Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-03-2012 ph1 general plan amendment 1234 broadl FROM: council AcEnOA RePoR2t C I T Y OF S A N L U I S O B I S P O Derek Johnson: Community Development Director Prepared By: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner Mt dnw oa e Item Number SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST (FROM OFFICE TO GENERAL RETAIL); AND REZONE (FROM OFFICE (0) TO DOWNTOWN- COMMERCIAL (C -D) ZONE), AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (1231 -1233 GARDEN STREET, 734 -740 PACIFIC STREET, 1234 BROAD STREET). RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. Introduce by title only an ordinance to rezone the property from Office (0) zone to the Downtown- Commercial (C -D) zone. 2. Approve a resolution amending the General Plan from Office to General Retail; and adopting the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. DISCUSSION Background The applicant has applied for a general plan amendment from Office to General Retail land use designations, and rezoning from Office (0) to Downtown - Commercial (C -D), for the properties on the south portion of the block bounded by Marsh Street on the north, Broad Street on the west, Pacific Street to the south, and Garden street to the east (Figure 1). Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its meeting of September 28, 2011, and recommended that the Council approve the proposal. PHI -1 Council Agenda Report — GP -R/ER 54 -11 January 3, 2012 Page 2 Project Description Two actions are being proposed. The first action would be to amend the General Plan from Office to General - Retail. The second action is to rezone the properties from Office (0) to Downtown - Commercial (C -D). The proposed general plan amendment and rezone would eliminate the current mid -block zone break between C -D zoning and Office zoning consistent with the block to the west. The rezone from Office to C -D zoning would enhance redevelopment opportunity on the block with greater development potential (height, density, etc.) and a broader potential range of uses. There is no specific design proposal at this time. The proposed rezone is being requested by the applicant to set the stage for a future development proposal. The design, height, parking, mix of uses, etc., of any proposed future redevelopment proposals will be subject to evaluation and public review at a later date. PROJECT INFORMATION Table 1 Site Existing Proposed Information General Plan Office General Retail Designation Zoning Office (0) Downtown - Commercial (C -D) Site Size 29,7000 sq. ft. (.68 acres) unchanged Present Use & Retail use (Furniture store), small scale No changes in land use are Development office (approx. 4,000 sq. ft.), and four proposed with this request. residential units Surrounding North/Northwest: CVS Drug store, Surrounding uses and zones will Uses /Zone(s) financial institution and various be unchanged with the project. commercial uses zoned Downtown - Commercial (C -D). South/Southwest: Various office uses, one residence, and furniture store zoned Office (0). East /Southeast: Financial institution and office uses zoned Office (0). West /Northwest: Retail and office development and parking lot surface improvements zoned Downtown - Commercial (C -D). PH1 -2 Council Agenda Report — GP -R/ER 54 -11 January 3, 2012 Paee 3 Site Description The project site consists of five separate properties and is a total of 29,700 sq. ft. (.68 acres) in size. The west side of the project site at 1234 Broad Street is developed with an open warehouse type building that is currently used as a furniture store and has previously been used for auto repair (Figure 2, above). The remainder of the property development consists of surface paving for parking lot improvements, small scale office buildings totaling approximately 4,000 square feet, and two residential buildings with a total of four units. The project site is within the City's parking fee area, which allows parking requirements to be satisfied with the payment of in -lieu fees. The application does not propose any modifications to the existing parking district boundaries. EVALUATION The following paragraphs discuss both the general plan amendment and rezone in terms of its consistency with the general plan. 1. General Plan Consistency The properties included in the proposed general plan amendment are currently designated "Office" on the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map. LUE Policy 3.4.1 states, "The City should have sufficient land for office development to meet the demands of the City residents and the specialized needs of County residents. " The general plan amendment of the site from an Office to General - Retail land use designation will not adversely impact the overall supply of land available for office uses because offices can be accommodated in the Downtown - Commercial Zone. All types of office uses which can be allowed in the Office land use category can also be allowed in the General Retail District. The Zoning Code requires Director's Use Permit approval to allow certain office uses at the street PHI -3 Council Agenda Report — GP -R/ER 54 -11 January 3, 2012 Page 4 level in the Downtown - Commercial Zone (C -D). The purpose of the use permit review is to implement LUE policy 3.4.2.A. which states: "All types of offices are appropriate in the downtown General Retail district, but are discouraged at the street level in storefronts of the commercial core. " Although the properties would be zoned C -D, the proposed general plan amendment and rezone is located outside of the commercial core area and it is anticipated that most office uses at the street level would be found consistent with the above referenced LUE policy. Potential redevelopment of the properties made possible by the general plan amendment and rezone may increase the availability of floor area available for office uses as well as advance a number of other General Plan policies for mixed use development and housing discussed below. Residential Density in Downtown The project site is immediately adjacent to the Downtown - Commercial Zoning District. This block is split down the middle between Office (0) and Downtown - Commercial (C -D) designations. Completing the Downtown - Commercial (C -D) Zoning across the block would allow for additional residential density as part of a mixed use development over what can be achieved with the current Office (0) General Plan land use category and zoning. Housing Element Policy, HE 5.3 encourages the development of mixed -use projects with residences above commercial uses in areas such as this, where the site is in close proximity to activity centers. Rezoning of the property would increase the potential residential density value for the site as part of a mixed use development project. The general plan amendment and rezone would help to advance Land Use Element Policy 4.2.1 - Existing and New Dwellings, which states: "Downtown residential uses contribute to the character of the area, allow a 24 -hour presence which enhances security, and help the balance between jobs and housing in the community. Existing residential uses within and around the commercial core should be protected, and new ones should be developed. Dwellings should be provided for a variety of households, including singles, couples, and groups. Dwellings should be interspersed with commercial uses. All new, large commercial projects should include dwellings. Commercial core properties may serve as receiver sites for transfer of development credits, thereby having higher residential densities than otherwise allowed. " Currently, under Office (0) zoning, the site allows for a maximum residential density of 12 du /net acre. With the rezone to Downtown - Commercial (C -D), the site's maximum residential density would increase to 36 du /net acre. The proposed rezone to C -D would also guarantee redevelopment would include housing since Housing Element Policy, HE 6.2 requires that new commercial developments in the C -D zone include housing. The project site is already within the Parking Fee area which allows payment of fees to satisfy parking requirements in -lieu of providing on -site parking spaces. Compatibility with surrounding development Any future commercial development or mixed use project which would include residential development on the site will be subject to architectural review which includes evaluation of neighborhood compatibility of proposed site development. Land use conflicts are not anticipated PH1-4 Council Agenda Report — GP -R/ER 54 -11 January 3, 2012 Pate 5 since surrounding development is already developed primarily with commercial uses and most of the block is already zoned Downtown - Commercial, and is adjacent to the Downtown Core area. Surrounding zoning is commercial (Office and Downtown - Commercial) and residential development to the south at Pismo and Buchon Streets would continue to have approximately one block of separation from the properties proposed for the rezone. The Office (0) zone would continue to provide the transition from the more intensive uses of the C -D zone to the residential areas to the south. The Downtown - Commercial (C -D) zone allows a broader range of uses than the Office (0) zone, including retail, restaurants, and personal services. These uses are anticipated to be compatible with surrounding development. Uses which are expected to pose potential compatibility concerns such as a Bar /Tavern or Night Club require use permit approval in the C -D zone where compatibility issues could be addressed and ongoing performance standards could be established, or the uses could be denied altogether if found incompatible. Environmental Review A Negative Declaration (ND) has been prepared for the project which examined the proposed general plan amendment and rezoning proposal (Attachment 2). Potential impacts that would result from the general plan amendment and rezone were found to be less than significant, since the project site is already developed with buildings and surface improvements and redevelopment would consist of an infill redevelopment project; and, no redevelopment of the properties is proposed at this time. Any future redevelopment will be evaluated for potential environmental effects and will have to be found in conformance with City regulations and required "level of service" traffic performance standards. Potential environmental effects of any future development proposals will be subject to additional environmental review when detailed development plans are available for review. Conclusion The proposed general plan amendment from Office to General - Retail and rezone from Office (0) to Downtown - Commercial (C -D) would create a consistent land use pattern on the block and will allow for more feasible development of a mixed -use commercial and residential project, and allow a broader range of potential uses. The proposal would facilitate redevelopment which could advance a number of general plan policies for mixed use redevelopment pattern and increased housing adjacent to the commercial core. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Other departments were routed the request for the general plan amendment and rezoning and no significant comments have been received since the proposal does not include specific development plans at this time. Any future redevelopment proposal will be routed to all applicable departments for full review and comment once development plans are available for review. PH1 -5 Council Agenda Report — GP -R/ER 54 -11 January 3, 2012 Page 6 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. The increased potential development intensity on the site would not result in fiscal impacts, since development impact fees and permit fees would apply; and any needed infrastructure upgrades would be the responsibility of the property owners. ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the general plan amendment, rezonin, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan or other policies. Staff does not recommend this alternative since redevelopment of the block would not be facilitated. 2. Continue the project if additional information is needed, with specific direction given to staff. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map showing surrounding Zoning 2. Initial Study ER 54 -11 3. Planning Commission Resolution, September 28, 2011 4. Draft Ordinance approving the Rezone 5. Draft Resolution approving the General Plan Amendment and adopting the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact G: \CD- PLAN\BLeveill \GP Amend \Council Docs \GP,R 54 -11 (Caldwell Rezone) Council Report.docx PHI -6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER 54 -11 1. Project Title: Pacific Street Rezone, City File # GP /R 54 -11 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner (805) 781 -7166 4. Project Location: 1231 -1233 Garden Street (APN 003 -523 -008, 009) 734 -740 Pacific Street (APN 003 -523 -003, 007) 1234 Broad Street (APN 003 -523 -002) 5. Project Applicant and Representative: Applicant Burt Caldwell 194 Country Club Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Representative Michael Peachy, Architect 225 Prado Road, Suite G San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Office 7. Zoning: Office (0) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2011 NThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. PHI -8 Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781 -7410. Attachment 2 8. Description of the Project: The applicant is proposing a General Plan amendment and rezone. The proposed General Plan amendment and rezone would amend the General Plan designation from Office to Retail Commercial. The property also is proposed to be rezoned from Office (0) to Downtown - Commercial (C -D). There is no proposed development associated with the General Plan amendment and rezone. The proposed General Plan amendment and rezone is located on the block bounded by Marsh Street on the north, Broad Street on the west, Pacific Street to the south, and Garden street to the east. The majority of the block is already zoned C -D and the applicant's proposal would complete C -D zoning on the block (Figure 1, below). The total area proposed to he rezoned consists of five separate parcels totaling 29,700 square feet (.68 acres). Figure]. Vicinity Map The goals of the application are to provide for more allowable uses and increased potential for development intensity to accommodate a future mixed use development proposal. This initial study evaluates the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments for the subject properties. There are no redevelopment plans for the subject properties at this time. Any proposed redevelopment project on the subject properties will be subject to environmental review CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2011 ' 1 J Attachment 2 including more detailed evaluation of specific impacts which may result from the increased development intensity of the proposed General Plan amendment and rezone. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site consists of five separate properties and is a total of 29,700 sq. ft. (.68 acres) in size (Figure 1, above). 1234 Broad Street at the west side of the project site is developed with an open warehouse type building that is currently used as a furniture store and has previously been used for auto repair (Figure 2, below). The remainder of the property development consists of surface paving for parking lot improvements, small scale office buildings totaling approximately 4,000 square feet, and two residential buildings with a total of four units. The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City adjacent to the Downtown Core area and is surrounded with retail, offices, and one single - family residence. The project site is within the City's Parking fee area, which allows parking requirements to be satisfied with the payment of in -lieu fees. The application does not propose any modifications to the existing parking district boundaries. Figure 2. View to the northeast of 1234 Broad Street Existing uses surrounding the site area are as follows: West/Northwest: Retail and office development and parking lot surface improvements zoned Downtown - Commercial (C -D). North/Northeast: CVS Drug store, financial institution and various commercial uses zoned Downtown - Commercial (C -D). East /Southeast: Financial institution and office uses zoned Office (0). South /Southwest: Various office uses, one residence, and furniture store zoned Office (0). CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2011 PHI -10 Attachment 2 10. Project Entitlements Requested: 1. General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land Use Map from Office to General Retail. 2. Zone Map change from Office (0) to Downtown - Commercial (C -D). 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2011 PHI -11 c r. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. FISH AND GAME FEES Aesthetics X Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population / Housing Agriculture Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services Air Quality Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation Biological Resources Land Use / Planning Transportation / Traffic Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities / Service Systems Geology / Soils Noise Mandatory Findings: of Significance FISH AND GAME FEES STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2011 PHI -12 There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a no effect determination from Fish and Game. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2011 PHI -12 Attachment 2 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be -prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, nothing further is required. — om�A� SignaYure Doug Davidson, Deputy Director of Community Development Printed Name �IIUNiiIA� CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO & -(-7 Date For: John Mandeville, Community Development Director INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2011 19 21 1 Attachment 2 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," maybe cross- referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less. than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. = CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2011 PHI -14 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Pgtentially Poten Significant Signific S Issues Unless Impact ER # 54 -11 Mitigation Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would the X 3.4 I I I X 21 1 I 1 X 6 I ! ! X Evaluation a) The proposed General Plan amendment and rezoning is in an urbanized section of the City and will not have adverse effects on a scenic vista. Less than significant impact. b, c) The proposed General Plan amendment and rezone is in an urbanized area in the City. The proposed project has no potential to damage scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings or open space. Any future redevelopment project proposals will require architectural review to demonstrate compliance with Community Design Guidelines and to ensure development is compatible with the surrounding area. The properties included in the General Plan Amendment and Rezone is not located adjacent to or visible from a local or state scenic highway. Less than significant impact. d) The proposed General plan amendment and rezone will not introduce elements which would create new sources of light or glare. Development which is proposed on the project site in the future will be subject to conformance with City Night Sky Preservation Ordinance requirements which set maximum illumination levels and require sufficient shielding of light sources to minimize glare and preserve night time views. The project does not have the potential to adversely affect day or night time views in the area. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: j 172 I I 1 I X R/ X Evaluation a), b), c) The properties included in the proposed General Plan Amendment and rezone are not located on farmland and is not zoned for agricultural use. No Impact. Conclusion: No Impact. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the Droiect: 1,2,5 1 1 1 1 X ION CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO H INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2011 PHI -15 ATTACHMENT 2 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant hnpact Issues Unless hnpact ER # 54 -11 Mitigation Incorporated X M Evaluation a), b), c), d) The proposed General Plan amendment and rezone does not include a specific development proposal. The rezone could allow more intensive development to be proposed in the future under Downtown - Commercial zoning than the current Office zoning. If applicable, proposed development will be reviewed for conformance with the Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County. The proposed General Plan amendment and rezone has no physical effect on air quality. No Impact. e) Any future development proposals will be reviewed for consistency with allowed development in the Downtown - Commercial zone and therefore would not include any potential land uses such as manufacturing or which would have the potential to produce objectionable odors in the area. The General Plan amendment and rezone will have no impact on air quality. Conclusion: No Impact 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) li��itt;��ei ditcty ` . t ir�tii}l►:; ahtt odi at�oxis :''can atty t eexes....pmtcy or: X 1, 2, �nfi 4 15 iete, � 04 X X X X Evaluation (a -f) The General Plan and rezone is in an urbanized area of the city and no physical development is proposed. The properties included in the project are already developed with buildings in surface improvements and there is no habitat for any candidate. sensitive, or special status species. The General Plan amendment and rezone will not have any affect on biological CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2011 PHI -16 Affnrhmpro Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentia ly I Irs Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 54 -1 1 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated resources. Conclusion: No Impact. 1 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Droiect: I 1,2 ' X 4, 18, 19 X iN X a) There are no significant historic resources on any of the properties included in the proposed General Plan amendment and rezone and the proposed change from Office to Downtown - Commercial Zoning would not have any physical effect on the subject properties which could result in a change in the significance of a historic resource. b) The project site is developed with buildings and other surface improvements and is more than 200 feet away from the City's major creeks and known archeological sites. The site is also outside of a historical district and the property is not on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources. The General Plan amendment and rezone has no physical effect on the property. These factors indicate that the project will have no impact on archeological resources. Conclusion: No impact 1 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: . 1 MCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 1,2,7 0 0 M z INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2011 PHI -17 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potenti _ J. Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues sinless Impact ER # 54 -11 Mitigation Incorporated Evaluation a) San Luis Obispo County, including San Luis Obispo is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which extends along the coastline from central California to Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced northwest trending ridge - valley system of the central and northern coast of California. Under the Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently- active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well- defined as to constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County, the special Studies Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study, the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los Osos fault are considered "active ". Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast, the Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to the northeast, and the San Simeon -Hosgri fault zone, located approximately 12 miles to the west. Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of "High Seismic Hazards," specifically Seismic Zone 4, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. To minimize this potential impact, the Uniform Building Code and City Codes require new structures be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. There is no proposed development associated with this application and future development proposals will be subject to code compliance as required under the current General Plan designation and zoning. No Impact. b) The properties included in the General Plan amendment and rezone is in an urban area and located adjacent to the "Downtown Core" area. The properties are also developed with buildings and site improvements including parking lots. The project will not result in loss of topsoil. No Impact. c), d) The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction, which is true for most of the City. Future development will be required to comply with Building Codes and City Codes which require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake, and proper documentation of soil characteristics for designing structurally sound buildings. The Building Division of the Community Development Department routinely reviews project for their compliance with the recommendations of the soils engineering report for the site. No Impact. e) The properties included in the General Plan amendment and rezone is already connected to the City's sewer system. Future development on the properties will be required to connect to City sewer infrastructure. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems are not proposed and will not be used on the site. No Impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 17. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: I 1,2,4 1 1 1 X X Evaluation a) b) In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed in the above air quality analysis, the state of California recently passed Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 and California Governor Schwarzenegger Executive CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2011 PHI -18 M02 1 7 Asa �i. Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potenti Significant Significant igm ican Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 54-11 Mitigation Inco orated Order S -3 -05 (June 1, 2005), both require reductions of greenhouse gases in the State of California. The proposed project will facilitiate infill redevelopment, is located in close proximity to transit, and to the amenities of the City. The project is consistent with City policies for compact development and efficient use of existing infrastructure. Considering these characteristics of the proposed proposal, the project is therefore consistent with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed General Plan amendment and rezone will have a less than significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: s rest .,xi?azltiacl #a.� pub t�_2r tip eaet'. 1, 2, X 12 22 2,7 2,7 Evaluation X X X X X i a), b), c), d) The proposed General Plan amendment and rezone from Office zoning to Downtown - Commercial has no potential to result in the use, transportation, disposal, or emission of hazardous materials. The site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites. No Impact. e), f), The properties included in the project proposal are not within an airport land use plan area and the project site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. No Impact. g), h) The project site is a developed infill property and the proposed change in the General Plan land use designation and zoning would not interfere with emergency response plans or evacuation plans and is not in the vicinity of wildlands. No CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2011 4 PHI -19 I��I 'iili • �' Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentia4r, Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 54 -11 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2011 PHI -20 AttnAmpnt Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially I Less Than JL No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 54-11 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated buildings within the central business district the building can be built at present grade with incorporation of FEMA "flood - proofing" measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the Droiect: 1, 2, 10,14 X X X Evaluation a), b), c) The proposed General Plan Amendment and rezone included properties in an urbanized area which are already developed and future redevelopment proposals will be subject to environmental review. The project would not conflict with any plans, policies, or regulations of agencies with jurisdiction for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The general plan amendment and rezone would not divide an established community and there are no applicable habitat conservation plans or community conservation plans on the subject property. No Impact. Conclusion: No Impact. 1 11. NOISE. Would the prgiect result in: 112 1 X 11,22 Evaluation M X X a) The General Plan amendment and rezone would not expose people to "unacceptable" noise levels and the project would not generate excessive noise levels as defined in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element. Maximum noise exposure for residential uses is 45 dB for indoor spaces and 60 dB for outdoor activity areas. The building code is already designed to reduce indoor noise exposure by approximately 15 -20 dB. Contemporary construction practices include enhanced window, roof, and wall insulation to help energy conservation and noise attenuation. Less than significant impact. b), c) The construction of a future development project will temporarily increase ambient noise levels. Construction noise is regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates times of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. Any proposed future development will have to meet the noise standards contained in the Ordinance, which includes limitations on the days and hours of construction. Future redevelopment proposals will be subject to environmental review and will include more detailed plans to allow for evaluation of any project features or proposed uses which could increase noise levels in the vicinity. The proposed General Plan amendment and rezone will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundborne noise levels or vibration. Less than significant impact. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2011 0) PH1 -21 mm'Talm Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Pot b WAA &I Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 54 -1 1 Mitigation Inco orated d) The project area is not within the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan and is not within 2 miles of a public airport, or public use airport. No Impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 1 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: 1 2,10 Evaluation X X a) The project is proposed in an already urbanized area with existing roads and other infrastructure. The proposed General Plan amendment and rezone from Office zoning to Downtown - Commercial Zoning would allow for an incremental increase in the density allowed on the properties. The area of the proposed General Plan Amendment and rezone is within an already urbanized area of the city adjacent to the Downtown core area and is surrounded by existing development and infrastructure. The proposed General Plan amendment and rezone would not induce substantial population growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project would not induce substantial population growth in the area directly or indirectly. Less than significant impact. b) The General plan amendment and rezone would not displace any existing housing. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision, or need, of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance obiectives for anv of the public services: W rl ra M ra M Evaluation a), b), d), e), f) The proposal to amend the General Plan and rezone the subject properties could allow for increased development intensity for future redevelopment proposals. As an infill redevelopment site, adequate public services (fire, police, roads and other transportation infrastructure, and other public facilities) currently serve the site and surroundings. Any future redevelopment proposal will have to include detailed development plans to allow City departments to review for adequacy of City services, response times, and government facilities to serve the project. Future development must comply with applicable City codes and State regulations and building permits will be issued to insure consistency with these requirements. Less than significant impact. c) The school districts in the state have the authority to collect fees at the time of issuance of building permits to offset the costs to finance school site acquisition and school construction, and are deemed by State law to be adequate mitigation for all school facility requirements. Any increases in demand on school facilities caused by the project are considered to be mitigated by the district's collection of adopted fees at the time of building permit issuance. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2011 Q PHI -22 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially _ - - 22 Significant Significant Significant Unpact ER # 54 -11 Issues Unless Impact . Mitigation X 7 Incorporated X 1 14. RECREATION. Would the aroiect: I ILI X Evaluation a), b) The proposed General Plan amendment and rezone will not create any demand on park facilities. Future redevelopment proposals will be evaluated for potential impacts to recreational facilities. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the uroiect: Evaluation 2,9 04 a), b) The proposed General Plan amendment and rezone will allow for more intensive development than the property's current land use designation and zoning allows. The properties included in the General Plan amendment and rezone are in an urbanized area of the City near the downtown core with existing transportation infrastructure. Any future redevelopment proposal will have to include detailed development plans to allow the City Public Works division to review for adequacy of the circulation system and traffic studies may be required to assess potential impacts of proposed development. Any future development will be required to conform to applicable city "level of service" traffic performance standards. At this time, there is no development proposed. Less than significant impact. c) The proposal to amend the General Plan and rezone the subject properties will not result in any changes to air traffic patterns and does not conflict with any safety plans of the airport land use plan. No Impact. d) There are no design features included in the proposal to amend the General Plan and rezone the properties. No Impact. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2091 PHI -23 X 22 X 2 X 7 X 9 X a), b) The proposed General Plan amendment and rezone will allow for more intensive development than the property's current land use designation and zoning allows. The properties included in the General Plan amendment and rezone are in an urbanized area of the City near the downtown core with existing transportation infrastructure. Any future redevelopment proposal will have to include detailed development plans to allow the City Public Works division to review for adequacy of the circulation system and traffic studies may be required to assess potential impacts of proposed development. Any future development will be required to conform to applicable city "level of service" traffic performance standards. At this time, there is no development proposed. Less than significant impact. c) The proposal to amend the General Plan and rezone the subject properties will not result in any changes to air traffic patterns and does not conflict with any safety plans of the airport land use plan. No Impact. d) There are no design features included in the proposal to amend the General Plan and rezone the properties. No Impact. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2091 PHI -23 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Significant Significant , ER # 54 -11 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) There are no design features included in the proposal to amend the General Plan and rezone the properties. No Impact. e) The Fire Marshal will review any future development proposals and all future development will be subject to requirements for adequate emergency access. Less than significant impact. f) The project does not conflict with policies supporting alternative transportation. Alternatively, due to the site's location within the City's urban center, it is in very close proximity to shopping, parks and services. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 1 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proiect: I 2,13 Evaluation X X It a), b), c), d), e) Any future redevelopment proposal will have to include detailed development plans to allow the City Utilities and Public Works Departments to review for adequacy of sewer capacity, wastewater treatment facilities, water quality, and storm drainage facilities. Any future development will be required to conform to applicable standards and provide increased capacity and additional facilities to accommodate the demands of the project including additional demand which may be allowed as a result of the increased development potential afforded by the General Plan Amendment and rezone. At this time, there is no development proposed. If applicable, impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Facility. The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of each new residential unit in the project. Less than significant impact. f), g) The incremental change is not expected to create significant impacts to solid waste disposal. Any future project development proposal is required to demonstrate feasible collection per standards of the San Luis Garbage Company. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2011 PHI -24 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potetttia Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 54 -11 issues Unless Impact Mitigation incorporated 1 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. I X The project proposal is a General Plan amendment and rezone with no development project proposed. The properties included in the proposal are already developed with buildings and surface improvements and the properties would be redeveloped with an infill development project. Future development proposals will require additional environmental review. The General Plan amendment and rezone will have no potential to impact fish or wildlife. No Impact. X The proposed General Plan amendment and rezone to Downtown - Commercial (C -D) zoning will allow more intensive development than under the current Office (0) zoning for the subject properties. Redevelopment proposals will require environmental review and any future redevelopment proposal will have to include detailed development plans to allow review of potential impacts of proposed development. The proposed General Plan amendment and rezone does not have the potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts. No Impact. I X The proposed General Plan amendment and rezone will not create environmental effects that will. have an. adverse impact on human beings either directly or indirectly. No Impact. 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. N/A N/A N/A 19. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. Site Visit 2. Project Plans 3. Applicant project statement/description 4. ity of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element 5. SLO County Air Pollution Control District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, December 2009 6. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2011 4 PHI -25 A4�n s,. Eaw i�ec Aew� Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potent 9. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, April 2006 10. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, 2010 Significant Signs canigni scant Impact ER # 54 -11 City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element, July 6, 2010 Issues Unless Impact City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database 16. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo Count 17. Mitigation 18. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Ma 19. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma 20. Incorporated 21. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines 7. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, July 2005 8. CA Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List) 9. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, April 2006 10. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, 2010 11. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996 12. Cortese List Data Resources, California Environmental Protection Agency website: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/ 13. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element, July 6, 2010 14. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 15. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database 16. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo Count 17. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/ 18. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Ma 19. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma 20. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990 21. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines 22. Airport Land Use Plan, May 2005 Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity Map CITY OF SAN LUIS Owspo 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2011 PH1 -26 AttachmCoMt 3 RESOLUTION NO. PC- 5566 -11 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT MAP FROM OFFICE TO GENERAL RETAIL AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP FROM O, OFFICE, TO C -D, DOWNTOWN- COMMERCIAL, FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1231 -1233 GARDEN STREET, 734 -740 PACIFIC STREET, 1234 BROAD STREET WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 28, 2011, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/RtER 54 -I1, Burt Caldwell, applicant; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Environmental Review; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project entitlements, and reflects the independent judgment of the Commission; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. General Plan Amendment & Rezoning Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve application GP /R 54 -11 to amend the land use designation from Office to General Retail and its zoning from Office (0), to Downtown - Commercial (C -D) for the properties located at 1231 -1233 Garden Street, 734 -740 Pacific Street, and 1234 Broad Street, based on the following findings: 1. The proposed amendments to the Land Use Element (LUE) and Zoning Maps furthers the goals of the General Plan Policy HE 5.3, which encourages the development of mixed -use projects with residences above commercial uses in close proximity to activity centers. 2. The proposed amendments to the Land Use Element (LUE) and Zoning Maps are consistent with LUE Policy 4.2.1, which states that existing uses in and around the commercial core should be protected and new ones developed. 3. The proposed amendments to the Land Use Element (LUE) and Zoning Maps are consistent with LUE Policy 3.4.1 to have sufficient Iand for office development since PH1 -27 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC- 5566 -11 AL UnAmpint 3 1234 Broad Street, 1231 -1233 Garden Street, 734 -740 Pacific Street Page 2 significant office zoning remains around the project site, and Downtown - Commercial Zoning provides ample opportunity for office uses. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of those living and working in the vicinity since the proposed changes to the City's maps provide for compatible land uses and any future development of the site will be subject to Architectural Review which includes evaluation of 'neighborhood compatibility with proposed site development. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Initial Study adequately evaluates all of the potential impacts of the project and the Negative Declaration approved by the Community Development Department on June 17, 2011, correctly determines that the General Plan Amendment and Rezone will not have a potentially significant adverse impact on the environment. SECTION 3. General Plan Amendment & Rezoning Recommendation. The Commission hereby recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of the request (GP /R/ER 54 -11) for a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning as shown in attached "Exhibit A" with incorporation of the following conditions of approval: Cnnelitinnc- 1. The proposed General Plan amendment and rezone will allow for more intensive development than the property's current land use designation and zoning allows. At time of submittal for redevelopment, plans shall be include all information deemed necessary by the City to evaluate the adequacy of City infrastructure (i.e. traffic, sewer, water) in the Downtown - Commercial Zone. 2. The project applicant is responsible for all necessary upgrades to City infrastructure from any project specific impacts which may result from the development project in the Downtown - Commercial (C -D) zone. On motion by Commissioner Draze, seconded by Commissioner Meyer, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Draze, Meyer, Singewald, Whittlesey, Multari, Stevenson, and Larson NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 28th day of September, 2011. W M" V--" - Kim Murry, Secre Planning Commission PH1 -28 Attachment 4 ORDINANCE NO. # # ## (2012 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REZONING PROPERTIES AT 1231 -1233 GARDEN STREET, 734 -740 PACIFIC STREET, AND 1234 BROAD STREET FROM OFFICE (0) TO DOWNTOWN- COMMERCIAL (C -D) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 28, 2011, and recommended approval of the rezoning; 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 January 3, 2012, for the purpose of considering the proposed rezoning from Office (0) to Downtown Commercial (C -D); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed rezone is consistent with the General Plan; and, WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (ER 54 -11) was prepared and was recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission on September 28, 2011. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration. SECTION 2. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings: 1. The proposed rezone furthers the goals of the General Plan Policy HE 5.3, which encourages the development of mixed -use projects with residences above commercial uses in close proximity to activity centers. 2. The proposed rezone is consistent with LUE Policy 4.2.1, which states that existing uses in and around the commercial core should be protected, and new ones developed. 3. The proposed rezone is consistent with LUE Policy 3.4.1 to have sufficient land for office development since significant office zoning remains around the project site, and Downtown - Commercial Zoning provides ample opportunity for office uses. 4. The proposed rezone will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of PHI -29 Ordinance No. # # ## (2012 Series) GPI 8 -11 Attachment 4 those living and working in the vicinity since the proposed changes to the City's maps provide for compatible land uses and any future development of the site will be subject to Architectural Review which includes evaluation of neighborhood compatibility with proposed site development. SECTION 3. Rezoning Action. The Council of San Luis Obispo hereby approves the rezone from Office (0) to Downtown - Commercial (C -D) as shown in attached "Exhibit A" with incorporation of the following conditions of approval: 1. The proposed General Plan amendment and rezone will allow for more intensive development than the property's current land use designation and zoning allows. At time of submittal for redevelopment, plans shall be include all information deemed necessary by the City to evaluate the adequacy of City infrastructure (i.e. traffic, sewer, water) in the Downtown - Commercial Zone. 2. The project applicant is responsible for all necessary upgrades to City infrastructure from any project specific impacts which may result from the development project in the Downtown - Commercial (C -D) Zone. SECTION 4. Severability. If any subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforcement of the remaining portions of this ordinance, or any other provisions of the City's rules and regulations. It is the City's express intent that each remaining portion would have been adopted irrespective of the fact that any one or more subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unenforceable. 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 Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the day of 2012, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of , 2011, on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PHI -30 Ordinance No. ## ## (2012 Series) GPI 8 -11 Jan Howell Marx, Mayor ATTEST: Elaina Cano, City Clerk APP E AS TO FORM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Attachment 4 G: \CD- PLAN\BLeveill \GP Amend \GP Amend GPR 54 -11 (Pacific Street) \Council Docs \GP -R 54 -11 (final CC Ordinance).docx PHI -31 ATTACHMENT Lf- EXHIBIT "A" PACIFIC STREET GPA /REZONE City File # GP /R 54 -11 zone: Office (0) to Downtown - Commercial (C -D) W13 -32 Attachment 5 RESOLUTION NO. (2012 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FOR PROPERTIES AT 1231 -1233 GARDEN STREET, 734 -740 PACIFIC STREET, AND 1234 BROAD STREET FROM OFFICE TO GENERAL RETAIL; AND, ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ER 54 -11) OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 28, 2011, and recommended approval of the General Plan Amendment and adoption of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; 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 January 3, 2012, for the purpose of considering the general plan amendment and negative declaration of environmental impact; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed general plan amendment is consistent with the General Plan; and, WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the negative declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of 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. The Council makes the following findings: The proposed general plan amendment furthers the goals of the General Plan Policy HE 5.3, which encourages the development of mixed -use projects with residences above commercial uses in close proximity to activity centers. 2. The proposed general plan amendment is consistent with LUE Policy 4.2.1, which states that existing uses in and around the commercial core should be protected, and new ones developed. 3. The proposed general plan amendment is consistent with LUE Policy 3.4.1 to have sufficient land for office development since significant office zoning remains around the PHI -33 Attachment 5 project site, and Downtown - Commercial zoning provides ample opportunity for office uses. 4. The proposed general plan amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of those living and working in the vicinity since the proposed changes to the City's maps provide for compatible land uses and any future development of the site will be subject to architectural review which includes evaluation of neighborhood compatibility with proposed site development. SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the project's negative declaration of environmental impact (ER 54 -11) adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's environmental guidelines, and reflects the independent judgment of the Council. The Council hereby adopts the negative declaration. SECTION 3. Action. The Council of San Luis Obispo hereby approves the general plan amendment modifying the land use designations of the subject properties shown in attached "Exhibit A" with incorporation of the following conditions of approval: 1. The proposed general plan amendment and rezone will allow for more intensive development than the property's current land use designation and zoning allows. At time of submittal for redevelopment, plans shall be include all information deemed necessary by the City to evaluate the adequacy of City infrastructure (i.e. traffic, sewer, water) in the Downtown - Commercial Zone. 2. The project applicant is responsible for all necessary upgrades to City infrastructure from any project specific impacts which may result from the development project in the Downtown - Commercial (C -D) Zone. Upon motion of _ and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: seconded by The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 2012. PHI -34 Attachment 5 Jan Howell Marx, Mayor ATTEST: Elaina Cano, City Clerk APP A TO FORM:: J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney PHI -35 ATTACHMENTS' EXHIBIT "A" PACIFIC STREET GPAIREZONE City File # GPIR 54 -11 General Plan Amendment: Office to General Retail _a General Plan Amendment PHI -36