Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/02/1996, 4 - GP/R 161-95: GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS, TO CHANGE THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP FROM RECREATION TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND THE ZONING MAP FROM PUBLIC FACILITY (PF) TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3), FOR A 8, 450 MEEfMG DATE: "�a�►►�Illl �a►��II city of San tuts OBIspo 4-7--ab COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT M10 NUMBER: FROM: Arnold Jonommunity Development Director BY: Judith Lautner sociate Planner SUBJECT: GP/R 16 -95: General plan and zoning map amendments, to change the Land Use Element map from Recreation to Medium-high density Residential, and the Zoning Map from Public Facility (PF) to Medium-high density Residential (R-3), for a 8,450-square-foot portion of the Congregational Church lot on Los Osos Valley Road. CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the negative declaration of environmental impact; 2. Adopt a resolution approving the requested change to the Land Use Element map; and 3. Introduce an ordinance approving the requested change to the Zoning Map; as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff. DISCUSSION Back and The Congregational Church purchased a portion of the Laguna Lake Golf Course property from the City in 1995, and recorded a lot line adjustment to add it to their property, to allow construction of a new building on the church site. Now the City wants to change the General Plan Land Use and Zoning maps, in accordance with the sales contract between the two parties, so that the church site is all under one map designation: Medium-high density Residential (R-3). Refer to the Planning Commission report (attached) for further information about the request. Planning Commission action The Planning Commission reviewed the request on February 14, 1996, and recommended approval as requested. There was little discussion. Minutes of that meeting are attached. Data Summary Address: 11245 Los Osos Valley Road Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo Property owner: Congregational Church Representative: Kathy Koop, Recreation Department Zoning: Public Facilities General Plan: Recreation city of San 11A,6 OBIspo .0ii% COUIVIt IL AGENDA REPORT GP/R 161-95 11245 Los Osos Valley Road Page 2 Environmental status: Negative declaration recommended by staff and the Planning Commission Project action deadline: No state-mandated deadlines for legislative actions, including zoning changes PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Planning Commission determined that the disposition of City property (a portion of the Laguna Lake Golf Course) was in conformance with the General Plan and exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act on July 12, 1995 (an initial study was completed for the general plan and zoning change). There was no public comment at that meeting. The Planning Commission heard the request for amendments to the general plan and zoning maps on February 14, 1996. There was no public comment. No other public hearings have been held on the general plan and zoning map amendments. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The Recreation Department supports the request and is the representative for it. No other departments had concerns with the request. FISCAL 114PACTS The change in map designations will not affect the City financially. The fiscal effects of the disposition of City property was discussed during hearings on that subject. ALTERNATIVES The Council may deny the request. The property would remain in two different zones, which may affect the uses allowed on that section of the church's property. The Council may continue action. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant. ATTACK ENNTS Planning Commission report and attachments (February 14) Draft resolutions Draft ordinance Draft minutes of February 14, 1996 Planning Commission meeting Initial Study of environmental impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMM ION STAFF REPORT ,Ten„r 2 BY: Judith Lautner sociate Planner MEETING DATE: February 14, 1996 FROM: Ron Whise and, Development Review Manager/ FILE NUMBER: GP/R 161-95 �L!! PROJECT ADDRESS: 11245 Los Osos Valley Road SUBJECT: General plan and zoning map amendments, to change the Land Use Element map from Recreation to Medium-high density, and the Zoning Map from Public Facility (PF) to Medium-high density (R-3), for a 8,450-square foot portion of the Congregational Church lot on Los Osos Valley Road. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the amendments to the City Council, based on finding them consistent with the General Plan. BACKGROUND . Situation. The Congregational Church purchased a portion of the golf course property from the City in 1995, and added it to their property (a lot line adjustment has been approved and recorded), to allow construction of a new building. The portion was not in use as part of the golf course and the purchase has been determined to be in conformity with the General Plan (see attached general plan conformity report). Now the City wants to change the General Plan Land Use and Zoning maps so that the church site is all under one designation: Medium-high density Residential (R-3). General plan and zoning map changes are reviewed by the Planning Commission, which makes a recommendation to the City Council. Data Summary Address: 11245 Los Osos Valley Road. Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo Property owner: Congregational Church Representative: Kathy Koop Zoning: Public Facilities (PF) General Plan: Recreation Environmental status: Negative Declaration recommended Project action deadline: No deadlines mandated for legislative actions y3 GP/R 161-95 11245 Los Osos Valley Road Page 2 Site description The site is a portion of a larger lot. The larger lot is roughly rectangular in shape, slopes up toward the rear, and contains a church building and parldng lot. The church property is adjacent to the golf course on the south and to the west, and to condominiums to the east and across the street. Project Description The project is the amendment of general plan and zoning maps to change a small portion of the Congregational Church site from 'Recreation" (Public Facilities) to "Medium-density Residential" (R-3). EVALUATION The golf course portion is designated "Recreation" on the Land Use Element map and "Public Facility" (PF) on the Zoning map. The church site is designated "Medium-high density Residential" on both the land use and zoning maps. The purchase and sale agreement executed by both parties requires that the City, as seller, process a zoning change for the golf course portion, to Medium-high density Residential. The change will enable the church to construct the additional building entirely within one zone, thereby relieving it of concerns about uses that may be allowed in one but not in the other. ALTERNATIVES The Commission may continue action. Direction should be given to staff. The Commission may deny the request, if it finds that the changes would be inconsistent with the General Plan.. Planning Commission denials of Council-initiated requests are forwarded to the Council as a recommendation for denial. OTHER DEPARTMENT COAEMENTS Other departments have no concerns with the request. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the request to the City Council, based on finding it consistent with the General Plan. Attached: Vicinity map General plan conformity report 114 . neo rrrr.� ' rYri�rl�OOu6 IVNOIIV03tl0N00 7°NL41�� s i L .„. l Nne ails oureai M --- i cube mire sorb soi I I00 � a lil I e O I; 1+ uv7 l�•+ '5 1 V C � N � ,. .�. `';•.:(� ! � lir- i 111 "A CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REM 2 BY: Ronald Whisenand, MEETING DATE: July 12, 1995 Development Review Manager FILE NUMBER: OTHER 90-95 PROJECT ADDRESS: 11245 Los Osos Valley Road SUBJECT: General Plan and CEQA Determination for proposed disposition of surplus City property (portion of Laguna Lake Municipal Golf Course) to The Congregational Church (11245 Los Osos Valley Road). RECOMMENDATION Find the disposition of surplus City property consistent with policies of the City's General Plan and exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The City Council has expressed the desire to declare a portion (approximately 10,000 square feet) of golf course property adjacent to the Congregational Church surplus thereby allowing purchase by the church and expansion of their parcel boundaries. The church plans on constructing a new building adjacent to their facility that will be utilized by AD Care for their San Luis Obispo operations. AD Care is an adult day care service for .those with Alzheirmers, strokes, Parkinson's, or the frail elderly. Up to 40 clients will arrive and be served in this center daily. AD Care offices will also be located in the building. Adult day care facilities are considered an allowable use with a Director's Use Permit in the R-3 zoning District. Section 65402(a) of the California Government Code states in part; "If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted, no real property shall be acquired... and no real property shall be disposed of... until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition or disposition... have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof..." In this case, the General Plan land use designation for the golf course property is "Recreation." The "Recreation" designation is intended for areas of "Publicly or privately owned recreation facilities, either outdoors or buildings in a park setting." In this case, the portion of property is no longer needed for the golf course operations. The surplus property is therefore not inconsistent with LUE policies. It should be noted however that upon transfer of the property, the City will need to do a clean-up land use designation/zoning boundary adjustment. In addition to LUE conformance, staff reviewed the proposed surplus property transaction for conformance with the newly adopted Parks and Recreation Element. There are no policies or programs in the element that would preclude the transfer of this surplus property. FINDINGS The disposition of surplus City property that is no longer needed for golf course operations and is consistent with policies of the Land Use and Parks and Recreation Elements of the General Plan and exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15312 of the California Administrative Code. ALTERNATIVES Should the Planning Commission find the property necessary for golf course operations then the surplus would need to be found inconsistent with the City's General Plan. INFORMATIONAL NOTES 1. The proposed construction and use of the AD Care facility will require an Administrative Use Permit to be processed with the Community Development Department. 2. The City shall process a lot line adjustment in accordance with the Purchase and Sale Agreement to effectively merge the surplus property with church property. 3. The City shall process a General Plan and zoning map clean-up to change the boundary between the R-3 and Public districts to match the new property boundaries. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Vicinity Map 2. Background Information Page 2 f-7 RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP, FROM RECREATION TO MEDIUM-HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, FORA 8,450-SQUARE-FOOT PORTION OF A LOT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (GP 161-95) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings in accordance with the California Government Code and Municipal Code Chapter 17.62 to consider amending the Land Use Element from Recreation to Medium-High-Density Residential for a 8,450- square foot portion of a lot owned by the Congregational Church (GP 161-95)• and WHEREAS,the potential environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan amendment (GP 161-)5)have been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines in initial study ER 161-95; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Fines That this council, after consideration of public testimony, the general plan amendment request GP 161-95, the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings: 1. The map amendment is consistent with the General Plan, and specifically with policies for residential areas in the Land Use Element. 2. An initial study of environmental impacts was prepared by the Community Development Department on February 8, 1996, that describes environmental impacts associated with the map change. The Community Development Director, on February 8, 1996, reviewed the environmental initial study and granted a Negative Declaration of environmental impact. The initial study concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and the City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration �-8 Resolution no. (1996 Series) GP 161-95 11245 Los Osos Valley Road Page 2 and finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. SECTION 2. Ap royal The general plan amendment GP 161-95, as shown on exhibit A, attached, is hereby approved. 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 1996. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: ti� O City A rney �-9 RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP, FROM RECREATION TO MEDIUM-HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, FORA 8,450-SQUARE-FOOT PORTION OF A LOT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (GP 161-95) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings in accordance with the California Government Code and Municipal Code Chapter 17.62 to consider amending the Land Use Element from Recreation to Medium-High-Density Residential for a 8,450- square foot portion of a lot owned by the Congregational Church (GP 161-95); and WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan amendment (GP 161-95)have been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines in initial study ER 161-95; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. EWdinzL That this council, after consideration of public testimony, the general plan amendment request GP 161-95, the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff . recommendations and reports Thereon, makes the following finding: 1• The map amendment is not consistent with the General Plan, and specifically not consistent with policies for residential areas.in the Land Use Element. SECTION 2. Denial The general plan amendment GP 161-95, as shown on exhibit A. attached, is hereby denied. On motion of seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: //-/0 Resolution no. (1996 Series) GP 161-95 11245 Los Osos Valley Road Page 2 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1996. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: /,� City orney ORDINANCE NO. (1996 SERIES) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE A 8,450-SQUARE-FOOT SITE ON THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD FROM PUBLIC FACILITY (PF) TO MEDIUM-HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) (R 161-95) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 14 , 1996 and recommended approval of an amendment to the City's Zoning Map ; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 2, 1996 and has considered testimony of other interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed provisions are consistent with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed amendment to the Zoning map, and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration. SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following finding: 1. The zoning map change is consistent with general plan policies, particularly those policies relating to locations for medium-high-density residential. SECTION 3. The Zoning Map amendment R 161-95, as shown on Exhibit A, is hereby approved. Ordinance no. (1996 Series) Rezoning R 161-95 Page 2 SECTION 5. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of councilmembers voting for and against, shall be published once, at least (3) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this city. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of , 1996, on motion of seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: -110 City A orney �-/3 Planning Commission Meeting February 14, 1996 Page 4 2. 11245 Los Osos Valley Road: GP/R 161-95: General Plan and zoning map amendments to change the General Plan Land Use Element and zoning maps from Public Facility to Medium-High Density Residential (and the zoning map from PF to R-3) City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Planning Commission Meeting February 14, 1996 Page 5 Associate Planner Lautner presented the staff report, recommending approval of the amendments to the City Council,based on finding them consistent with the General Plan. The public hearing was opened. No public comments were made. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Whittlesey moved to recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council, based on finding that it is consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Ready seconded. AYES: Commissioners Whittlesey, Ready, Kourakis, Senn, and Cross NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hoffman and Chairman Karleskint The motion passed. ���►����oi�fl►IMI�IIIII�°�'u� III -- I cit)/ osAn luis oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ER 161-95 11245 Los Osos Valley Road 1. Project Title: General Plan and Zoning map changes from Recreation (Public Facility) to Medium-high density Residential, for a portion of a lot on the southerly side of Los Osos Valley Road, about halfway between Prefumo Canyon Road and Royal Way. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: The City of San Luis Obispo 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner (805) 781-7166 4. Project Location: 11245 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 6. General Plan Designation: Recreation 7. Zoning: Public Facilities 8. Description of the Project: The ultimate project is the construction of an accessory building on the site. A portion of the building will be at the rear of the site, on a portion of property recently purchased by the church from the City. So that the new building is all within one zone and general plan designation, the City is requesting map changes to change the new portion to Medium-high density Residential. 9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The church site is adjacent to the golf course on the south and west, adjacent on the east and across the street from condominium developments. Laguna Junior High. School is across the street, west of the site. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: none. !o The city of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. V� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. �� ER 161-95 11245 Los Osos Valley Road Page 2 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. Land use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources Resources Geological Problems Hazards Recreation Water Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality Public Services Transportation and Utilities and Service it I Ccuation Systems stems DETERMINATION: Negative declaration On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and X a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATIVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect(1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ER 161-95 11245 Los Osos Valley Road Page 3 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Ile February 9, 1996 S' atur Date Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager For Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 11 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 parentheses following each question. 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. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis,' may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEO.A process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). 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. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. ` Issues and Supporting Information Sources SOn'cTs potendauy potw"r Lens Than No ER 161-95 s� at sigoiruant sp ficwt Impact Imes unless impaa Page 4 Mitigation incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1 X The site of the map changes was previously a part of the City's golf course, and intended for recreational purposes. The property is no longer needed for golf course purposes, nor does it appear appropriate for other recreational uses. The Planning Commission determined that the sale of the surplus property for the purpose of constructing a senior services center was consistent with the General Plan Parks and Recreation Element policies and programs. This determination is noted in the source listed. -7 b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to X soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X projections? No housing is proposed. b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or X indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? X Issues and Supporting Information Sources soUMct Potentiany Patentiauy Less Than No ER 161-95 sant �� Significant Impact Iswes Unless Impact Page 5 Mention Incorporated b) Seismic ground shaking? X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X e) Landslides or mudflows? X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions X from excavation, grading or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? T X h) Expansive soils? X i) Unique geologic or physical features? X 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of X surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X body? .ssues and Supporting Information Sources $01mes Potw°ay poteOdavy Lass SigafficanThaw No ER 161-95 t ud5 Meant �s haat Impact Page 6 Mftadw Incorporates e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X movements? .f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through X direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X ""'FT I I Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X otherwise available for public water supplies? 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exiting X or projected air quality violation (Compliance with APCD Environmental Guidelines)? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? X 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: ,I Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X .creased trips are expected as a result of the construction of the adult care center, but those trips are not expected to have a significant impact on traffic on Los Osos Valley Road, a major arterial street. Issues and Supporting Information Sources soumes poor Potemdauy lAw Than No ER 161-95 . S Impact Issues Uoles Impact Page 7 Mtigation Incorporated b) Hazards to safety from design features le.g. sharp curves X or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting X alternativeXtransportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility . X with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan)? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES- Would the proposal result in impacts on: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats X (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool?) X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: /y /J .ssues and Supporting Information Sources Somme= Potendauy Potentially I'mThn No ER 161-95 �-eant �� stent Impact Lames uulea Impact Page 8 N66sation Incorporated a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or X emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health X hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass X of trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? X Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: 1 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Som pow Putendapy Less bran No ER 161-95 S;gnific— Impact Issues Unless Impact Page 9 Nfitigadon Incorporated a) Fre protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X- e) Other governmental services? X 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? X b) Communications systems? X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X d) Sewer or septic tanks? X e) Storm water drainage? X f) Solid waste disposal? X g) Local or regional water supplies? X 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X �J� .ssues and Supporting Information Sources soumes Pour PotodaIIy tens Than No ER 161-95 � � Impact Issues unless Impad Page 10 Nftation Incorporated b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X c) Create light or glare? X 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X c) Affect historical resources? X .+I Have the potential to cause a physical change which X would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks 1 X or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 1 X 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or.wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Issues and Supporting Information Sources so°irm Pateatiauy Patentiatly Less Than No ER 161-95 signiirwan SpHicant Skuilicant Impact Lowe: unless Impact Page 11 w4gation Incorporated b) Does the project have the potential'to achieve short-term, X to.the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, X but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis.may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. None b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequatel. analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.