Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/1996, 5 - R 100-96: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FROM TOURIST COMMERCIAL (C-T) TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-R), FOR A LOT ON THE WESTERLY CORNER OF MONTEREY AND CALIFORNIA STREETS. counat j agcnba nEpont CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIS PO D FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community DeyeI ent Director Prepared By: Judith Lautner, Associate Plann SUBJECT: R 100-96: Zoning map amendment fro Tourist Commercial (C-T) to Retail Commercial(C-R), for a lot on the westerly corner of Monterey and California Streets. CAO RECOMMENDATION 1.) Approve the Negative Declaration, with mitigation, of Environmental Impact and 2.) Pass to print an ordinance amending the zoning map for the site from Tourist Commercial (C-T) to Retail Commercial, with Special Considerations (C-R-S), as recommended by the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION Situation. The applicant has requested a zoning change to Retail Commercial.(C-R), to increase the number of uses allowed on the site. The representative is interested in developing a self-service car wash on the site, but has not committed to that particular use. The Planning Commission reviewed this request on September 11 and October 9, 1996, and recommends approval of the zoning change,with the addition of the Special Considerations (S) overlay zone. Data Summary Address: 1480 Monterey Street Applicant/property owner: Harry Kaplan et al Representative: Joseph S. Gouin Zoning: Tourist Commercial (C-T) General Plan: General Retail Environmental status: Negative Declaration with mitigation approved by the Director on October 1, 1996 Project action deadline: No state-mandated deadline for legislative actions, including zone changes Site description The site is fat-L-shaped lot that is currently vacant and flat. A flower shop and brewing factory are adjacent to the site on the southwest_ Restaurants are on corners to the northeast and southwest, and R 100-96 1480 Monterey Street Page 2 an abandoned automobile shop is located on the easterly corner. A variety of businesses exist in this block and the surrounding blocks, primarily motels and small office uses. The site is adjacent to an office zone and close to a residential zone that fronts on Palm Street. EMject Description The project is the amendment of the zoning map from C-T to C-R for the site. EVALUATION 1. The change is consistent with the Land Use Element. The Land Use Element map shows the site as "General Retail", along with the remainder of this block facing Monterey Street (both sides of the street). The change to General Retail from Tourist Commercial was made by the City Council in its recent (1994) Land Use Element update. The zoning change is consistent with Land Use Element policies: 3.1.1 Purpose and Included Uses The City should have areas for General Rem#uses adequate to meet most demands of city and nearby county residents. General Retail includes specialty stores as well as department stores, warehouse stores, discount stores, restaurants, and services such as banks. Not all areas designated General Retail are appropriate for the full range of uses. Resolution no. 8332 (1994 Series), adopting the LUE, says that Retail Commercial (C-R) or Central Commercial (C-C) zones are consistent with the LUE General Retail designation. Therefore, the change to C-R is consistent with the LUE and in fact implements the Land Use map. The current zoning(C-T)is not consistent with the Land Use Element.If this zoning change is not approved,the City Council should initiate a change to the LUE map to be consistent with existing zoning. 2. The Planning Commission recommends the addition of the S-zone. There was public testimony at both Planning Commission hearings, focusing on possible impacts from future uses at the site, including noise, compatibility, air and water pollution, traffic, and aesthetics. (See minutes and update,attached) Neighbors of the project site were concerned that many of the uses allowed in the C-R zone would cause problems beyond what could occur in the C-T zone. The Planning Commission therefore is recommending that the Special Considerations (S)overlay zone be attached to the new C-R zoning, with direction that use permit review include focus on noise, traffic, and compatibility with surrounding uses. This overlay zone is intended "to assure compatibility of the use with its surroundings or conformance with the general plan, or to determine if a proposed development solves problems such as noise exposure, flood hazard, airport hazard, or slope instability which are particularly severe on a given area Such development review may also be used to protect areas of scenic or ecological sensitivity, wildlife habitat, or wildland fire hazard."(Section 17.56.010)The S zone requires approval of an Administrative Use Permit for any use on the site. S-01- R 100-96 1480 Monterey Street Page 3 The C-R zone does include a wider range of uses than that allowed in the C-T zone.Many of these uses require approval of use permits because, as noted in the Land Use Element excerpt above, Not all areas designated General Retail are appropriate for the full range of uses. Thus, staff did not initially recommend the addition of the"Special Considerations"(S)overlay zone because it appears to be redundant and will require approval of a use permit for the most innocuous of activities at the site. The approval will result in this parcel being the only one in this C-R-zoned block with an S-overlay. However, the S-zone provides a degree of certainty to decision-maker;and the public that specific issues will be addressed in consideration of any use at the site. CONCURRENCES No other departments had any concerns with the map change FISCAL IMPACT The map amendment is not expected to have any significant effect on the City's finances. The C-R zone may result in redevelopment of the site sooner than would be the case with the C-T zone, because of the wider range of allowed uses. Such a redevelopment would mean increased tax revenues for the City but also increased costs for services. Depending on the specific use, the net may be a gain or loss. ALTERNATIVES The Council may continue action. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant. The Council may deny the request:. If the request is denied, the Council should initiate a general plan amendment to change the Land Use Element map to Tourist, to assure consistency between the Land Use Element and Zoning maps. The Council may approve a rezoning without the S-zone overlay. This action would be contrary to the Planning Commission recommendation but would still bring the Zoning map into conformance with the LUE map. Attachments draft ordinance vicinity map environmental initial study September 11, 1996 Planning Commission draft minutes October 9, 1996 Planning Commission meeting update (in lieu of minutes) S- 3 ORDINANCE NO. (1996 SERIES) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP OF A PARCEL ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MONTEREY STREET AND CALIFORNIA BLVD, FROM TOURIST COMMERCIAL (C-T) TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL, WITH SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS (C-R-S) (R 100-96) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on September 11 and October 9, 1996 and recommended approval of the amendment to the City's Zoning map; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on November 6, 1996 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed map amendment is consistent with the General Plan, the purposes of the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact, with mitigation, as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; BE IT ORDAINED by the City 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 judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures into the project: Mitigation Measure: Any use permit application for any use at the site that is likely to generate more than 350 trips per day shall be submitted to the APCD for review and recommendations. Recommendations will be taken into account in any action on the project. SECTION 2. The Zoning map amendment R100-96, changing the site from Tourist Commercial (C-T) to Retail Commercial, with Special Considerations (C-R-S), as shown on the attached Exhibit A, is hereby approved, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The map amendment is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element text and map, and in fact implements the Land Use Element map. 2. The map change will not have a significant adverse impact on persons living or .�'T Ordinance no. (1996 Series) 1480 Monterey Street Page 2 working in the vicinity. 2. The Special Considerations zone, in this case, is intended to ensure compatibility of uses with existing uses in the vicinity. and subject to the following St=ial Consideration- 1. Future uses will be reviewed with focus primarily on noise, traffic, and compatibiltiy with surrounding uses (including uses separated from the site only by streets). . SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance,together with the names of the Council Members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) 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 a meeting held on the day of on motion of the following roll call vote: seconded by and on AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf Mayor Allen Settle APPROVED: tyMtorr4y J ey J gensen Sp ps y .a•, r ^b lit � Oy r I• O e +�� 4a y p\Ls� 15 I 15. let iwu fr � 15. O C� `515 ♦ 115 �a5 °l — I L R01 +sr �� t�^ep O e� e r• ` + ? \i 1w p`-°�• •+ + n Bbl 1+\C/�', + wn. crony •s�rg1�•\ ,o_ '•� `ao A f+yam\s •` � •� lit Com. •L+' � \'+' F `s •� F r l� ae r �..sa L•a /w� 59 i t0a�. 'E'�� 15 1� ,� ✓ \ 4.(� `F P� �'�'^� O Oda\ +� ' VICINITY MAP '*4� ��' yy C:� NORTH' „ IIIcity of sAn luis oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Revised INITIAL STUDY ER 100-96 1480 Monterey Street 1 . Project Title: Monterey Street rezoning 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner (805) 781-7166 4. Project Location: 1480 Monterey Street APN 01-137-13 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Harry Kaplan 18118 Village no. 18 Camarillo, CA 93012 6. General Plan Designation: General Retail 7. Zoning: Tourist Commercial (C-T) 8. Description of the Project: V� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. �—� ER 100-96 1480 Monterey Street Page 2 The applicant has requested a change to the zoning of the property from C-T to C-R (Retail Commercial). The anticipated processes required-for this project are: Zoning map change Environmental review 9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The site is surrounded by offices to the northwest, restaurants to the northeast and south, and other varied commercial uses nearby. This lot forms one edge of the Tourist Commercial zone, is immediately adjacent to a Retail Commercial zone to the southwest. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required. No other agencies have jurisdiction over this project. 2 ry �d ER 100-96 1480 Monterey Street Page 3 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 X Air Quality Public Services Transportation and Utilities and Service Circulation Systems 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. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there X 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. 3 q ER 100-96 1480 Monterey Street Page 4 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 th osed project. October 1, 1996 Arnold Jonas, Comm\knjty Development Director Date 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 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 CEQA 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 fist should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No @t 100.96 Significant Significant Significant Impact 1480 Monterey Street Issues Unless Impact Page S Mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? x General Plan: Land Use Element:The parcel is designated "General Retail" on the Land Use Element (LUE) map. The LUE text says 3 1.1 Purpose and lnduded Uses The City should have areas for General Retail uses adequate to meet most demands of city and nearby county residents. General Retail includes specialty stores as well as department stores, warehouse stores, discount stores, restaurants, and services such as banks. Not all areas designated General Retail are appropriate for the full range of uses. Resolution no. 8332 (1994 Series), adopting the LUE and included within it as a separate section, says that Retail commercial (C-R) or Central commercial (C-C) zones are consistent with the LUE General Retail designation. Therefore, the change to C-R is consistent with the LUE. Conclusion: No Impact. Other General Plan elements: The zoning change does not raise issues of consistency with any other general plan elements. b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies x adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? No other agencies have jurisdiction over the project. c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? x 5 ssues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 100-96 Significant Significant Significant Impact 1480 Monterey Street Issues UnlessImpact Page 6 Mitigation Incorporated The site is adjacent on the southwest to a commercial development housing a wide range of uses, including a brew factory, flower sales, and offices. These businesses are conducted indoors. A parking lot for these businesses is immediately next to the property line. A residential zone exists a short distance from the site (to the northwest). Residential areas are sensitive to noise. Uses allowed (or allowed with use permit approval) in the present zone (C-T)that might present noise problems include: • amusement arcades • bars • nightclubs • pool halls • carwashes (in conjunction with service stations) Uses allowed or allowed with use permit approval in the C-R zone that might present noise problems include: • amusement arcades • animal hosptiatls and boarding • day care homes • athletic and health clubs auto repair and related services • bars • car wash -self-service • nightclubs • pool halls • repair services • ambulance services Most of the above uses (all except amusement arcades) require approval of a use permit in these zones. The use permit review is intended to assure that noise and other compatibility issues are addressed. Many of the same uses are allowed in both zones.The C-R zone allows more office and retail uses and a few service uses that are not allowed in the C-T zone. Such uses are already allowed on the adjacent property and will not, therefore, be a new use in the area or incompatible with the surroundings. The proposed zoning map change is consistent with land use policies and will be compatible with the Retail Commercial zone adjacent. Extension of this zone for one lot should have no significant effect on the nearby Tourist Commercial and residential zones. Conclusion: Less than significant. d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to X soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? 'iere are no agricultural resources or operations in the vicinity. 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Lose Than No ER 100-96 Significant Significant Significant Impact 1480 Monterey Street Issues Unless Impact Page 7 Mitigation Incorporated e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X established community (including a low-income or minority community)? The change will extend the C-R zone for one more lot. It will have no effect on established communities. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X projections? Retail commercial uses on this small site would be expected to provide a few low-end service jobs, which would not create an incentive for persons to move to this community. No change to the local population projections is expected to result. Conclusion. No impact. 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 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? I I I I X The nearest fault is the Los Osos fault, which crosses into the city near the westerly city limits. No other fault is known to exist in the city limits. The likelihood of the Los Osos fault becoming active has been determined to be approximately one in 1,000 to one in 2,500 for any year, which is within the limit of acceptable risk for earthquake shaking, as defined in the County's Seismic Safety Element. The site is not near the Los Osos fault and would therefore not be affected by rupture of this fault. b) Seismic ground shaking? X Earthquake shaking from the expected magnitude 8+ earthquake on the San Andreas fault, near Cholame, is within that taken into account in the Uniform Building Code, Zone 4 and no special measures should be required to protect any new structures from this source of ground shaking. c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X Any geological difficulties with the site will be identified in the required soils report submitted with the building permit for any new structures. Current codes will assure that construction keeps damage from seismic activity at an acceptable level. d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X e) Landslides or mudflows? X 7 S-�3 .slues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No 6i 100-96 Significant Significant Significant Impact 1480 Monterey Street Issues Unless Impact Page 8 Mitigation Incorporated f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions X from excavation, grading or fill? A soils report will be required as part of the permit application for any construction. If any unstable soil conditions exist they will be discovered,and recommendations made to correct the condition. The site itself is flat and not likely to suffer from erosion or changes in topography. g) Subsidence of the land? X A soils report will be required with any building permit application, regardless of the zone and regardless of the use involved. Report recommendations and building codes will assure mitigation of any deleterious soils effects. h) Expansive soils? X See g), above. i) Unique geologic or physical features? X There are no unique geologic or physical features on the site. 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: _T a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X rate and amount of surface runoff? Any new development on the site, regardless of zone or use, will result in the need for proper drainage. The site is essentially flat and can be graded to drain to the street, as required by building codes. No significant changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate or amount of surface runoff are anticipated. 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? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X movements? FT I I 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 100-96 Significant Significant Significant Impact 1480 Monterey Street Issues Unless Impact Page 9 Mitigation Incorporated 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 The City's Utilities Division monitors discharges to the sewer and storm drainage systems for contamination. Any use that involves underground storage of waste is required to provide records of periodic cleaning of such tanks, during yearly inspections by City staff. Storage of any materials considered to be hazardous is monitored by the Fire Department. These inspections are intended to assure, among other things, that groundwater is not contaminated. i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X otherwise available for public water supplies? No extraction of groundwater is planned. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 3,4 X existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance with APCD Environmental Guidelines)? The zoning change would allow a wider range of uses for this site than are currently allowed. Characteristics of each use must be evaluated on an individual basis. Air quality violations for commercial businesses catering to the public will typically come from vehicle emissions from vehicles visiting the business. The Air Pollution Control District's (APCD's) Air Quality Handbook (source 4) says that any use that generates more than ten pounds of ozone precursors and fine particulate matter per day will require review by the District and possibly will require mitigation measures to reduce the number of emissions. A use that generates about 350 trips per day will generate more than 10 pounds of these pollutants. Conclusion: May be significant. Any use allowed (or allowed with use permit approval) in the C-R zone may be established at the site if the zoning change is approved. It is impossible to determine at this time if the future use will generate 350 trips per day. Recommended mitigation: Any use permit application for any use at the site that is likely to generate more than 350 trips per day shall be submitted to the APCD for review and recommendations. Recommendations will be taken into account in any action on the project. b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X 9 ;slues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 100-96 Significant Significant Significant Impact 1480 Monterey Street Issues Unless Impact Page 10 Mitigation Incorporated The zoning change will not in itself expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. Any use on the site may affect the nearby residents, motel clients, and office workers. Through business tax certificate or use permit review, each use will be evaluated for its potential to generate pollutants. Conclusion. Less than significant. City and County Health codes will regulate uses on the site. c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? X Uses allowed in the C-R zone are no more likely than those allowed in the C-T zone to create objectionable odors. Odors which have negative effects on public health will be regulated by City and County health regulations. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 3,4,5, 7 raffic counts on Monterey in 1992 were 13114 trips per day in this block. The Circulation Study, phase I report (source 7)says that traffic levels on this part of Monterey Street do not increase in a linear way, that it is not possible to predict future traffic from past traffic counts. No counts have been done on this street since 1992. Monterey Street is classified as an "arterial" street in the City's Circulation Element (CE) (source 5). The CE calls for a "desired maximum" Level of Service (LOS) of "E" for the part of Monterey Street. The LOS currently ranges between A and F on Monterey, depending on street segment. Any additional use on the street will increase traffic incrementally. The range of uses that are allowed in the C-R zone includes some C-R uses (retail sales of general merchandise, for example) that may generate more traffic than most C-T uses. However,the size of this lot precludes any large development and therefore eliminates from practical consideration a use that would generate a large amount of traffic, because there is not sufficient space on the site for either queuing (as for car washes) or for parking (for restaurants or similar uses). The change from C-T to C-R is not expected to have a significant impact on traffic in this area. Conclusion:Less than significant. Further evaluation may need to be done when an actual project is submitted for the site. b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves X or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))) When a specific design has been submitted, it will be evaluated for any hazardous features. c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X The site has access to both Califomia Blvd. and Monterey Street. It is in a developed part of town, on well-maintained reets. Review of plans for future development will assure that adequate access for emergencies is provided. d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 100-96 Significant Significant Significant Impact 1480 Monterey Street Issues Unless Impact Page 11 Mitigation Incorporated Plans will be reviewed for consistency with City parking standards. e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists) X No plans have yet been received, nor are required. Future development will be evaluated for consistency with all City standards and regulations. f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? See e) above. 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 affect: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats X (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? The site is vacant but was previously a service station. It is flat and devoid of any habitable vegetation for rare species or plants. b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, X coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? T X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors) X 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X Plans for development will be evaluated for conformance with City policies and regulations. b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner? See a), above. 11 ssues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially less Than No ER 100.96 Significant Significant Significant Impact 1480 Monterey Street Issues Unless Impact Page 12 Mitigation Incorporated 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? Plans will be reviewed for potential to create health hazards. d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health X hazards? -T e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, X grass, or trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? X Some uses allowed in both C-R and C-T zones generate noise. The City's noise regulations and Noise Element set standards for different zones. The "acceptable" noise levels to be maintained in the C-R zone are the same as for the C-T zone. b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X See a), above. 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: Fire protection? X 12 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 100-96 Significant Significant Significant Impact 1480 Monterey Street Issues Unless Impact Page 13 Mitigation Incorporated 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? 6 7-1 X Any use is required to earn a water allocation. Currently, the most commonly-used method is to retrofit existing plumbing fixtures in the City with the intent of saving twice as much water as the project is expected to use. About half of the city's fixtures are currently retrofitted. City requirements assure that adequate water supplies will remain available. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X 13 ssues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 100-96 Significant Significant Significant Impact 1480 Mornerey Street Issues Unless Impact Page 14 Mitigation Incorporated b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X The City's Architectural Review Commission is charged with reviewing all commercial (and some residential) projects. This review process assures that no project will have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. c) Create light or glare? X 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? X The site is smaller than one acre, not within 200 feet of the top of bank of any major creek, not within 200 feet of the boundaries of an archaeological site, not in a historical archeological district, is not listed on the City's list of Historic Resources, is not near any burial sensitivity site. The site has also been disturbed, some parts of it significantly (for gas tanks underground). The site is therefore not expected to have any paleontological, archeological, or historical value. b) Disturb archaeological resources) X See a), above. Affect historical resources? X See a), above. d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which X would affect unique ethnic cultural values? See a), above. e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X potential impact areal There are no existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks X or other recreational facilities) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X F16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 14 �-20 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 100-96 Significant Significant Significant Impact 1480 Monterey Street Issues Unless Impact Page 15 Mitigation Incorporated 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? Sections 5, 7, and 14 address these questions. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, X to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals7 Short-and long-term environmental goals are the same. 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) If the site is rezoned to C-R, it will create no precedent for other rezonings that are not consistent with the General Plan, because the rezoning is primarily the implementation of the Land Use Element. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? There are no known environmental effects that would have substantial adverse effects on human beings. 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. An earlier analysis was not used. 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 the earlier analysis. 15 r �j .7 'off- ER 100-96 1480 Monterey Street Page 16 An earlier analysis was not used. C) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,' describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions of the project. An earlier analysis was not used. Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988);Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 General Plan Land Use Element text and map, City of San Luis Obispo, 1994 2 Final Environmental Impact Report, Emerald Hills Estates, Interface Planning and Counseling Corporation, Dec. 1994, Section V A, Geologic and Seismic Hazards. 3 Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 4th edition plus addenda, 1987 4 Traffic Counts, City of San Luis Obispo, printed 1/14/93 5 General Plan Circulation Element, City of San Luis Obispo, 1994 6 General Plan Water and Wastewater Element, City of San Luis Obispo, adopted 1987, as amended July 2, 1996 7 Circulation Study, City of San Luis Obispo, DKS Associates, December 1988 19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM 1 Mitigation Measure: Any use permit application for any use at the site that is likely to generate more than 350 trips per day shall be submitted to the APCD for review and recommendations. Recommendations will be taken into account in any action on the project. Monitorina Proaram: When an application for development of the site is submitted, this environmental document will be reviewed for any applicable mitigation measures. 16 Draft Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1996 Page 2 Neighborhood Commercial and Government Facilities and from Government Facilities to Neighborhood Commercial; (2) rezoning from C-S, C-S-S, and PF to C-N; and (3) Abandonment of potions of South,Emily, and Rachel Streets;(4)lot line adjustment resulting in four lots, created from five existing parcels with numerous underlying lots; (6)use permit for a 10% shared use parking reduction and; (7) variance to allow a 40-foot tall building where 35 feet is otherwise allowed. Albertson's, applicant. Commissioner Senn made a motion to continue this item to October 2, 1996. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kourakis and approved by voice vote. Commissioner Ready refrained from participating due to a potential conflict of interest. AYES: Commrs. Senn, Kourakis,Karleskint, Jeffrey, Veesart, Whittlesey NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commr. Ready 2. 1480 Monterey Street: R 100-96 and ER 100-96: Change to the zoning map from Tourist Commercial (C-T) to Retail Commercial (C-R) and environmental analysis of proposed zoning amendment; C-T Zone: Harry Kaplan, applicant. Chairman Karleskint refrained from participating due to a potential conflict of interest. Commissioner Senn was designated as Acting Chairman. Associate Planner Lautner presented the staff report,recommending the commission review the initial study of Environmental Impact and a recommended approval of the rezoning to the City Council. Commissioner Jeffrey asked how staffs estimate of the level of service on Monterey was denied. Associate Planner Lautner stated the estimates are based on the amount of backup at signals and how long it takes to get through intersections. Commissioner Jeffrey expressed concern about the actual levels being higher in this particular area. He cited Section 7.6 of the Circulation Element,which says the City will monitor changes to the level of service on a bi-annual basis. Draft Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1996 Page 3 Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the City is currently in the process of amending the traffic model used to develop information for the Circulation Element. The program will not be complete for another six months. We have a current traffic model and have received input from public works. The model will be updated. Commissioners Whittlesey and Senn disclosed they had spoken to and received a letter from Ann Dinshaw earlier in the week about this request. Commissioners Veesart,Kouralds and Jeffrey had received letters from Ms. Dinshaw. Commissioner Ready had no written or oral contact with Ms. Dinshaw. Development Review Manager Whisenand noted staff did not receive a copy of Ms. Dinshaw's letter. Commissioner Veesart asked staff to go over how the council decided to change the Land Use Element for this property. Associate Planner Lautner stated when the Council amended the LUE, they were looking at what the C-R Zone should include. There had been some interest in extending the C-R Zone. Often smaller lots don't work well in the C-T Zone. Commissioner Kourakis stated a car wash is allowed in the C-T Zone in conjunction with a service station. She asked why staff is recommending the change and for the history of the original zoning. Associate Planner Lautner stated she was not involved with the zoning changes for this site. Commissioner Kourakis stated the idea was this strip would be geared to tourists and that tourists might want to wash their cars, so that was provided for in the zoning regulations, conjunction with a gas station. Now the suggestion is that it be changed to C-R. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the C-T zone allows car washes accessory to gas stations. The General Retail designation allows a variety of retail uses, including car washes. The applicant wants to put a car wash on the site, which would be a follow-up application. The recommendation for approval has nothing to do with the potential car wash. Commissioner Kourakis asked if the application was driven by the proposal for a car wash. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the proposal to change the zoning does not relate specifically to a future car wash. Commissioner Kourakis stated this site is currently zoned C-T and a car wash would be allowed in conjunction with a gas station. Because the site is C-T, it was previously considered appropriate for Draft Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1996 Page 4 services for tourists. Staff is recommending a change to C-R rather than a text amendment to allow the use in the C-T zone, which indicates that staff is not supportive of maintaining the tourist orientation at this time. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated most likely the thought changed when the applicant did not want to put in a gas station in addition to a car wash. Associate Planner Lautner stated staffis not recommending approval for a car wash, but is interested in having the zoning and general plan maps consistent. Commissioner Kouralds stated this zone change is in front of the Commission because of the proposal for the car wash. She felt the request is focused on a specific site and that a car wash on the site would require a zoning change. She felt that approval of the proposed zone change implies a car wash is okay. Acting Chairman Senn stated the staff report notes that the subject the Commission is dealing with is a zoning map amendment from C-T to C-R. That's the issue before the Commission. Commissioner Kourakis feels the environmental study is geared towards a car wash. So, to say that the Commission is not in some measure considering a car wash seems unrealistic. Commissioner Kourakis asked staff what mitigation measures could be used to help reduce the air pollution impacts. When talking about the downtown, most people talk about reducing trips. This type of use doesn't help reduce trips into the downtown area. Associate Planner Lautner stated she has seen interesting suggestions from the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) on other projects. She doesn't want to second guess the APCD. They might say it's not a significant impact, but could improve the overall air quality because people wouldn't be going as far for a car wash. The City does not have enough information on the proposed car wash to do a fiill analysis of air quality impacts. Commissioner Kourakis expressed concern about assuming that a significant impact can be mitigated, but in fact it may not be able to be mitigated. Associate Planner Lautner stated the environmental review and Commission are not considering a car wash,just a zoning change. Commissioner Kourakis stated there are a couple of choices here. One is to change the zoning to C-R and the other is to change the C-T text to allow car washes that are unrelated to gas stations. Draft Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1996 Page 5 Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the zoning should be changed to C-R regardless of the car wash because we have a general plan inconsistency. If the Commission doesn't want to see C-R Zoning on this piece of property, the staff needs to be directed to process a general plan amendment to change that corner back to tourist, as opposed to retail commercial. There is an inconsistency and it needs to be addressed. Commissioner Kourakis asked if the C-T zone text should be changed to allow free-standing car washes. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated if this were done, there would still be an inconsistency in the zoning land use maps. There would be a C-T zone on a piece of property that the General Plan has as"General Retail". One or the other documents needs to be fixed. A separate matter would be the pursuit of a car wash. Tonight the Commission is focused on the General Plan issue. Commissioner Kourakis referred to the General Plan and stated it also says not all areas designated general retail are appropriate for the full range of uses. Acting Chairman Senn said if this is rezoned Retail Commercial, it goes no further than the rezoning. The applicant would have to come back with a use permit application to determine if this use is a appropriate on this site. Commissioner Veesart asked staff if zoning changes are initiated because they are project driven or are as the result of cleanup periods where staff goes through and brings before the Commission all the various map changes at one time. Associate Planner Lautner stated zone changes for consistency usually come before the Commission as a cleanup action by the City. However, in this case the applicant wants the change sooner and therefore initiated it. Acting Chairman Senn stated the initial study was done in context assuming that there would be a car wash here. He asked if there is a study which would have been required for just the rezone. Associate Planner Lautner stated staff included in the car wash because they knew that much of what the applicant was asking. Staff went as far as they could with that, recognizing that other uses could also be possible. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the car wash information was provided because the Commission has asked in the past to have as much information as possible. Draft Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1996 Page 6 Commissioner Jeffrey asked if more traffic studies will be required. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated further traffic studies could be required, regardless whether or not the Special Consideration(S) overlay is used. An S-Overlay could be an option for the Commission. Assistant City Attorney Clemens asked if further environmental study is anticipated when the car wash comes in. Development Review Manager Whisenand replied yes. We don't have information on the number of stalls and there are other unknowns. There may even be some questions raised in the public comment session as well. Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated staffs intention is not to include the actual car wash as part of the current description to satisfy the complete CEQA review of the car wash. The intent of staff was to be as inclusive as possible and also leave the door open for further review when further details are known. Acting Chairman Senn asked what if someone came in today and applied for a motel on this piece of property. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated motels are allowed in the C-R, as well as C-T. Acting Chairman Senn stated he is referring to the C-T. He asked if this would be the same situation as the offices in the Service Commercial zone,but now you'd be saying you can't have a motel on this piece of property because the zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated this issue would have come forward eventually whether it's car wash driven or City initiated. The public hearing was opened. Joseph Gouin, applicant, 177 Honey Way, Templeton, stated he wants to build a modern-type car wash. It would be made out ofblock,not metal, so it would look good. He can satisfy the concerns about noise. He will have an attendant present so there shouldn't be a problem with noise. Acting Chairman Senn asked if Mr. Gouin understands that the discussion before the Commission is not about a car wash. Mr. Gouin stated he desires the zone change because the C-R zone allows more uses. Draft Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1996 Page 7 Mr. Gouin asked if he sold gasoline on this property, would a car wash be an allowed use. Associate Planner Lautner stated if the primary use is a service station, it could be allowed. Mr. Gouin added maybe he should put in a gas station and a car wash. Acting Chairman Senn stated the car wash issue is not in front of the Commission. Mr. Gouin stated the rezone would allow more uses. Commissioner Jeffrey stated the ARC and the Planning Commission are directed to look at compatibility of uses within particular zones If we're specifically talking about a particular use, wouldn't it be advisable to at least ferret out some of the questions regarding the proposed use. Acting Chairman Senn stated he doesn't want to have answers based on speculation. The applicant will be back with specific information when he applies. Commissioner Jeffrey is concerned about giving the applicant some idea of the types of questions he might encounter in this process. Commissioner Jeffrey asked Mr. Gouin if there are any other uses that he might be interested in. Mr. Gouin stated possibly a service station. Commissioner Kourakis asked Mr. Gouin if it is clear that even if this rezoning is approved, it is not an approval for a car wash The staff report really focuses on a car wash. There is really no consent being given to the car wash. Mr. Gouin stated he realizes this is for a rezoning. Acting Chairman Senn stated this has come before the Commission as being rather controversial, assuming the applicant wants to pursue a car wash. He suggested the applicant discuss the project with the neighbors to try alleviate any concerns. Mr. Gouin stated he spoke to one of the neighbors and said he would satisfy any issues. He is available for questions at any time. Acting Chairman Senn suggested the retention of a local consultant for help. It's better to resolve problems before getting to the Commission level. J o� Draft Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1996 Page 8 Mr. Gouin felt a lot of the people that have issues are worried about minor problems. Commissioner Whittlesey expressed concern about the list of issues that may need to be resolved if a car wash is proposed by the applicant. Acting Chairman Senn reminded the audience that the Commission is addressing a rezoning, not a car wash. Ann Dinshaw, 1473 Monterey St., stated she and her husband own a small motel across the street from Mr. Gouin's parcel. She felt very strongly about this issue because they are trying to protect their home and their livelihood. She understands that the zone change conforms to the LITE; however, she objects to the change. When they purchased their property, it was zoned C-T. The only way to make this zoning change acceptable is to add a Special Consideration Overlay. There are problems oftrathc congestion, noise, air, and water pollution. Aesthetics and compatibility need to be addressed. She said they are also concerned about this change because the list of possible uses doubles. She understands the City's need to make the map cleaner, but there are real people living in this area and there will be impacts on the quality of life and how successful their businesses will be. Mrs. Dinshaw stated it is very clear from the environmental report that the car wash is sort of being packaged into the zoning change. She would like the report to be thorough, accurate, and realistic. The report has omissions, inaccuracies, and minimizes impacts of this project. It goes out of its way to say there are no problems with a car wash It claims there's no impact on aesthetics, compatibility, or noise. Accepting the report takes away the public's right to contest these issues at a later date. It is not accurate to say that there are no impacts. There aren't enough facts and a lot of unknowns and the report is prejudging these things without getting enough information to support the claims. Mrs. Dinshaw feels it is only fair to the developer, who visited her once, to get all the facts on the table rather than go through a number of meetings. The areas she feels are important are the impacts on traffic, noise, compatibility with surrounding businesses, aesthetics, and the environment. She felt the report needs to be amended especially the noise section. Noise is a potentially significant issue. She questions what the conclusions of the report are based on. Mrs.Dinshaw stated she lives at this intersection 24 hours a day and doesn't want to hear vacuums, high-pressure hoses, timers beeping, and car stereos. She feels these items will have significant impacts. Mrs. Dinshaw stated the report claims that a car wash on this site may produce objectionable noise, but in the conclusion it states that it's less than significant. This is a premature conclusion. She doesn't know what this is based on. S� 9 Draft Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1996 Page 9 A car wash is in no way compatible with the existing land uses. Mrs.Dinshaw displayed photos of carwashes and stated Monterey St. has the highest concentration of motel rooms. visitors who travel downtown go past this parcel. About a million and a half dollars in bed taxes are collected on this stretch of road. The City has just contributed millions of dollars to the construction of the Performing Arts Center. Monterey St. is the corridor from the heart of the city leading to this new project. A car wash at the gateway to the Performing Arts Center was probably not in mind when the center was conceived. Even the ARC has characterized this area as being a gateway to the city core. More attention should be paid to what type of development is put in this area Businesses should be complementary to each other. People on vacations don't use car washes, especially self-serve car washes. Mrs. Dinshaw said the City has made efforts to move auto-related businesses out of the downtown. Now we're talking about putting another auto service business on this site, which seems to defeat and contradict the objectives of the city. This sort of project will invite more cars into town. There should be a long-term approach to the development of this site. Is this the type of business that belongs in a tourist area or gives visitors a positive impression of our town? Acting Chairman Senn reminded Mrs. Dinshaw that her allotted speaking time had expired. Mrs. Dinshaw stated this is the first city she's lived in that has police patrol cars that specifically deal with noise problems. She feels this will be setting up a neighborhood to fail. This is not compatible with the other uses in the neighborhood. There have been contamination problems on the site. The owner has been cited for fire hazard violations. She doesn't feel it's right to expose residents to potentially detrimental effects. Commission Jeffrey asked Mrs.Dinshaw to comment on the concerns expressed in her letter relating to runoff into the creek Mrs. Dinshaw stated when using self-service car washes, people work on their cars and change the oil. Cars have various leaks and it's not out of the question that some of the contaminants will find their way into the creek. She doesn't feel this owner has shown any interest in maintaining this parcel. The gas station that was there had been in ruin for years. The CEPA has studies that refer to car wash drainage and she will try to obtain them. Commissioner Veesart stated when he looked at this item in the agenda packet, he basically was looldng at the issue of a car wash on this site. He shares many of the concerns about a car wash on this site. Now he's hearing from staff that the issue that the Commission is actually looking at is simply a rezoning. The Commission is looking at implementing the LUE that was adopted in 1994. x-30 Draft Planning Commission Meeting September i 1, 1996 Page 10 He asked Mrs. Dinshaw if she would be opposed to the zone change if a car wash wouldn't be proposed on this site. Mrs. Dinshaw stated she would be because they have made an investment in their business. They feel that in order for them to continue to succeed,they need to be surrounded by like businesses. She is concerned about the list of uses that would be incompatible with the tourist business. The applicant will be proposing a car wash and this shouldn't be overlooked. She feels strongly that there should be an S-Overlay so there would be a little more protection. Commissioner Kourakis noted if this remains C-T, it can still have a car wash in conjunction with a gas station. This would require a Planning Commission hearing. The C-R zone would allow a car wash at the Director's discretion. Micheal Dinshaw, 1473 Monterey St., feels the issue of the rezoning has been presented collectively with the car wash. There is one report which at every stage mentions a car wash. The rezoning is a concern because of the issue of what is allowed and what they will be exposed to. Mr. Dinshaw stated he has done a lot of research on the traffic and can provide this information to the Commission. He feels that will be impacts on water, air quality, endangered species, and hazardous substances. According to the report, the only impact that this project would have would be on air quality. The report fails to cover significant issues. He asked when has the City decided that water use is no impact. He said they have spent hundreds of dollars retrofitting their building with low flow everything. A car wash is a water related business. Any additional usage of water should be a significant issue. A car wash will introduce chemicals into the environment and drainage systems. The risk of wastewater products, chemicals, and oils going directly into the creek by runoff is high. There is a risk of septic tank leakage contaminating the soil. This site was heavily contaminated. Mr.Dinshaw stated,the City feels there will potentially be an impact on air quality and no impact on three other areas. An additional 432 trips are anticipated in the report. Ten pounds or more of any ozone precursors and fine particulate matter may seem slight to the City, but any increase is significant to the residents and guests at their hotel. We should be looking to improve the environment rather than making it worse. In terms of exposing sensitive receptors to pollutants, the City feels there is no impact. There are potentially significant impacts. Mr. Dinshaw stated self-service car washes use detergents and emulsifying agents, all of which are collected by drains. It is not possible to control all the users. Pressure hoses when pointed away from the car can shoot water in combination with chemicals at least 30'. Any time you introduce water into any climate, it is changed. �3l Draft Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1996 Page 11 Acting Chairman Senn reminded Mr. Dinshaw that his allotted speaking time had expired. Mr. Dinshaw stated three minutes is not enough time to express his comments and he asked for more speaking time. Assistant City Attorney Clemens informed Mr. Dinshaw that his speaking time has expired. Mr.Dinshaw stated there are 61 points in the Circulation Element that are applicable to this issue and not one of them is mentioned. Dr. Howard Scholz, 1422 Monterey St., stated he also has an office in Santa Maria with a car wash across.the street and lives near the car wash on Orcutt Road. He sees multiple accidents on this comer. The traffic is immense. There is a potential for vandalism and graffiti at a car wash. There are cars with radios playing loudly. Fumes from recycled water are atrocious. The nearby creek is beautiful. He once pulled a mattress out of the creek. His experience with his businesses and residence near car washes has not been good. He does not want a car wash at this location. This will become another hangout for high school kids. The police sit in his patients'parking spaces watching the high school kids. This car wash is not going to be a good addition to a decent neighborhood. An attendant will not help control activities at the site. He has called the City many times to have the lot cleaned up and he's seen the service station fall apart. He feels the traffic study is a joke. There are more students at Cal Poly than there were in 1992 and there will be more. He has contributed to the Performing Arts Center and doesn't want a car wash at this location. He would not be against a service station because it would have to conform to pollution control regulations and would have only one stall for a car wash. He is also representing the other doctors in his building who do not feel this would be good for their offices. His main concerns are car and bike accidents, vandalism, graffiti, and drug use. Commissioner Ready asked if his objections are mainly directed to the proposed use or to the rezoning from C-T to C-R- Dr. -RDr. Scholz stated it is for both reasons. There are more potential uses with the change. The present landlord has not shown any concern about the beauty of the community. Patricia Eister, 1495 Palm and owner of 941 California Blvd., agreed with the previous speakers. She is very upset about the possibility of a car wash. She feels the zoning should stay as it is. She is concerned about traffic and noise. The doctors who are leasing from her are very upset about this idea also. The public hearing was closed. �S'•3� Draft Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1996 Page 12 Associate Planner Lautner stated the rest of the block is C-R and any of these many uses could locate on the existing parcels on this block. This is the extension of the zoning for one lot. Commissioner Jeffrey stated the issue before the Commission is to look at the LUE and try to let the zoning ordinance match the LUE. He asked if the application is rejected, what would likely be the outcome in terms of staff updating the zoning ordinance to match the LUE. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated if the rezoning is rejected, this would be referred to Council. Staff could be directed to process an amendment to the LUE. Commissioner Jeffrey asked if there would be an appropriate S-Overlay that could place better controls on what could be allowed in the C-R zone. Development Review Manager Whisenand is not sure this would be a good way to control uses. A car wash would require an administrative use permit. As hearing officer if a car wash is proposed, he would not choose to hear this matter and would refer it to the Commission. There are certain uses that are allowed by right to locate in this area. Those uses that are not appropriate in all C-R zones already require use permits. He doesn't feel an S-Overlay in this case would really be appropriate. The Commission can recommend to leave the zoning as it is. Commissioner Veesart is concerned that the environmental work seems to have been done on a car wash. He asked ifthere should be more environmental work done that looks at a zoning change and not a specific use. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the reason why staff included information on a car wash is that in the past the Commission input requested more information be provided. Commissioner Veesart moved to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning from C-T to C-R finding that the rezoning would not result in any significant environmental effects and with the understanding that any future use of this property for a car wash would require additional detail seconded by Acting Chairman Senn. ed environmental review to address potential impacts associated with a car wash. The motion was Commissioner Veesart said he is sympathetic with all the arguments that he's heard expressed. He supports staffs recommendation for the zoning change for this piece of property to comply with the recently updated LUE. Maybe the correct time to address the neighborhood's concern would have been when the LUE was updated. The LUE update was an incredibly long process. He is reluctant to second-guess the Council and retain this small piece of C-T next to a C-R zone. When the applicant comes back with whatever use he will have for this property, that will be the time for .�S'-2 R Draft Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1996 Page 13 everyone to discuss specific issues like water, noise, hours of operation, lighting, et cetera. He feels from a zoning standpoint, this is the right thing to do. Commissioner Kouralds asked Assistant Cita,Attorney Clemens if an environmental study is required for a rezoning. Assistant City Attorney Clemens replied yes. The final body acting on it makes the environmental determination. Commissioner Kourakis stated a car wash can go in the C-T or C-R. She is concerned with mixing the use and the rezoning. The environmental report focuses on a car wash. She cannot support the motion. Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated in her review of the report, she finds several areas that do speak to zoning change. She feels the report goes farther than it has to and covers all the bases for the rezoning and tries to provide additional information on a specific project. Commissioner Kourakis would have felt more comfortable if the car wash information would have been left out. Commissioner Ready understands the concerns of the neighborhood. He also concurs with the concerns expressed by Commissioner Kourakis. He will not be supporting the motion. Commissioner Jeffrey would like to see consistency between the LUE and the zoning ordinance. He feels the environmental report is inadequate. The traffic study is based on information obtained in 1992. He will not be supporting the motion. Acting Chairman Senn will not support the motion. He believes the property is appropriate for an S designation. This property is extremely visible and is in the area that is a gateway to the city. He would be supportive of a C-R-S zone because every use requires a use permit. The C-R-S designation is going to make somebody come up with an innovative program of how this property is going to be developed and would be the best for the community. He is comfortable with the environmental report because it goes further than required. He will not support the motion without an S designation. Commissioner Whittlesey was troubled by this. She said we have a fairly new General Plan and she would like to give it a chance to work. There is a caveat added to the General Retail Policy 3.1.1 saying that not all areas designated General Retail are appropriate for the full range of uses. There are issues of circulation and this is a very small parcel. It is surrounded by C-R, but it doesn't feel like s'-3y Draft Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1996 Page 14 General Retail as described in the staff report as being the reason to make this change. She will not be supporting the motion. Chairman Karleskint refrained from participation due to a potential conflict of interest. AYES: Commissioner Veesart NOES: Acting Chairman Senn and Commissioners Kourakis, Whittlesey, Ready, and Jeffley ABSTAIN: Karleskint ABSENT: None The motion failed. Commissioner Ready said a negative declaration with potential mitigation measures that address a number of the that have been raised would make it much easier for the Commission to approve a C-R Zone with an S-Overlay than what the Commission presently has before it. He didn't want a long list He preferred a motion for a continuance with a request for a new environmental analysis, eliminating any aspect of the car wash, and addressing some of the specific concerns. Commissioner Jeffrey would prefer this to remain in the C-T zone. The Circulation Element states uses in the C-R zone generally would be those serving the community. Whereas the C-T zone is primarily to serve tourists. It seems that there would be a potential for trip increases that didn't seem to be addressed in the environmental report. Commissioner Whittlesey would be comfortable with a continuance for more environmental review of the expansion of uses allowed and the deletion of the car wash. Commissioner Kourakis supported a continuance. An S designation could be considered as a possible mitigation. An environmental document that looks specifically at the zone change is needed. Commissioner Veesart supported a continuance. He feels the LUE has less and less value if it is constantly amended. He is reluctant to amend the General Plan. Acting Chairman Senn supported a continuanceThere seemed to be support for zoning this property C-R-S with an appropriate initial study addressing the issues associated with a rezoning. Commissioner Ready moved to continue the item to a date uncertain with direction to staff to provide the Commission with an environmental study without specific reference to a car wash and solely addressing the issues associated with the expanded list of uses allowed in the C-R zone. Commissioner Kouralds seconded the motion Draft Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 1996 Page 15 AYES: Commissioners Ready, Kourakis, Veesart, Whittlesey, Jeffrey, and Acting Chairman Senn NOES: None ABSTAIN: Karieskint ABSENT: None The motion passed. Commissioners asked that the next staff report discuss the S-Overlay zone. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 5. Staff A. Agenda Forecast Development Review Manager Whisenand presented the agenda forecasts for the meetings of October 2nd, 9th, and 23rd. 6. Commission The Commission confirmed the canceled meetings of November 27th and December 25th PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. and Mrs. Dinshaw informed the Commission they were accosted and threatened by the applicant of Hearing Item#2. 3. 11590 Los Osos Valley Road: U 97-96: Review of planning use permit to allow a carwash and food sales expansion at an existing service station, C-N Zone; Shell OR Company, applicant. lanning Commission Meeting O r 9, 1996 Page 2 There was public testimony n favor of and in opposition to the fence height exception. Those in favor felt it was neederovide adequate privacy to the rear yard of the applicants'property and that it was not yr ' from most locations. Those in opposition felt it was imposing, it reduced the neighbors . ws, and that it was unattractive. The Commission's action was intended to allow time xist. and proposed trees to grow to a height that should provide adequate natural screen" 2. 1480 Monterey Street: R 100-96 and ER 192:N: Reques Ilow a change to the zoning map from Tourist Commercial (C-T) to Retail Commercial (C-R) and environmental analysis of the change; C-T zone; Harry Kaplan, applicant. The Planning Commission (4-1, Jeffrey voted no, Karleskfnt refrained from participation because of a perceived conflict of interest) recommended approval to the City Council of a zoning change for the site, from Tourist Commercial (C-T) to Retail Commercial, with Special Considerations(C-R-S). The S-overlay zone requires that development of any use on the site will require approval of an Administrative Use Permit, and that such review will focus particularly on noise, traffic, and compatibility with surrounding uses (including uses separated from the site only by streets). Members of the public expressed concerns about traffic, noise, vandalism, lot maintenance, visibility of the site, and compatibility with nearby C-T uses. Some members of the Planning Commission expressed the opinion that the lot is severely restricted in size, shape, and access and therefore the wider range of uses allowed in the C-R zone will probably allow some development, whereas in the C-T zone little could be done. The dissenting Commissioner felt that the traffic information in the environmental study was insufficient to support good decision-making on the request. 11590 Los Osos Valley Road: U 97-9 : Review of the planning use permit to allow avQ.rwash and food sales expansion at an existing service station; C-N zone; Shell Oil any, applicant. (Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 2 , 96), 4. City Wide: TA 122-96: endments to the Condominium Conversion Regulations to require affordable housing establish energy conservation standards; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (40 'es). On motion of Commissioner Kamm, seconded by Ja Kourakis, the Commission voted 6-0 (Commr. Veesart absent) to recommended that th ouncil adopt the amended Condominium Development and Conversions ordinance, wr inor changes to the S•37