTIONNO. (2001 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP TO CHANGE THE
DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 950 HIGH STREET FROM SERVICES
AND MANUFACTURING TO PUBLIC (GP/R 14-00),AND AMENDING THE
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT MAP TO DELETE THE SPECIFIC PLAN
REQUIREMENT BOUNDARY FOR THE WOODLAND DRIVE PLANNING AREA.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on October 10, 2001
and adopted Resolution No. 5324-01 recommending approval of a city-initiated change to the
General Plan Land Use Element text to require the preparation of a specific plan prior to
development of the Woodland Drive Planning Area, and Resolution No. 5325-01 recommending
approval of a city-initiated amendment to the General Plan to change the land use designation of
property located at 950 High Street from Services and Manufacturing to Public; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on December 11, 2001 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action,and the project evaluation and recommendations of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the initial environmental study and negative
declarations prepared by the Community Development Director for the proposed amendments and
reviewed by the Planning Commission, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed existing General Plan policies and considered
the implications of requiring submittal of either a development plan or specific plan prior to
development of the Woodland Drive Planning Area;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council hereby affirms the
Community Development Director's negative declarations of environmental impact for the
proposed General Plan amendments (ER 14-00 and ER 111-01).
SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed amendment,
the Planning Commissions recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports
thereof,makes the following findings:
A. GP 14-000, 950 High Street:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan.
2. The proposed amendment GP 14-00 will clarify development requirements within the
Railroad Historic District and will implement the Railroad District Plan
3. The proposed amendment GP 14-00 will encourage public- and tourist-serving uses
by allowing cultural facilities not currently allowed under the Services and
Manufacturing designation and C-S-S-H zone.
Resolution No. Q(001 Series) Attachment.
Pate
4. The proposed amendments are consistent with the intent of the General Plan to
provide adequate parking and provide support services for the railroad passengers and
related businesses in the Railroad Area, and will allow the Planning Commission to
address special land use or compatibility issues through. use permit review prior to
establishing a museum or other conditionally allowed use.
B. GP 111-01,Woodland Drive Planning Area:
1. The proposed amendment will remove an inconsistency between the Land Use
Element text and map, clarify the development review process and preserve the
option of preparing either a specific plan or a development plan for the Woodland
Drive Planning area.
2. Hillside Policies in Section 6.2.6.B. of the General Plan Land Use Element set
standards for information required as part of any application submitted for
development of the Woodland Drive area. Consequently, either a specific plan or
development plan may be a suitable planning document for consideration of future
development proposals.
SECTION 3. General Plan Amendments:
A. General Plan Amendment GP 14-00. The Council hereby amends the General Plan Land
Use Element.Map for property located at 950 High Street, as shown in Exhibit A.
B. General Plan Amendment GP 111-01. The General Plan Land Use Map shall be amended to
delete the specific plan requirement boundary for the Woodland Drive Planning area, as
shown in Exhibit B.
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 2001.
Plc
Resolution No. (2001 Series) AttaChmard
Page 3
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
C�&Asiv��
rgen , C#Attorney
Exhibit A: Proposed General Plan Land Use Map Amendments
Jh/Uresandord/ccres 12-11-0 1 a
Attachment 9
ORDINANCE NO. (2001 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FROM C-S-S-H TO PF-H FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 950 HIGH STREET (GP/R/ER 14-00),AND REZONING
THE WOODLAND DRIVE AREA FROM R-1-SP TO R-1 (GP/R/ER 111-01).
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on October 10, 2001,
and recommended approval of the amendment to the site's zoning; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on November 20, 2001 and has
considered testimony of other interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing
and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff-, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with
the General Plan, the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and other applicable City ordinances;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered initial environmental studies and negative
declarations granted on the proposed.zoning amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby affirms the Community Development Director's
negative declarations of environmental impact for the proposed zoning changes (ER 14-00, ER
111-01).
SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following findings:
1. The proposed amendments are necessary to accommodate uses planned and
approved as part of the Railroad District Plan.
2. The proposed amendments will clarify development requirements within the
Railroad Historic District and the Woodland Drive Area.
3. The proposed amendments will encourage public- and tourist-serving uses by
allowing cultural facilities not currently allowed under the Services and
Manufacturing designation and C-S zone.
4. The proposed amendments are consistent with the intent of the General Plan to
provide adequate parking and provide support services for the railroad passengers
and related businesses in the Railroad Area, and will allow the Planning
Commission to address special land use or compatibility issues through use permit
review prior to establishing a museum or other conditionally allowed land use.
7�J�?
Ordinance No. (2001 Series) AttaChmerrt 9'
Page 2
5. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Hillside Planning policies of the
General Plan that require specific information to be included with any application
for the development of the Woodland Drive area.
SECTION 3. The Zoning Regulations Map Amendments (R 14-00 and R 111-01) are
hereby approved as shown on Exhibits A and B.
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 the 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 ,
2001, on a motion of seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
1.
099=44 XE31ren�
ty me Je or sen
�-3y
Ordinance No. (2001 Series) Attachment 9
Page 3
Exhibit A: Proposed Rezoning, R 14-00
Exhibit B: Proposed Rezoning, R 111-01
Jh/Umandord/ord 12-11-01
�-3s"
v Attachment 9
-S-S- R-2
.9� y,� I
REZONE FROM
C-S-S-H TO PF-H2000 2008
2001
A 2006 2005 2006 '2010
B 2015
2013
2014
I 2021
R-2
2034 2017 2022
1940 W 2040 2030
2041 3
2043
45
2035 2040
960
2048 J
1
2047 W
2049 2047 V 2052
2050 2055 Q
980 A-B d'
2056 2058
XB
I
2054 2067 2064
C- - 2075 2072
i
2090
C-S-H
2095
2080
1998
2098 aw
HIGH RACHEL
2125 m
Attach ent 3
C- -S- R-2-S
I
0
C-S-H N
I N
FLOREI
I
ol
a
N N C
2155
3
J Attachment 9
C/OS-40
IBIT
C/OS-40-SP f
o^
i
PF \\ -
San Luis Junior High School
Change RASP ,t
1
R-1- i
R-1-SP
---- ----- i
C/OS
\ U
\ P
---._.—_.—._._._._.--\
\
ea
R_1 „a ooD
R-1
W
Ip
.u�a.e wrr�.r.owa ten.
City of San Luis osispo II..,^,^ I (� II,u.,^,,^, ''
" J M-9-L �.J
JUNE 1999 PULMING DEPAMOff m o m e m m 100 W—
R i
1-37
b —7-ETING_ _ AGENDA ►7
UTE 21. il/ ITEM #..._,L..,,
From: Wendy Brown <wbrown @ slonet.org>
To: <sstendahl@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>
Date: 12/10/01 11:11 AM
Subject: Item 7, Dec. 1.1, 2001 agenda 'NCIL CDD DIR
❑ FIN Dip
Honorable Mayor and Council Members, �'A 0 ❑ FIRE CHIEF
�RNEY Cl PW DIR
I am a resident of the city,directly across the street from the Woodland LERK/ORIQ ❑ POLICE CHF
Drive Area where general plan amendments are proposed. There has been sor Al PT HEAD ❑ REC DIP
confusion about what would be the best designation for the area: the ❑ LML DIP
Planning Commission recommended that the area have an SP designation;the ❑ HR DIP
City staff would prefer that the zoning be changed to simply R-1 so that a
development plan and ultimate PD zoning would be allowed. 4z�
After taking up a lot of staff time, and discussing the issue with the V
developer and the neighbors, I'm not much wiser about what would be the
best zoning, so I'll have to leave it to you to figure out. Here are some
things I do want considered:
1. The culvert that goes down Lizzie Street and that will ultimately carry
the drainage from the development is inadequate. It will be the city s
responsibility to fix this to avoid flooding problems all the way down to
Johnson Avenue.
2. The staff has already allowed the developer to proceed with a
development plan. If a Specific Plan is required, both the city and the
developer will need to start over. (You can decide if this is good or bad.
There may be better areas concerning this project in which to spend that
time and money.)
3. The proposed Open Space above the project.will be a wonderful addition
to the City's greenbelt. It will also give the area residents some
problems in terms of traffic, parking, litter, etc. When you combine this
with the City-owned adobe in the same area, very careful planning needs to
be done.
4. There has already been some piecemeal development in the area in spite
of the Specific Plan overlay. It seemed to have something to do with the
City acquiring the Adobe, but I have never heard the real explanation of
how it happened. I told staff I was going to inquire at the public meeting
about this, and I hope they have an answer. Whatever zoning is on that
property, no more piecemeal development should ever be allowed.
5. Whatever zoning is on the property,the neighbors want maximum care
taken to preserve the unique environmental qualities of the entire
property. We also don'want to be worse off than we were before in terms
of neighborhood quality. As the project goes forward,we would like
maximum opportunities for input.
Thank you for your careful consideration.
Wendy Brown RECEIVED
1865 Wilding Lane
� i, 2001
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 PUP,
546-9491 SLO CIN COUNCIL