HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/05/2000, 2 - 486 MARSH ST AND 545 HIGUERA REQUEST TO REZONE Council. 12-05-00
j acEnoi Repont --
CITYOF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager /
Prepared By: Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: R/ER 126-00 - REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY AT 486 MARSH STREET
AND 545 HIGUERA FROM RETAIL-COMMERCIAL (C-R) TO CENTRAL COMMERCIAL
(C-C); COAST NATIONAL BANK, APPLICANT
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, introduce an ordinance approving a mitigated
negative declaration and amending the zoning map from C-R to C-C for property at 486 Marsh
Street and 545 Higuera Street.
DISCUSSION _
Data Summary c'
Applicant: Coast National Bank
Owners: Coast National Bank (486 & 528
Marsh and 545 Higuera); 210 Investors &
Foothill Triangle Partners (553 Higuera)
Representative: Pults and Associates
Zoning: Retail-Commercial (486 Marsh and
545 Higuera) and Central-Commercial (553
Higuera and 528 Marsh)
General Plan: General Retail
Environmental Status: A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared.
Project Action Deadline: Legislative projects are not subject to action deadlines.
Project Description/Situation
The applicant, Coast National Bank, owns property at 486 Marsh and 545 Higuera, which is
zoned Retail-Commercial. The bank has also acquired the property at 528 Marsh, which is zoned
Central-Commercial, and wishes to replace an existing barber shop on that lot with a new two-
story bank, approximately 10,000 square feet in size (Attachment 2).
Because the lot at 528 Marsh is relatively small, the bank is proposing to adjust the lot lines to
create more developable area for the new building. A rezoning is proposed so that resulting lots
will have the same zoning and not be split by a zone boundary. Rezoning the entire site to C-C
has the advantage of enabling additional flexibility in future site development since the parking
requirements in the C-C zone are less stringent and can be satisfied with payment of in-lieu fees.
2-1
Coast National Bank: R/ER -00
Page 2
The project application also entails environmental review and architectural review. Please refer
to Exhibit A of Attachment 3, which shows the proposed rezoning and lot line adjustment.
Property at 553 Higuera Street is only affected by the lot line adjustment.
C-C versus C-R Development Standards
The primary differences in development standards for Retail-Commercial zoning versus Central-
Commercial zoning are:
• building height (50 feet maximum in C-C; 45 feet maximum in C-R);
• required parking per square foot (1 space per 500 SF in C-C, I per 300 SF in C-R); and
• parking in-lieu fees (an option in C-C, but not in C-R).
General Plan Consistency
The general plan land use designation for properties affected by this application is General
Retail. Banks are specifically listed as appropriate uses in this category. Both Central-
Commercial and Retail-Commercial zoning implement the General Retail designation.
Therefore, a general plan amendment is not necessary.
Environmental Review
The environmental initial study is attached. It concludes that the project will not have any
significant adverse impacts provided mitigation is incorporated into the project. Recommended
mitigation addresses site geology and soils; drainage; air quality; utilities; solid waste disposal
and cultural resources. Please refer to Attachment 8.
Planning Commission's Review
On October 11, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended Council approval of the rezoning
and mitigated negative declaration, as amended, based on findings included in the attached
ordinance for approval. Commission discussion focused on the development standards for the C-
R and C-C zones and general plan compliance. In past discussions at the Planning Commission
regarding commercial zoning and development in the downtown area, Commissioners have
indicated support for expanding the Central-Commercial zoning as a means of encouraging infill
development and a compact urban form. (Attachments 5 and 6)
ARC Review
On October 16, 2000, the Architectural Review Commission continued action with direction to
the applicant to redesign the building so that materials and architectural style and details are
more compatible with nearby historic structures, including the Jack House, which is adjacent to
this project and the Kaetzel House, which is across the street. Commissioners felt the proposed
architecture needed to be more pedestrian oriented in terms of scale and street entrance. Several
Commissioners expressed concern that the building design was somewhat generic and suburban
2-2.
Coast National Bank: R/El 6-00
Page 3 -
in nature and, therefore, not appropriate at this location. The architect is redesigning the building_
plans. The project will return to the ARC once revised plans are submitted'. (Attachment. 7)
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the Resolution, included as Attachment 4, denying the requested zoning map
amendment based on.inconsistency_ with the City's General Plan, or other findings specified
by the Council
2. Continue with direction.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Vicinity map
Attachment 2: Reduced development plans
Attachment 3: Ordinance approving the rezoning
Attachment 4: Resolution denying the rezoning
Attachment 5': Planning Commission Staff Report(7-26-00)
Attachment 6: Planning Commission minutes(7-26-00)
Attachment 7: ARC minutes (10-16-00)
Attachment 8:. Signed Mitigation Agreement and Initial Environmental Study
2-3
- r
e l
7 no
LLLLLL
e �
rr t�uM
,ray.?a tw T
+: �4'�+: moi` ,,�fi��'.k`�> �,. �•�`�
{ a P
*a tir' r
ell
jlH iYy / , .c� w �}yam ,
486 and • Marsh
R. 126=00
2-4
ilk■ -..-'.
'�� SII •�i�j_
■
ATTACHMENT
in 04
■
■ E: 'I
911
0 . a
6) �:
w'�x"F'�{ u y '�=7` tft.) a '• ,I'■
e n�-�+}c f rs•��F W�g�15 1
i
1,
Mr
It
_ I
film
MEM,
I
5 �
I
on
• of
�. :l
ORDINANCE NO. (2000 Series) ATTACHMENT J
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVINGTHE REQUEST TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP
FROM RETAIL-COMMERCIAL (C-R) TO CENTRAL-COMMERCIAL (C-C) FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 486 MARSH STREET AND 545 HIGUERA STREET
APN'S 003-511-005,017,026 (R 126-00)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on October 11, 2000
and recommended approval of an amendment to the City's Zoning Map to rezone property at 486
Marsh Street and 545 Higuera Street from Retail-Commercial (C-R) to Central-Commercial (C-
C) as shown on the attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS,the City Council conducted a public hearing on November 21, 2000 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 revisions are 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 mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Review. The City Council finds and determines that the
project's mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant
environmental impacts of the proposed map amendment to the Zoning Regulations, and reflects
the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said mitigated
Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures into the project:
1. Consistent with the recommendations included in the Seismic Safety Element, a detailed
soils engineering report shall be submitted at the time of building permit which considers
special grading and construction techniques necessary to address the potential for
liquefaction and compliance with the City Building Codes. It shall identify the soil profile on
site and provide site preparation recommendations to ensure against unstable soil conditions.
Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils
engineering report.
2. Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet
intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the
creek through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure
efficient pollutant removal.
3. The project shall include:
• Short- and long-term bicycle parking for employee use;
2-7
R 126-00: Ordinance # ATTACHMENT r
Page 2
• Shower and locker facilities for employees to encourage bicycling and walking to work
(typically one shower and 3 lockers for every 25 employees) or comparable mitigation
acceptable to the Air Pollution Control District Director; and
• Extensive tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from
automobiles.
4. The new building constructed on this site shall incorporate the following as feasible:
• Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use;
• Increased wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements;
• Skylights or other means of maximizing natural daylighting;
• Operable windows in employee work and break areas to maximize natural ventilation;
• Lighting controls (occupancy and motion sensors); and
• Dual glazed windows.
If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project
architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community
Development Director shall review this document and make a final decision as to the
feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features.
5. The new buildings shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling.
6. The sewer lateral at.528 Marsh Street must be abandoned at the main prior to demolition
unless the lateral is intended for reuse and it passes a video inspection. If the sewer lateral is
intended for reuse, the owner shall submit a VHS videotape documenting the internal
condition of the pipe to the Utilities Department for evaluation and approval.
7. A plan for recycling demolition and construction material waste shall be submitted with the
demolition and building permit applications for review and approval by the Community
Development Director.
8. If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation,all earth-work within 150 feet
of object(s) shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist.
Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist shall be evaluated by
the Community Development Director, and upon Director approval, implemented by the
applicant.
9. All mitigation measures shall be clearly noted on plans submitted for a building permit
application.
SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council makes the following findings:
1. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on
August 28, 2000, which identifies no significant environmental impacts associated with
2-8
R 126-00: Ordinance# ATTACHMENT J
Page 3
project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a
significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation measures contained
in initial study ER 126-00 being incorporated into the project.
2. The proposed amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan
since both Retail-Commercial and Central-Commercial zoning implement the land use
designation of General Retail.
SECTION 3. Approval. An amendment to the zoning regulations map, R 126-00,
rezoning property at 486 Marsh Street and 545 Higuera Street from Retail-Commercial to
Central-Commercial, as shown on Exhibit A, herein incorporated by reference, is hereby
approved.
SECTION 4. Summary and Effective Date. A summary of this ordinance, together
with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5)
days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in
this City. This ordinance shall go into effect no sooner than thirty (30) days after its final
passage and not before the processing and recordation of a lot line adjustment to ensure that
proposed zone boundaries correspond with lot boundaries.
INTRODUCED on the day of , 2000, AND FINALLY
ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of ,
2000, on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Q/44.1 At7_��
i Att/q&eeffgrgensen
2-9
N16UCRA STREET
R 126-00 EXHIBIT A
0 0 0:
r ' asbarooc' le000
.:. . ' ....'. .. ,. �....................:.:......:.�...ti...... • - A07A_C
Hm: . :: : : : : : : . . . . . . .
',r/•.r,•J/•J,/•.,r/•//�q:.....:..:..:..:.. :...:...:...:..:...:3..'_' ' .:. :
. . . .
.,
. .. .
�
. . . . .
:..........................; . . . .
......... ..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
.:...:.:.:. .:..:..:..:..:. . . . . . .:: :
.. M ........... .�. • .•. ... .1. •
Y•
.......................... .... .... ...
/.'.♦.f.'.J.♦ µ.. .........................•. � • .l........ .....,...y.......:..-....•. .
/•f'J'J'/'/'J '....•.:...........:...•..�..:..::........'.�..1..........�.. . . . . . . . . . . .
j .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
,'r'r'♦'/'Pati'.: �.. '.;. __ _ :. �. .
-
'r
.�.:.I:. . . . . . : :
••,•r'/'J'/'/•/ ..'..'..'.:......'..'....'..'..'. '...'.�l'..i.,:..'...:.:.'..:.:..:.:..:. ..:._.:_..
.'/•/•/•/•♦',•/ •..•.:..'.:..' .'•.'..'..•..'..'..'.:..'..'. . .:.:..:..:.:......:. ....,... . . . . . _
�•r,
/'♦'♦'P P P.'/ '............. .. ., ��'.':.'.'.:..:..:. .:':..':_.:..`;.. . .. �. {P.�
/•/'J'J..�/ r : : : :.
mo
..::.:.:.:. ........................ .I .
:: ::::: :::. . . : ::........... ..* : is .
•..... -
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. / / / rf r .............
''//'.r'/.'/. /.•amJ'..'r ''....... .. ' - .......-..._..
......... tt
. '.............:...... .
:Ly:.�..:i.• .
. . . . . . .
_.__••
............ay .!.... ....0 W'0*.... '..: :.i.....: . .. . . . . .
rf , / e , ........ Y
,I
...1._'.
j :I :
- G �ic ... . --� -
H�rode Tl�.ii�T "• r 'sYoi ove sa .
I
(� (G
070ox = ID
Alex nk
N O S Z O 1 MARSH STRCCT Q
jm � min mP
z U d
n
n
RESOLUTION NO. (2000 Series) ATTACHMENT 4
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP
FROM RETAIL-COMMERCIAL (C-R) TO CENTRAL-COMMERCIAL (C-C) FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 486 MARSH STREET AND 545 HIGUERA STREET
APN'S 003-511-005, 0179 026 (R 126-00)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on October 11, 2000,
and recommended approval of the rezoning (R 126-00) to change the designation on the City's .
zoning map from C-R, Retail-Commercial to C-C, Central-Commercial, for property located at
486 Marsh Street and 545 Higuera Street as shown on the attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on November 21, 2000, and
has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the records of the Planning
Commission hearings and actions, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The project is inconsistent with the General Plan and other applicable City plans
and ordinances because[Council to specify reasons].
SECTION 2. Denial. The.request to rezone the property located at 486 Marsh Street
and 545 Higuera Street from C-R to C-C as shown on the attached Exhibit A is hereby denied.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
2-11
Resolution No. (1000 Series)_
R 12640 ATTACHMENT 4
Page 1
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of _,2000:
Mayor Allen.Settle
ATTEST`.:
Lee:Price; City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:.
City Attorney Jeffrey G. Jorgensen
2-12
HIGUERA STREET
R 126-00 EXHIBIT A
El
•/'/•l'/'/'/�.:• �• ••J�..i.�ry.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.....:.:.:.:..::.:.:..:
'r'/'/','J'r .:.:•.: �_:;,� -':
Y... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
}
,•,•,•,•,•,•, V`• �.. II ..... � . . . . . . . . .
/'/'/'r'r'r'/�L•.:.: .:':`.'.`....: ": . ;I l'.—:::.. ..:A. ••:: :'. .:� . . . . . . . .
o.I- o -i - - . L`. 4 ` . . . . . . Z. . . . . .• _ . z
•• -
.....jl(' .... r....... ...,i . - .'[ .''�.
;:.:0�:]: : : : : � ). A
/'! /•/ J•/ / '..•....a;.} : - - — �. _._.L•.1..:1._'x _12_-.,._�_�..:.
:.�. ':.�'.. . .
. .. . . . . . . .
r ..�..'. -a. . . . . . . . . .
L 79
:i
....... . . ++ 4ri.15
`Jt . . . . . . . . . . . - - I .
::..:
....................... ....... L.?-....
............... .. . ..
. .
_ ''•'
. . . . . . . . . . : . . . .
:......:.::.:.:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
. yt
ax
•'i --� q-r8esr�sl�-fir '.-_�I H s3+pi•
7-7
F
Mn m
OpX -x X (NX
0 i Z O MARSH STREET Q
azz MORO ozz mo
i m 2-13
D 10 P
Z p C1
n
n
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ATTACHMENT S
.. • _..
'LANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM# I
BY: Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner��/ MEETING DATE: October 11, 2000
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manag6
FILE NUMBER: R/ER 126-00
PROJECT ADDRESS: 486 and 528 Marsh Street
SUBJECT: Request to rezone property on the westerly side of Marsh Street between Nipomo and
Carmel Streets from Retail-Commercial (C-R) to Central Commercial (C-C).
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that City Council approve a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact and
rezone the site from Retail-Commercial (C-R)to Central-Commercial (C-Q.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicant wishes to rezone property adjacent to the Jack House from C-R to C-C and construct a
new bank building. The Planning Commission reviews zoning amendments and makes a
-ecommendation to the City Council, which takes a final action on such requests. The project is
,entatively scheduled on the November 21, 2000 Council agenda.
Data Summary
Applicant: Coast National Bank
Owners: Burt Polin(486 Marsh); 210 Investors (533 Higuera); and Coast National Bank(528 Marsh)
Representative: Pults and Associates
Zoning: Retail-Commercial (486 Marsh) and Central-Commercial (533 Higuera and 528 Marsh)
General Plan: General Retail
Environmental Status: A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared.
Project Action Deadline: Legislative projects are not subject to action deadlines.
Site Description
The project site is located at the southern end of the downtown area. The 42,000 square foot lot at 486
Marsh Street is developed with two single-story buildings and associated parking. The adjacent 6,760
square-foot site at 528 Marsh is developed with a small barber shop building. The lot at 553 Higuera
Street is developed with a single-story commercial building and would be affected by a proposed lot
line adjustment but not by the rezoning. To the east is the historic Jack House. Across Marsh Street is
another historic structure—the Kaetzel House—now used as a gallery and dwelling. Other surrounding
uses include houses,professional offices,and general retail uses.
2-14
ATTACHMENT. 5
Planning Commision Meeting 10/11/00
Project Number R/ER 126-00
Page 2
Project Description
The project proposes to expand the Central-Commercial (C-C) zoning of 528 Marsh Street and 553
Higuera Street onto the adjacent property at 486 Marsh Street,currently zoned Retail-Commercial(C-R).
Also proposed is construction of a new 10,000 square foot,two story bank at 528 Marsh Street.A small
structure at 528 Marsh,which has been used as a barber shop,would be demolished.Architectural review
of the new bank building is scheduled for October 16'x. The applicant is also proposing to adjust existing
lot lines which run roughly perpendicular to Marsh and Higuera Street to run roughly parallel to the
streets,thereby putting uses with a Higuera Street address on a separate lot from uses with a Marsh Street
address.
EVALUATION
Consistency with the City's General Plan
The property at 486 Marsh Street is just outside of the downtown core as shown on Figure 4 in the
Land Use Element. The other two properties are just inside that boundary. The general plan land use
designation for all properties affected by this application is General Retail. Banks are specifically
listed as appropriate uses in this category. Both Central-Commercial and Retail-Commercial zoning
implement the General Retail designation.
Conclusion: Rezoning is not inconsistent with policies in the Land Use Element, which neither
advocate nor preclude expansion of the Central-Commercial zoning.
Downtown Plan
The Downtown Plan shows this site in Area 10 (between Higuera and Marsh from Nipomo to Archer)
and developed with a commercial use in a residential style building. The plan envisioned this area of
town as gradually being redeveloped with a heritage park that preserves historically valuable buildings
in the area and enables other structures of historical or aesthetic value, which are jeopardized in other
areas, to be moved into the heritage park. The Downtown Plan shows retention of the existing surface
parking lot on the 486 Marsh Street site. The plan suggests appropriate uses in Area 10 would include
food service, offices, visitor accommodations, shops and private residences as well as mixed uses in
the same building.
Conclusion: Rezoning is not inconsistent with the Downtown Plan. However proposed and potential
development as a result of the rezoning is more intensive than what is shown on the Downtown Plan.
Site development will be reviewed by the ARC for consistency with the plan.
2-15
Planning Commision Meeting 10/11/00
ATTACHMEI�if, 5
Project Number R/ER 126-00
Page 3
Development Potential
The primary differences between Retail-Commercial zoning and Central-Commercial zoning are:
• building height(50 feet maximum in C-C; 45 feet maximum in C-R);
• required parking per square foot (1 space per 500 SF in C-C, 1 per 300 SF in C-R); and
• parking in-lieu fees (an option in C-C, but not in C-R).
Conclusion: Rezoning property at 486 Marsh Street from C-R to C-C is not absolutely necessary to
accommodate development of property at 528 Marsh Street. The primary effect of the rezoning would
be to enable additional flexibility in future site development of the property underlying 486 Marsh
Street since the parking requirements in the C-C zone are less stringent and can be satisfied with
payment of in-lieu fees. Rezoning is logical now to ensure that zone boundaries coincide with property
boundaries, assuming the proposed lot line adjustment is approved.
Past Planning Commission Direction
In past discussions at the Planning Commission regarding commercial zoning and development in the
downtown area, Commissioners have indicated support for expanding the Central-Commercial zoning
as a means of encouraging infill development and a compact urban form.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend that the City Council deny the proposed rezoning, based on findings as specified by
the Planning Commission.
2. Continue review of the rezoning with specific direction to the applicant and staff.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Other department comments relate primarily to the proposed site development and not the rezoning.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the initial study of environmental impact, and recommend approval of the amendment to the
City's zoning map designation from C-R, Retail-Commercial,to C-C, Central-Commercial,to the City
Council,based on findings.
Findings:
1. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on August 28,
2000, which identifies no significant environmental impacts associated with project development.
2-16
ATTACHMENT 5
Planning Commision Meeting 10/11/00 -
Project Number R/ER 126-00
Page 4
The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on
the environment subject to the mitigation measures contained in initial study ER 126-00 being
incorporated into the project.
2. The proposed amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan since both
Retail-Commercial and Central-Commercial zoning implement the land use designation of
General Retail.
Attached:
Vicinity map
Rezoning Map
Figure 4 from the Land Use Element
Proposed project plans
Initial Environmental Study
2-17
aq 4a �' �i\�" �-r"tV "�' �� { .. . r�•(��. "`\ r• a4� Y.r�t„vt;�'`�\
/_� '•'.:7 _j—� ,j.('�ikV`��d#tL�� � 4as•/ ��i''`-'3r�t e `--+ .s Rr , \
• —J.��_ weS Y; o"'k'� .J i n '! ��\ .Sex��`` +. i..u /l
�..
486 Marsh
Proposed GC
' 528 Marsh R
•� y`
Vans 486 and 528 Marsh
N R 126=00
A 0 70 140 210 Feet
2-18
ATTACHMENT 5
__—___—___—---t&-lan nrneer _--___-__--__
f
i
0 0 ❑ o
;.;.;.;.;.;r--... .-.
,,,,',,}�.:.:.:.: ..:.:�._.......... . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
rr..�'.: : '� . 2
. . .I.. . . . . .
.
: Z¢z i
.'r::.:r y•• :�'P':•• i•:
Tt�
..�. . . . . . . . . . .
. . • 1P . . . . . . . .
:.
...:...:.....:.........................
� ::.:.:..: :: : z . . . .. . . . . .
. . . . . .xe . . . . . . .
....;.•:�::•::•:: . . . . . n 3: . . . . .
p:.::::.:.:.:. . . . . . . . . . . .
.. :: : :::::::::::::: . . . . . .
t.:.:'.:.•... . . . . . A. . ... .
r.:.:'.:.:.:..::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:�:.... . . . . . . . �. . . . . .
::-r.:.:.:::.:..::.:.:.:..::.:.:.r.�• -- - . . . .
.:. . .:...:... ...:.:. .:.::.. :..: : : . . . .
i.::.:' d
..:rt'v •:::• ..::.... :•:::•:• •i: I �•� : Z:
I I pt
�•�C :•: '. '. r::'::'::i:'::':'::'::'::'::'::':::7::':... 1 �. . .�. . . . � . .
..:....:.:...: ...: .. 1 a. 5
A.
i, :I . . . . . .
.:..::.:.:.:.:.
.:: , .
. . . .
. . . . . . . ..........
:..:.:.:..::
:...................
. —..----•-1�WfLdk�•-T11T.n- •--..--. S
yc% (t 9l\A nSI
OA� xAAk ��
lilt
n 0~ ppi�p s� ..maw a�aeer �y
_i�iP 11d�i0 xnP
i
t.� 4
"N > ffi,lj g' Steven D.PnUs,ALA.,6 Ars=ates
Use Element
C
o�
o
o � �
o t
v
0
o t 3 y
o
OO / Y
w
y x
Y' y� ♦� �,qn.. �ri'`�C1•ate,. .f .a �i s^ 3.�. z ti/z
2`.:.six'' �✓' {t d 3i'ie�'Y^6c 3 a2c`cia � � Y (c xw `'P
gxgg
ryx ' 'T 4 O '9. pa k 9 n'
b.. t
srR � '� tt-3� .(sr{r as4�3�YYy e�y k d�• sl
�•�`s '2Yz a �. k?zE .£iia'.. x kz xYa �T n� � 'e a. ?
`� y afy a• ,�6:Y e s ( .axs �%(�A �`d'�Y �� d. .�fn`,sF� �
,�•3S � ey s U 3 Y'a r�a/2�ya aa`� ash �.� � �,��t
'r ..a ssr ,�•a (n s� y Xa f e a,
`z`-,s'z a.xT�76 s s, • 3 za `a �,'"/s f3. Y �Yf��t�y a�,s i r��f c x
J.t
ssiYs ,b Y {�?� �b'xa�. ,c': kyn,� xd. '"x?�v y/5 �•k''{' 2 '
M��eu3a 's'SY.s�s,"�•�x• re w, m.�r�'$F?' 1 kxg t t. ,s u s�¢`` z
BMW
`
f A'
.i:,c •..t'.. ixd:r1. 'Er :,:.�.. .
Lei$: � t,3�y;, ,r x �az,s xa:. 43 A"f ���5 '» .t cx��a•'7� aea 'F �aa
7`T`C �3t k %l �. R iyc 2R` �z •`° rY.Y? k'i °" a e:. .
x.. � 3..
F-1 F-1nF1N77 71
FIGURE 4
x: DOWNTOWN PLANNING AREA
l
city Of :..::..»:..:::::'. .__.... CORE
san Luis owspo
•
511 2-20
ATTACHMENT
��■'I.
I' 0
'I D :
i i ■ ! � I
i f ED ;f
k E3
I�
IEDif
■�=1j1 ���.a�Il
i
■
or
7111
lie
■'.�
MStDMsARIA &Au=afes
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ATTACHMENT 6
OCTOBER 11, 2000
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. on
Wednesday, October 11, 2000, in the City Hall Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commrs. Jim Aiken, Orval Osborne, Mary Whittlesey, Alice Loh,
Stephen Peterson, Allan Cooper and Chairman Paul Ready
Absent None
Staff Recording Secretary Leaha Magee, Development Review Manager Ron
Whisenand, Associate Planner Peggy Mandeville, Utility Department
Manager Dan Gilmore, and Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE MINUTES:
The minutes of August 23, 2000, were accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
Commr. Whittlesey noted she did not support comments made on September 27th in
relation to staffs performance on the Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan staff report.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 486 and 528 Marsh Street R and ER 126-00: Request rezone parcel from C-R
(Retail-Commercial) to C-C (Central Commercial), and environmental review; Coast
National Bank, applicant.
Chairman Ready refrained from participation due to a possible conflict of interest
because of an ownership interest maintained with the applicant. Vice-Chairman
Peterson conducted the hearing.
Associate Planner Peggy Mandeville presented the staff report, distributed an
amendment to the environmental initial study and recommended that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council approve a mitigated negative declaration
2-22
Draft Planning Commission M. as
October 11, 2000 G
Page 2
of environmental impact and rezone the site from Retail-Commercial (C-R) to Central-
Commercial (C-C).
Commr. Cooper noted an additional finding could be included that addresses
consistency with the Downtown Concept Plan and noted that aesthetics impacts could
be considered potentially significant but could be mitigated.
Commr. Whittlesey asked if a lot line adjustment would be considered tonight.
Associate Planner Mandeville replied that it is a separate action and would not be acted
on at this meeting.
Commr. Whittlesey questioned staff on the lot size.
Commr. Loh questioned staff on the percentage of coverage, the allowed density, and
parking in-lieu fees.
There were no further comments or questions and the public comment session was
opened.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Steve Pults, applicant's representative, expressed support of staffs recommendations.
Commr. Cooper asked if any long-range plans would affect the Jack House.
Mr. Pults replied no.
Commr. Whittlesey asked if the Jack House Committee has reviewed the pedestrian
connection between the project site and the Jack House.
Mr. Pults replied yes, he has been working closely with the committee.
Commr. Loh asked if the Downtown Concept Plan should be compatible with this
proposal.
Development Review Manager Ron Whisenand noted the Downtown Concept Plan is
not a General Plan Element, but is referenced in the General Plan.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS: .
Commr. Whittlesey moved to recommend the City Council approve the negative
declaration of environmental impact and rezone the site from Retail Commercial (C-R)
to Central Commercial (C-C) with the findings and conditions as presented and
amended by staff. Commr. Loh seconded the motion.
2-23
Draft Planning Commission rtes
October 11, 2000
Page 3 ATTACHMENT 6
Commr. Loh requested the motion be amended by deleting "The Downtown Plan" from
page 12 of the Initial Study.
After discussion with staff, Commr. Whittlesey amended the motion by deleting "The
Downtown Plan" from page 12 of the Initial Study as requested by Commr. Loh.
AYES: Commrs. Whittlesey, Loh, Aiken, Cooper, Osborne, and Peterson
NOES: None
REFRAIN: Commr. Ready
The motion carried 6-0-1.
2. 4101 and 4115 Broad Street ANNX/R and ER 209-99: Request to annex a six-
acre (approximately) developed parcel; prezone the property to C-S-PD (Service-
Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay); and environmental review; Ball,
Ball, Williams, and Senn, applicants.
Associate Planner Mandeville presented the staff report and recommended that the
Planning Commission recommend that the City Council introduce an ordinance
prezoning the six-acre site C-S-PD (Service-Commercial with a Planned Development
Overlay) and adopt the list of allowed and conditionally allowed uses; and adopt a
resolution recommending that the Local Agency Formation Commission approve the
annexation of six acres at 4101-4115 Broad Street and adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
Commr. Cooper questioned staff on the wastewater system and the future connection
with City services and indicated he wanted the County's conditions tied into this project
along with the City's conditions.
There were no further comments or questions and the public comment session was
opened.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Patty Whelan, Cannon Associates, applicants' representative, reviewed the project
history and the limitations of the on-site septic system. She noted the applicants
agreement with staff's recommendation on every item except the allowable uses, and
requested corporate banking offices and professional counselors, accountants,
investment brokers and appraisers' offices be allowed. She stated it is the applicants'
intent to tie into City services after annexation is approved.
Commr. Cooper asked if existing tenants would be affected by the allowable uses.
Ms. Whelan replied that they would not.
Commr. Whittlesey asked for comment on the on-site well.
Ms. Whelan stated the applicant has found the on-site water supply to be adequate up
to this point. 2_24
Draft ARC Minutes
October 16, 2000 ATTACHMENT 7
Page 5
Commr. Chandler was concerned about the ADA if the fence were to be moved back.
He thought that on Walker Street chain link fencing would be acceptable. He
suggested something more decorative than chain link, perhaps vinyl coated fencing.
Commr. Rawson agreed with Commr. Lopes and felt galvanized fencing looked better.
He supported moving the fence back to 5 feet from the property line.
Commr. Stevenson was opposed to chain link and would like to see an alternative
approach to fencing which would still accomplish the goal of security. He agreed with
the setback issues and suggested the use of welded wire fencing with a 4-inch grid.
There was a discussion of chain link fencing and alternatives.
On a motion by Commr. Lopes, and seconded by Commr. Chandler, the ARC moved
to continue the project with direction, as follows:
1. Submit a different plan that provides a minimum street yard setback of 5 feet, except
at the Walker Street driveway entrance and near the dock along Pismo Street, where
a setback of less than 5 feet may be appropriate.
2. Use a fencing material other than chain link, such as wrought iron or decorative wire
fencing.
AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Rawson, Schultz, Chandler, and Stevenson.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commr. Metz
The motion passed.
4. 486 and 528 Marsh Street. ARC 126-00; Review of a proposed two-story bank
and site improvements; C-R zone; Coast National Bank, applicant. Whitney
Mcllvaine
Whitney Mcllvaine, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the
Commission continue.the project with direction, which she outlined.
The public hearing was opened.
2-25
Draft ARC Minutes ATTACHMENT 7
October 16, 2000
Page 6
Steve Pults, project architect, said he viewed at the site as urban and tried to mesh that
with the Jack House next door. The applicant agreed to landscape the Jack House
grounds from the driveway to the new bank building.
Ron Batterson, a Jack House representative, said they had worked hand in hand and
felt this will be a beautiful edge to Jack House.
The public hearing was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commr. Rawson expressed his main concern that there are no windows on the front of
the building along Marsh Street. He noted that the ground floor has a lot of solid wall
and the massing of the columns are too tall. He would like the building to be more
grounded and questioned the blue roof.
Commr. Chandler felt this is unique because of its connection to the Jack House and
that the incorporation of some Victorian architecture would be a better blend.
Mr. Pultz felt that the applicant does not want the building to look like a house.
Commr. Lopes agreed with Commr. Chandler and suggested horizontal bands and
creating a period building that would complement rather than contrast with the Jack
House.
Commr. Schultz agreed that the building needs to be re-worked in scale to fit next to
the Jack House. He felt that it looked more like the 50s buildings in the vicinity than
what the City is trying to encourage.
Commr. Stevenson agreed with comments made and suggested looking at materials
used in an earlier period, such as brick. He felt it doesn't need to look like a house, but
can be a period design that reflects a commercial building. He would like to see a
setback and reduction of the verticality of the building and stepping it back. He
suggested relocating the front, interior stairs and using windows in the street elevation.
Blue metal roofing is too much of a contrast. He felt that the building was more a
suburban than a downtown statement.
Commr. Chandler suggested a redesign of the building so that it would be more friendly
in regard to access from the sidewalk which may be accomplished by a relocation of the
interior stairwell.
Commr. Stevenson asked about the removal of the avocado tree and Steve Pultz said
that the tree is inappropriate for the site. There was a discussion of the avocado tree.
2-26
Draft ARC Minutes ATTACHMENT 7
October 16, 2000
Page 7
Commr. Rawson asked to see a footprint of the Jack House for contrast.
On motion by Commr. Chandler, and seconded by Commr. Lopes, the Commission
continued action to a date uncertain with direction to the applicant to:
1. Redesign the building so that materials and architectural style and details more
closely reflect those of nearby historic structures. Consider including details typical
of the Italianate style.
2. Retain the Carrotwood tree at the front of the site.
3. Revise the building footprint to provide a minimum setback of 10 feet from the Oak
tree on the northeastern property line.
4. Revise the front of the building to face directly onto Marsh Street with a more
pedestrian scale.
5. Submit an application for a lot line adjustment.
AYES: Commrs. Schultz, Rawson, Lopes, Chandler and Stevenson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commr. Metz
The motion passed.
5. Draft Mid-Higuera Plan. ARC 39-98; Review of Urban Design and Architectural
Design Guidelines for the Draft Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan; City of
San Luis Obispo, applicant. Jeff Hook
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the
Commission take public testimony, endorse the draft Urban Design and Architectural
Design Guidelines and forward comments to the City Council.
The public hearing was opened.
Gerald Parsons, 848 Venable Street, said he leases his property to Hayward Lumber
and is in opposition to the project.
2-27
ATTACHMENT
�►In II I�Ilnlll�lll������1���������pllllllllll I�
city osAn tuis OBISPO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
October 31, 2000
Coast National Bank
486 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: ER 126-00
486 and 528 Marsh Street
Dear Applicant:
On August 28, 2000, 1 reviewed your project's potential effect on the environment. I found that
although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because of the mitigation measures either incorporated into
the project or developed during our environmental analysis of your project. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be prepared. A copy of the initial study,
which was the basis for my determination, and amended by the Planning Commission on
October 11, 2000, is attached for your review.
State law requires that the applicant agree to project mitigation measures prior to your project
being scheduled for action by a City decision-making body. I have enclosed an Applicant
Acceptance of Mitigation Measures agreement for your review and signature. The agreement
lists the recommended mitigation measures as well as provides a signature block to indicate
your acceptance. It is recommended that you sign and return the attached agreement as soon
as possible in order to avoid project-processing delays.
A Notice of our intention to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared and a
public hearing on the environmental document and the project will be scheduled before a
decision making body. The decision making body may reverse my decision to prepare a
Mitigated Negative Declaration or may add or delete mitigation measures based on their review
of the project and public comment received at the public hearing.
If you have any questions, please contact my office at 781-7171 as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
cc: Steven Putts, AIA, and Associates
3450 Broad Street, Suite 106
Ro Id Whis and San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
velopme t Review Manager
Burt Polin, Tre Etal
Enclosures: Initial Study 486 Marsh Street
Mitigation Agreement San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
t Return Envelope
The Cit of San Luis Obis ��
/ y Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
v Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
l�
Applicant Acceptance of Mitigation Measures ATTACHMENT $
Project: 126-00
486 and 528 Marsh Street
This agreement is entered into by and between the City of San Luis Obispo and Coast
National Bank on the 340 day of &oem.6,a , 2000. The following
measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts.
Please sign the original and return it to the Community Development Department.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. Consistent with the recommendations included in the Seismic Safety Element, a detailed
soils engineering report shall be submitted at the time of building permit which considers
special grading and construction techniques necessary to address the potential for
liquefaction and compliance with the City Building Codes. It shall identify the soil profile on
site and provide site preparation recommendations to ensure against unstable soil
conditions. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the
soils engineering report.
2. Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet
intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the
creek through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly maintained to
ensure efficient pollutant removal.
3. The project shall include:
• Short- and long-term bicycle parking for employee use;
• Shower and locker facilities for employees to encourage bicycling and walking to work
(typically one shower and 3 lockers for every 25 employees) or comparable mitigation
acceptable to the Air Pollution Control District Director; and
• Extensive tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from
automobiles.
4. The new building constructed on this site shall incorporate the following as feasible:
• Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use;
• Increased wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements;
• Skylights or other means of maximizing natural daylighting;
• Operable windows in employee work and break areas to maximize natural ventilation;
• Lighting controls (occupancy and motion sensors); and
• Dual glazed windows.
If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project
architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community
Development Director shall review this document and make a final decision as to the
feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features.
5. The new buildings shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling.
6. The sewer lateral at 528 Marsh Street must be abandoned at the main prior to demolition
unless the lateral is intended for reuse and it passes a video inspection. If the sewer lateral
is intended for reuse, the owner shall submit a VHS videotape documenting the internal
condition of the pipe to the Utilities Department for evaluation and approval. 2_29
R
ER 126-00
Mitigation Agreement
Page 2 ATTACHMENT 8
7. A plan for recycling demolition and construction material waste shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department with the demolition and building permit applications
for review and approval by the Community Development Director.
8. If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation, all earth-work within 150
feet of object(s) shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist. Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist shall
be evaluated by the Community Development Director, and upon Director approval,
implemented by the applicant.
9. All mitigation measures shall be clearly noted on plans submitted for a building permit
application.
If the Community Development Director or hearing body determines that the above mitigation
measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the mitigation to
meet the intent of the original measures.
Please note that section 15070 (b) (1) of the California Administrative Code requires the
applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration is released for public review. This project is tentatively scheduled for City
Council review of the rezoning on November 21, 2000. The Council will not be able to act
on the project if this signed original is not returned to the Community Development
Department before that date.
1
dN(
Community Development Director ?epresent ive for:
by: t National Bank
2-30
����������IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 ��IIII�����II 111111� Ill
City Of SAn luis O'B"I'S"PO'
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY ER 126-00
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
Coast National Bank R/ER/ARC/LLA 126-00
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Whitney Mcllvaine, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7164
4. Project Location:
486 and 528 Marsh Street
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Coast National Bank
486 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation: General Retail
7. Zoning: C-R and C-C, Retail-Commercial and Central-Commercial
8. Description of the Project:
The project proposes to expand the Central-Commercial zoning of 528 Marsh
Street onto the adjacent property at 486 Marsh Street. Since required parking
may be satisfied with in-lieu fees rather than development of parking on site in
the Central-Commercial zone, the rezoning will enable more intensive site
development. The applicant is proposing construction of a new 10,000 square
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities 31
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.
ATTACHMENT F►
foot, two story bank. The three other buildings on site will remain. A small
structure at 528 Marsh, which has been used as a barber shop will be
demolished. The applicant is also proposing to adjust the existing lot line
which runs roughly north and south from Marsh Street to Higuera Street. The
applicant would like to adjust this boundary to run roughly east to west,
separating the buildings facing Higuera Street from those facing Marsh Street.
9. Project Entitlements Requested:
The project will require environmental review, architectural review, a lot line
adjustment, and a rezoning to change the zoning map.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The 56,000 square foot site is developed with three single story buildings
and associated parking. It is located at the southern end of the downtown
area. To the east is the historic Jack House. Across Marsh Street is another
historic structure - the Kaetzel House - now used as a gallery and dwelling.
Other surrounding uses include houses, professional offices, and general retail
uses.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement):
None
Z 2-32
ATTACHMENT g
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 X Energy and Mineral X Cultural Resources
Resources
X Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
X Water Noise Mandatory Findings
of Significance
�� any .r+�g S`r•
X Air Quality Public Services
i M •cY as ."
Transportation and X Utilities and Service
Circulation Systems t, 'n' r ;:y ..,.
FqThere is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any
potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which
the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards
to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
F] The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject
to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711 .4 of the California
Fish and Game Code.
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, ther
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on a
attached sheets have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be X
prepared.
I find that the proposed project May have a significant effect on the environment, and a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
3 2-M3
ATTACHMENT g
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at leas
one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable lega
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis a
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
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 o
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project.
4 2-34
ATTACHMENT >�
August 28, 2000
ignat a Date
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager for Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
Printed Name
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact
simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture
zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as
well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on
a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effec
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determinat,_..
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 CEOA 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.
5 2-35
Issues and Supporting Information ,_.uces Sources Potentialrf ?otentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 126-00 mitigation
Page 6 Incorporated
AMC quaff
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1,2 X
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? X
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible X
land uses?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or X
minority community)?
The site is designated General Retail on the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map. This designation is
implemented by both the Retail-Commercial and Central-Commercial zones. Expanding the Central
Commercial zoning is consistent with the Downtown plan which envisions extending the boundaries of
downtown between Monterey and Marsh Streets and below Nipomo Street. The site is also within the
Downtown Planning Area as shown in Figure 4 of the Land Use Element. Land Use Element policy 3.1.1
specifically lists banks as appropriate in areas designated General Retail. A zoning map amendment is the
appropriate mechanism for requesting this change. Public review of the rezoning and project architecture
will enable examination of any potential issues related to compatibility.
Conclusion:Less than significant.
'.. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the proposal:
A Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections? X
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area X
or major infrastructure?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
X
This is an infill site which the City's general plan and zoning.regulations have designated as appropriate for
development. Site development and rezoning are not likely to induce growth beyond what is already
anticipated.
Conclusion: No impacts.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? 3, 4 X
b) Seismic ground shaking? X X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X
e) Landslides or mudflows? X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil X
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land? X
h) Expansive soils? X
i) Unique geologic or physical features? X
The City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong
ground shaking should be expected during the life of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in
6 2-36
Issues and Supporting Inform, n Sources Sources P, Aly Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Unless
ER 126-00 Issues mitigation.
kEIR
Page 7 Incorporate
compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code.
The site lies in an area identified by the Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan as being in the "R",
Recent Alluvium, zone which has a high liquefaction risk. As defined in the Seismic Safety Element,
"liquefaction involves a sudden loss in strength of a saturated cohesionless soil (predominantly fine grain
sand) which is caused by shock or strain (such as an earthquake), and results in a temporary
transformation of the soil to a fluid mass." Liquefying layers near the surface can cause a sinking,
"quicksand" effect. At lower levels, liquefying layers can cause a slipping surface for layers above.
Mitigation:
Consistent with the recommendations included in the Seismic Safety Element, a detailed soils engineering
report shall be submitted at the time of building permit which considers special grading and construction
techniques necessary to address the potential for liquefaction and compliance with the City Building
Codes. It shall identify the soil profile on site and provide site preparation recommendations to ensure
against unstable soil conditions. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with
the soils engineering report.
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) . Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the 5, 7 X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related X
hazards such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved X
oxygen or turbidity?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? X
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? X
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through X
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) Iinpacts'to groundwater quality? X
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise-avaiIable for.public water supplies? X
Drainage and Surface Water
Site development will increase the amount of surface runoff. Site drainage will be directed into storm
drains which will convey water to San Luis Creek. Any development involving extensive grading,
expansive parking areas, or the servicing of vehicles may result in petroleum-contaminated drainage
polluting nearby surface waters. Discharge of any pollutants (e.g. sediment as a result of grading,
herbicides, pesticides, janitorial cleaning products, and toxic substances such as motor oil, gasoline, and
anti-freeze) or heated water (e.g. from steam cleaning sidewalks) into a storm water system or directly
into surface waters is illegal and subject to enforcement action by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board. To avoid discharging toxic pollutants into nearby surface waters and to avoid any negative impacts
on areawide drainage as a result of site development, the following mitigation is recommended:
7 2-37
Issues and Supporting Informal Sources Sources Pott Potentially Less Than No
Signitlwnt Significant Significant Impact
ER 126 00 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Page 8 Incorporated
Mitigation:
Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet intercepting runoff as a
means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek through the storm water
system. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal.
Flooding
Most of the site is designated as Flood Zone AO on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). This is
considered an area subject to shallow 100-year flooding with depths between one and three feet.
Consistent with City code requirements, the new building must have a finish floor level at least one foot
above the flood elevation or include other floodproofing measures.
Conclusion: Less than significant.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance 6, 7 X
with APCD Environmental Guidelines)?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? X
d) Create objectionable odors? X
Rezoning the site will not have any significant impacts on air quality since both zones allow for general
retail uses. Based on Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the construction project will likely
generate approximately 25 pounds of emissions a day, requiring mitigation. Site development will impact
air quality as a result of construction activity and traffic generated by the proposed use. Standard
mitigation is recommended to reduce impacts resulting from construction activity and transportation-
related impacts to air quality.
Short-term Impacts
During project construction, there will be increased levels of fugitive dust associated with construction and
grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy duty construction equipment.
Compliance with the dust management practices contained in Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec.
3307.2) will adequately mitigate short-term impacts. No further mitigation is necessary.
Long-Term Impacts
San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PM10 (fine particulate matter 10
microns or less in diameter) air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment
pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The
1995 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution
Control District (APCD) to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document
designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor
vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean
Air Plan.
Motor vehicles account for about 40% of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone formation, and are
also a significant source of Win. Thus, a major requirement in the CAP is the implementation of
transportation control measures designed to reduce motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local
residents. The APCD recommends that site development include the following mitigation measures to
encourage transportation alternatives to the single occupant vehicle and make the project attractive to
9 2-38
Issues and Supporting Informati. .iources Sources Potel Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 126-00 mitigation
Page 9 Incorporated
bicyclists and pedestrians. See the discussion under Energy and Mineral Resources below since energy
conservation has a beneficial impact on air quality.
Mitigation:
The project shall include:
1. Short- and long-term bicycle parking for employee use;
2. Shower and locker facilities for employees to encourage bicycling and walking to work (typically one
shower and 3 lockers for every 25 employees); and
3. Extensive tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from automobiles.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 9,7 X
11
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses X
(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 alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts•(e.g. compatibility _F_1
with San Luis Obispo Co. F I X
Conclusion: The project has been reviewed by the Public Works Transportation Division. Comments indicate
the project can be accommodated by existing streets and sidewalks. Since the project is located in the
downtown area, many trips to and from the bank are likely to be pedestrian in nature. No significant traffic
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the,;proposal affect:
a) Endangered, threatened of rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited :to.plants, fish,-insects, animals 10 X
or birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)? X
d) Wetland habitat(e.g: marsh, riparian and vernal pool? X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X
Conclusion: With mitigation as recommended under "Water" for filtering storm drainage, impacts to the
creek will be less than significant.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES:. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy consdtVation plans? 12 X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? X
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and X
the residents of the State?
The Energy Element states that, "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of
conventional energy for space heating and cooling, water heating, and illumination by means of proper
design and orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure." The City implements
energy conservation goals through enforcement of the California Energy Code which establishes energy
9 2-39
Issues and Supporting Informatt, Sources Sources Pott Potentially Less Than No
Signittcant Significant Significant Impact
ER 126-00 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Page 10 Incorporated
conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction. Buildings proposed as part of this
project must meet those standards. The City also implements energy conservation goals through
architectural review. Project designers are asked to show how a project makes maximum use of passive
means of reducing conventional energy demand, as opposed to designing a particular image and relying on
mechanical systems to maintain comfort. To avoid using non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner,
and to be consistent with mitigation measures adopted as part of the Tract 2202 (ER 54-93 and ER 74-
95) approval, the following standard mitigation is recommended:
Mitigation:
New buildings constructed on this site shall incorporate the following as feasible:
• Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use;
• Increased wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements;
• Skylights or other means of maximizing natural daylighting;
• Operable windows in employee work and break areas to maximize natural ventilation;
• Lighting controls (occupancy and motion sensors); and
• Dual glazed windows.
If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project architect shall
document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community Development Director shall review
this document and make a final decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving
features.
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, X
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? X
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard? X
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? X
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass or trees? X
Conclusion: The project is not anticipated to result in any health hazard.
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: .
a) Increase in existing noise levels? 14 X
b) Exposure of people to "unacceptable" noise levels as
defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise X
Element?
Conclusion: The project is subject to compliance with the City's noise ordinance and is not anticipated to
expose people to "unacceptable" noise levels.
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:
a) Fire protection? 7 X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
e) Other governmental services? X
Conclusion: This is essentially an infill project that can be accommodated by existing public services.
10 2-40
Issues and Supporting Infor. .ion Sources Sources etially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 126-00 mitigation
Page i l Incorporated
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? 15, X
7
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
Utilities
This is essentially an infill project that can be accommodated by existing utilities and service systems. It is
subject to water allocation requirements and water and wastewater impact fees. Utility Department
comments note that the redevelopment of the site triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral
Abandonment Policy.This policy states that the sewer lateral must be abandoned at the main prior to
demolition unless the lateral is intended for reuse and it passes a video inspection.
Solid Waste
Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californians
dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a
threat to groundwater, air quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capaci,
by 2018. The Act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills L
50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. New recycling facilities, currently being installed at the landfill, should
help the city reach this goal. To reduce the waste stream generated by this project, consistent with the
City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element, recycling facilities must be accommodated on the project
site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials should be submitted
with the building permit application. The project should include facilities for both interior and exterior
recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project consistent with the Source Reduction and
Recycling Element.
Recycling Demolition and Construction Materials
Comments received from the Utilities Department note that demolition of the existing facilities warrants the
need for a recycling plan for disposal of the demolition debris. The plan should demonstrate how the majorit
of the tonnage (typically concrete and asphalt) will be recycled. Construction is likely to result in more debris
than demolition in this case. Therefore, a plan for recycling discarded construction debris should also b
submitted prior to issuance of building permits.
Mitigation:
The new building shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling.
The sewer lateral must be abandoned at the main prior to demolition unless the lateral is intended for reuse
and it passes a video inspection. If the sewer lateral is intended for reuse, the owner shall submit a VHS
videotape documenting the internal condition of the pipe to the Utilities Department for evaluation and
approval.
" 2-41
Issues and Supporting Informatior. ,aces Sources Potentia Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 126-00 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Page 12 Incorporated
ff
A plan for recycling demolition and construction material waste shall be submitted with the demolition and
building permit applications for review and approval by the Community Development Director.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 9. 8 X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X
c) Create light or glare? X
New commercial buildings are subject to architectural review. This section of Marsh Street is not shown
as a scenic roadway in the Circulation Element.
There are policies in the Land Use Element, sections of the ARC Guidelines, and standards recommended
in the Downtown Plan which pertain to development of the project site. They include:
LUE 4.12 Building Conservation and Compatibility New buildings should be compatible with
architecturally and historically significant buildings, but not necessarily the same style.
LUE 4.16.6 Sidewalk Appeal Street facades, particularly at the street level, should include windows, signs,
and architectural details which can be appreciated by the people on the sidewalks.
LUE 6.6.3 Remodeling and New Buildings New buildings in historical districts, or on historically
significant sites, should reflect the form, spacing, and materials of nearby historic structures.
ARC Guidelines state that a developer must be sensitive to the history of not only the project site but also
that of the neighborhood around the site (p.22).
rhe Downtown Plan, under standards for Area 10, states that new buildings may be permitted but should b
in scale and character with the older buildings. As a condition of new development, the rear 25 feet of all
lots should be offered to the City for dedication as a public right-of-way to facilitate creation of a mid-bloc
promenade connecting the Jack House to a new circular park in the block bound by Marsh, Carmel, an
Higuera Streets.
Conclusion: Less than significant. As part of the project's architectural review, the project must
demonstrate consistency with relevant policies, guidelines and standards or the ARC must find that such
policies, guidelines and standards are not appropriate in this case.
14..CULTURAL RESOURCES._Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? 15, X
10
b) Disturb archaeological resources? X
c) Affect historical resources? X
d) 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?
12 2-42
Issues and Supporting Inform t Sources Sources Fe1yy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 126 00 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Page 13 Incorporated
A 7ACHMIA
Archaeology
The site is not in a sensitive area. The part of the site affected by demolition and construction is less than
one acre. Therefore, an archaeological report is not required. However in the event any resources are
encountered during construction, the following mitigation is recommended:
Mitigation:
If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation,all earthwork within 150 feet of object(s)
shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Any additioal mitigation
measures recommended by the archaeologist shall be evaluated by the Community Development Director, and
upon Director approval, implemented by the applicant.
Historical Resources
The project is adjacent to the Jack House, a National Register property on the City's master list of
historical resources. The project has been designed to be architecturally compatible with the Jack House.
It includes a pedestrian connection between the two properties and a meeting room that could be used in
conjunction with the Jack House for community events. Compatibility with nearby historic resources will
be addressed as part of architectural review. See discussion in the previous section.
Conclusion: Less than significant.
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities? X
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X
Not applicable.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality 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, X
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?
With mitigation as recommended,the construction and occupancy of the commercial building)n this site would
have no significant adverse environmental impacts on wildlife or cultural resources.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental X
goals?
Short- and long-term environmental goals are the same.
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively X
13 2-43
Issues and Supporting Informat, Sources Sources Pot( Potentially Less Than No
Sigm..-. nt Significant Significant Impact
ER 126-00 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Page 14 Incorporated
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)
Without mitigation, the project would have the potential to have adverse impacts for all the issue area
checked in the table on page 3.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, X
either directly or indirectly?
The project will not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effectson human
beings, either directly or indirectly.
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, February 2000.
2. City Of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element, August 1999
3• City of San Luis Obispo Seismic Safety Element, July 1975.
4. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990.
5. Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community Panel 060310 0005 C) dated July 7, 1981.
6. APCD's "CEQA Air Quality Handbook", August 1995.
7. Comments from other departments and agencies.
8. Architectural Review in San Luis Obispo, June 1983
9. City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element, November, 1994.,
10. City of San Luis Obispo Informational Map Atlas.
11. City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan, October 1993
12. City of San Luis Obispo Energy Conservation Element, April 1981.
13. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, May 1996.
14. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element, Brown, Vence & Associates,
July 1994.
15. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, October 1995
14 2-44
g
19. MITIGATION ATTAROW
1. Consistent with the recommendations included in the Seismic Safety Element, a detailed soils
engineering report shall be submitted at the time of building permit which considers special grading and
construction techniques necessary to address the potential for liquefaction and compliance with the City
Building Codes. It shall identify the soil profile on site and provide site preparation recommendations to
ensure against unstable soil conditions. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance
with the soils engineering report.
2. Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet intercepting runoff as
a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek through the storm water
system. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal.
3. The project shall include:
• Short- and long-term bicycle parking for employee use;
• Shower and locker facilities for employees to encourage bicycling and walking to work (typically
one shower and 3 lockers for every 25 employees) or comparable mitigation acceptable to the Air
Pollution Control District Director; and
• Extensive tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from automobiles.
4. The new building constructed on this site shall incorporate the following as feasible:
• Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use;
• Increased wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements;
• Skylights or other means of maximizing natural daylighting;
• Operable windows in employee work and break areas to maximize natural ventilation;
• Lighting controls (occupancy and motion sensors); and
• Dual glazed windows.
If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project architect shall
document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community Development Director shall
review this document and make a final decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy
conserving features.
5. The new buildings shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling.
6. The sewer lateral at 528 Marsh Street must be abandoned at the main prior to demolition unless the
lateral is intended for reuse and it passes a video inspection. If the sewer lateral is intended for reuse, the
owner shall submit a VHS videotape documenting the internalcondition of the pipe to the Utilities
Department for evaluation and approval.
7. A plan for recycling demolition and construction material waste shall be submitted with the demolition
and building permit applications for review and approval by the Community Development Director.
8. If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation,all earthwork within 150 feet of object(s)
shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Any additional mitigation
measures recommended by the archaeologist shall be evaluated by the Community Development Director,and
upon Director approval, implemented by the applicant.
9. All mitigation measures shall be clearly noted on plans submitted for a building permit application.
2-45