Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/01/2003, PH3 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING CHANGING THE ZONING FROM SERVICE-COMMERCIAL WITH A SPECIAL CONS Council j acEnaa Repoizt 3 CITY OF SAN LUIS 0 B I S P 0 FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Direc' Prepared By: Philip Dunmore,Associate PlannerV SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING CHANGING THE ZONING FROM SERVICE-COMMERCIAL WITH A SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS OVERLAY TO NEIGHBORHOOD- COMMERCIAL WITH A SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS OVERLAY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BROAD STREET AND ORCUTT ROAD (GP/R/ER 154-02). CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt a resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use designation for the site from Services and Manufacturing to Neighborhood Commercial and approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 154-02). 2. Introduce an ordinance changing the zoning on the subject property from Service- Commercial/Special Considerations (C-S-S) to Neighborhood-Commercial/Special Considerations (C-N-S) and approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration. DISCUSSION Situation/Previous Review The applicant would like to change the current C-S-S zoning in order to accommodate neighborhood-serving uses such as retail shops and food services that are currently not allowed within the C-S district. A development plan that includes retail tenant spaces was previously approved by the City for these properties under C-S zoning. The proposed C-N zoning will not change existing approved development plans, it will only affect allowable uses within the planned tenant spaces. The applicant feels that C-N zoning will be more appropriate at this location since nearby properties on Broad Street and Rockview Place are currently developing with additional residential density. The Planning Commission reviewed the rezoning and General Plan amendment request on February 26, 2003, recommending the City Council approve the request (see attachment 7, Planning Commission action). Data Summary Address: 3210 Broad Street- base address (Also includes 3212, 3220, 3230, and 3240 Broad) Applicant: Dan Lemburg Zoning: Service-Commercial with the Special Considerations overlay (C-S-S) General Plan: Services and Manufacturing 3� f Council Agenda Report GP/R 154-02 (Lemburg) Page 2 General Plan: Services and Manufacturing Environmental status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared(ER 154-02) Site Description and Project Description See the attached Planning Commission Agenda Report (Attachment 6) for a complete site description and project description. Evaluation The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to adopt a resolution to recommend approval of the General Plan amendment/Zone Change from C-S-S to C-N-S to the City Council. Commissioners added conditions to prohibit daycare facilities, residential care facilities, and any residential development greater than 6 units per acre at this site. in order to ensure consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. The conditions will be applied through the use of the Special Considerations (S) overlay-zoning district on the property. Since there are pending plans to develop the adjacent area with additional residential density, the applicant feels.that the C-N zone will provide for greater flexibility in the variety of goods and services within close proximity to existing and future residential expansion areas. Recent approvals on Rockview Place and Broad Street will continue to increase the residential density of the vicinity. Additionally, the Orcutt area is designated on the general plan as a residential expansion area. The following paragraphs evaluate the merits of the proposed Rezoning and General Plan Amendment. General Plan Consistency The Planning Commission found the land use amendment and rezoning consistent with General Plan policy. In Policy 3.2.1, the Land Use Element states that the City should have areas for neighborhood commercial uses to meet the frequent shopping demands of people living nearby. Neighborhood commercial centers should be available within about one mile of all residents, and should typically not exceed about eight acres in size. The proposed neighborhood commercial site is less than 4 acres in size. There are currently no other neighborhood commercial centers within one mile of this location. The Marigold Shopping center is over one mile away to the south and is zoned C-S-PD. The Crossroads center adjacent to this site does have some convenience shopping, however it is also zoned C-S-PD Development of the site with neighborhood commercial uses would enhance shopping convenience and walkability to the residential neighborhoods along Broad Street, Orcutt Road and Rockview Place, Therefore, the project is consistent with this General Plan policy. Land Use Element Policy 3.2.2 provides additional criteria for locating new neighborhood commercial centers. An analysis of 3.2.2 can be found within the attached Planning Commission staff report. Special Considerations Overlay The site currently contains an "S" or Special Considerations overlay zone. The S overlay requires new land uses, changes in land use, or new development plans to obtain a use permit 2"� Council Agenda Report — GP/R 154-02 (Lemburg) Page 3 prior to approval. The S zone was established when the property was rezoned from Manufacturing to Commercial Services in 1986. The S designation was designed to address traffic, circulation and creek preservation issues. The overlay zone is also in place to ensure that proposed development would not adversely impact Orcutt Road. The Planning Commission recommended retaining the "S" overlay. Benefits of maintaining the S overlay on the property include allowing adequate evaluation of land uses for consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). The S overlay can ensure that each new use is consistent with the specific property conditions and the ALUP. Consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan is discussed below. CONCURRENCES The Public Works Department has found that the proposed rezoning and general plan amendment will have a negligible affect on area traffic and public improvements. Additional discussion can be found in the attached Planning Commission staff report. Airport Land Use Commission: This property is within Zone 6 of the SLO County ALUP. The Airport Land Use Commission considered the zone change proposal on February 191h 2003 and determined the rezoning would be inconsistent with the ALUP if the rezoning will allow daycare centers and residential care facilities that are not currently allowed within the C-S district. Uses such as daycare centers and residential care facilities are not allowed within Zone 6 of the ALUP; however they are currently allowed uses within the C-N district. Additionally the ALUC was concerned about the amount of residential density that could be allowed on the property in the future. The C-N district allows 12 residential dwellings per acre, the ALUP only allows 6 dwellings per acre. In order to satisfy the requirements of the ALUP, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution that contains conditions that limit the residential density on the site to 6 dwelling units per acre and prohibits daycare facilities and residential care facilities. Staff proposes utilizing the Special Considerations Overlay district to ensure future compliance with these conditions. The rezoning request was returned to the ALUC on March 19`h for re-consideration of the project as recommended by the Planning Commission. The ALUC voted unanimously to find the general plan amendment consistent with the ALUP based on Planning Commission recommended conditions contained in the resolution (see attachment 8). Additionally the ALUC recommended the addition of a condition on the site that limits the non-residential occupancy to 150 persons per acre or less. FISCAL INWACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. Amending the General Plan for this location will not significantly alter revenues since the new designation will allow a similar mix of commercial development. 91-3 i Council Agenda Report - - GP/R 154-02 (Lemburg) Page 4 ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve a resolution denying the proposed rezoning, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan. 2. Continue review of the rezoning with specific direction to the applicant and staff. Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity map Attachment 2: General Plan Land Use Element map Attachment 3: Rezoning map Attachment 4: Applicant's statement Attachment 5: Initial Study(ER 154-02) Attachment 6: February 260 Planning Commission staff report Attachment 7: February 26`h Planning Commission action Attachment 8: Resolution adopting General Plan Amendment Attachment 9: Ordinance adopting zone change from C-S-S to C-N-S G;\GROUPS\COMDEV\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&PDs\GPR 15402\GPR 154-02 Council Report.doc ach ent C-S -3-PD M-PD S Z C-S-PD M M J C-S C-S C-S C-S-S I j ORCUTT ® M-PD C-S-PD C-S-S-H O C-S-S R-2-S 0 R-2-S -2-PD Q4 C-S-S VICINITY MAP GP/R 154-02 N 3210 Broad A Attachment 2 S Medium High Density Residential 1 �O ORCUTT d TO Services and Manufacturing —1 Medium Density Residential V' Change to Nieghborhood Commercial Open Space P P A � 1 �I General Plan Map GP & R 154-02 N 3210 Broad Street A 3 - tp 1111.► , n. _ �: �,, 3�T eC 9' �S ♦♦♦ ♦ l �C t }• Zoning Map GP ♦ / 1 Attachment 4 O A 5 1 5 LAND 5 C A P E ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING STATEMENT OF PURPOSE for the REZONING&GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION 3210,3212,3220, 3230,&3240 Broad Street San Luis Obispo,California 93401 18 September 2002 PROJECT HISTORY: The property is in the process of,or has obtained, the following entitlements. 3210 and 3212 Orcutt In building plan check. 3220 Orcutt Received ARC approval,1999. 3230 Orcutt Permitted. 3240 Orcutt In building plan check. CURRENT ZONING: SERVICE-COMMERCIAL(C-S). The C-S zone is intended to provide for storage, transportation and wholesaling as well as certain retail sales and business services which may be less appropriate in the City's other conunercial zones. It is applied to areas designated "services and manufacturing" on the General Plan map, typically those areas with more public exposure along arterial streets than places reserved for manufacturing. PROPOSED ZONING:NEIGHBORHOOD-COMMERCIAL(GN) The C-N zone is intended to provide retail sales and personal services primarily for the convenience of surrounding residential areas.Neighborhood commercial uses should provide several types of merchandise, as opposed to a business offering a wide selection of a single type of merchandise. This zone is applied to areas designated"neighborhood-commercial"on the General Plan map. RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS Current General Plan designation: Services & Manufacturing (as shown on the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use Map). SERVICES AND MANUFACTURING The services and manufacturing designation includes such activities as wholesaling, building contractors, utility company yards, auto repair, printing, bakeries, and retail sales of large items, bulk quantities, and items often stored outdoors (vehicles, building materials, plants). Areas reserved for these uses may also accommodate convenience restaurants and other activities primarily serving area workers. 805.541.4509 FAX 805.546.0525 3427 MIGUEUTO CT SAN LUIS OBISPO CAUFORNIA 93401 wn ae•aae.om OASIS ASSOCIATES, IN,. Attachment 4 17 September 2002 GPA&Rezone- Broad @ Orcutt Page 2 of 2 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL The neighborhood commercial designation's purpose is to meet the frequent shopping demands of people living nearby. C-N uses include grocery stores, laundromats, and drug and hardware stores. Neighborhood commercial centers should be available within about one mile of all residences. These centers should not exceed about eight acres, unless the neighborhood to be served includes a significant amount of high- density residential development. Specialty stores may be located in C-N centers as long as they will not be a major citywide attraction or displace more general,convenience uses. In addition, according to the commercial and industrial development programs section,the City will rezone to Neighborhood Commercial existing Service Commercial sites which have become neighborhood convenience centers, if: (1) they primarily serve a neighborhood rather than a citywide market;and(2)they are appropriately located considering access and compatibility with other nearby uses. SUMMARY Due to existing residential development, (e.g., Villa Rosa, Crossroads Center Mixed-Use,single-and multi- family units on Rockview Place and Broad Street), and the potential increased residential density on Orcutt Road, the C-N zone will provide for greater flexibility in the variety of goods and services offered, within close proximity(i.e., walking distance) to existing and future residents. Attachments- Executed Application Form Zoning Map Excerpt Assessor's Parcel Map Application Checklist-Rezoning Application Checklist-General Plan Amendment cc:Dan Lemburg 02-0104 3 ,9 Attachment 5 IIIiisAn Ills OBISPOALc�t�y ® swim@ 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment & Rezoning 154-02 (City Applications: GPA, R, & ER 154-02) 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: Philip Dunsmore (805) 781-7522 4. Project Location: 3210 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Dan Lemburg 560 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. Current General Plan Designation: Services and Manufacturing 7. Current Zoning: C-S-S; Commercial Service 8. Description of the Project: Request to rezone four parcels at southeast corner of Broad Street and Orcutt Road from Commercial-Service with the Special Considerations overlay zone (C-S-S) to Neighborhood- Commercial (C-N). 9. Project Entitlements Requested: Rezoning and General Plan Amendment. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site is bordered by Broad Street on the west, by Orcutt Road on the north and by a seasonal creek on the east. Nearby properties to the west are developed with commercial uses and multi-family residential. Development to the north consists of a gas station and mini market. Properties to the south are developed with single family residential dwellings. The subject properties are currently vacant and slope gently from Broad street down to a seasonal creekway. The site is currently partially graded in preparation of approved construction permits to allow commercial development. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None.. 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. t O.. Attachment 5 Issues, Discussion and Support , Information Sources Sources Poto Potentially Less Than No Signihwnt Significant Significant Impact ER # 154-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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" or a "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation is Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources X Hazards& Hazardous Recreation Materials Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such,the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). 3H - Attachment 5 Issues, Discussion and Suppor, , Information Sources sources Pok- !y Potentially Less Than No Signiticant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 154-02 Mitigation Inco rated DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and X a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re uired. I find that the proposed project MAY have a`-`potentially significant" impact(s) or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitiszation measures that are im osed u on the Provosed vroiect, nothinp, further is required. February 20,2003 Signature Date Ronald Whisenand Deputy Director of Community Development For John Mandeville Community Development Director Printed Name � ' l 1 - Anacnmem Issues, Discussion and Supporu , Information Sources Sources P6.- y Potentially Less Than No Signiuvant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 154-02 Mitigation Incorporated EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17,"Earlier Analysis," 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) of the California Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 3rI3 maacnment 5 Issues, Discussion and Suppo.. , Information Sources sources p. y Potentially Lcss Than No Sigm...,ant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 15402 Mitigation Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not X limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area? Broad Street, otherwise known as Highway 227 is considered a scenic corridor as noted within the City's Circulation Element. Rezoning of the property will not alter the planned development of the property, only the uses that will occupy the tenant spaces. Planning entitlements and building permits have already been issued for the property consistent with the current C-S zoning. Rezoning will not change the appearance of the approved development,therefore aesthetic values will not be impacted. CONCLUSION: No Impact 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of X Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to X their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? The project is located on a site that is not considered prime farmland, or farmland of unique or statewide importance as indicated on City maintained maps created pursuant to the to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Additionally,the property is already zoned for commercial uses and the City has approved development plans for a commercial project. CONCLUSION: No impacts. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an X existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Development of the site as a neighborhood commercial center would give nearby residents the option of walking to the center. Improved pedestrian access to services is one way to reduce air quality impacts from development. The rezoning 3 - 4 fltlC UI n 1 Ici Issues, Discussion and Support , Information Sources Sources Po,.. y IPotentially Less Than No Signincant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 154-02 Mitigation Incorporated will not by itself have a significant negative impact on air quality. Regardless of the zoning, site development will have short-term impacts related to construction and some cumulative long term impacts related to traffic generation. Air quality issues related to site development were previously addressed in an initial study prepared for the current approved project development. No additional mitigation is recommended.. CONCLUSION: No impact. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or X through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? The subject property is adjacent to an existing creek. However, rezoning of the property will not allow additional commercial development entitlement. A commercial development consistent with the City's creek setback ordinance has been reviewed and approved for this property under the current Commercial Service zoning. Commercial Neighborhood zoning is likely to result in less intensive land uses in the future,therefore resulting in potentially fewer impacts to existing creek habitat areas. Rezoning of the property to a less intensive commercial zoning will not result in impacts to biological resources. CONCLUSION: No impact 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 150645) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of X formal cemeteries? No known historic or cultural resources exist within the property or project vicinity. The existing property does not contain any historic or prehistoric archeological resources as identified on City maintained resource maps. A surface survey was 3- t§- r�uu�.�nrrciIL J Issues, Discussion and Support Information Sources Sources po. y Poteatially [ess an No Signu..ant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 154-02 Mitigation Incorporated conducted for the project site as part of the current approved commercial development project. No archaeological resources were encountered. No further mitigation is recommended. No impacts to cultural resources are anticipated with the proposed rezoning. CONCLUSION: No impacts. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? The project is consistent with the City's Energy Element which encourages concentrations of residences close to concentrations of employment or commercial areas. The proposed rezoning places neighborhood commercial within close reach of existing residential areas. Rezoning by itself will not have a significant adverse impact on energy resources. Mitigation stipulated in previous initial studies related to site development and agreed to by the developer remains in effect. No impacts to energy and mineral resources are anticipated with the proposed project. CONCLUSION: No impacts. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? II. Strong seismic ground shaking? X III. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? X IV. Landslides or mudflows? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or offsite landslides,lateral spreading,subsidance, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? A commercial construction project has already been reviewed and approved for the subject property. Rezoning will not alter the proposed development nor its potential to impact geology and soils of the site or the vicinity. Construction standards and building code requirements required a preliminary geotechnical investigation to ensure adequate foundation materials and construction criteria. Rezoning of this property will not result in impacts to geology and soils. CONCLUSION:No Impact. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X though the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions ATracnment 5 Issues, Discussion and Support a Information Sources Sources P4_! y Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 154-02 Mitigation Incorporated involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, X or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Airport Land Use Compatibility The Commercial Neighborhood zone may contain uses that are not allowed or recommended within the airport land use planning area. The project site is within Zone 6 of the SLO County Airport Land Use Plan. The project has been scheduled for review by the Airport Land Use Commission on February 19,2003. The Commission's review will focus on the change in uses allowed as a result of the rezoning and their compatibility with airport operations. To ensure compatibility with airport operations and minimize hazards for people working or living in the vicinity of the project,the following mitigation is recommended: Mitigation Measure Uses established on the project site as well as physical site development shall be consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan to the satisfaction of the Airport Land Use Commission. The existing "S" or Special Considerations overlay on the property shall remain with the rezoning to ensure future compatibility with the airport land use plan. CONCLUSION: Less than significant with proposed mitigation. . 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(eg.The production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity X of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources ofpollutedrunoff. Aftachment 5 Issues, Discussion and Support. I Information Sources Sources P6 y Potentially Less Than No Signiticant Significant Significant Impact ER # 154 02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X Site drainage was established with review and approval of the initial grading and construction plans. Rezoning will affect the type of uses that may occupy the buildings,but will not have any significant influence on physical site development. CONCLUSION: No drainage impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed rezoning. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would the project: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of X an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X community conservation plans? The City's Land Use Element states that neighborhood commercial centers should be available within about one mile of all residences. This policy supports the rezoning request since all existing neighborhood commercial centers are located more than a mile away from residential uses in the vicinity of the project site. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Generally, the Neighborhood-Commercial zone contains uses which are less likely to result in any significant adverse environmental impacts on surrounding uses than uses allowed in the Service- Commercial zone. The applicant's processing of the Rezoning and General Plan Amendment applications are the appropriate way to request Neighborhood-Commercial uses consistent with the General Plan at this site. No further mitigation is recommended. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of`unacceptable"noise X levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome X vibration or groundborne noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? CONCLUSION: Less than significant. The rezoning by itself does not raise any concerns regarding noise exposure. All 3 , 12 - Aaacnmem :D Issues, Discussion and Suppo Information Sources sources P. ly Potrntially Less rnan No Signwcant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 154-02 Mitigation Incorporated uses are subject to compliance with the City Noise Ordinance and the City's Noise Element standards. Compliance must be demonstrated prior to building permit issuance.No further mitigation is recommended. CONCLUSION: No impact 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly X (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? CONCLUSION: Not significant. This site is envisioned by the General Plan to be developed with commercial uses. The primary market for proposed uses would be the existing population. 13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X f) Other public facilities? X A development project, which accommodates commercial uses, has already been approved for the site. The provision of utilities and required road improvements were incorporated into the approved project plans. CONCLUSION: The rezoning of the property is not anticipated to create additional impacts to public services. 14.RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The General Plan Amendment and Rezoning are being proposed to accommodate neighborhood commercial development. The property is currently zoned Service Commercial and is approved for commercial development. CONCLUSION: No impact 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service X standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp X curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? Attachment 5 Issues, Discussion and Suppor. , Information Sources Sources P6� ;y Potentially Less Than No Signitrcant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 154-02 Mitigation Incorporated d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards, noise,or a change in air traffic patterns? The proposed C-N rezoning will have a negligible effect on traffic generation since the current C-S zoning allows many of the same uses as the C-N zone. Furthermore, implementation of transportation improvements required of approved development projects (e.g. northbound right turn lane on Broad Street with pedestrian refuge island; additional travel lanes on Orcutt Road; a second southbound left turn lane on Broad Street with pedestrian refuge island; additional travel lanes on Orcutt Road; a second southbound left turn lane on Broad; installation of bike lanes and medians; and access restrictions at project driveways)should adequately address development impacts under the C-N zone designation. CONCLUSION.• Less than significant with incorporation of previously prescribed traffic mitigation as proposed with approved development scenario. No additional mitigation necessary. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X treatment,wasterwater treatment,or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations X related to solid waste? The proposed development has been reviewed and approved by the City Utilities Department and City services, as well as other utilities, are available to serve it. This infill project is subject to water allocation requirements and water and wastewater impact fees. Solid Waste The City recently adopted Ordinance 1381 establishing a mandatory construction and demolition debris recycling program. Provision of interior and exterior recycling facilities is reviewed as part of architectural review for new construction. No further mitigation is recommended. CONCLUSION: No impact 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Fa, Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or 3 - � Attachment 5 Issues, Discussion and Suppor Information Sources Sources P - " iy Potentially Less Than No Signwcant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 154-02 Mitigation incorporated 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? Without mitigation,the project could have the potential to have adverse impacts on all of the issue areas checked in the table on page 3. Any future plans to further develop the project site is subject to California Environmental Quality Act requirements. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but X 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) Mitigation is recommended for potential inconsistency or impacts to the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Plan. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? N/A 18.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. Mitigated negative declarations were prepared and adopted for development review of the proposed commercial development now under way on the property (ER-164-99). A copy of this initial study is available in the San Luis Obispo Community Development Department. 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. N/A 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. 19. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. I City of San Luis Obispo General Plan 2. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations 3. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 3�� —� • �aauVl II I IGI IL ;J Potent Significant Issues, Discussion and Suppor. Information Sources, Sources Stgniucant s gnilly Less f Than t pact Issues Unless Impact ER N 154-02 Mitigation 1-----rated 4. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines 5. City of San Luis.Obis o Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines 6. Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Plan 1998 7. Proiect comments from other departments and aizencies 8. Project Descri tion and ro osed Parcel Map. 9. ARproved project plans for ARC 13-00 3045 Rockview 10. SLO CountyAirport Land Use Plan Attachments: 1. Project Vicinity Map 2. Proposed rezoning Map 2A. MITII;ATInN MFACIIRFSIMnNITOR.Mr, PRn1;RAM #$=HA7AROsANIZHA A�Roods-MATERIALS: MITIGATION: 1• Uses established on the project site as well as physical site development shall be consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan to the satisfaction of the Airport Land Use Commission. The existing "S" or Special Considerations overlay on the property shall remain with the rezoning to ensure future compatibility with the airport land use plan. Monitoring Program: The rezoning is scheduled for review by the Airport Land Use Commission on February 19,2003. At that time,the Commission will review uses normally allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial zone and identify which ones would not be suitable at the project location. The"S"overlay requires all new land uses to obtain a use permit prior to establishment. The use permit requirement will allow new uses to be reviewed for consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. 3 -a�- Attachment 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM# 1 BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate PlannEr((7781-7522) MEETING DATE: February 26, 2003 dew?JZiem; 16c FROM: Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Director- Development Review FILE NUMBER: GP/RIER 154-02 PROJECT ADDRESS: 3210 Broad Street SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment and Rezoning to change the zoning from Service- Commercial with a Special Considerations overlay to Neighborhood-Commercial for property located at the southeast corner of Broad Street and Orcutt:Road. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Planning Commission resolution which recommends that the City Council: 1. Approve a resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use designation for the site from Services and Manufacturing to Neighborhood Commercial and approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 154-02). 2. Adopt an ordinance changing the zoning on the subject property from Service- Commercial/Special Considerations (C-S-S) to Neighborhood-Commercial/Special Considerations C-N-S) and approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration. BACKGROUND Situation The applicant would like to change the current C-S-S zoning in order to accommodate neighborhood-serving uses such as retail shops and food services that are currently not allowed within the C-S district. The proposed C-N zoning will not change existing approved development plans, it will only affect allowable uses within the planned tenant spaces. The applicant feels that C-N zoning will be more appropriate at this location since nearby properties on Broad Street and Rockview Place are currently developing with additional residential density. Additionally, the adjacent properties to the east of this property will likely be developed with new residential projects. Data Summary Address: 3210 Broad Street-base address (Also includes 3212, 3220, 3230, and 3240 Broad) Applicant: Dan Lemburg Zoning: Service-Commercial with the Special Considerations overlay (C-S-S) -Attacbment 6 GP/R 15402 Lemburg 3210 Broad Street Page 2 General Plan: Services and Manufacturing Environmental status:- A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared(ER 154-02) Site Description The site consists of four vacant parcels, totaling approximately 3.42 acres in size. The site slopes moderately from the northwest to the southeast. A seasonal tributary of Acacia creek borders the east side of the property. Broad Street and Orcutt Road border the west and north sides of the property. Proiect Description The applicant is proposing a General Plan Land Use Element map amendment and a rezoning as illustrated on the attached map exhibit (Attachment 2). Proiect History Original development plans for the property included service commercial oriented uses such as an auto parts store and other service related uses. The property was subdivided in 1999 in order to accommodate the development scenario that was recently approved. Portions of the development have already received building permit approvals and are ready to be begin construction. EVALUATION Since there are pending plans to develop the adjacent area with additional residential density the applicant feels that the C-N zone will provide for greater flexibility in the variety of goods and services within close proximity to existing and future residential expansion areas. Recent approvals on Rockview Place and Broad Street will continue to increase the residential density of the vicinity. Additionally, the Orcutt area is designated on the general plan as a residential expansion area. The following paragraphs evaluate the merits of the proposed Rezoning and General Plan Amendment. General Plan Consistency In Policy 3.2.1, the Land Use Element states that the City should have areas for neighborhood commercial uses to meet the frequent shopping demands of people living nearby. Neighborhood commercial centers should be available within about one mile of all residents, and should typically not exceed about eight acres in size. The proposed neighborhood commercial site is less than 4 acres in size. There are currently no other neighborhood commercial centers within one mile of this location. The Marigold Shopping center is over one mile away to the south and is zoned C-S. Development of the site with .; , a4 j . Rffachment 6 GP/R 154-02 Lemburg 3210 Broad Street Page 3 neighborhood commercial uses would enhance shopping convenience and walkability to the residential neighborhoods along Broad Street, Orcutt Road and Rockview Place, Therefore, the project is consistent with this General Plan policy. Land Use Element Policy 3.2.2 provides additional criteria for locating new or expanded neighborhood commercial centers. It specifies that new or expanded centers should: A. Be created within or extended into adjacent nonresidential areas. The proposed rezoning would not encroach into a residential zone. B. Provide uses to serve nearby residents, not-the whole City. The proposed center has been designed and future tenants will be selected to primarily serve the surrounding neighborhoods. However there may occasionally be customers from outside the area who patronize stores. The range of allowed uses in the C-N zone is not intended to include regional draws but instead it provides merchandise and services more appropriate to a local area population. One option that is being considered with the City's commercial zoning update is to create a new Community Commercial zoning designation for neighborhood serving centers such as the one being proposed. Creation of a new district would be addressed as part of the update to the commercial zoning regulations. This location is not anticipated to be changed to the new Community Commercial designation. C. Have access from arterial streets, and not increase traffic on residential streets. Access to the site will be provided with a driveway on Broad Street and a driveway onto Orcutt Road. Both streets are considered arterial streets. City Transportation staff has reviewed and approved access to the site with the proposed development and no significant impacts to area traffic are anticipated following development of the proposed commercial center and required road improvements. D. Have safe and pleasant pedestrian access from the surrounding service area, as well as good internal circulation. Road improvements and sidewalks will be completed with the approved development plan to better accommodate pedestrian access. Planned residential development to the east would include pedestrian access linkages to this site. Internal pedestrian circulation is provided by parking lot pathways, sidewalks bordered with landscape, and sidewalks at the fronts of the proposed commercial tenant spaces. E. Provide landscaped areas with public seating. The development plans provide for landscaped areas and potential public seating areas. F. Provide indoor or outdoor space for public use, designed to provide a focus for some neighborhood activities. The development plans provide for a small neighborhood commercial center on a site 3 -� "Attachment, 6 GP/R 154-02 Lemburg 3210 Broad Street Page 4 less than four acres. Indoor or outdoor space for public use is not a component of the neighborhood shopping center. The site plan, however provides ample landscape area, creek setbacks and adequate pedestrian access points at all sides of the site. Adequacy of Land Area Zoned Service-Commercial The City's land use inventory indicates there are roughly 32 vacant parcels with a Service- Commercial zoning designation totaling approximately 48 acres. Pending annexations in the Airport Area would add additional 12 (+/-) acres of vacant C-S zoned land to the City's inventory. Therefore, rezoning the project site will not significantly diminish developable land area available for service commercial uses. Special Considerations Overlay The site currently contains an "S" or Special Considerations overlay zone. The S overlay requires new land uses, changes in land use, or new development plans to obtain a use permit prior to approval. The S zone was established when the property was rezoned from Manufacturing to.Commercial Services in 1986. The S designation was designed to address traffic, circulation and creek preservation issues. This site and adjacent properties contain several seasonal creeks. The overlay zone is also in place to ensure that proposed development would not adversely impact Orcutt Road. The applicant's rezoning proposal does not specifically address maintaining the S overlay. Benefits of maintaining the S overlay on the property include addressing potential traffic concerns along Orcutt Road and creek compatibility issues. Additionally the S overlay can be used as a.tool to evaluate land uses for consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. The required use permit can ensure that each new use is consistent with the specific property conditions and the ALUP. Consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan is discussed on the following page. Parking, Transportation and Access This application to rezone the property is essentially the rezoning of an approved commercial development. The proposed development has been reviewed and approved by development review staff and transportation staff. Rezoning of the property from C-S to C-N is not anticipated to change parking, access and transportation issues. OTHER DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY COMMENTS Public Works: No comments or changes to traffic impact fee analysis. Traffic impact fee assessments and credits for traffic improvements will be completed on a building-by-building basis. 3-� �- Attachment -6 GP/R 154-02 Lemburg 3210 Broad Street Page 5 Transportation: The proposed C-N rezoning will have negligible effect on traffic generation since the current C-S zoning allows many of the same uses as the C-N zone. Furthermore, implementation of transportation improvements required of previous projects submitted under the C-S zone designation (e.g. northbound right turn lane on Broad Street with pedestrian refuge island; additional travel lanes on Orcutt Road; a second southbound left turn lane on Broad; installation of bike lanes and medians; and access restrictions at project driveways) should adequately address development impacts under the C-N zone designation. Airport Land Use Commission: This property is within Zone 6 of the SLO County ALUP. The Airport Land Use Commission considered the zone change proposal on February 19a', 2003 and determined the rezoning would be inconsistent with the ALUP if the rezoning will allow daycare centers and residential care facilities that are not currently allowed within the C-S district. Uses such as daycare centers and residential care facilities are not allowed within Zone 6 of the ALUP; however they are currently allowed uses within the C-N district. Additionally the ALUC was concerned about the amount of residential density that could be allowed on the property in the future. The C-N district allows 12 residential dwellings per acre, the ALUP only allows 6 dwellings per acre. The ALUC supported the development of the site with the proposed neighborhood commercial shopping center on the site, however they will not find the rezoning consistent with the ALUP unless the Planning Commission adopts a resolution that contains conditions that limit the residential density on the site to 6 dwelling units per acre and prohibits daycare facilities and residential care facilities. Staff proposes utilizing the Special Considerations Overlay district to ensure future compliance with these conditions. The rezoning request could return to the ALUC with an adopted Planning Commission resolution that clarifies these conditions prior to proceeding to the City Council. With appropriate conditions, the ALUC will likely support the rezoning request. The item will be placed on the March 19`h ALUC hearing calendar. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve a resolution recommending that the City Council deny the proposed rezoning, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan as specified by the Planning Commission. 2. Continue review of the rezoning with specific direction to the applicant and staff. Attached: Vicinity Map General Plan Land Use Element map Rezoning map Applicant's statement Initial.Study(ER 154-02) Resolution for approval Optional resolution for denial 3 ' Attachment 7 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS February 26, 2003 Wednesday 7:00 p.m. 1. 3210 Broad Street. GP/R and ER 154-02: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map from Service-Commercial (C-S) to Neighborhood- Commercial (C-N), and environmental review; C-S-S zone; Dan Lemburg, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to adopt a resolution to recommend approval of the General Plan amendment Zone Change from C-S-S to C-N-S to the City Council. The recommendation was motioned by Commissioner Cooper and seconded by Aiken. Commissioners modified the resolution conditions to prohibit daycare facilities, residential care facilities, and any residential development greater than 6 units per acre in order to ensure consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. The conditions will be applied through the use of the Special Considerations (S) overlay-zoning district on the property. Attachment 8 RESOLUTION NO. -03 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS FROM C-S-S TO C-N-S FOR PROPERTY AT 3210 BROAD STREET GP/R/ER 154-02 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on February 26, 2003 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/ER 154-02, Dan Lemburg, applicant; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 1, 2003 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff, BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the Commission. 2. The proposed rezoning is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element policies regarding Neighborhood-Commercial zoning, which encourage uses that are a neighborhood serving rather than regional draws. 3. The proposed rezoning of the site to C-N will not significantly impact the Citywide supply of available sites with the C-S zoning. 4. The areas surrounding the project site are being developed with increased residential density. Therefore, the proposed rezoning of the site to C-N is consistent with General Plan policies that call for convenient commercial centers within one mile of residential uses. SECTION 2. Conditions. 1. The existing S overlay shall remain following a rezoning of the property. 2. A real estate disclosure document shall be required for the property. The real estate disclosure document shall be approved by the Airport Land Use Commission. ,5- 91 Resolution No. XXXX-03 - Attachment 8 Page 2 SECTION 3. Land Use Restrictions. The following land uses shall be prohibited within the C-N-S district on parcels 053-222-001,002,003 & 004 due to inconsistency with Airport Land Use Plan Zone 6: a. Residential Care Facilities b. Daycare centers c. Convalescent homes d. All residential uses which exceed 6 residential dwelling units per gross acre SECTION 4. Action. The Council hereby recommends adoption of said mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the request (GP/R/ER 154-02) for a general plan amendment and rezoning, as shown on attached Exhibits A and B respectively, with incorporation of the following mitigation measures into the project: 1. Uses established on the project site as well as physical site development shall be consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan to the satisfaction of the-Airport Land Use Commission. The existing "S" or Special Considerations overlay on the property shall remain_ with the rezoning to ensure future compatibility with the airport land use plan. On motion of seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this_day of , 2003. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: City AttoFney Gil Trujillo 3 - 3� Attachment 9 ORDINANCE NO. (2003 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING FOR PROPERTY AT 3210 BROAD STREET FROM SERVICE COMMERCIAL SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS GP/R/ER 154-02 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 26, 2003 and recommended approval of amendments to the City's Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 1, 2003 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the General Plan, 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 as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the project's 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. Uses established on the project site as well as physical site development shall be consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan to the satisfaction of the Airport Land Use Commission. The existing "S" or Special Considerations overlay on the property shall remain with the rezoning to ensure future compatibility with the airport land use plan. SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council makes the following findings: 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element policies regarding Neighborhood-Commercial zoning. SECTION 3. Action. The Zoning Regulations Map Amendment (GP/R 154-02), as depicted on attached Exhibit A, is hereby approved. SECTION 4. 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, Q- i - Attachment 9 Ordinance No. (2003 Series) GP/R 154-02 Page 2 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 on the lst day of April, 2003, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the _ day of , 2003, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ci Attomey Gil T cillo 5 �3� I.•.� C. �.rY� �t - •A r -f t. t , - iCt 6, an .4, iYn k. �3 '.. ''�"t m• a., y� ev Ai 1; �. -✓'� • '- h ';f n-.R� .. ! � ASO � e.i: '�a' - bw.P., GS=P �p ORCUTT . . _ � vyr p�+ iW� •"ke t i k+�•.A i 1 "r y. `� y JS 0458 . a' x e^ pk 72 � }L k Change to C N S ';rb g: - y� .Jsz �. ;4• Zoning Map GP Bx FIZ 154-02 N 321 ® 'lrD7' rocad S t r e. lau t 3� 33