HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/28/2006, PH2 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD-COMMERCIAL (C-N) TO COMMUNITY-COMMERCIAL SPECIA Council Agenda Report—GP/.--R 78-05 Page 2
Village Marketplace
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.
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. Council report, February 21, 2006
8. Draft Resolution amending General Plan Land Use Map
9. Draft Ordinance amending Zoning Map
10. Draft Resolution approving a master use permit
GAPdunsmore\Rezoning&PDs\78-05(Lemburg)\GPR 78-05 cc rpt(02-21-06).doc
a - a-
• Ingi\
►A _n'Iun Ini�
-Sol
--;100
— -
- IdII1 .111111111�l�Illlis.
•=.11111111111111111!=! !� .,.y/- � � � \� �` ♦�.` ♦` .
111111.. ♦��
i= illl'SIIII i1111s1i =R1111ii�'�'`':�`��'� „F �`� O♦�w��'♦�'♦ �'
11111111111111111111111111�11111111�- �,�h� � �® \\��\ ♦♦�♦ ;t ' . ��%
Sol
Lwl
��lj�([/It////></111111111111[/ �• icl�,ii � \��� \� ���/��
/C \ all,r
\
VICINITY MAP File No.
I
78- 05
1 1 1 1 • . r - -
Attachment 2
l 1
ORCUTT ROAD J
-t
is
• at � t '/
3 0-
3212
\
\
\ / 3120
q
0 \ "
C \ \ 3230
'ok \•\� 1
4 ice'
\\ r
3240 ••.*T' ,`
\ \
� oR , � SITE PLAN N
�10 10 70 30 \ \ \\
VILLAGE MARKETPLACE
San Luis Obispo. California �amrick Associates,Inc.
Mcititoclwa•Pluuring
r®wa�.aua.7U do
OW)7719.177
.=a -4
( Attachment 3
RESOLUTION NO. 5438-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECCOMENDING APPROVAL TO TBE 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 3210,3212,3220,3230,3240 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 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 corner 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.
a -�
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 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 by Commr. Miller, seconded by Commr. Osborne, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Miller,Loh, Carter, Osborne and Boswell
NOES: Commr. McCoy
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commr. Christianson
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 14th day of December,2005.
Ro d%isenanSecretary
Planning Commission
� � t
Attachment 4
Planning Commission Minutes
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 project, 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:
Commr. Osbome 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 man
amendment and rezone from C-N-S to C-C-S. Seconded_ by Commr. Osborne A
friendly amendment was made to move three land uses to the Administrative Use
Permit_Cateaory(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 allow 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. Osbome and Miller
ABSENT: Commr. Christianson
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carred 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. Ci 'de. 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.
w 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 Planngr (�
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 comer 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.
M ) Attachment 5
GP/R 78-05
3210 Broad Street
Page 2
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..
Proiect 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`t' 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 - l0.
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 comer 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
� LLC-S �
ORCUTT
i
-S-P C-N-S
Current rezone request
3210 Broad_
Q Future consideratim
for 4 creeks project
C-S-
D i
Future mrsideratim
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 CEQA 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-
N-S, 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.
Attachment 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\Rezoning&PDs\78-05(Umburg)\78-05 PC rpt. U-14-05.doc
CQ
Attachment 6
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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
a - � s
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)).
CRY OF SAN LUIS OBIBpo 3 INRIAL STUDY ENvIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 t _
l Vl
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) havebeen added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
reared.
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" a Date
��,y4lD L✓�j,Sekan�/ For:John Mandeville,
Printed Name Community Development Director
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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:
8) 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 nalysis.
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.
Crm OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 22005{ Q
oL- 1O
r
Issues, Discussion and Supporti .0 iformation Sources Sources Pote"-dyLlhnticomted
Less Than No
Dan Lemburg/Village Marketplace GP/R 78-05 significant Significant impact
ER#78-05 IssuesImpact
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) . Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vistas
b) - Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited" „X=
to,trees,rook outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings
within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual•character or quality,of
the site.and its surroundings?
A) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adyersely 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 s
a) .-Convert PrinidTaftiland,Up gue Farmland,or Edmland of
Y Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps
pursuant to the FarmlandMapping and Monitoring Program of. ;
the California Resources Agency,to non agricultural"use?
b} Cbnfltct with existing zonuig,for agricultural use-ora
,Williamson Actcontract?
c} Involve other changes in the existing environment which,'due to sXI
..+their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland
-to_nori=a 'cultural;uses ,5
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:
'_Violate any air quality standard or coirtritbute'substaiitially`toa V' X
existing or,projected air quality violation?_ F
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation,of the applicabo,.atrn =hX
-quality plan
c) --gipose sensitive receptors tosubstantial pollutanr'• '�
concentrations?
d)"
Create objectionable odors:affecting a`substantial number of
o le? ." m a
CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT 2005
Attachment 6
Issues, Discussion and Supporting oformation Sources sources Iy potentially Less Than No
Dan Lemburg/Village Marketplace GPlR 78-05 Significant significant Significant Impaa
ER#78-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
incorporated
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X-=
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 recur'sors)?
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. It 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 mdirettly.or 7 "
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
a. of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?'
j Have a substantial adverse effect;on any riparian habitat or
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?
Conflict-with any local policies or ordinances protecting - ' •- X
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy.or. -
ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? o
aj Interfere substantially.-with the movement of any native resident {=
.1ormigratoryfsh or wildlife species or with established native'
resident or migratory wildlife'corcidors,or impede the'use of,,.,.
wildlife nursery sites?
,e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X?a
Pian,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including,brit 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.
CRY OF SAN Lues OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005
a - 1\�
Ask
Attachment 6
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources sources poteimy Potentially Less Than No
Dan Lemburg/Village Marketplace GP/R 78-05 Significant significant significant Impact
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
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
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,
.or site or'unique geologic feature?
d) .Disturb any human remains,including those interredoutsideof y _=
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 aaopted energy conservation plans-?"
fib) Use non renewable resources in a wasteful and irieffictent X=;
mannerx_= F
c) Result m the loss of availability of a known mined Sesonice
!hat would be.ofvalue 0 the region and the residents of ftie
b 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 SOE S. Would theproject:
A) .Eitpose people or structures to potential substantial a6erse e- ~
, .:effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involvang:.
I. Rtiptdie-of aknown earthouake fault,as delineateti in the = =
[host recent Alquist-`Prio];o Earthquake Faufi Zonmg_j1'Iap r
issued by the State:Geologist for the area;orbased on other;
• substantial evidence of a known fault?
it Strongismic,ground shaking?
in. Seisfi ic-related-ground failuieJneludIng liqueraahon?
1V.=Landslides or imudflows? a L "q
_zu � ti z
-bV -Result' 'subs tialsoil.erosionor.theaossofto soli?.j =X'W
CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 8 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005
a -aA
Attachrn n 6
Issues, Discussion and SupporURMformation Sources sources Potowy Potentially Lass 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
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 locatedon 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.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the r( 'ect:
a) Create as significant hazard to the public>or the environment -X=
Through the routine use;transport or disposal of hazardiitis
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'
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
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials;,
substances,or.waste?
_e) Be located on asite which is included on a list of hazardous.
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to
the piiblic or the envtronrrient?
f3 Fora pro' located within an airport land use plan,or witbin
-iW0 miles of apublic airport,would the project result iiia safety
hazard Tor'the peoplt`xe"siding or worlds inthe" ro'ectarea?
CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 9 INmAL STUDY ENviRONmENTAL CHECKusT 2005
� -ate
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources sources Potm._.ty Potentially Less Than No
6
Dan Lemburg/Village Marketplace GP/R 78-05 significant significant significant Impact
ER#7&05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
:g) 'Impair impleon of;gr"physically,interfee with,thementatrM
_
adopted emergency response plan or;emergency,evacuation
plans
h). "Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,,Iajury,
or death;irtvolving,wildiand.hm,`including where wildi' ds are::.
adjacent to urbanized areas or"Where rest,dents'are intermixed
with
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 of waste discharge -:
•
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies of interfere
.sabstantially with groundwater reo,}i<uge such that there would bei
a'net deficit m agirii'er volume,or a lowering of the locale
r ,groundwater table level(e:g.T40 production"rate°Uprr eex'1sUn$;
? °nearby wells would drop to a'level wfgch would`not support
existing land uses for which"permits have been grant'
2� CYeate or contabute unc, w.-erivtiicliiroAt exceed
s
r ,capacity of existing'or planned storm water drainage sy*ms or w
g F:piovide.additional sources of runoffiniq4 surface watery ,
p.�a a
(ulcludtitg;but not limited to,awetlands npanaiiareasipoa(s,
it
«asprings cceeks,siteams,avers,lalcesp;gstnatYes;tidal areas;bayg s
*11, ►,etc)4171
,.
Substantially alter the existing =:
drainage pattern of the site&z
�� _
area m,a manner:wh cli v±ould res ultmzs_ubstaneia ecosion•or
a
ltatlOh�OtlSlle or.O SLtC`L r a 2 "..�,7^`
e� Substantially alter the existing dralnag pttern of the site;or - cX'
area a uianne-r;wh cl-i would res
mult fir substantial flooding
tinsite'orrgffslte?
�}
fy AlaGe hotisingwltliin'a ld0 year flood�bazar�f+rea as mapped,() = '
,`aFederal;Floatl klazatil Boundary brflob Insurance Rate Map;k.
`o> otber flood hazard dehneafion ":
g)
Alf
iPLuae widen a 1{10 year flood tiazardmrea-sttucti res which
would impe(k, redirect flood flews?
fit) W311 the projeut mtroducd typical storrh water pollutants inio
_
gmund for surface waters-
i-:' ill the eroded alter ground water,or surface waterquality' r:
_fehip ved okykeii or.ttirbidi
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.
CRY OF SAN Luls Oaispo 10 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcKusT 2005
'Q , O's
Attac"mcnt 6
Issues, Discussion and Supportin formation Sources Sources Po te__�y Potentially Less Than No
Dan Lemburgt Village Marketplace GP/R 78-05 significant Significant significant Impact
ER#78-05 Issues Unless hnpact
Mitigation
Incorporated
The project site is within an "A' flood zone as identified on City maintained flood reaps. "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
likely 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? =-X=
c) 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 - - -=
'-levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise,, .
Eletnent,or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
A substantial temp9rary,_periodicZ or man increase in.
Crry OF SAN Luis OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHFcKusT 2005�i
0 1
Attachment 6
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources sources Pofo. y Potentially Less Than No
Dan Lemburg/Village Marketplace GP/R 78-05 significant significant significant impact
ER#78-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
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?
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 I :-
{for example by proposing new homes or businesses) .or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infiastructure)?-
4) ,Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people,
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?
b) 'Police protection? :=L
c) Schools?
d) Partes?
t) Roads and other transportation infrastructure?'
Other publicfacilities?
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
CRY OF SAN LUIS 08isp0 12 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKusT 2005
a - Xs
Attachment 6
Issues, Discussion and Supportiny ififormation Sources sources Pote._. y Potentially Less Than No
Dan Lernburg/Village Marketplace GP/R 78-05 significant SiIssues Unless ficaunlessnt significant Impact
ER#78-05 Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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
otfier recreational facilities such that substantial P'hysrcal-
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?.
b.); 'Include recreational facilities or require'the construction`or ='X-
expansion,of recreational facilities,which rtiight have an'adverse'
ti sicM effect on the.environment? 7 '_
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. TRANSPORTATIONfMFFIC. Would theproject:
pa) <,Cause ad increfise id traffic which. s"substantial in relation to the,:` =X'
existing traffic"load and capacity of the street syitem�
. sa
j'Ext:eed�either mdivilually'or cutnulafively,a level�service 'X
`� standard esta6listteil by the county congestion inanagetnet►2
—agency for designated roads and h gbwaya')
c) .Substantially increase hazards clue`to design"features Ca g,sharp
T .curves or.dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses;(e�.g �.
`. f trm'equipment).7
d)
,Fketol rn ii adetjuate emergency access? ? i,
°.'Re"sulr io inadequateparkingcapacity onsrte+6r of}site G '
kf)
Conflict witli adopted policies supportingaltertiattvc
�: .ttanspotation nn
(e.g.:bus ttduts,bicycle racks) x w
g) _Conflict with the with..San Luis Obispo 1✓outuq Atrpdrt L
' Use Plan resulting in gubstantial safety.risks from hazards;,norse
..or a char e.utrair traffic pattern ?
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.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKus7 2005
C �
Attachment 6
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources sources Pott._-- y Potentially Less Than No
Dan Lemburg/Village Marketplace GP/R 78-05 Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#78-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
16.UTHATIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? -
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water -X
treatment,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 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 =X-;
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations =X77
-related to solid.waste?
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)'
Doesthe project have the potential to degrade the quality of the'" X
environment;substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
;.nspecies,�cause a fish or'wildlife population to drop below self
sustaining levels,,threaten to eliminate-a plant orani'mal
•community,ieduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant f
or animal or eliminate important examples o
>`the major penods of California history or prehistory?
N/A
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable,"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects,and the-effects of probable .
:futureprojects)
N/A
G) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause +-- 'X
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or
indirectl T
e
N/A
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 14 INmAL STUDY ENviRoNMENTAL CHEcKusT 20050
D ' p 05t
Attachment 6
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,April 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:
http://www.c nsrv.ca. ov/d /FMIvIP/
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 Map
20. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map
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 ort 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
J Attachment 7
Council M�,D�
j acenaa Report ,�Huba
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct
Prepared By: Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FROM NIEGHBORHOOD
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
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). The resolution directs 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 late February or March 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 comer 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
a -
r J ( J Attachment 7
Council Agenda Report—GP/R/ER 78-05
Village Marketplace
Page 2
zoning designations from C-N-S to C-C-S, based on findings, conditions and mitigation measures
(Attachments 3, 4 and 5). The recommendation includes a 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 remained 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.
a��
J ( ) Attachment 7
Council Agenda Report—GP/R/ER 78-05
Village Marketplace
Page 3
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 hours. 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 additionally 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 EMPACT
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.
Attachment 7
Council Agenda Report-GP/R/ER 78-05
Village Marketplace
Page 4
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\19-05(Fmngie)\GPR 19-05 rpt(07-05-05).doc
a �3 �
Attachment 8
RESOLUTION NO. (2006 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP FROM NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
FOR PROPERTY AT 3210,32129 32209 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, Dan Lemburg, 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 and February 28, 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
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.
- 53
Attachment 8
Council Resolution No. (2000 Series)
Village Marketplace C-C-S rezone
Page 2
SECTION 2. Action.
The Council does hereby approve the proposed General Plan amendment as shown on
attached Exhibit A.
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:
Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney
Atta \_ ment 8 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 M
C-S
ORCUTT
SP
Current rezone request
3210 Broad -s Previously charged
to C-CS
C-S-
i
D� Previously changed
to C-C-s
a-�s
Attachment 9
ORDINANCE NO. (2006 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF,THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING FOR PROPERTY AT
32109 32129 3220,3230,3240 BROAD STREET
FROM C-N-S TO C-C-S
(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, Dan Lemburg, 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 and 28, 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.
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
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 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.
SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council makes the following 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
a^�
Attachment 9
Ordinance No.(2005Series)
GP/R 19-05
Page 2
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 corner 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.
SECTION 3. Action. The Zoning Regulations Map Amendment (GP/R 78-05) is
hereby approved(Exhibit A).
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,
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 28`s day of February, 2006, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the _ day of , 2006, on the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk Audrey Hooper
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Chy4rtromey Jonathan Lowell
GAPdunsmoreWezoning&PDs\78-05(Lemburg)\GPR 78-05 cc ord.doc
'ttachment 9 EXh�b�ta
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-S
C-S
ORCUTT\
-S-P
Current rezone request 1
3210 Broad .S
_ Previously changed
to C-C-S
G S- .
-P D Previously changed
to C-C-S
a- �g
Attachment 10
RESOLUTION NO. (2006 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING
A MASTER USE PERMIT
FOR PROPERTY AT 32109 32129 32209 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 a master use permit pursuant to
application GP/R/ER 78-05, Dan Lemburg, 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 and February 28, 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
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.
c�t"�
Council Resolution No. (26W Series) Attachment 10
Village Marketplace C-C-S rezone Master Use Permit
Page 2
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 Master Use Permit, as shown on attached Exhibit
A.
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 A. 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 and shall
take effect upon the effective date of the ordinance amending the zoning map for the subject
property from C-N-S to C-C-S, introduced this_day of . 2006.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney
a� qb
� ' Exhibit A
Krtachment 10
Use list for 3210, 3212,3220, 3230,3240 Broad Street,
Community Commercial-Special Consideration (GP/R/ER 78-05)
1.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 except Real Estate Office)
° 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
° Real Estate Office
° Residential support services
° Restaurant
° Social service organization
°Transit stop
° Vending machine (See Section 17.08.050)
2. 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
3. Uses Allowed with Director's Approval Use Permit:
°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
° Medical service—Clinic, laboratory, urgent care
a -� �
Attachment 10
° 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