Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/07/2004, PH1 - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION DENYING TWO SPECIFIC ATTORNEY FIRMS IN THE SERVICE COMME council j ac Enaa Report CITY OF SAN LU 15 O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directq?m Prepared By: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION DENYING TWO SPECIFIC ATTORNEY FIRMS IN THE SERVICE COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (C-S-SP-PD) ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 735 TANK FARM ROAD (AP-PC 107-04). CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt Draft Resolution "A" denying the appeal, and uphold the Planning Commission's action on the subject project. DISCUSSION Data Summary Address: 735 Tank Farm Road Applicant: Edna Valley Office, LLC Representative: The Law Office of Marshall E. Ochylski Zoning: C-S-SP-PD (Service Commercial Specific Plan Planned Development) General Plan: Services and Manufacturing Project action deadline: The Zoning Regulations say that an appeal shall be scheduled for the earliest available meeting, considering public notice requirements, unless the appellant agrees to a later date. It does not specify when action must be taken on an appeal. Situation In 1987, the City Council in response to an office supply study, adopted amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Regulations that allowed "some" large offices in the C-S zoning district with approval of a Planned Development (PD) rezoning. The enabling ordinance was adopted because the existing office zones did not provide adequate room to accommodate the number of large (over 2;500 square feet) offices expected to need space within the City. Certain types of professional office uses were specifically prohibited within these large office PD's, including attorneys. This was due to the General Plan's desire to direct a majority of the professional offices to the downtown. The Zoning Regulations implemented the General Plan policies with more detailed regulations. On April 15, 2003, the City Council approved a PD overlay zone for the subject property along with a list of allowed and conditionally allowed uses. Consistent with the General.Plan and Zoning Regulations at the time, Ordinance No. 1433 specifically prohibits attorney offices (Attachment 2, reflected as footnote 6 in the use table). Council Agenda Report—AP-PC 107-04 September 7,2004 Page 2 On May 7, 2004, the appellant submitted an Administrative Application for a Director land use determination as to whether two specific attorney firms are consistent with the property's large office PD (Attachment 3, PC Attachment 3). On June 4, 2004, the Director denied the request based on use inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning District and PD approved for the property (Attachment 3, PC Attachment 4). On June 10, 2004, Michael Hodge, filed an appeal of the Director's determination on grounds that the attorney firms of Gray & Prouty and Wheeler & Beaton should be considered an allowed use at the site based on the nature of their businesses rather than their land use category (Attachment 3, PC Attachment 5). On July 14, 2004, the Planning Commission denied an appeal of the Director's action (Attachment 4). On July 23, 2004, Charlie Richardson, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action (Attachment 5). General Plan The site is designated as "Services and Manufacturing" on the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map. The applicant constructed an office building under this' land use.designation consistent with former LUE policy 3.3.2.E that allowed certain professional offices with a Planned Development (Attachment 3, PC Attachment 6). The applicant went into this process knowing certain types of office uses would not be permitted. LUE Policies 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.A&B provide guidance on the appropriate location for various office uses (Attachment_ 3, PC Attachment 7). These policies state not all types of offices are appropriate in all locations, and that all types of offices,:including, attorneys, are appropriate in the General Retail and Office districts in and around the. downtown commercial area. LUE Policies 3.4.2.E and 3.6.2Y (identical policy language in two LUE sections) state, "Offices having no substantial public visitation or. need for access to downtown government services may be in Services and Manufacturing districts." Typically, substantial public visitation and/or need for access to court facilities, County Clerk and government services are associated with legal services and attorney's offices. Zoning.Regulations The purpose of the Zoning Regulations is to implement the General Plan through land use regulations. The Zoning Regulations provide "general" categories for various uses, which typically require minimal staff interpretation and reduce land use determination inconsistencies that can occur when subjectively reviewing uses for zoning consistency on a case-by-case basis. Consistent with General Plan policies at the time of PD approval, the Zoning Regulations allowed large professional offices in the C-S zone, but specifically prohibited certain office uses, including attorneys, that were more appropriate in downtown office settings. Since this PD approval, the General Plan and Zoning Regulations have been amended to no longer require large office PD's. Instead, more certainty was provided by allowing certain office uses in the C-S and M zones consistent with General Plan guidance. Consistent with General Plan policies, attorney's offices were determined to be not appropriate in the C-S zone. Council Agenda Report—AP-PC 107-04 September 7,2004 Page 3 Planned Development 182-02 Large office PD 182-02 was approved for the property in 2003. It contains a list.of allowed and conditionally allowed uses. Condition number four (4) of the PD ordinance states, "The following types of office-related uses are prohibited: non-branch banking services; real estate offices, financial institutions, medical clinics, doctor's offices, and lawyer's offices." The Zoning Regulations at the time of project approval stated that any use or combination of uses which conform with the General Plan may be established in the PD zone. Footnote 10 of Table 9 (Uses Allowed by Zone) specifically prohibited certain uses in large office PD's, including attorneys (Attachment 3, PC Attachment 8). The above stated condition was included in the PD ordinance and reflected in the use table so the PD would be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations. Planning Commission Action On July 14, 2004, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to deny anappeal of the Director's-action to allow two specific attorney firms in the C-S-SP-PD zone; based on findings, as, indicated An the attached Resolution No. 5403-04 (Attachment 4), and-voted 4-3. . (Commissioners Christianson, Miller and Caruso voting no) on a subsequent motion recommending that the City Council consider an amendment to the General:Planand Zoning Regulations to allow a broader range of professional offices in the C-S zoning. district as a potential.future study item. Minutes from the July 14, 2004, Planning Commission meeting are attached for reference (Attachment 6). Appeal Filed On July 23, 2004, Charlie Richardson filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action, which was accompanied by a letter from Marshal Ochylski (Attachment 5). The basic premise behind the appeal is that the attorney firms of Gray & Prouty and Wheeler & Beaton should be considered an allowed use at the site based on the nature of their businesses rather than their land use category. The following is a brief discussion of the appellant's specific reasons for the appeal and staff's response on those issues. 1. The appellant sites General Plan Land Use Element Policy 3.4.2.E as reasoning to allow the proposed attorney firms at the subject property. Response: The General Plan policies discussed in the earlier sections of this report provided direction for the applicable ordinances. Uses at the subject property are governed by Ordinance No. 1433 (PD 182-02), which was approved when Land Use Element Policy 3.3.2.E was in effect. This policy states, "Large offices, with no single tenant spaces less than 2,500 square feet, and having no substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown government services may be in Services and Manufacturing districts, subject to the approval of a Planned Development zoning application." As discussed in the Zoning Regulations section above, the General Plan and Zoning Regulations have been amended to -3 Council Agenda Report—AP-PC 107-04 September 7,2004 Page 4 no longer allow large office PD's. However, LUE Policies 3.4.2.E and 3.6.2.F still say no office uses that have substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown government services. In addition, the Zoning Regulations were amended to allow certain office uses in the C-S zone consistent with the General Plan. Professional office uses, which include attorneys, were determined to be not appropriate in this zone. Therefore, attorney office uses at the subject property, which were evaluated for consistency with the General Plan, including Policies 3.4.2.E and 3.6.2.F, at the time the General Plan and Zoning Regulations were recently amended, are clearly not consistent with this policy. The issue for staff and the Planning Commission was not how the proposed attorney firms conduct their businesses but rather how they could be anything other than an "attorney office" by Zoning Regulations standards. General Plan polices are implemented through the Zoning Regulations. These regulations provide general land use categories for various uses. Allowing the proposed attorney firms at the subject property based on their business operations and clientele rather than their land use '. category would undermine the purpose and intent of the Zoning Regulations and create ongoing monitoring efforts to ensure that only attorney's having no substantial public. visitation or need for access to downtown government services would be allowed. Other attorneys, who might use the office in the future once the use is established, may have more contact with customers and downtown government services. 2. The appellant states, in various locations throughout the appeal letter, that the City. Is currently lacking large office space suitable for attorneys. Response: City staff has not viewed any factual data that verifies this statement. Nor has the' Economic Development Manager received feedback from the legal community indicating an inability to find office space, as occurred with medical practitioners. Even so, the solution would not be to ignore the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and PD ordinance, but to properly amend them. In order to factually quantify whether the City is currently lacking adequate office space for professional office uses, including attorneys, an updated city-wide office supply and demand study, or similar study, would be needed. The Council should decide if the appellant's assertion regarding a lack of professional office space merits further investigation, and if so, who will be financially responsible. Currently, staff resources are fully utilized by established Council priority projects. The Council can reprioritize staffs work program, place this issue as a work scope item with the City's next comprehensive update of our Land Use Element, or approve a scope of work with staff managing the study with funding from the appellants. 3. The appellant identifies General Plan Land Use Element Goals 11, 12, 21 & 24 as support for allowing the attorneys at the subject site. Response: General Plan goals describe desirable conditions and are meant to express the community's preferences for basic future directions. These referenced goals are very broad in nature and can be interpreted to have a generalized relationship to the particular request. In ,_ y Council Agenda Report—AP-PC 107-04 September 7,2004 Page 5 fact, they would also apply to the various other uses that are presently allowed by the property's PD. It is the General Plan policies, which implement the goals, that should be referenced in terms of specific General Plan guidance. As discussed in the General Plan section above and appeal response number one, attorney offices at the subject location are not consistent with General Plan Policies 3.3:1,-3:3.2 A&B, 3.4.2.E and 3.6.21. The cited goals could become the basis for General Plan and zoning amendments if the Council chooses. Conclusion The request to allow attorney offices at the subject property is inconsistent with the General Plan, Zoning District and PD approved for the property. Because of the nature of land use regulations, the City cannot restrict land uses to specific firms. It would be illegal to approve the request based on these inconsistencies. If the City Council believes that attorney uses should be allowed at the site, two options exist: 1) the Council could support an amendment to the General Plan and Zoning Regulations to allow a broader range of professional offices in the C=S zone.. This option should be based on a city-wide office supply and demand study, and would be most appropriately addressed during the City's next comprehensive update of the General Plan Land Use Element; or 2) the Council could support a General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment.and:rezone from Service Commercial Specific Plan Planned Development (C-S-SP-PD) to Office (O.):forthe, property. However, the Council needs to look at office needs for the City as a whole, not just one isolated parcel. It again may be appropriate to defer this option until the General Plan Land Use Element is studied and updated to adequately evaluate the need for additional office space within the City. .It is important to note that while these two attorneys will need to be directed to other properly zoned areas of the City, the applicant's approved PD still contains an extensive listing of allowable uses that are available to occupy space within the subject building. Full building occupancy is a goal of the City, as well as the appellant, and staff will continue to provide assistance to reach this goal, consistent with policies of our General Plan and Zoning Regulations. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. While the proposed use is not consistent with the General Plan it is similar in impacts on City resources to other professional office uses that are allowed. Therefore, no fiscal impacts would result. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may support an amendment to the General Plan and Zoning Regulations to allow a broader range of professional offices in the C-S zone. Please refer to appeal response number 2 and conclusion option 1 for staffs recommendation on this alternative. Council Agenda Report—AP-PC 107-04 September 7,2004 Page 6 2. The Council may support a General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment and rezone from Service Commercial Specific Plan Planned Development (C-S-SP-PD) to Office (0) for the property. Please refer to conclusion option 2 for staff's recommendation on this alternative. 3. The Council may uphold the appeal and approve the proposed attorney's at the subject site with findings that the use is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations and Planned Development 182-02. This alternative is not recommended because attorney firms at the subject property are clearly inconsistent with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations and Planned Development 182-02 approved for the property, as discussed in the staff report. 4. The Council may continue review of the project, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the appellants. ATTACHMENTS: 1.• Vicinity Map 2. Ordinance No. 1433 (PD 182-02: Master List of Uses) 3. Planning Commission staff report 4. Planning Commission Resolution 5403-04 5. -Appeal letter from Charlie Richardson dated July 23, 200.4 6.. Planning Commission minutes from July 14, 2004 7. Draft Resolution "A" denying the appeal 8. Alternative Draft Resolution `B" upholding the appeal G:\tcorey\CC\HP-PC 107-04WP-PC 107-04 Council rpt.doc tir ,I V �. Attachment 2. Ordinance No. 1433 (2003 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM SERVICE COMMERCIAL WITH THE SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY ZONING (C-S-SP) TO SERVICE COMMERCIAL WITH THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONINGS (C-S-SP-PD), FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 735 TANK FARM ROAD (PD/ER 182-02). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on February 12, 2003, and recommended approval of the rezoning (PD/ER 182-02) to change the designation on the City's zoning map from Service Commercial with the Specific Plan overlay zoning (C-S-SP) to Service Commercial with the Specific Plan and Planned Development overlay zonings (C-S-SP-PD), for property located at 735 Tank Farm Road; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 1, 2003, and has considered testimony of 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 rezoning is consistent with the General Plan and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San.Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed rezoning, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration. SECTION 2.Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings in support of Planned Development zoning for the site: 1. The project will be compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the area because PD zoning surrounds the project site and the approved list of uses is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan and General Plan. 2. The project's location or access arrangements do not significantly direct traffic to use local or collector streets in residential zones because the project is generally located on the corner of Broad Street and Tank Farm Road in a developing commercial and industrial area with direct access off Tank Farm Road away from residential streets. 3. The project does not preclude industrial or service commercial uses in areas especially suited for such use when compared with offices. 01433 Attachment 2 Ordinance No. 1433 (2003 Series) Page 2 4. The PD rezoning to allow large offices and other uses consistent with the General Plan at the site, will not affect potential impacts related to noise, light and glare, and loss of privacy, among others, imposed by commercial activities on nearby residential areas. 5. The project does not create a shortage of C-S and M zoned land available for service commercial or industrial development. The project will not result in a loss of C-S or M zoned land. 6. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the General Plan, including policies on government office locations and the desirability for convenience services primarily serving area workers. 7. A negative declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on January 23, 2003. The negative declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby approve application PD 182-02, as shown in Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions. 1. Except as otherwise noted in these conditions of approval, all requirements included in the zoning regulations for the C-S zone shall apply. 2. Allowed and conditionally allowed uses shall be as specified in the master list of uses for the site (Exhibit B). Uses that are not listed may not be established at the site. 3. More than one office tenant may occupy office space on the site, but no single professional office tenant may occupy less than 2,500 square feet of adjacent, interconnected floor area, as indicated in the list of allowed uses recommended by staff. 4. The following types of office-related uses are prohibited: non-branch banking services, real estate offices, financial institutions,medical clinics, doctor's offices, and lawyer's offices. 5. Government agencies not functionally related to general government, social services, or health care operations, as specified in the General Plan Land Use Element Section 5.1 may be allowed at the site through the approval of an.Administrative Use Permit with the combined.floor area of the use not to exceed 25% of the total floor.area of the building and documentation of limited public visitation. The Hearing Officer may refer these requests to the Planning Commission if the request raises potentially significant General Plan consistency issues. 6. Title companies wishing to locate at the site shall maintain a customer service office, such as an escrow office, elsewhere in the City in traditional office zoning categories where there is no restriction on customer visitations. 7. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining and updating the current parking calculations for the site upon the submittal of Planning and Building permits for tenant changes or improvements to ensure the project site does not become under parked. Attachment 2 Ordinance No. 1433 (2003 Series) Page 3 8. The proposed PD allowing professional offices in the C-S zone will require additional traffic impact fees to be paid prior to final approval of the shell building or occupancy of the first tenant space, whichever occurs first. A credit shall be given for those impact fees already paid with the shell-building permit(based on a C-S zone commercial/industrial building). SECTION 4.Adoption. 1. The zoning map is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A. 2. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in documents, which are on display in City Hall and:are available for public viewing and use. SECTION 5. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegrame- Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30)days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the 15t day of April, 2003, AND FINNALY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the 15a' day of April 2003, on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Ewan, Settle, and Schwartz, Vice Mayor Mulholland and Mayor Romero. NOES: None ABSENT: None Mayor David F. Romero AT: -1L9& Lee Price, C.M.C. City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ..'4 i1�b rterte A. Trujillo, Interim City Attorney r WellEMEMME ..■. ���� REZONING MAP 735 Tank Farm Exhibit B Attachment 2 PD 182-02: Master List of Uses Type of Use Under Applicant's PC & Staff current C-S Proposal tRi ec mmenda- Zone Advertising and related services A A A Antennas—municipal, commercial,and public utility D9 D +"'? broadcasting and wireless v,y " communications , , M ; Athletic and health clubs, A D' D fitness centers,game courts, and other recreational facilities -indoor Audio and Video Production Not Listed A A Studios Banks,savings&loan . z -Branch of bank,savings& D2 D' loan or credit union(2,000 sj '. GF each) atwn x ��s Barbers,hairstylists, D D" D' manicurists,tanning centers Broadcast studios A A EW , - Building and landscape A PC maintenance services ' Child or elderly day care, each D D' t. facility having up to 5,000 sf ; gross floor area Computer services A A° A° Construction.Activities A A A (Section 17.08.010.C5) Credit reporting and collection A A A Delivery and courier services A D D Detective and security services A D D Government agency offices and — D1•5 Dt,S meeting rooms. Insurance services(local) -- D5 D5 Insurance services(regional) — D5 D5 Laboratories for medical or A A A analytical research Offices—all types of general A A A Zoning Regulations A =Allowed use D =Allowable with.Administrative Use.Permit PC=Allowable with Planning Commission Use Permit =Use Not Allowed Type of Us Under Applicr PC & stafAttal hment 2 current C-S Proposal Recommenda- Page 2 Zone PD 182-02 tion and special building contractor's offices Offices-architecture, A A A engineering,industrial design Offices(professional) (Min.SF A6 A6 counselors,accountants, requirement of investment brokers,appraisers .2,500 s.f.)6 yFw r Organizations(professional, religious,political, labor, D D s fraternal,trade,youth,etc.) y b * offices and meeting rooms- J• .�4<, ;g, .�� Photocopy services and quick A A A printers Photo finishing-retail A Dr DI Photo finishing-wholesale; blue-printing and microfilming A A A service Photographic studios A A A Post offices and public and A A A private postal services Printing and publishing A A A Public assembly facilities5k_ (community meeting rooms, PC PC lei t • auditorium,convention halls) Repair services—office and A D D business only Research&development— services,software,consumer A A A products,instruments,office equipment,and similar items Restaurants,sandwich shops, D Dr DI take-out food,etc. Combined floor area not to exceed 25%of totalfloor loor area and 2,000 sf.mar.floor area per use Retail sales—convenience D Dt Dt stores Combined floor area not to exceed 2S%of total floor area and 2,000 s f.mar.floor area per use Retail sales—business and A Dt Dr office equipment supplies (5,000 sf GFA each) Retail sales and repair of A Dt Y � bicycles(2,000 sf GFA each) uY1 � Zoning Regulations A =Allowed use D =Allowable with Administrative Use Permit PC=Allowable with Planning Commission Use Permit =Use Not Allowed Type of Us Under Appflu` PC & Staff current C-S4tta hment 2 Propos". Recommen a- Page 3 Zone PD 182-02 tion Secretarial and related services such as transcribing,telephone D D D answering Ticket/travel agencies D D D Title companies -- DS Utility company—Engineering D D D and administration offices Wholesale—(excluding fuel A D1 1 , "' t amr i-tv � s5ra r dealer)and mail order Notes: 1. The following uses are secondary uses within the project site;their combined floor area shall not exceed 25 percent of the total floor area. Some are also subject to limits on individual floor area. ➢ Ambulance service Athletic and health clubs ➢ Bicycle repair(max.2,000 square feet of floor area) Branch of bank,savings&loan,credit union,finance company(2,000 square feet per use) Photo finishing—retail ➢ Retail sales of food,publications,sundries(2,000 square feet of floor area per use) ➢ Sale,rental of business office supplies(5,000 square feet of floor area per use) ➢ Wholesaling,mail order(as freestanding uses) 2. In the C-S zone,only branches of banks are allowed—no headquarters. 3. Use requires specific approval by the Airport Land Use Commission(may be incompatible with ALUP Area 5). 4. Computer services limited to data processing and technical support. 5. Allowable with administrative use permit with documentation of limited public visitation and determination of consistency with City's tri-polar policy and with public facility and office location policies(General Plan). 6. Zoning Regulations allow large offices(min.2,500 sf floor area per tenant)with PD Overlay. Non-branch banking services,real estate offices,financial institutions,medical clinics,doctor's offices and lawyer's offices are prohibited. 7. Outdoor storage is not appropriate in this location. 8. Auto sales in areas other than Auto Park Way should be minimized according to the General Plan Land Use ' Element. 9. Allowed subject to compliance with development standards stipulated in Section 17.16.120 of the Zoning Regulations. 10. Title companies must maintain a customer service office elsewhere in the City in traditional office zoning where there is no restriction on customer visitations. 10 I . n'dicat �d " `s''`'ss an ` " ' 'mmen afion e�ifferenttRtian" 's'_` 90 Italics note use descriptions not currently included in the Zoning Regulations. Some were suggested by the applicant, some by staff. Zoning Regulations A =Allowed use D =Allowable with Administrative Use Permit PC=Allowable with Planning Commission Use Permit =Use Not Allowed -�Y Attachment 3 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM#2 BY: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner(781-7169) D TE; July 14, 2004 FROM: Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Director of Community Developme t7 FILE NUMBER: AP-PC 107-04 PROJECT ADDRESS: 735 Tank Farm Road SUBJECT: Appeal of the Community Development Director's land use determination denying two specific attorney firms in the Service Commercial Specific Plan Planned Development (C-S- SP-PD) zone at the subject property. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal and uphold the Director's determination, based on findings. BACKGROUND Situation In 1987, the City Council in response to an office supply study, adopted amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Regulations that allowed"some" large offices in the C-S zoning district with approval of a Planned Development (PD) rezoning. The enabling ordinance was adopted because the existing office zones did not provide adequate room to accommodate the number of large (over 2,500 square feet) offices expected to need space within the City. Certain types of professional office uses were specifically prohibited within these large office PD's, including attorneys. This was due to.the General Plan's desire to direct a majority of the professional offices to the downtown. On April 15, 2003, the City Council approved a PD overlay zone for the subject property along with a list of allowed and conditionally allowed uses. Consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations at the time, Ordinance No. 1433 (reflected as footnote 6 in the use table) specifically prohibits attorney offices (Attachment 2). On May 7, 2004, the appellant submitted an Administrative Application for a Director land use determination as to whether two specific attorney firms are consistent with the property's large office PD (Attachment 3). On June 4, 2004, the Director denied the request based on use inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning District and PD approved for the property (Attachment 4). On June 10, 2004, the appellant filed an appeal of the Director's determination on grounds that the attorney firms of Gray& Prouty and Wheeler& Beaton should be considered an allowed use at the site based on the nature of their businesses rather than their land use category (Attachment 5). Appeals of items that require Director determination are referred to the Planning Commission. AP-PC 107-04 (Edna Vali 1Jffice,LLC) Attachment 3 735 Tank Farm Road Page 2 Data Summary Address: 735 Tank Farm Road Applicant: Enda Valley Office, LLC Representative: Michael Hodge Zoning: C-S-SP-PD (Service Commercial Specific Plan Planned Development) General Plan: Services and Manufacturing Project action deadline: The Zoning Regulations say that an appeal shall be scheduled for the earliest available meeting, considering public notice requirements, unless the appellant agrees to a later date. It does not specify when action must be taken on an appeal. Site Description The rectangular shaped site contains 2.36 acres and is developed with a 56,000 square foot office building, parking areas and landscaping. The property is generally located on the southeast comer of Tank Farm Road and Broad Street, having street frontage off Tank Farm Road. The Surrounding area is a mix of residential, office and commercial uses. The property to the west is developed with a 9,000 square foot office building. The property to the north across Tank Farm is developed with the Marigold Shopping Center.. The property to the east is developed With residential condominiums and apartments. The property to the south is developed with single-family residences. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1). EVALUATION General Plan The site is designated as "Services and Manufacturing" on the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map. The applicant constructed an office building under this land use designation consistent with former LUE policy 3.3.2.E that allowed certain professional offices with a Planned Development (Attachment 6). The applicant went into this process knowing certain types office uses would not be permitted. LUE Policies 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.A&B provide guidance on the appropriate location for various office uses (Attachment 7). These policies state not all types of offices are appropriate in all locations, and that all types of offices, including attorneys, are appropriate in the General Retail and Office districts in and around the downtown commercial area. Zoning Regulations The purpose of the Zoning Regulations is to implement the General Plan through land use regulations. The Zoning Regulations provide "general' categories for various uses; which typically require minimal staff interpretation and reduce land use determination inconsistencies that can occur when subjectively reviewing uses for zoning consistency on a case-by-case basis. Consistent with General Plan policies at the time of PD approval, the Zoning Regulations Attachment 3 AP-PC 107-04 (Edna Val. Jffice, LLC) 735 Tank Farm Road Page 3 allowed large office PD's in the C-S zone, but specifically prohibited certain office uses that were more appropriate in downtown office settings. Since this PD approval, the General Plan and Zoning Regulations have been amended to no longer require large office PD's. Instead, more certainty was provided by allowing certain office uses in the C-S and M zones consistent with General Plan guidance. Consistent with General Plan policies, attorney's offices were determined to be not appropriate in the C-S zone. Planned Development 182-02 Large office PD 182-02 was approved for the property in 2003 that contains a list of allowed and conditionally allowed uses. Condition number four (4) of the ordinance states, "The following types of office-related uses are prohibited: non-branch banking services, real estate offices, financial institutions, medical clinics, doctor's offices, and lawyer's offices". The Zoning Regulations at the time of project approval stated that any use or combination of uses which conform with the General Plan may be established in the PD zone. Footnote 10 of Table 9 (Uses Allowed by Zone) specifically prohibited certain uses in large office PD's, including attorneys (Attachment 8). The above stated condition was included in the ordinance and reflected in the use table so the PD would be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations. Appeal Filed On June 10, 2004, Michael Hodge, filed an appeal of the Director's land use determination. The basic premise behind the appeal is that the subject attorney firms should be considered an allowed use at the site based on the nature of their businesses rather than their land use category (Attachment 5). Based on letters received by the appellants, both firms are described as having minor client visitation and do not use the downtown government center for hearings. Although "these" attorneys may"currently" have unique business operations and clientele, the fact remains that the property's PD does not allow attorneys offices, regardless of how the businesses are conducted. Although substantial public.visitation and access to downtown government facilities may have been part of the motivation behind policies that are restrictive of attorney's offices outside of the downtown or Office zones, no exceptions exist in the General Plan or Zoning Regulations to treat attorney's offices differently based on how they do business. Conclusion The request to allow two specific attorney firms at the subject property is inconsistent with the General Plan, Zoning District and PD approved for the property. If the Planning Commission believes that the attorney firms should be considered an allowed use at the site, two options exist: 1) The Commission could recommend that the City Council support an amendment to the General Plan and Zoning Regulations to allow a broader range of professional offices in the C-S zone. It should be noted that this option would entail a major planning effort, including a City- wide office supply study, and would be most appropriately addressed during the City's next comprehensive update of the General Plan Land Use Element. 2) The Commission could recommend that the Council support a General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment and rezone from Service Commercial Specific Plan Planned Development(C-S-SP-PD) to Office (0) AP-PC 107-04 (Edna Vall._ -)ffice, LLC) Attachment 3 735 Tank Farm Road Page 4 for the property. Again, it may be appropriateto defer this option until the General Plan Land Use Element is studied and updated to adequately evaluate the need for additional office space within the City. The appellant constructed an office building in the C-S zone knowing that some office uses would not be permitted.. It is important to note that while these two attorneys will need to be directed to other properly zoned areas of the City, the applicant's approved PD still contains an extensive listing of allowable uses that are available to occupy space within the subject building. Full building occupancy is a goal of the City as well as the appellant and staff will continue to provide assistance to reach this goal, consistent with policies of our General Plan and Zoning Regulations. CONCURRENCES The appeal of the Community Development Director's land use determination was not distributed to other City departments. RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director's determination, based on findings included in the attached Planning Commission Resolution (Attachment 9). ALTERNATIVES 1. The Commission may recommend that the City Council support an amendment to the General Plan and Zoning Regulations to allow a broader range of professional offices in the C-S zone. 2. The Commission may .recommend that the City Council support a General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment and rezone from Service Commercial Specific Plan Planned Development(C-S-SP-PD) to Office (0) for the property. 3. The Commission may uphold the appeal and approve the proposed attorney's at the subject site with findings that the use is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations and Planned Development 182-02. This alternative is not recommended because attorney firms at the subject property are clearly inconsistent with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations and Planned Development 182-02 approved for the property, as discussed in the staff report. 4. The Commission may continue review of the project, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the appellants. ATTACHMENTS 1. AP-PC 107-04 (Edna Vall )ffice, LLC) Attachment 3 735 Tank Farm Road Page 5 2. 3. Administrative Application letter from Michael Hodge dated May 6, 2004 4. Director's land use determination letter dated June 4, 2004 5. Appeal letter from Michael Hodge dated June 10, 2004 6. Former General Plan LUE Policy 3.3.2.E 7. General Plan LUE Policies 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.A&B 8. Footnote 10 of Table 9 from the Zoning Regulations dated May 2, 2002 9. CI YT OF SAN LUIS OBISFU [MAY 72004 May 6, 2004 j COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of San Luis Obispo,Community Development Department Attachment 3 990 Palm Street - San Luis Obispo,Ca. 93401 Attention: Ron Whisenand,Deputy Director of Community Development Re: 735 Tank Farm Road Dear Ron: Thank you for meeting with Charlie Richardson and me to discuss our options to allow qualified attorneys in the C-S P-D zoned property at 735 Tank Farm Road.As a result of our meeting I have prepared this letter to request an administrative review to allow two specific attorney firms, Gray&Prouty,and Wheeler and Beaton,currently located near the airport and on Pacific Street, respectively,to conduct business at 735 Tank Farm Road. The steps we have taken to date include a similar request,submitted on October 21,2003, for an administrative approval to allow the Gray&Prouty attorney firm into the aforementioned building. Several days later we met with Tyler Corey who informed us of your denial of our request. As a result of your decision and after talking with City Council members,we recently submitted an application for a zone change and general plan amendment for both 715 i(rid 735 Tank Farris Road. We understand the City Planning Department believes a zone change for these properties needs to be part of an area wide review at a later date and therefore will not support our zone change request.And,after talking with you it seems the more proper and expedient approach needed to meet our needs is to submit again this request for an administrative approval. We have talked with both firms about their business operation with respect to their use of the downtown government center and clientele office visits.Gray and Prouty have no client contact and.conduct almost all business out of the County,as described in a letter prepared by their office. Wheeler&Beaton practice workers' compensation and social security law exclusively with minor client visitation. Both areas of the law involve administrative hearings,which are not conducted in the downtown area. Both firms would like to expand their business and number of employees to a level that would best be served out of the downtown core due to a lack of available and competitive rental space and adequate parking. Allowing these two firms to conduct business at 735 Tank Farm Road will provide_opportunities for the City and other businesses by bringing Gray and Prouty into the City limits,and by making available the Wheeler&Beaton downtown office space to other businesses that do utilize the downtown government buildings. We appreciate your consideration of our request and will provide documentation from both firms about their business following your review of this letter. ncerel , PC Attachment 3 cha d /—ZU NI Of SAn lids OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 June 4, 2004 Attachment 3 Michael Hodge 1998 Santa Barbara Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Subject. 735 Tank Farm Road (Attorney Offices) Dear Mr. Hodge: On June 4, 2004, I reviewed your request to allow two specific attorney firms (Gray & Prouty and Wheeler & Beaton) in the Service Commercial Specific Plan. Planned Development(C-S-SP-PD)zone at the subject property. You have specifically asked for an administrative determination as to whether these attorneys are consistent with the property's large office PD. After careful consideration I have denied your request, based on use inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning District and Planned Development approved for the property. In 1987, the City Council adopted amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Regulations that allowed "some' large offices in the C-S zone with approval of a PD rezoning. The enabling ordinance was adopted because the existing office zones did not provide adequate room to accommodate the number of large (over 2,500 square feet) offices expected to need space within the City. Certain types of office uses were specifically prohibited within these large office PD's, including attorneys. On April 15, 2003, the City Council approved a Planned Development overlay zone for the subject property along with a list of allowed and conditionally allowed uses. Consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations at the time, footnote 6 of this use table specifically prohibits attorney's offices (attached). Since this approval, the General Plan and Zoning Regulations have been amended to not allow large professional office PD's in the C-S zone. In addition, the list of permitted uses for the C-S zone was revised to be more consistent with the Services and Manufacturing General Plan Designation. Currently, attorney's offices are prohibited in the C-S zone. General Plan Land Use Element Policies 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.A&B (attached) provide guidance on the appropriate location for various office uses. These Policies state that not all types of offices are appropriate in all locations, and that all types of offices, including attorneys, are appropriate in the General Retail and Office districts in and around the downtown commercial area. The purpose of the Zoning Regulations is to implement the General Plan through land use regulation. The Zoning Regulations provide "general" categories for various uses, which typically require minimal staff interpretation and tC. Attachment 4 OThe City of San Luis Obispo Is committed to Include the disabled In all of its services,programs and activities. �� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Attachment 3 reduce land use determination inconsistencies that can occur when subjectively reviewing uses for zoning consistency on a case-by-case basis. For the above stated reasons, the City will be unable to support your request for attorney's to occupy space at 735 Tank Farm Road. However, as shown on the attached master list of uses, numerous tenant options still remain available for you to occupy your space consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Regulations. Staff will be happy to provide you with continuing assistance to achieve your goal of full occupancy. My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within 10 calendar days of the date of this letter. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal. Appeal forms are available in the Community Development Department. The fee for filing an appeal is $100 and must accompany the appeal documentation. Appeals will be scheduled for the fust available Planning Commission meeting date. If an appeal is filed, you will be notified by mail of the date and time of the hearing. If you have any questions regarding this letter, or if you need additional information, please contact Tyler Corey at(805)781-7169.. Sincerely, Ro d Whisen d Deputy Directo of Community Development Attached: PD 182-02: Master List of Uses General Plan Land Use Element Policies 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.A&B cc: Address File PC Attachment 4 1,2 Z aesign professionals civil engineers I laid.sureevorc i land planners Attachment 3 June 10, 2004 City of San Luis Obispo Planning Division Community Development Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Attention: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director of Community Development Re: 735 Tank Farm Road Dear Ron: We are filing this appeal on behalf of Edna Valley Office, LLC, of the administrative decision made on June 4,2004, denying a request to allow two specific attorney firms to locate in the project located at the above referenced address. We are requesting that the Planning Commission reverse that decision because we do not believe the decision reflects the intent behind the policies that were cited in support of that decision. Historically, the City has required attorney's offices be located,within the downtown core and not in locations outside of that core. As we understand the intent of that policy, it was to encourage these types of uses to locate in the downtown.area as a means of encouraging additional user trips into the downtown core area as well as discouraging increased vehicular trips between these offices and the downtown courthouse. We believe the policies cited in reaching the denial of this request do not apply to the specific facts of the request before the City. Tfie"uses"that approval was requested for, although certainly technically categorized as an attorney's office, is more of a "backroom"operation than a traditional"attorney's.off ce"and on that basis alone should be an allowed use on this site. In fact this use has little if any on-site client contact and is very similar in character to other such"backroom"uses that are commonly allowed in the C-S zone such as a title company plant and billing operations for.non-allowed uses. It is our opinion the actual use of the facility should be determining factor rather than its technical designation. In addition, there simply are no spaces within the downtown core or within other office- designated properties that are suitable for this use. If Gray and Prouty is not allowed to locate in this area, they will be forced to located outside the City, a move which would certainly be against numerous City policies meant to encourage service industry employees, and other such employers, to locate within the city limits. These3Cflf(1@tlt 5 ft „u 1998 Santa Barbara Street,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 805-549-8658 Fax 805-549-8704 www.edainc.com Attachment 3 Page 2 policies must be considered and properly weighted in any determination of the consistency, or inconsistency, with the City's policies and regulations of any proposed use before a request is granted or denied. These policies were simply not a part of the analysis that accompanied this denial. A more detailed analysis of the City's specific goals and policies that support this appeal is currently being prepared and will be forwarded to planning staff as soon as it is completed. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Michael odg Cc:`'Charlie hardson K Attachment 5 eda-design professionals 1998 Santa Barbara Street,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 805-549-8658; Fax 805-549-8704 www.edainc corn ,� Attachment 3 Land Use Element SLO General Plan C. Medical services should be near the hospitals. D. Government social services and the regional offices of state and federal agencies should be near the intersections of South Higuera Street, Prado Road, and Highway 101 (Figure 5); _ E. Large offices, with no single tenant space less than 2,500 square feet, and having no substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown government services may be in Services and Manufacturing districts, subject to approval of a Planned Development zoning application. F. Certain business and professional services having no substantial public visitation or limited need for access to downtown government services may be in Services and Manufacturing districts. Examples of such uses are computer services, utilities engineering and administration, architects and engineers, industrial design, advertising, building contractors, labor and fraternal organizations, veterinarians, and insurance and financial services that do not.directly serve retail customers. 3.3.3 Offices Outside Designated Areas Existing office buildings outside the areas described in policy 3.3.2 may continue to be used and may have minor expansions if they: A. Have access directly from collector or arterial streets, not local residential streets; B. Will not significantly increase traffic in residential areas; C. Will not have significant adverse impacts on nearby uses. 3.3.4 Building Conservation Historic or architecturally significant buildings located in Office districts should be conserved, not replaced. 3.3.5 Building Intensity The ratio of building floor area to site area shall not exceed 1.5. The Zoning Regulations will establish maximum building height and lot coverage, and minimum setbacks from streets and other property lines, as well as procedures for exceptions to such standards in special circumstances. Architectural review will determine a project's realized building intensity, to reflect existing or desired architectural character in a neighborhood. When dwellings are provided in Office districts, they shall not exceed 12 units per acre. So long as the floor area ratio is not exceeded, the maximum residential density may be'developed in addition to nonresidential development on a site. (See the residential section for policies on density bonuses for affordable housing.) 42 K Attachment 6 Attachment 3 SLO General Plan Land Use Element F. Provide indoor or outdoor space for public use, designed to provide a focus for some neighborhood activities. 3.2.3 Expanding Centers The City should evaluate the need for and desirability of additions to existing neighborhood commercial centers only when specific development proposals are made, and not in response to rezoning requests which do not incorporate a development plan. 3.2.4 Stores in Residential Areas Small; individual stores within established residential areas may be retained when they are compatible with surrounding uses. Other isolated commercial uses which are not compatible with residential surroundings eventually should be replaced with compatible uses. 3.2.5 Building Intensity The ratio of building floor area to site area shall not exceed 2.0. The:Zoning Regulations will establish maximum building height and lot coverage, and minimum setbacks from streets and other property lines, as well as procedures for exceptions to such standards in special circumstances. Architectural review will determine a projects realized building intensity, to reflect existing or desired architectural character in a neighborhood. When dwellings are provided in Neighborhood Commercial districts, they shall not exceed 12 units per acre. So long as the floor area ratio is not exceeded, the maximum residential density may be developed in addition to nonresidential development on a site. (See the residential section for policies on density bonuses for affordable housing.) T33. ffices 3.1 Purpose and Included Uses The City should have sufficient land for Office velopment to meet the demands of City residents and the specialized needs of County residents. Office development includes professional and financial.services (such as doctors, architects, and insurance companies and banks) and government agencies. The City should retain the regional offices of state and federal agencies. Not all types of offices are appropriate in all locations. (See office location policies below. Also see the Public Facilities section, page 49.) 3.3.2 Office Locations A. All types of offices are appropriate in the downtown General Retail district, but are discouraged at street level in storefronts of the commercial core. B. All types of office activities are appropriate in the Office district which surrounds the downtown commercial area, though.offices needing very large buildings or generating substantial traffic may not be appropriate in the area which provides a transition to residential neighborhoods. 41 FG Attachment 7 /-26 Notes: Attachment 3 1. In the C-N,C-S,and M zones,only branches of banks are allowed-no headquarters. 2. Except for condominiums, the development of more than one dwelling on a land parcel in the R-1 zone requires approval of an administrative use permit. R-1 density standards apply. 3. In the O zone, dwellings on a site occupied by residential uses only are allowed. Dwellings on a site with nonresidential uses require approval of an administrative use permit. 4. In the C-N zone,hot tubs/spas for commercial use must be enclosed. 5. In the M zone,schools are limited to those offering instruction in fields supportive of allowed uses. 6. In the O.C-N,C-C and C-R zones•animals at veterinarian's facilities must be kept within a building. (Ord. 1365(2000 Series)) 7. In the C-N zone,branch libraries only are allowed. 8. In the C-N zone, the following types of uses are allowed provided that(1) the gross floor area of each establishment shall not exceed 2,000 square feet and(2)the combined floor area of all such establishments within a shopping center shall not exceed 25%of the total floor area in a shopping center with a gross floor area of 15,000 square feet or greater-,or shall not exceed 50%of the.total floor area in a shopping center with a gross floor area of less than 15,000 square feet: Retail sales-outdoor sales of building and landscape materials. Retail sales-indoor sales of building materials and gardening supplies. Retail sales-appliances,fumiture and fumishings,musical Instruments;data processing equipment business,office and medical equipment stores;catalog stores;sporting goods,outdoor supply. Retail sales and rental-specialties,except that the floor area of video stores shall not exceed 3,000 square feet. Tk*etttravel agencies. For parcels not located within shopping centers, an administrative use permit shall be required for the uses listed above, to insure consistency with policies of the General Plan Land Use Element and compatibility with surrounding uses. The use permit may provide for exceptions to the floor area limitations listed under(1)and(2)above. 9. In the C-N and C-T zones,car washes are allowed only in conjunction with and incidental to service stations. 10. large professional office buildings which can include multiple tenants but with no single tenant space less than 2,500 square feet may be established in the C-S and M zones subject to the approval of a Planned Development(PD)zoning application and compliance with findings specified in Section 17.62.040 C. However, this provision notwithstanding, the following types of office-related uses are prohibited in PDs approved for C-S and M zones: Non-branch banking services, real estate offices, financial Institutions, medical clinics;doctors offices,and lawyer's offices. 11. An administrative use permit is required for the construction of nonresidential structures or the conversion of residential structures to non-residential uses in the O zone. In order to approve a use permit the Director must make each of the following findings: A. That the location,orientation,height and mass of new structures will not significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas. B. That the project's location or access arrangements will not significantly direct traffic to use local streets in nearby residential areas. C. That the project Includes landscaping and yards that adequaMly separate parking and pedestrian circulation areas from sites in nearby residential areas. 12. In the C-C and C-R zones, use permit review of automobile sound system installations should include consideration of the following items: parking space displacement, noise from the operation, and appearance. Use permits may be approved only when the use is accessory to a retail sales operation. 13. Where parking as a principal use is allowed,deviations to existing setbacks and building heights are permitted upon approval of a use permit as required by Section 17.22.010. All multi-level parking facilities shall require the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission. 14. Theaters in the C-N zone shall be limited to 4,000 square feet in size, a single screen, and restricted to shopping center sites in the zone(See Section 17.04.371). 15. Use permit review shall consider that the C-S zone is primarily intended to accommodate uses not generally suited to other commercial zones because of noise,truck traffic,visual impacts and similar factors. A use permit may be approved only when the church will not likely cause unreasonable compatibility problems with existing or likely future service commercial uses in the vicinity. Use permit conditions may include measures to mitigate incompatibility. 16. In the PF zone,only non-profit theaters are permitted. city o�san tuts oalspo 71 zonlnq aequlations PL Attachment 8 /—Z7 t _ Attachment 4 RESOLUTION NO. 5403-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S LAND USE DETERMINIMATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 735 TANK FARM ROAD (AP-PC 107-04) WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, on June 4, 2004, denied a request to allow attorney offices in the C-S-SP-PD zone; and WHEREAS, Michael Hodge, filed an appeal of the Community Development Director's determination on June 10,2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning Com mission 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 July 14, 2004, for the purpose of considering an appeal of the Director's land use determination; 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: 1. Attorney offices are not consistent the property's large office Planned Development (PD 182-02) because attorneys are specifically prohibited by Ordinance No. 1433 (reflected as footnote 6 in the use table). 2. Attorney offices are not consistent with the property's zoning district because professional offices are prohibited in the C-S zone. 3. Attorney offices are not consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policies 3.3.1 & 3.3.2 A&B, which state that not all types of offices are appropriate in all locations, and that all types of offices, including attorneys, are appropriate in the General Retail and Office districts in and around the downtown commercial area. Section 2. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby deny the appeal of the Community Development Director's land use determination, application No. AP-PC 107-04. /-Z� Attachment 4 Planning Commission Resolution #XXXX-04 AP-PC 107-04 Page 2 On motion by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commr. Osborne, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Miller, Osborne, Christianson, Aiken, Loh, Boswell, and Caruso NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 14`h day of July 2004. Section 3. Referral. The Planning Commission referred to the City Council as a potential future study item the matter of allowing a broader range of professional offices in the C-S zone. On motion by Commissioner Aiken, seconded by Commr. Boswell, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Aiken, Boswell, Miller, Osborne, and Loh NOES: Miller, Christianson, and Caruso REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 14"' day of July 2004. Ro d Whisenan , Secretary Planning Commission by: Attach rnen Filing Fee: $100.00 Paid �bK REC t Reiv JUL 2 3 2004 NOMCity Of •REFER TO SECTION 4 �A lA CIN CLERK GN&san tws OBISPO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMAT70N 78S TAPJX FrAeAl 00 e14AjeL1e: 121C 14AA pY oow! sA PI I--U1!5 oe(sPOI GA 13401 Name Mailing Address and.Zip Code 86 ) -'7$I -40!fo Aw57 m - 2S©4 oneloo / ¢327 /LIARS Acl. do tf yLSK/ sa„► oe/,So!XL 4 g3�FB6 Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone Fax SEC7ION2 SUBJECT OFAPPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis:Obispo Mu�y'cipal Code.(cgpy attached), I hereby app al the deci�si n of the: I�z-;4,JN1N6 loMMi55/o� Uf�ii0IL-AIA147 , coH_m otirrY c;gVEL.oPMEAj'% ytREG-Tt7�S_ C3cG/_SIOa; (Flame of Officer,Committee or Commission decision being appealed) ayVi( 14, 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 3. The application or project was entitled: L.Ai4 V 01W t9BAtYI�G rwo 5raciFtc ATToser` aY FIQMs 14 Twl= 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member. Pow w.Jis�N.�►v gTYi_EJ2 l_o.BE`l on . Ty'-`(. /3� zoo* (Staff Membe's Name and Department) (Date) t7gzPAer/4=fJ r 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom: _Pi.A,.►n3lNG r°6MM►S.Stnh1 © A) 5u`Y I �I`. 2©o4 SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actioNs you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages,ff necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 I-3� :i a� ■ �aQ 5 I �7 •_ J t{� r i' ` 1 ...I 17 .all r�i r 1 i-l.. a ,�, �! � .YC l U(I. �!'�.W. � �� l �-�i.. IY'�"7y"Y-I' �; ,}I J{rF r�s'' �-�,�'�'•1�"7.r� I Ira FI yl 7}I I �T ��i fi cl' � •-t Irl iy S p .at {�rt,tIt Y111��Jj1.�C'�.fr�T ' II� �;�T�♦� F� i p"!. '�' J+'Ott� 1 (^]. •1 � I '� �u-"�A F-+4� •a=�J6 ?� .frQ.. r V. A v,� Yl �T b�.i�r 1..y.�. � 7 1n` fir_ .Ic♦ f��r I.1• •~ � � } j5. r+ 1 ( • a l e s ' a r 1 _ ar y I {L Y 11 e a 1 I T p y V f r a N vyI rQr ^1•+1.,1+��1�I ,.�f'lis1-If `r1:9^�hdtT t7"' t tic C3ai y 7 ai�,ltl t'a I1. 1n �Y•1 .. •.Ir 1'0 i;�.l S�+ fyy�i�' ~a • a, .L�rlVf1111" �'Val +., - TaW'y1 '� y,aNi'At I .I yl.i r tlr ? ♦ I/ i 'I .. F RI� 1 t4l I L- 4 is j�� Ina �z c � ?✓l ^11 y( P„'i.' ztiu 2 sL yn Yy r la j r'91^i LI I;6 ,�r7,,r D a Ip,` ��..yf l+'�'"��'{fir{^"l,�r�;"'. .♦rf. A a{��Ar ����r��s �'..r y'I'� c i I.� Y^fy,. r•Il ��y.� 'T II�,I�.I `al� � II al•'ri I�! 1 �f,l�l al ff Trl c 1 r �J IY� �5�r • { 'LI ! �3 It S fYa +���, vt �`K� �•c� •�'a_ � �I..,,� a r i�11 yc..J�'aa:,.. II�,, �an.,� I �.. 'G -t ' I -•.y,,, �i. j�•x -I"'ila dal.(a,W1111 .1tlr+ev r.l ra IiaTT'I. �,PP 4 b ..r��P 7..J j�.1 s,a,�f-r ar•,Q;.-tarot 'AMM''w 1�'s' s.k 11TT rt y �c L N�$ ���-`.�j~ I Ill y�la���lu��P N( 1.Jr{ 1 r1 �~ r � 1• A'�T44r 1' I � �- I.ar YI � 4 � r `��j FL }��4:'�nra ..* �r -?*�rm`�.r.�'7 �I�1 »..�y lr r�'. FJ) ) 1 �1 I•il" � 1jx �I } ` �� ' ' 4 .f� I nvL, ly a Mr •}I .3 LI�.- t e�, "' II' r l �� S n I 1 1 � t r- P '. I I' � \+ r �� G 1 J I [�'.dyye� s r Ir�l_a�rl . t • a �7 f �•. li y !I l ww r� £qC 't�alL� lh`a#. wC },n��-�,.°-•r I.I -r tC•faA 'Z'.'M rt 1 �^ .5� 4�'1 F I, t1 rt�P 11�1� I aA�if F! �'����,a r,J� '` k��'c �•' II�}(i�f A z� �F lav ��VrI,'��.LN..} II �..,.y11F•1J..y>�}� .a♦}'G...r h{� 71 �L"�`I 11 ", � fel ( r dr� �Y}�I ��"`a J' ` Irl• ..1 I Irl 1 r. tl ,I -11 . 3 v 1 -•i J• 'M'�c 'I� Gfn •ia ♦ �T1:. n 'J� y-ahJ qq t � ral J �.,� 1G I Y r I �~ ` � �' II a f u Ya I t r l 1 a t a,1 I• 1 Ia � . ) ��`� � ^ " aPesr. IJ• al��(((�..f-`^ I�Ly.,Y'�ji� L��f I�ly'l�t� (4��*iT�l'�'�'`��`T' �'�`�1 z''�"IT''�f�.,�pq+.)c±a, •�4(r'��, ��ritl la K:� . � h'��h •irk F'�!'W1*•+la S LTr'I.: w � 1 i*1 4 = ? 'V� �a j� `Y r:.'1�„ it"4..R1-}� k. .•rl ,, n 1 r„ . a E ' „"Z ,� �.:�f1 a: U rf I I �a�r I? I � 'w_'�. M I s T rll.� Y�cF �-I 1-,Syib'•Tr• S 1 '<a .,e� A_- 1 .l.a 4) ` .,.Z {`datil�.IPyu r �+ alJ,�..m�.ff�l ril.� ��2•�1�1'�`S^I"a" e.r� �SJ �'�tG i Y'4� �I}��, S�.-t.17. ... s.,� a r �lre�II _ 1 `) f " r i/ 1 a I. ! '' � f1 a /� 'I I •��If ! SP PR f�r 1 71 ,L"�-�f�1.n J I�IM �^'4 l�. bra utYn_I 1 yf i'u IG ..� I IM�� .c_A. I��J .F" l I ''• 1 f 1 �I. �, r�ArIA1 Ie .��se ti IY , rpi I`� 5 rayl Jt n;YlV.:I I^ ti. 1 1}ifR .I I 4 � ' J yr ;[I. • { f ..s, 1 v �rn�' k[ v 1 a I. 1 r is hf�' l r �f r i 4L y }y ants hljan 1 � �r ' 4 Lf I..f, Ill I I f � irl • ..� Sj �♦ 1 � I � I' !I' a I PMI.jl {la `4, to 1 r ( {ih.l! al � L II .I ,f f h t I •. �; { t. it � �W .1 ti Asr { -t�I � r ("i ♦ r�`) 111'al :a I t al )1 1 X it, Ljivcl','y.,+.i11�rr1�l°�I: ,�.;•x.E '1T.,....'.LILY Mi�lii'1.. � � . . la ' i• r. Attachment 5 The Law Office of Marshall E.Ochylski Post Office Box 14327 1026 Palm Street,Suite 210 San Luis Obispo,California 93406 Telephone:(805)544-4546 Facsimile:(805)5444594 E-mail:MOchylskiOSLOlegal.com Hand Delivery July 23,2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Appeal of Director's Determination Denying Specific Attorney Firms/Uses in the C-S-SP-PD Zone, File Number: AP-PC 107-04, 735 Tank Farm Road, San Luis Obispo,California This office represents Edna Valley Office LLC, the owner of 735 Tank Fane Road. I am writing this letter to accompany our appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of our original appeal of the Community Development Director's land use determination denying two specific attorney firms in the Service Commercial Specific Planned Development zone (C-S-SP-PD)zone at the above-referenced property. We are requesting that the City Council uphold this appeal because we do not believe that the denial properly interprets the intent behind the policies that were cited in support of that decision nor does that denial properly weigh the competing City goals and policies in support of allowing the proposed use. The following analysis highlights those issues specifically raised in the June 4, 2004 Director's determination and the July 14, 2004 Planning Commission meeting and further discusses how the City's competing goals and policies form a basis for findings upholding the Applicant's appeal. Historical Backeround. Historically, the City has required that all types of attorney's offices be located solely within the downtown core. As we understand the intent of that policy at the time that it was adopted by the City, the policy's goal was to encourage these types of uses to locate primarily in the downtown area as a means of encouraging additional user trips into the downtown core area as well as discouraging increased vehicular trips between - 1 - 1:111B Farm Ko:ld 1 n%t onmcil \ppcal /- 321 - Attachment 5 outlying attorney offices and the downtown courthouse. Over the many years that have passed since the adoption of that policy, the manner in which law is practiced has gone through quantum changes. The complexity of the law in any particular field now requires that an attorney become a specialist if he or she is to provide the level of representation required by his clients. Gone forever are the days of the general practitioner. This irreversible trend towards specialization has increased the amount of transactional law being practiced while reducing the amount of litigation as a percentage of total hours spent in the practice of law. Most attomeys now handle their practice with little if any personal client contact. The telephone, facsimile machines, and e-mail have replaced this once prevalent and indispensable personal contact. In addition, this increasing use of technology has led to the creation of larger specialized firms that serve not only local and county residents but also national and world-wide clients. Those firms that specialize in litigation or other uses that are convenienced by a location in the downtown core are, and will continue to be, located in the downtown core as space available space permits. However, the majority of today's law firms have little if any personal contact with their clients that would require they be located in either the downtown core or other properties zoned for Office users. Allowed Uses in the C-S Zone. It is our contention that the types of attorney's offices restricted from locating in the above-referenced project are the types of attorney's offices that will choose to locate in the downtown core and not attorney's offices of the type specifically included in the original request. We believe that the specific types of operations included in our request should be allowed as comparable to other large scale office types of uses allowed in the C-S zone despite their being technically classified as attorney's offices. The use that approval was specifically requested for, although certainly technically categorized as an attorney's office, is more of a"backroom"operation than a traditional "attorney's office" and on that basis should be an allowed use at this location. As stated in the Staff Report reviewing the Proposed General Plan Amendment to Provide Greater Flexibility for the Locations of Medical Services, the history of this policy goes back to 1987, when the City first adopted an ordinance allowing large offices to be located in areas designated Services and Manufacturing. This change was precipitated by an Office Supply and Demand Study prepared in 1986 by Quad Consultants. At the time,there was significant concern over the potential for development of large offices in the Office zone, which could be incompatible with surrounding neighborhoods because of urban design considerations and traffic impacts. By allowing large offices to be developed in areas designated Services and Manufacturing, there would be less pressure to develop large buildings in the Office zoned area that marks the transition between Downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods. -2— Attachment 5 Since that time, the City has seen some major office development in the outlying areas. But, these offices have been restricted to larger offices that do not require "substantial public visitation"or need for access to downtown government services. General Plan Land Use Policy 3.6.2 in applicable part specifically states that "The following types of uses are appropriate in areas designated Services and Manufacturing. Certain areas designated Services and Manufacturing may be reserved through special zoning provisions for certain types of uses,to assure compatibility among the wide range of potential uses,and to assure adequate land for certain types of uses. ... F) Offices having no substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown government services may be in Services and Manufacturing districts." In applying that policy, the City currently allows "Processing Offices" and "Business and Administrative Offices" in the Services and Manufacturing district, with Administrative Use Permit approval. The Zoning Regulations broadly defines these types of offices as follows. "Processing. An office-type facility characterized by high employee density, with little or no public visitation, and occupied by a business engaged in information processing, or other Computer-dependent and/or telecommunications-based activities.""Production and administrative. An office-type facility used for administrative purposes, and/or occupied by a business engaged in the production of intellectual property." In reality, the requested uses are very similar in character to these allowed uses and other uses that are commonly allowed in the C-S zone such as a title company plant and billing operations for non-allowed uses. Clearly,the actual use of the office should be determining factor rather than its technical designation as an attorney's office. Flexibility is required to allow for the provision of currently lacking office space for attorneys in the community to assure that the City's goal of being the center for professional service uses in the county. Availability of Existing Office Space. Another issue raised by this appeal is the inability of larger legal firms to find adequate office spaces within the downtown core and other office zoned locations. The 4,000 to 5,000 square foot single-floor space required by these users is simply not available in these locations. Even taking into account the office space that will be available after the County consolidates their offices in the new County facility, there is little, if any, office space well-suited for these types of attorney offices. Without the availability of these types of office spaces anywhere else within the City, these users will simply be forced out of the City and into the surrounding areas and North or South County. The issues raised in this appeal are no different than that faced by the medical office users in that there are simply no spaces within the downtown core or within other -3 - 1-3y Attachment 5 office designated locations that are well-suited for this use. Although this lack of office spaces for the legal user has not been as visible as that of the medical profession, this shortage still exists as demonstrated by the attached letters. This lack of visibility is ..probably directly attributable to the lack of.local vocal users who have been.directly inconvenienced. Analysis of Director's Determination. As Ron Whisenand points out in making his determination in the letter dated June 4, 2004, General Plan Land Use Policies 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 A&B provide guidance on the appropriate location for various office uses. However, the first sentence of Policy 3.3.1 that states "The City should have sufficient land for Office development to meet the demands of City residents and the specialized needs of County residents" points out the inherent problem with the strict interpretation of the policies that has been made by Mr. :.Whisenand.The aforementioned need of these:specialized-attorney:groups simply;cannot:, be met within the downtown retail core and other office zoned locations, and can only be accommodated by being located in the outlying areas that are currently zoned C-S-PD- SP. It should also be noted that Land-..Use.Policy 33.2E states:that"Offices having no substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown government services may be in Services and Manufacturing districts.'•'In reality the uses that approval is requested for are no different than those fisted in .Land Use.Policy:3.3:2F which states "Certain businesses and professional services having no substantial .public visitation or limited need for access to downtown government services may be in Services and Manufacturing districts. Examples of such uses are computer services, utilities engineering and administration, architects and engineers, industrial design, advertising, building =contractors; labor and.-fraternal!organizations, veterinarians; and insurance and,-financial - services that do not directly serve retail customers."In fact,some of these very uses have already been approved for this location. The proposed attorney uses are also in accordance with Land Use Policy 3.3.3 since the uses will not negatively impact the quality of life in any residential neighborhood nor will the proposed uses increase traffic in any such residential neighborhood due to the property's location on a major thoroughfare, and because the uses are compatible with the surrounding development which is definitely not suitable for some of the types of light industrial uses specifically allowed in the C-S zone. Other Considerations. Other factors must also be considered and properly weighted in any determination of the consistency, or inconsistency, with the City's policies and regulations of any proposed use before a request is granted or denied. The following represents but a few of these goals which support allowing this uses and that were simply not a part of the -4— /- 3s Attachment 5 original analysis that accompanied the Director's determination. These issues need to be analyzed in any consideration of the underlying issues raised in this appeal. Land Use Element Community Goal 11 which states "Retain existing businesses and agencies, and accommodate expansion of existing businesses" supports approval of the Use Permit. Land Use Element Community Goal 12 also addresses this issue by stating that the City should "Emphasize more productive use of existing commercial buildings and land areas already committed to urban development." Clearly the expansion of uses within an existing building is in accordance with this goal. Finally, the proposed use is specifically supported by the specific language of both Land Use Element Community Goal 21 which states "Provide a resilient economic base, able to tolerate changes in its parts without causing overall harm to the community" and Land Use Element Community Goal 24 which states "Serve as the County's hub for: County and State Government; education; transportation; visitor information; entertainment, cultural, professional, medical and social services; community organizations;retail trade." Conclusion. We respectfully request that the City Council uphold the appeal and overturn the. Community Development Director's land use determination denying two specific attorney firms in the Service Commercial Specific Planned Development zone (C-S-SP- PD)zone at the above-referenced property. If these users are not allowed to locate outside the restricted areas where they are currently allowed, they will be left with no choice but to locate outside the City to North and South County, a move which would certainly be against numerous City policies meant to encourage service industry employers and other such "clean" employers, to locate within the City of San Luis Obispo. Thank you for your consideration. Very Truly Yours, jOchylski, mey at Law MEO/ac -5— � - 36 Attachment 5 cc: Mr. Charlie Richardson San Luis Obispo, California Mr.Michael Hodge EDA San Luis Obispo,California - 6— Planning Commiss _.:Minu AttaChfl ent 6 July 14, 2004 Page 3 OMMISSION COMMENTS: Vice- it Boswell moved to deny the development agreement for the proiect. Seconde 4k Commr. Osborne. Consistent with h rior vote on the various entitlements for the development project, Vice-Chair Boswell i ated that he felt that the project would further exacerbate the City's jobs/housing imba a and would not result in substantial public benefits that outweigh the impacts of the p ct. Commr. Loh opposed the motion bed a she felt that the development agreement was a well-written document. Commr. Aiken concurred with Commr. Loh. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Osborne, Miller, Christia , and Caruso NOES: Commrs. Loh and Aiken ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 5:2 vote.. 2. 735 Tank Farm Road. AP-PC 107-04: Appeal of the Director's action denying two attorney's offices; C-S-SP-PD zone, Edna Valley Office, LLC, applicant. (Tyler Corey) Senior Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report that recommended adoption of the resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Director's determination, based on findings. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Marshall Ochylski, appellant's representative, presented a letter to the Commission. He explained what the definition is of the proposed attorneys and that their business operations would be similar to that of a plant for a title company or other allowed PD uses and feels these specific users could be allowed into the C-S zone. Ralph Whitaker, 764 Azalea Court, SLO, as a neighbor to the project, expressed his support for the proposed uses. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Loh moved to uphold the appellant's request. Seconded by Commr. Aiken. Planning Commiss..m Min Attachment 6 July 14, 2004 Page 4 AYES: Commrs. Loh and Aiken. NOES: Commrs. Miller, Osborne, Boswell, Christianson, and Caruso ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion failed on a 2: 5 vote. Commr. Miller moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director's determination based on findings included in the Planning Commission Resolution. Seconded.by Commr. Osborne. AYES: Commrs. Miller, Osborne, Boswell, Loh, Aiken, Christianson, and Caruso NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 7:0 vote. Commr. Aiken moved approval of alternative 1• That the Commission refer to the City Council as a potential future study item the matter of allowing a. broader range of professional offices in the C-S zone. Seconded by Vice-Chair Boswell. Commr. Christianson opposed the motion because she felt the entire zoning area should be reviewed, which is a part of the General Plan. Chairperson Caruso concurred. AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Boswell, Osborne, and Loh NOES: Commrs. Miller, Christianson, and Caruso ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 4:3 vote. Commr. Loh requested that Planning staff re-evaluate the footnote which specifies that attorney's offices and doctor's offices are not allowed, and to also update the zoning bylaws. �GQWIAENT AND DISCUSSION: 3. Staff: A. Agenda Forecast: Deputy Director Ronald Whisenand gave an agenda forec coming items. Attachment 7 RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 735 TANK FARM ROAD (AP-PC 107-04) WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, on June 4, 2004, denied a request to allow attorney offices in the C-S-SP-PD zone; and WHEREAS, Michael Hodge, filed an appeal of the Community Development Director's action on June 10, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on July 14, 2004, denied an appeal of the Community Development Director's action; and WHEREAS, Charlie Richardson, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action . on July 23, 2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 7, 2004, for the purpose of considering an appeal of the Planning Commission's action; and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the records of the Community Development Director and Planning Commission hearings and actions, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. Attorney offices are not consistent the property's large office Planned Development (PD 182-02) because attorneys are specifically prohibited by Ordinance No. 1433 (reflected as footnote 6 in the use table). 2. Attorney offices are not consistent with the property's zoning district because professional offices are prohibited in the C-S zone. 3. Attorney offices are not consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policies 3.3.1 & 3.3.2 A&B, which state that not all types of offices are appropriate in all locations, and that all types of offices, including attorneys, are appropriate in the General Retail and Office districts in and around the downtown commercial area. �-yv Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 2 SECTION 2. Action. The City Council does hereby deny an appeal of the Planning Commission's action, application No. AP-PC 107-04. 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 , 2004. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jo an Lowell, City Attorney i-yr Attachment 8 RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 735 TANK FARM ROAD (AP-PC 107-04) WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, on June 4, 2004, denied a request to allow attorney offices in the C-S-SP-PD zone; and WHEREAS, Michael Hodge, filed an appeal of the Community Development Director's action on June 10, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on July 14, 2004, denied an appeal of the Community Development Director's action; and WHEREAS, Charlie Richardson, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on July 23, 2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 7, 2004, for the purpose of considering, an appeal of the Planning Commission's action;and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the records of the Community Development Director and Planning Commission hearings and actions, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: [Council specifies findings] SECTION 2. Action. The City Council does hereby uphold the appeal of the Planning Commission's action, thereby approving attorney offices in the C-S-SP-PD zone for property located at 735 Tank Farm Road, application No. AP-PC 107-04. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: /�tZ Attachment 8 Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 2 The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2004. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney Page 1 of 1 SLO Citycouncil -9f7 SLO City Council Agenda Item �ED From: "Cindy Kaatz" <cindy@wheelerandbeaton.com> LSLOCITY To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org> CLERK Date: 9/2/2004 1:43 PM Subject: 9/7 SLO City Council Agenda Item To: San Luis Obispo City Council Members Subject: 9/7 SLO City Council Agenda Item Re: Edna Valley Office Building Gentlepersons: We wish to thank you for considering the following information regarding the appeal to the Planning Commission's denial of the request to allow two specific attorney firms to practice law in the Edna Valley Office Building. We are requesting an exception to the professional officer use zoning. We have been proud to practice workers'compensation law on the Central Coast for 26 years with our main office in San Luis Obispo. However, recent changes in the workers'compensation law will adversely affect the profitability of ours and other offices representing injured workers in a very significant way. We are now being forced to consider,at the conclusion of our current lease in January,2005, relocation to a less expensive site,probably at some locality in Grover Beach,close to the Workers'Compensation Appeals Board,because of the expenses associated with renting in the downtown corridor and because of the difficulty in locating the type of space required by our clients. In support of the appeal,we would point out the following: We have no cases of any sort,workers'compensation or Social Security disability, heard in the downtown area. Our Social Security Appeals our heard in the Walters' Building,which we know, now houses attorneys although it is not suitable for our large clientele of over 1200 clients. We represent injured workers, most of whom have significant physical disabilities. They may require handicapped parking and elevator access. This fact rules out many of the downtown buildings of the size we require,as we need a great deal of parking. We require an office space of between 4000-5000 square feet,which makes it a very difficult proposition to locate a suitable space given the restrictions as mentioned above. We fully support this appeal of the SLO Planning Department's decision regarding the denial to allow two specific attorney firms to least office space. Both of these firms do not use the County courthouse and related facilities and do not create foot traffic because of the nature of their practice. Charles T.Wheeler, Esq. Gifford G.Beaton, Esq. WHEELER n l Law Co ` ` _ ^ A Professional Law Corporation _, Q� �COUidCIL 'TCDD DIR I _ CAO FIN DIR J ACAO .c FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY E"PWDIR ,a CLERK OR!G L`POLICE CHF C1 DEPT nE.-.DS 2 REC DIA RED FILE 2UTIL DIR Imo _ SHR aIR MEETING AGENDA — DATO ITEM #-?-iii file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 9/2/2004