Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/2006, PH4 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD-COMMERCIAL (C-N) TO COMMUNITY-COMMERCIAL SPECIA council j agenda RepoRt CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directo Prepared By: Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD- COMMERCIAL (C-N) TO COMMUNITY-COMMERCIAL SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS (C-C-S) FOR THE PROPERTY AT 3210 THROUGH 3240 BROAD STREET. (GP/R/ER 78-05) CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. As recommended by the Planning Commission: Adopt a resolution to approve, in concent, amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use designation for the site from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial, adopt a Master Use Permit and approve a Negative Declaration (ER 78-05). , 2. As set forth in the resolution, direct staff to return the project to the Council to formally adopt a resolution and ordinance for the project along with the City's first cycle of General Plan amendments tentatively scheduled for March 7, 2006. DISCUSSION Data Summary Address: 3210 Broad Street- base address (Also includes 3212, 3220, 3230, and 3240 Broad) Applicant: Dan Lemburg Zoning: Neighborhood-Commercial with the Special Considerations overlay(C-N-S) General Plan: Neighborhood Commercial Environmental status Staff has prepared an initial study and has determined that the proposed land use amendment will result in less than significant impacts. Situation The applicant would like to amend the General Plan and zoning from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial in order to expand the list of allowable land uses for the neighborhood shopping center known as the Village Marketplace at the corner of Broad Street and Orcutt Road. The Council recently approved similar zoning for adjacent properties surrounding this project site as part of the Four Creeks project. Planning Commission Action On December 14, 2005, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and amend the General Plan Land Use and y-� Council Agenda Report—GP/,_ .R 78-05 Page 2 Village Marketplace zoning designations from C-N-S to GC-S, based on findings, conditions and mitigation measures (Attachments 3, 4 and 5). The recommendation includes adopting a master use permit to allow a specific list of land uses for the properties. The Commission agreed that the Special Considerations zone should be utilized at this property in order to restrict land uses to those that are primarily pedestrian oriented and would serve the existing and expanding residential areas in the vicinity. General Plan Consistency The attached Planning Commission staff report, Attachment 5, evaluates the merits of the proposed rezoning and general plan amendment for consistency with the General Plan. In particular, Land Use Element Policy 3.3.1 describes the purpose of the Community Commercial land use designation. The Commission found the proposed use of the property to be consistent with this General Plan Policy and felt that the S overlay would help to keep future land uses consistent with the existing and future development plans for adjacent properties. Special Considerations Overlay Zone As mentioned above, the Special Considerations overlay zone (S overlay) was recommended by staff and the Planning Commission as a method of regulating future land uses at this site. Typically, the S overlay requires discretionary review in the form of an Administrative Use Permit to allow new uses on the site or to review substantial changes to existing uses. If the Council adopts a master use permit as recommended by the Planning Commission, the master use permit will prescribe a specific set of land uses, therefore eliminating the need for every new tenant to obtain an Administrative Use Permit. Instead the S overlay will act as a trigger to indicate the restricted land use list and allow staff and the director to approve new land uses that are consistent with the adopted master use permit. The refined list was created to ensure that the shopping center remains a neighborhood serving center, dominated by retail, restaurants and smaller scale, community serving uses. Uses such as offices that are closed on evenings and weekends were eliminated from the list or restricted to the second floor. The S overlay is discussed in additional detail in the attached Planning Commission staff report. Although the Planning Commission endorsed a refined land use list, and the applicant generally agreed, the applicant is asking for additional changes to the list of allowed uses. The Planning Commission endorsed land use list does not allow office uses on the ground floor. The applicant would like certain office uses to be allowed on the ground floor with approval of an Administrative Use Permit. As noted above, the purpose of the refined land use list is to eliminate (or restrict from the ground floor) land uses that would not contribute to an active, pedestrian oriented shopping center. Most offices are not open after 5 pm or on weekends and would not be appropriate in this shopping center. Staff is concerned that if offices are allowed to occupy the larger ground floor tenant spaces, the character of the center would be altered and the purpose of the S—overlay would not be achieved. ya Council Agenda Report—GM .R 78-05 Page 3 Village Marketplace If the Council considers modifying the land use list to allow offices on the ground floor with an Administrative Use Permit, than specific offices with limited hours or limited customer visitation should be eliminated from the land use list. The applicant feels that real estate offices, travel agents and title companies would be appropriate on the ground floor. While staff would agree that. real estate and travel agents would likely have hours that extend beyond the typical 8-5 weekday offices, title companies do not typically have extended business flours. In addition, title companies offer little in the way of pedestrian interest. Therefore if the City Council were interested in considering some ground floor office use, then it should be limited to real estate offices and travel agents. Conclusion No new development or changes to the existing development plan are proposed. The owner is trying to gain additional flexibility in obtaining tenants for the existing buildings. With the continuing development of residential neighborhoods in close proximity to this site, its purpose as a community (and neighborhood) serving shopping center is becoming more significant. The Planning Commission and City Council have already endorsed a General Plan and zoning map change to C-C for properties bordering both sides of this site. This application will add to the previous approvals to create a logically sized C-C district. The S-overlay and refined land use list will help to maintain an appropriate range of uses for this small scale shopping center. CONCURRENCES The rezone request has been reviewed by other City departments including Public Works, Utilities, Building and Fire. No significant concerns were noted since the amendment is not anticipated to modify the existing development plan or the number of vehicular trips. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Amending the General Plan for this location will not significantly alter revenues since the new designation will not result in significant changes to potential revenue producing commercial property. The property is too small to allow for significant commercial development, and the property would benefit from a land use change that allows for additional flexibility in obtaining a variety of community serving commercial tenants. ALTERNATIVES 1. Consider other zoning options that may be appropriate for this site considering the existing and proposed continuation of the land use. 2. Deny the General Plan amendment and rezoning based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan or other policy documents.. 3. Continue action, if additional information is needed. Direction should be given to staff. y-3 Council Agenda Report—GPA, .A 78-05 Page 4 Village Marketplace ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Approved development plan for Village Marketplace 3. Planning Commission Resolution 4. Planning Commission minutes 5. Planning Commission staff report 6. Initial Study of Environmental Impact 7. Draft Resolution GAPdunsmore\Rezoning&PDs\78-05(Lemburg)\GPR 78-05 cc rpt(02-21-06).doc y-y Mj AM /A ul�leii"�III FT �F����������,EI lel � • �.,� i, ., �� ���� �� / � 1111111...111111:: � .,.y-��•,a i ;w�; ,,� ■�11"'i�l"f�11'I'���■�®��I'�II •.�,�'L�G.�� ,�,��SII� � ©`.�� � ��. / ®err �y ra ✓ ImV. -dill "'• �� �,� ,� 1111 Jill • ,,ter ����, `�� ♦ ♦♦ :CEI 0 I r �t�l - -- - Attachment 2 ORCUTT ROAD 1 \� c 3r 0- 32121 s x � r 3220 3230 , 3240 T SITE PLAN 0 10 20 30 •x, \ VILLAGE MARKETPLACE �amrick Associates,Inc San Luis Obispo. California �ciul.c Fla Lng Wr... . U 10.151%139V7Tj7 r Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO.5438-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECCOMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS FROM C-N-S TO C-C-S AND APPROVAL OF A MASTER USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY AT 3210,3212,32209 3230,3240 BROAD STREET GP/R/ER 78-05 1 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 December 14, 2005 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/ER 78-05, Dan Lemburg, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential 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 Community Commercial zoning, which designate such districts for locations that are appropriate to serve the community in its entirety rather than just the adjacent neighborhood. 3. The existing property is not suited to remain restricted to neighborhood serving uses (C-N zoning) since the location of the site at the comer of high volume arterial roadways acts as a community-wide center accessible to users from a wide region of the City. 4. This project site is subject to criteria which clearly necessitate an S overlay zone in order to ensure adequate review and create a specifically refined list of allowed land uses. The commercial center's proximity to a creek, the size and configuration of the property and adjacent high density residential uses warrant the refined land use list. 5. A master use permit is appropriate for the site to allow for streamlined approval of appropriate uses as listed within the refined allowed use list as found in attached Exhibit B. y- � Resolution No.5438-05 Attachment 3 3210, 3212, 3220,3230, 3240 Broad Street Page 2 SECTION 2. Action. The Commission hereby recommends approval of a General Plan amendment and rezoning from C-N-S to C-C-S, approval of a Master Use Permit and adoption of said Negative Declaration (GP/R/ER 78-05), as shown on attached Exhibit A with incorporation of the following project conditions: Conditions: 1. The Master Use Permit shall refine the land use list for the Community Commercial zone as found in Attached exhibit B. Approval of the Master Use Perniit will eliminate the need for Administrative Use Permit approval only for those uses listed within the allowed use section of the land use list in attached exhibit B. All other listed uses shall require a Use Permit. On motion by Commr. Miller, seconded by Commr. Osborne, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Miller,Loh, Carter, Osborne and Boswell NOES: Con= McCoy REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commr. Christianson The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 14th day of December, 2005. Ro d Whisenan , Secretary Planning Commission Attachment 4 Planning Commission Minu�ts December 14,2005 Page 2 There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commrs. Carter and Loh questioned the density standards. Commr. Miller questioned the amount of outdoor recreation area in relation to the loss of indoor recreation area. Commr. McCoy could support an additional unit but expressed concern with eliminating the existing recreation facility. The Commission offered direction to applicant to apply for a General Plan map amendment and rezone to modify the land use designation from R-2 to R-3 to allow additional residential density that would support the additional residential unit. Commissioners also offered feedback on the appropriate scale of required replacement recreational amenities for the project. On motion by Commr. Loh to deny the oroiect with direction as noted above Seconded by Commr. Carter. AYES: Commrs. McCoy, Miller, Osborne, Boswell, Loh, and Carter NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Christianson ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 6 : 0 vote. 2. 3210, 3212, 3220, 3230, 3240 Broad Street GP/R and ER 78-05. Request to amend the General Plan and zoning maps for the Village Marketplace from Neighborhood-Commercial with a special considerations overlay zone (C-N-S) to Community-Commercial with a special considerations overlay zone (C-C-S) Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner; presented the staff report, recommending the Commission recommend that the City Council approve amending the General Plan Land Use Map from Neighborhood-Commercial to Community-Commercial; approve the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; approve the rezoning from C-N-S to C- CS, and adopt a Master Use Permit to allow a refined land use list for the site. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Dan Lundberg, applicant, 3212 Broad St #200 SLO, requests uses be open to include retail, office, professional on second floor and possibly a wine bar. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: q Commr. Osborne questioned the parking and traffic problems associated with project. Attachment 4 Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2005 Page 3 - Commr. McCoy asked if total office use would be possible above ground floor. Commr. Loh suggested that. certain uses not be approved for ground floor without Director's approval. Commr. Carter would like to see schools and fitness, classes be allowed with Director's approval. On motion by Commr. Miller to .recommend approval of the General Plan map amendment and rezone from C-N-S to CTC-$. Seconded by Commr. Osborne A friendly amendment was made to move- three land uses to the Administrative Use Permit Category (Fitness/Health facility. School and Specialized education/training and Studio-Art._dance, martial arts, music. etc). A second amendment was introduced by Commr. Loh to all-ow-office uses above the ground floor. AYES: Commrs. McCoy, Miller, Boswell, Loh, and Carter NOES: Commr. Osborne ABSENT: Commr. Christianson ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 5:1 vote. A follow-up motion was made by Commr. Loh to allow Business_ and Service Offices Production_ and_ Administrative Offices and Professional offices on the second floor. Seconded by Commr. McCov. AYES: Commrs. McCoy, Boswell, Loh, and Carter NOES: Commrs. Osborne and Miller ABSENT: Commr. Christianson ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 4:2 vote. 3. Citywide. TA and ER 153-04; Comprehensive update to the City's Subdivision Regulations and environmental review; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. This item was continued to the January 11, 2006 meeting without discussion. 4. Cl fide. GPA and ER 149-98. Review of the October 2005 draft Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan to update and consolidate resource conservation policies, including amendments to the Conservation, Open Space, Land Use, Energy Conservation, Circulation, and Water and Wastewater Management Elements; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Continued from November 30, 2005. Michael Draze, Deputy Community Development. Director, presented the staff report recommending further review of the proposed General Plan Amendments, with emphasis on the Open Space and Land Use Elements. ��/D Attachment 5 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#2 BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner(781-7522) MEETING DATE: December 14, 2005 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Plann'r :F,, (� FILE NUMBER: GP/R/ER 78-05 PROJECT ADDRESS; 3210, 3212, 3220, 3230, 3240 Broad Street SUBJECT: General Plan map amendment.and rezone from Neighborhood Commercial.Special Considerations (C-N-S) to Community Commercial Special Considerations (C-C-S) for the Village Marketplace, and environmental review. 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 Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and approving a Negative Declaration (ER 78-05). 2. Adopt an ordinance changing the zoning on the subject property from Neighborhood Commercial Special Considerations (C-N-S) to Community Commercial Special Considerations (C-C-S). 3. Adopt a Master Use Permit to allow a refined land use list for the site. BACKGROUND Situation The applicant would like to expand the list of allowable land uses for the neighborhood shopping center known as the Village Marketplace at the corner of Broad Street and Orcutt Road. Originally, the applicant explored the possibility of adopting a Planned Development (PD) zone for.the property instead of rezoning. These options were discussed at the Planning Commission Hearing on September 28, 2005 (Attachments 3, 4 and 5). The Planning Commission recommended the applicant pursue the rezoning instead of a PD since the PD would not have allowed the applicant's desired range of land uses. Now, the applicant would like to amend the Land use and zoning maps for the property from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial as recommended by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's action would be a recommendation to the City Council. Attachment 5 GP/R 78-05 3210 Broad Street Paget Data Summary Address: 3210 Broad Street-base address (Also includes 3212, 3220, 3230, and 3240 Broad) Applicant: Dan Lemburg Zoning: Neighborhood-Commercial with the Special Considerations overlay(C-N-S) General Plan: Neighborhood Commercial Environmental status: Staff has prepared an initial study and has determined that the proposed land use amendment will result in less than significant impacts. Site Description The site consists of four parcels with new commercial retail and mixed use development, 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. Project Description The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to allow additional commercial land uses that are currently not allowed in the C-N Zoning District. The proposed land use list is included as Attachment 2. No physical changes are proposed to the site or existing development. The attached Planning Commission staff report from September 28's contains additional project history and in-depth description. EVALUATION General Plan Consistency Unlike the C-N zone, the C-C zone is intended to serve the entire community instead of adjacent residential neighbors. As discussed in the General Plan, the definition of the C-C zone is as follows: LU 3.3.1: Purpose and Included Uses (Community Commercial) Areas for shopping centers that serve community-wide needs are designated Community Commercial. Community commercial areas are intended to provide for a wide range of retail sales and personal services within the context of distinctive, pedestrian oriented shopping centers that serve customers and clients from all over the City. These centers may accommodate retail uses of a larger scale that would be inappropriate in the downtown, but proposed uses will be reviewed to ensure that they will not detract from the role of the downtown as the City's primary concentration of specialty stores. Staff believes that this location, bounded by two arterial roadways in the midst of a rapidly expanding residential and commercial services area is consistent with the General Plan �r/� Attachment 5 GP/R 78-05 3210 Broad Street Page 3 description of C-C. It is a location that currently acts as a community-wide center. However, given the site's small size and adjacency to a wide range of high density housing, the full range of uses allowed in the C-C zone may not be appropriate. Staff believes that the land use list should be developed to ensure a careful balance between community-wide and neighborhood-serving uses. Staff has prepared a refined use list that would be consistent with the desired character and appropriate scale of uses envisioned for this site (Attachment 2). The refined land use list should be adopted with a Master Use Permit (MUP) and an S overlay zone could remain at the property to indicate the restricted use list. Since the previous PC hearing for this item, adjacent properties fronting Orcutt Road and Broad Street have been recommended to be rezoned to C-C as part pf the 4-creeks project. Rezoning the property at the corner of Broad and Orcutt with this application would complete a logical C-C district. The map below identifies the project area and current zoning designation for this application and the adjacent portions of the 4-Creeks project. C-S ----- EC-S ORCUTT j 1 .,-S-P C-N-S Current rezone request 3210 Broad Q Future consideration \ for 4 creeks project C-S- l Future consideration for 4 creeks project Residential uses At the previous PC hearing, Commissioners expressed concern that the new zoning designation would not allow residential uses to be retained or developed in the future on this site. However, just like the existing C-N zone, the C-C allows residential mixed use projects. In fact, the C-C zone allows for 36 residential units per acre, while the existing C-N zone only allows for 12 residential units per acre. There are currently two residential units on site that would remain in a conforming status following rezoning of the property. If the site could accommodate additional parking and site improvements in the future, options will remain to add more residential units. ��/� Attachment 5 GP/R 78-05 3210 Broad Street Page 4 Special Considerations Overlay Zone As mentioned above, the existing S-overlay zone should remain if the property is re-zoned. The purpose of the S-overlay is to trigger review of new land uses for consistency with a refined land use list for the property. Rather than require a use permit for every new land use, however, an MUP would allow the City to adopt a refined land use list that would cover future occupancy changes. The MUP could be used to eliminate the possibility of larger scale retail uses, ground floor offices and other uses that would be incompatible with a relatively small scale Community Commercial zone. If the Planning Commission supports the re-zoning, the applicant will need to proceed to the City Council where the MUP could also be approved, eliminating the necessity for a future hearing. Environmental Review A Negative Declaration was prepared for this request. A request to rezone a property is a project under CE-QA and therefore subject to environmental review. Staff has prepared an Initial Study for the project and no significant impacts or proposed mitigation measures were identified. The C-C zone does not significantly alter allowed land uses, or modify allowed property development standards such as height and coverage. CONCLUSION With the continuing development of residential neighborhoods in close proximity to this site, its purpose as a community (and neighborhood) serving shopping center is becoming more significant. The Planning Commission and City Council have already endorsed a General Plan and zoning map change to C-C for properties bordering both sides of this site. This application will add to the previous approvals to create a logically sized C-C district. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the item for additional analysis or discussion. The Planning Commission should direct staff and the applicant as to the specific information required. 2. Consider a resolution to deny the proposed rezoning therefore leaving the property as C- NS, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations. The denial should be accompanied by a recommended course of action. The Planning Commission will also need to consider recent action taken on the 4-creeks project and how a denial would impact the future land use pattern. A'tachment 5 GP/R 78-05 3210 Broad Street Page 5 Attached: 1. Vicinity Map 2. proposed use list 3. Planning Commission staff report September 28, 2005 4. Meeting minutes, September 28, 2005 5. Action letter, September 28, 2005 6. List of allowed uses under C-N zone. 7. List of allowed uses under C-C zone. 8. Environmental Initial Study 9. Draft Resolution recommending approval of the General Plan amendment and rezone to the City Council. GAPdunsmore\Remning&PDs\78-05(Lemburg)\78-05 PC rpt. 12-14-05.doc y-/5 Attachment 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIS_ T FORM For ER#78-05 1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Village Marketplace 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, Associate Planner(805) 781-7522 4. Project Location: 3210, 3212, 3220, 3230, 3240 Broad Street .5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Dan Lemburg 3212 Broad Street,Suite 200, San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial 7. Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial Special Considerations (C-N-S) 8. Description of the Project: General Plan Amendment and Rezone to change the property's General Plan designation from Neighborhood Commercial Special Considerations (C-N-S) to Community Commercial Special Considerations (C-C-S) to allow a modified and expanded land use list for existing and proposed tenants. No physical site changes are proposed as part of this application at this time. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The site consists of four parcels with new commercial retail and mixed use development, 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. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: The project proposes the following: 1. General Plan Amendment and zone change to change the zoning from C-N-S to C-C-S. - � Attachment 6 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 Attachment 6 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. Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources 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 X There 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. 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)). /U CITY OF SAN LUIS OelsaO 3 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CKECKLJST 2005 Attachment 6 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 prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant' impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect.(1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that 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 mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing.further is required. S' Date �ZA4d a3 C1440%1 For:John Mandeville, Printed Name Community Development Director CRY OF SAN.Luis Omspo 4 INITIAL STW*ENVIRONMENTAL CHEckusT 2005 Attachment 6 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 Code of Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. y-� CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 Issues, Discussion and Supportil.,, .nformation Sources sources Pott. Jy Potentially lrss Than No Dan Lemburg/Village Marketplace GP/R 78-05 significant significant significant Impact ER#78-05 Issues unless impact Mitigation Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? __X_ b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited _X_ 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? Evaluation Broad Street, otherwise known as Highway 227 is considered a scenic corridor as noted within the City's Circulation Element, however rezoning of the property will not alter the physical characteristics of the property, only the uses that will occupy the existing tenant spaces. Planning entitlements and building permits have already been issued for the property consistent with the current C-N zoning. Rezoning will not change the appearance of the approved development,therefore aesthetic values will not be impacted. Conclusion No impacts to aesthetic resources are anticipated. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: 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? Evaluation The existing site and vicinity is not considered prime farmland nor is it recognized as prime farmland as shown on maps pursuant to the California Resources Agency. The property is a small, completely developed site currently identified as Neighborhood Commercial property in the General plan and currently adjacent to developed commercial properties and public streets. No impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources are anticipated with a general plan amendment and zoning re-classification of the project site. Conclusion No impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or 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? . CrrY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKuST 2005 Aftachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Supportit.,, information Sources sources Pot. Ay Potentially Less Than No Dan Lemburg/Village Marketplace GP/R 78-05 significant significant Significant impact ER#78 05 issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for 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 ozoneprecursors)? Evaluation The purpose of this environmental review is to analyze a land use and zone change classification of this property only. No plans are currently proposed for development or re-development of the subject property. Impacts from future development, including but not limited remodeling of the existing structures, has the potential to create dust and vehicle emissions that may exceed air quality standards for a temporary and intermittent periods. Such impacts would be reviewed upon receipt of plans to re-develop the site and will be subject to normal air quality conditions for demolition and construction. Conclusion The proposed re-zoning would allow the existing land uses to remain in a conforming status and therefore it is anticipated to create no additional impacts to air quality. In addition, future uses would have similar number of auto trips to and from the site. Construction or demolition activities are not currently proposed. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: 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 -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? Evaluation 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, approved and constructed for this property under the current Commercial 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. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT 2005 Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Supportiu.,, ,nformation Sources Sources Potc. Aly PotentiallyIessThan, No Dan Lemburg/Village Marketplace GP/R 78-05 Significant Significant Significant hnpact ER#78 05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Conclusion No impacts to Biological resources are anticipated. S.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: 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__ archaeological 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? Evaluation The property does not contain any known historic resources or former historic structures and not new construction or development is proposed with this application. The site is substantially covered with existing improvements including asphalt driveways and retail commercial buildings. No known archeological sites exist on or adjacent to the project site. A search of City maps and archeological sites has not revealed any known pre- historic or historic site history. No known paleontological sites exist within the project site or vicinity. At this time no construction,grading activities or site changes are proposed. Conclusion No impacts to Cultural Resources are anticipated. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: 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? Evaluation No known mineral resources are known to the project site or immediate vicinity. A change in land use from tourist service uses to service commercial uses does not substantially modify the development potential of a lot of this size. Conclusion No impacts to energy and mineral resources are anticipated. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse __X_ 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? 11. 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— y-�3 CRY OF SAN Luis Owspo 8 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2005 Attachm n 6 Issues, Discussion and Supportii.,, information Sources Sources Poa ply Potmtiauy Less Than No Dan Lemburg/Village Marketplace GP/R 78-05 Significant significant significant Impact ER#78 05 Issues Unless impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence, 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? Evaluation As stated previously, this application does not entitle additional development, construction or grading. There are no known fault lines on the site or in the immediate vicinity. However, there are active faults within 5 miles north of the project area. The fault system is within the Los Osos Valley area and is known as the Los Osos/Hosgri fault. 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 compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code. If construction is proposed in the future,the City's construction permit process insures compliance with the Uniform Building Code. The project is not likely to result in the loss of topsoil or substantial erosion since the project does not involve the grading of slopes or existing site topography. Moderately expansive soils are common in the project vicinity. If there is new construction in the future, all new construction will require a City building permit, and therefore require construction that will meet or exceed building code standards for these soils. As proposed, the project to amend the land use map to allow a change in the land use is not likely to create significant impacts to area geology or soils. Conclusion No impacts to geology or soils is anticipated. & HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the r( 'ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment _X__ through 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 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 pian,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? CnY OF SAN Luis OsisPo 9 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKLisT 2005 Aftarhminn 6 Issues, Discussion and Supportin5 information Sources Sources Pote,._rly Potentially Less Than No Dan Lemburg/Village Marketplace GP/R 78-05 Significant significant Significant Impact ER#7&05 Issues Unless impact Mitigation Incorporated g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the --X-- adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation per? 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? Evaluation Amending the land use map from Neighborhood to Community Commercial will not extensively alter the type of land uses that will be allowed at this location. The Community Commercial designation is not likely to increase the opportunities for hazards or hazardous materials to be introduced to the property. Conclusion No impacts associated with hazards or hazardous materials are anticipated. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject: 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(e.g.The production rate of pre-existing 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 which would exceed the —X-- capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters (including,but not limited to,wetlands,riparian areas,ponds, springs,creeks,streams,rivers,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays, ocean,etc.)? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or —X— area in a manner which 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 trap? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which —X— would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into —X-- ground or surface waters? i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity? Evaluation 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. CITY OF SAN LUIS OeisPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 ftac'r,lnenf o Issues, Discussion and Supportit.y information Sources Sources Pote.._.Ay Potentially Less Than No Dan Lembtug/Village Marketplace GP/R 78-05 Significant significant significant Impact ER#78-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorpotuted The project site is within an "A" flood zone as identified on City maintained flood maps. "A" flood zones are considered areas subject to some level of flooding during a 100 year storm event. A change in land use is not Rely to create additional impacts to (or from) the flood zone. In this case a land use change will not allow a larger building envelope or intensified site development other than what is currently allowed under the existing district. If new construction is proposed in the future,the project will be required to utilize Best Management Practices in handling site drainage and runoff. The building code and City Policies will require the project's drainage to be directed towards the Public Right of Way in order to eliminate the potential for cross lot drainage and off-site impacts. Conclusion No impacts associated with hydrology or water quality are anticipated. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject: 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? c) Conflict Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural _X__ community conservationplans? Evaluation The proposal involves changing the Land Use designation of the property to increase the flexibility in allowable land uses. Since the scope of the land use change involves changing the existing land use map from one commercial zoning to another commercial zoning, no significant changes in the range of allowed uses is anticipated. The size and configuration of the site will also define the limitations of allowable land uses, thereby preventing large scale retail uses. The subject parcels are zoned with a Special Considerations (S) overlay zone to ensure that new land uses will not conflict with General Plan Policies for neighborhood compatibility since the site is in close proximity to existing and proposed high density residential neighborhoods. The S overlay requires an Administrative Use Permit prior to any new use or change in occupancy within an existing space. The S overlay zone is also intended to assure compatibility of a new use with its surroundings or to determine if a proposed development solves problems such as flood hazards, noise exposure or to protect areas of scenic value. The rezoning of this site will retain the S overlay zone and a Master Use Permit will be required prior to final adoption of the zoning map change. Conclusion Re-zoning the property with an "S" overlay will require new uses at the property to be reviewed for known site- specific concerns and to ensure land uses comply with the master use permit. Less than significant impacts are anticipated to land use and planning. The S overlay component is already included in the project description and a mitigation measure is not necessary. 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-- Crrr OF SAN LUIS CBIsPO 1 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Supportit.y Information Sources Sources Pote....dly Potentially Less Than No Dan I.emburg/Village Marketplace GP/R 78-05 Significant Significant Significant impact ER#78-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or or groundbome 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? Evaluation The rezoning by itself does not raise any concerns regarding noise exposure. All 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. A change in the land use designation is not anticipated to generate noise impacts or increases in existing ambient noise levels. Conclusion No impacts associated with noise exposure to people are anticipated to occur with the proposed project. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrasmicture)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people --X— necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Evaluation 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. The amendment would not eliminate existing housing stock or reduce the potential for residential uses in the future since the existing and proposed land use designation allows for residential projects. The project will not displace residents nor introduce population growth since it involves the only the re-zoning of a small site already developed with existing commercial spaces and two residential units. Conclusion No impacts to population or housing are likely to occur with the proposed General Plan Amendment. 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-- Evaluation The project will not create significant impacts to local public services since it is currently a developed site within a developed area of the City that is currently served by City utilities and associated infrastructure. No significant changes to the site are proposed with the amendment of the land use map at this time. The sites size and Cml OF SAN LUIS Owspo 12 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 A¢ta%I hent 6 Issues, Discussion and Supportirty ,nformation Sources Sources Pote.. .ty Potentially Less Than No Dan Lemburg/Village Marketplace GP/R 78-05 significant Significant Significant Impact ER#78-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco rated proposed zoning would allow only minor site changes that would create less than significant impacts to public services. Conclusion No impacts to public services are associated with the proposed General Plan amendment. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: 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? Evaluation The project does not trigger park impacts or affect the use of recreational facilities since it is only a request to rezone the property to allow a use of similar intensity. Conclusion No impacts to recreation facilities are anticipated. 15. TRANSPORTATION/PRAFFIC. Would theproject: 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)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 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 trafficpatterns? Evaluation The land use amendment will ultimately result in the site being utilized for uses of similar intensity. At this time,no circulation changes to access are proposed, and the rezoning of the property is not anticipated to increase or change traffic flow to the site. If additional or new development is proposed in the future, additional traffic analysis may be required, pursuant to the Special Considerations (S) overlay zone requirements (see discussion and mitigation under Land Use and Planning Section 10 above). In addition, elimination or modification of driveways may be appropriate depending on the type of improvements that will be constructed at this site in the future. Conclusion The proposed General Plan amendment and subsequent zone change is not likely to create significant impacts to area transportation or traffic. r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 Aftachlnent 5 Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Potel. -1y Potentially less Than No Dan Lemburg/Village Marketplace GP/R 78-05 significant significant significant hnpact ER#78-05 Issues Unless lmpact Mitigation Incorporated 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect: 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 treatment,waste waste water treatment,water quality control,or storm drainage facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing 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 in addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations related to to solid waste? FT Evaluation The General Plan amendment/zone change will result in a similar development potential for the property than the existing land use designation allows and the property is currently developed with existing utilities and service systems. No changes to existing or future demands on utilities and service systems are anticipated. Conclusion In Summary the project is anticipated to create no impacts to utilities and service systems. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the --X— environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? N/A 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 futureprojects) N/A c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause --X-- substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? N/A 7 �� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 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. N/A 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. N/A 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,December 2004 2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,November 1994 3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996 4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000 5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation Element,July 1973 6. City of SLO General Plan Energy Conservation Element,Aril 1981 7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,July 1996 8. City of SLO General Plan EIR 1994 for Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements 9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 10. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database 11. Site Visit 12. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service,Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County 13. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: htt J/www.consrv.ca. ov/d /FMMP/ 14. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District, 1995 15. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook,May 1996 16. 2001 City of San Luis Obispo Water Resources Report 17. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development Department 18. City of San Luis Obispo,Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development Department 19. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma 20. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma 21. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element,on file in the Utilities Department 22. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990 23. Flood Insurance Rate M (Community Panel 0603100005 C)dated July 7, 1981 24. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan 25. Architectural Review Guidelines 26. 2004 Uniform Building Code All documents listed above are available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,California(805)781-7522. Attachment 1: Vicinity Map y -3v Attachment 7 RESOLUTION NO. (2006 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING IN CONCEPT AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS FROM C-N-S TO C-C-S AND APPROVAL OF A MASTER USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY AT 3210,32129 3220,3230,3240 BROAD STREET GP/R/ER 78-05 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 December 14, 2005 and voted to recommend approval of map amendments pursuant to application GP/R/ER 78-05,John S. Frangie, applicant; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on February 21, 2006, for the purpose of considering Application GP/R/ER 78-05; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project; and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the recommendation of the Planning Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential 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 Community Commercial zoning, which designate such districts for locations that are appropriate to serve the community in its entirety rather than just the adjacent neighborhood. 3. The existing property is not suited to remain restricted to neighborhood serving uses (C-N zoning) since the location of the site at the comer of high volume arterial roadways acts as a community-wide center accessible to users from a wide region of the City. 4. This project site is subject to criteria which clearly necessitate an S overlay zone in order to ensure adequate review and create a specifically refined list of allowed land uses. The y� Council Resolution No. (2006 ..dries) Attachment 7 Village Marketplace C-C-S rezone Page 2 commercial center's proximity to a creek, the size and configuration of the property and adjacent high density residential uses warrant the refined land use list. 5. A master use permit is appropriate for the site to allow for streamlined approval of appropriate uses as listed within the refined allowed use list as found in attached Exhibit B. SECTION 2. Action. The Council does hereby approve the proposed General Plan amendment, Rezone and Master Use Permit in concept, as shown on attached Exhibits A and B, and directs staff to return the project to Council with a resolution approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element Map, and an ordinance changing the zoning of the subject property. Conditions: 1. The Master Use Permit shall refine the land use list for the Community Commercial zone for the properties subject to this resolution. Approval of the Master Use Permit will eliminate the need for Administrative Use Permit approval only for those uses listed within the allowed use section of the land use list in attached exhibit B. All other listed uses shall require a Use Permit. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2006. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jon Lowell, City Attorney y-3a A" Ichment 7 Exhibit A General Plan and Zoning Map Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial with Special Considerations for 3210, 3212, 3220, 3230, 3240 Broad Street (GP/R/ER 78-05) C �� C-S -S M ORCUTT\ Current rezone request 3210 Broad mS Previously changed to C-C-S C-S- rV RPDA , Previously changed to C-C-S a �'` P, lchment. 7 ExhibitB Use list for 3210, 3212, 3220, 3230, 3240 Broad Street, Community Commercial-Special Consideration (GP/R/ER 18-05) L.Allowed Uses: °ATMs °Auto parts sales, without installation °Banks and financial services °Building and landscape materials sales,indoor °Caretaker quarters °Convenience store °Copying and quick printer service °Day care—Day care center °Furniture, furnishings, and appliance stores °General retail—2,000 sf or less °Groceries, liquor, specialty foods ° Medical service—Doctor office not allowed on ground floor) • Mixed-use project ° Office—Accessory ° Office—Business and Service (not allowed on ground floor) ° Office—Production and administrative (not allowed on ground floor) ° Office—Professional (not allowed on ground-floor) ° Office-supporting retail; 2,000 sf or less °Personal services °Photographer, photographic studio ° Residential support services ° Restaurant ° Social service organization °Transit stop ° Vending machine (See Section 17.08.050) ° Veterinary clinic/hospital, boarding, small animal, indoor Uses Allowed with Director's or Chief Building Official's Approval by Letter: ° Office—Temporary, real-estate sales office in tract ° Office—Temporary, on-site mobile home as a construction office ° Outdoor temporary and/or seasonal sales Uses Allowed with Director's Approval Use Permit: °Bar/tavern °Business Support Services Club, lodge, private.meeting hall ° Commercial recreation facility—Indoor °Extended hour retail °Fitness/health facilities °General retail —More than 2,000 sf, up to 15,000 sf °Library, museum ° Library, branch facility 7 Attachment 7 ° Medical service—Clinic, laboratory, urgent care ° Medical service—Doctor office ° Office—Temporary, mobile home as a construction office not located on-site ° Office-supporting retail, More than 2,000 sf, up to 5,000 sf ° Parades, Carnivals, Fairs, Festivals Religious facility ° School—Specialized education/training ° Special event ° Studio—Art, dance, martial arts, music, etc. °Temporary or Intermittent Uses 4.Uses Allowed with Planning Commission Approval: °Antennas and telecommunications facilities °Homeless shelter y-3�5 Page 1 of 1 SLO Citycouncil-Minimum Lot oizes From: "Jim Smith" <jimsmith@theloanguy.com> EFEB EIVED To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org> 2 ZQ06Date: 2/17/2006 11:11 AMSubject: Minimum Lot Sizes CLERK Dear City Council Members: I have reviewed the arguments regarding changing the minimum lot size for residential and office zoned properties, and support lowering the minimum lot size to 5000 square feet for R-1 through R-4 and O zoned properties. Although the City Staff has recommended against including the R-1 zone in this change, including R-1 will make it possible for a few more lots to be subdivided for the creation of much needed housing. Please vote for reducing the minimum lot sizes to 5000 square feet when you review this topic next week. Sincerely, Jim Smith Secretary/Treasurer San Luis Obispo Association of Realtors CC ', W>4a CA-L tAo Lc�w6C�-- t PU& s^,4-Q file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 2/22/2006 Page 1 of l SLO Citycouncil-Citywide amendments to the Subdivision Regulations From: "Steve Delmartini" <del@fix.net> FEB 2 2 2006 To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org> Date: 2/20/2006 10:14 AM SLO CITY CLERK Subject: Citywide amendments to the Subdivision Regulations To Mayor Dave Romero and Council members, First, I want to let you know that I was the only person at the January 11,2006 Planning Commission meeting when this was discussed as an agenda item. I was there to respond to any questions the Planning Commission may have had in response to the questions,comments and suggestions that had been e-mailed to them on behalf of the San Luis Obispo association of Realtors. I thought it was interesting that no other community groups were there for this discussion,although I would be assume there was written correspondence Second,We believe the Council should really take a look at the possibility of creating the ability to have lots in the R-1 zone of 5,000 square feet.As stated in the staff report this would allow the potential to create eight lots per acre which is just one lot more than the current standards allow.We are certainly aware that this would cause an amendment to the General Plan, but we believe the spirit of the last adopted Land Use Element was direction towards more density. I did attend about 20 of the approx.26 land use meetings that took place. We also understand the concern that this may cause the belief that all the 10,000(and greater)square foot lots in San Luis Obispo will have the ability to be subdivided.This may be true but we hardly think that much will happen in most areas around town due to this change.We agree with the staff report that both Foothill Blvd..and Johnson Ave.corridors would be the subject of lot splitting due to the fact there are R-1 zoned lots of a quarter acre or more.Our opinion is this might be a good place for this to happen. Please take note of the first paragraph on page 3-5 under the"General Plan Density"to see if you agree with the staff remarks. It is stated that current lot size standards for R-1 are designed to allow six to seven lots per acre.The standard is specific,there are seven°units°or lots allowed in an R-1 zone.Again, as stated reducing the lot size to 5000 square feet creates the ability to have eight"units"or lots per acre.This is where we think it gets interesting or confusing,the General Plan assumes that R-1 property will accommodate no more than 20 persons,or 2.85 people for each lot at seven lots per acre.The next sentence says"if a one acre property were to be developed with eight 4-bedroom homes(which could potentially house more than 30 people per acre)the anticipated General Plan population for the Low-Density Residential districts would be exceeded".The question is,why isn't the same theory used for seven-lots allowing seven 4-bedroom homes that would accommodate 28 people or using the other number,2.85 people for eight lots would accommodate 22.8 people vs.20 people? Its as if it is trying to be said that you can't build four bedroom homes if there are seven lots and if there are eight lots allowed you will be overrun with people,as if having seven lots is more restrictive to build out than eight lots.The reality is one could have all one bedroom homes or all six bedroom homes,or any mix in-between in an R-1 zone. So you could have seven people living there or 42,due to the fact that you are not regulated in an R-1 zone to how many bedrooms can be included on that parcel,assuming it is owner occupied. If our understanding of the above is incorrect then staff can straighten it out for us next Tuesday at the meeting. We have had a couple meetings on this subject and submitted comments to the Planning Commission. It is taken seriously by our association. We will be bringing some of our thoughts and concerns regarding the condo conversion that evening,unless we gat something to you sooner. Thank you for your time. Steve Delmartini,on behalf of the San Luis Obispo Association of Realtors. C 00 CJ,4U l4'C.�4V 40 ELL m#+kJ615LiCLE AV usw�.c� file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSetbngs\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 2/22/2006 Page 1 of 1 Barbara Ehrbar-Minimum Lot bites From: "Jim Smith" <jimsmfth@theloanguy.com> RECEIVED To: <siocitycouncil@slocity.org> Date: 2/17/2006 11:11 AM Fc8 2 2 2005 Subject: Minimum Lot Sizes SLO CITY CLERK Dear City Council Members: I have reviewed the arguments regarding changing the minimum lot size for residential and office zoned properties,and support lowering the minimum lot size to 5000 square feet for R-1 through R-4 and O zoned properties. Although the City Staff has recommended against including the R-1 zone in this change, including R-1 will make it possible for a few more lots to be subdivided for the creation of much needed housing. Please vote for reducing the minimum lot sizes to 5000 square feet when you review this topic next week. (�: C 4.) Sincerely, pre 4wo ".qA-e- Jim Smith "weLL I ' - Secretary/Treasurer y O,y -f-o L San Luis Luis Obispo Association of Realtors file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 2/22/2006 RECEIVED From: Sandra Rowley<macsar99@yahoo.com> FEB 21 2006 To: Dave Romero<dRomero@SLOcity.org>,Allen Settle<aSettle@SLOcity.org>,Paul Brown SLO CITY CLERK <pbrown@slocity.org>,John Ewan<jEwan@SLOcity.org>,Christine Mulholland<cMulholl c Date: 2/20/2006 6:53 PM Subject: *Revised*RQN Comments on Rezoning Request(Village Marketplace) CC: Ken Hampian<kHampian@SLOcity.org> Dear Mr.Mayor and City Council Members, After I sent you the RQN letter,I re-read it and determined I had erroneously omitted part of the last sentence in both the first and last paragraphs. The letter is reproduced below with the previously missing parts in bold. h Q0 " I 2-CCUNCIL 2-CDD DIR Thanks for your consideration, 2-CAO Q FIN DIR Sandy Rowley MEETING AGENDA E�-ACAO r:;-FIRECHIEF DATE:February 20,2006 GATE 02-41.90ab ITEM # p44#Al 2-ATTORNEY aPW DIR O-C ERK/ORIG C;-POLICE CHf To:San Luis Obispo City Council ❑ DEPT HEADS E?REC DIR vu:Fax: to 781-7109 2-UTIL DIR RE:Meeting Date:February 21,2006 2-HR DIR Item#PH 4:GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD-COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY-COMMERCIAL SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY AT 3210 THROUGH 3240 BROAD STREET(Village Marketplace) Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, The applicant is in a unique position in that this site is at the comer of an arterial road and a regional highway,across the street from an R-2 planned development, and soon to be adjacent to and connected directly (or indirectly through the Creekston project) to 264 high density residences.That the applicant wishes to expand the allowed uses on this property is understandable and staff has devised a custom land use plan to provide some community-serving options in addition to the neighborhood-serving uses.However,a few of these added uses are not neighborhood friendly and we recommend they be removed from the proposed use list for this property. Residents of these neighborhoods could suffer continuing negative impacts if the following uses were allowed. 1. Bar/tavem. RQN has the most concern about this item because of the connectivity to residences and the potential for vandalism and nuisance behaviors. The city has made a conscious effort to concentrate bars in the downtown. This policy allows customers to explore various venues and permits a rapid response of law enforcement officers if needed,thus curtailing potential escalation of trouble.There is potential for a grouping of bars at this location since the proposed list,of uses for the Creekston project also includes a bar. In addition to quality of life,enforcement and parking issues, having a bar close-by may make these residential developments more attractive to partiers and less attractive to the people we're supposedly building this housing for. 2. Parades, Carnivals, Fairs, Festivals. Although this is an allowed use in a neighborhood-commercial zone, because of potential parking spill-over into residential spaces,and problems with ingress/egress to the site,recommend it not be included. 3. Veterinary clinicthospital, boarding, small animal, indoor. If the Council wants to include this as a use, recommend eliminating the ability to board dogs(other than those which are sick/injured)and moving the item from"Allowed Uses"to"Uses Allowed with Director's Approval Use Permit"because of the potential for noise and odor,and the existence of hazardous waste. 4. Fitness/health facilities. Since Tumbling Waters (178 homes) has a fitness facility as part of the development per comments by Jim Murar,this use appears to serve the community at large rather than the neighborhoods. It may,depending on the size, hours of operation, number of classes and the volume.at which music is played,have a detrimental effect on residents'parking areas and their quality of life. Although the Community-Commercial zone is meant to apply to places such as the Marigold Center,since other properties adjacent to this one have been rezoned C-C-S,it seems appropriate that this request for zoning change also be approved. However,it is equally important to consider the site's proximity to homes and to carefully assess proposed uses against a neighborhood-serving standard, limiting to the extent possible any potential neighborhood nuisances;removing the above items accomplishes that. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Rowley Vice Chair,RQN 000000 0000000 905 544 0426 02/21/06 1O:seam P. 001 f W Residents for Quality Neighborhoods P.O. Box 12604.San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 HATE: February 20,2006 TO: San Luis Obispo City Council VIA: Fax to 781-7109 RE: . Meeting Date: February 21, 2008 Item#PH 4: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE.FROM NEIGHBORHOOD-COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY-COMMERCIAL SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY AT 3210 THROUGH 3240 BROAD STREET(Village Marketplace) Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, The applicant is in a unique position in that this site is at the comer of an arterial road and a regional highway, across the street from an R-2 .planned development, and soon to be ad1acent to and connected directly (or indirectly through the Creekston project) to 284 high density residences. That the applicant wishes to expand the allowed uses on this.property is understandable and staff has devised a custom land use plan to provide some community-serving options in addition to the neighborhood-serving uses. However, a few of these added uses are not neighborhood friendly and we recommend they be removed from the proposed use list for this property. Residents of these neighborhoods could suffer continuing negative impacts if the following.uses were allowed. 1. Barltavem. RQN has the most concern about this item because of the connectivity to residences and the potential for vandalism and nuisance behaviors. The city has made a conscious effort to concentrate bars In the downtown. This policy allows customers to explore various venues and permits a rapid response of law enforcement officers if needed, thus curtailing potential escalation of trouble. There is potential for a grouping of bars at this location since the proposed iist of uses for the Creekston project also includes a bar. In addition to quality of life, enforcement and parking issues, having a bar dose-by may make these residential developments more attractive to partiers and less attractive to the people we're supposedly building this housing for. 2. Parades, Carnivals, Fairs, Festivals. Although this is an allowed use in a neighborhood-commercial zone, because of potential parking spill-over into residential spaces, and problems with ingresslegress to the site, recommend it not be included. 3. Veterinary dinicthospital, boarding, small animal, indoor. If the Council wants to include this as a use, recommend eliminating the ability to board dogs (other than those which are sickfinjured) and moving the item from "Allowed Uses" to "Uses Allowed with Director's Approval Use Permit" because of the potential for noise and odor, and the existence of hazardous waste. 4. Fitnessthealth facilities. Since Tumbling Waters(178 homes)has a fitness facility as part of the development per comments by Jim Murar,this use appears to serve the community at large rather than the neighborhoods. It may, depending on the size, hours of operation, number of Gasses and the volume at which music is played, have a detrimental effect on residents'parking areas and their quality of life. Although the Community-Commercial zone is meant to apply to places such as the Marigold Center, since other properties adjacent to this one have been rezoned C-C-S, it seems appropriate that this request for zoning change also be approved. However, it is equally important to consider the site's proximity to homes and to carefully assess proposed uses against a neighborhood-serving standard, limiting to the extent possible any potential neighborhood nuisances; removing the above items accomplishes that. Respectfully submitted. Sandra Rowley Vice Chair, RQN