HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/21/2006, PH 6 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD-COMMERCIAL (C-N) TO COMMUNITY-COMMERCIAL SPECIA i
councit
j acEnaa wpont
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
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 PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 3210
THROUGH 3240 BROAD STREET. (GP/R/ER 78-05)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission:
1. Adopt a resolution to approve amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element map to
change the land use designation for the site from Neighborhood Commercial to
Community Commercial and approve a Negative Declaration (ER 78-05).
2. Introduce an ordinance to amend the Zoning Map from Neighborhood Commercial Special
Considerations (C-N-S)to Community Commercial Special Considerations (C-C-S).
3. Adopt a resolution to approve a master use permit to allow a specific set of land uses for
the Village Marketplace.
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
This item is a continued discussion of a proposed General Plan Amendment and zoning change
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. At the February 21" hearing, the Council voted 3-2 to
approve the General Plan Amendment, rezoning and master use permit in concept. Veterinary
Clinics and Bar/Tavems were removed from the use list and real estate offices were added to the
use list. The attached Council report from February 21, 2006 (Attachment 7) describes the
requested amendments in detail.
Council Agenda Report—GP/K_A 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(03-21-06).doc
liill� IIllllllllt �llllii. Ipp
?�
IIIIIF11111�11.1 _C��1111� • •'�' '. w.-.- -:F �� °`;�, �` ��a-��`� �
-��.Z:'njra luV rid ♦ ♦♦ '�%
_III1111111111111111111111411111111+ /11� `�O`<,' I1���
�I�� +�����ts� �,�������� • '
0001001
.� Tall
LIM
Whip MingMMAM .
MY
s � File
No. 7&05
I
- — - Attachment 2
ORCUTT ROAD
.i—-. r
l
3 0-
\ - a 3212 ,\ r
\ j
\ V
3220
3230
\ \ I 1
\
\ '�\ 3240 ( f
°a T � SITE PLAN
0 10 30 30 \ \ \
VILLAGE MARKETPLACE ®amrick�Associates,Inc.
San Luis Obispo. California lacnue,r �
,oma..-..nrsU wu
UM)n1v3n
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;32129 32_20, 3230,3240 BROAD STREET
GP/R/ER 78-05
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
-- -hBaring-in-the-C-ouncil-Chamber-ofCity-Hall,-990-Palm-Street,-San Lms O i oCaalif6mia,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. Findines.
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 wan-ant 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.
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_&-Approval_of-the-Master_Use_Pennit 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: Conu r. 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 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
--- #he-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 R73 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 proiect, 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. 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 anoroval of the General Plan map
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 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 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 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. Ci ide. 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 furtherreview of the proposed General Plan Amendments, with.
emphasis on the Open Space and Land Use Elements.
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
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
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"' 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 o
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.
�j.t. s'R�`I p._.e Y ir•„�"� �� � {°a i"' ���� 'P'Hl'C �.:h.�iY.ii
B.hY�
Y ORCUTT
.4 C-N-S
Curterrt ranine requ st
Q t �^ '{ " Future consideration � � �'
F� � FNUre ran5ideratlm
� .. w for4ereeks rojeG
t
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.
1% 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.
�I�
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.
G:\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&PDs\78-05(t emburg)\78-05 PC rpt. I2-14-05.doc
- - 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 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIS" A5
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
11 Iva
�r
V
Vir,112121;751,Energy and Mineral Population and HousingResources -
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 fora
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 tuts OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENvtRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 0'%05r
I W
Attachment,nt 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
ared.--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,.nothin further is required.
i z/s/ns
S• Date
da.3 eaaKO For:John Mandeville,
Punted Name Community Development Director
Crrr of SAN Luis OH19Po 4 INMU S7trov EmtRoHmENTAL CHEcKussr^2005
L� � 1
~ ' Affachment 6
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EYWACTS:
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 aproject-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 eeffect is significant.. Ifttiere 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 maybe 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 beattached,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.
CRY OF SAN Luis 08isPo 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcww 2005
Issues, Discussion and Supporting iwormation Sources Sources Potem.....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
L AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
;aj ` Have a sg6stanua"1 adverse effect illi a scefiic Vista'), sat w
4) SiJbstvivally-dd iiagescenic resources,including but not lifnited-- L
ion fees,rock outcroppings op�n'space,and historic barldritgs '
within a liical or`state.scenic.highway7 ,
F) Stibstantlally degracle`the existing visual°character`onqualityof ti
rile site agd its surroundmg0
d) �Guieate ii new soiuce.of substantial light or glare which wouldX
kr . dversel.:effect d ,
ni httitne 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 the project:
yj ACanveitPimaFai7i►lanyd;UiuqueTaimlandi grEarmlqtld or
Statewide I_portance(Faratlatid),as shown oh rile maps "
r piitsuantlto:d�li�_*rnlati'd Mappjitg and Monttoi�ng I;tograr�n of�
x
tftahfortua ResburcesAgegcy,Co non'agncuitural ue� "
a y�1 u'6: .i•v"
fi') Cdritlict,pvitl exzshng zoning�ar3agnculttlral
1a . ilarrLn;PJct�OI1 -v.
- Involve otiuerghanges,.in the exEstmg environmeni"which 'line tp, "'X'=
s r .-T
�,.tliev locatuo`n iii nature,could ie;ult m cgversionof Fartd
� '`tO ttDn- . i.Gn__11Urd1„U_S_e�#'s.`�,,�-;j..'�a, tri,.a<•r„ :r�.,.�a_..^_:a"� :k>�.at1.',�"Y.y;�.:.`
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 ' iafa�e adv air qua>ty siandafd ov�oi}tr6ute siitisfantlY to
hi - .._
�xictrng�',)rolu,ctcd-air quia'Irty noiaiitilS? � � t gid �•- ...
b}i 'fl?rtltc6>yvithorpp�trttotlinlietentafignitiFt�apilcglr�) � : F
��se x�i�.ve xch�toi�tbbstantiai�oI�Pen�$�� •�d a� �..
�? rfii'�atc o�jet3[igita�ila�oi�rs at�episn�a su9listat3Xiel�dttmb�argf� ';. � _
CRY of SAN Luis OBispo 6 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005
- Attachment 6
Issues, Discussion and Supporting ..,rormation Sources sources Poten. .y Potentially cess Than No
Dan Lemberg/Village Marketplace GP/R 78-05 Significant Significant Significant impact
ER #78-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
incorporated
{eRe§Ult in,a cumulatively considerable net increase of apycnitecia,
pollutant,fo wlfich the project region is non attainment tinder an,
a ppheableTfedetal: rtate.Ftttibient aiz quality standazd ``
L
jineluding vleasip}g dipissia s Which'ex-c qualitative' ^.• °
threstiglds for ozone recusors)
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:
Have a suhstanaa-]adverse effect'either directly or indirectly oi-,.
tt�tt,oiighhabitaCmodificattons,wi any sees idettutieYi as u t '
t �rididatt, enslaye or specdal:status species tri,tq cal'o�re Tonal '
K )I si-00esrti�gulauons,.q-byth ,Calforni De arttttettt
L
�tsh an i*6 or i7 S F5sh an8\Vtldfr'fe`Senji�e�YFl
stanaal adverse effect on any npanan:hitatr"
=F*;.rSiiive nntu�ral community tdentied in.y P0ic es;,or repulauons yr l y the:Caltforn1.D,el at e- ,
Ax . ).514h t c1,Gatne orlj s Fsh and�VticlI fl
de*
a l� Y focal pQhcxes orordtnancesproteea �
ng o X=
I3to Qgtc Frrsources :suef,as a.tree'pri servaugn W-1or�,we
'Mc�i(e:g # itageTfeeC)7
� R t � ♦. s $ �• . d f ' Mr a'+9, +fit ny r.
Inteke�sat�btandaly tutththemovementofanyraave�esident' = �
`�i migratGu}�fisli or wildi4 specres ar WiQt establissieH nativer �.
a�� fento��itig�story'�IdlZfe.eomdor;sro�mRer�eth�.t�'rtf��,�
c°°4�"V{�1lVlt'l"�t Rnr �.1fLs�.
) tC,onlVefh die
Q Ylaeagttwua4sia1t„norproV11soAs of fanvnmun } a8tpmfed hab2tal(GOAsepvracitvtAe�iil
z
state hatEa`tonset vuton plarn?
"�yab�e a�.. ,lagi�alaad�e.�,effictntl �ra17��rtitecred �r` .
rt 'a#t " am 1Sect o t dtt tit eailat�r t�c7
1 o
a � tte regi+alyfxlhng'.;hydco�ogi{ca�1nteuptui,oi' ,
X' C.aT15�!
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.
CrrY of SAN Luis OBisvo 7 INITIAL STUDY ENvmoNMENTAL CHECKusT 2005
Aftachmerit 6
Issues, Discussion and Supporting tritormation Sources Sources Poten�...ty Potentially Less Than No
Dan Lemburg/Village Marketplace GP/R 78-05 Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#78-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inc orated
Conclusion
No.impacts to Biological resources are anticipated.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
3)., Cause a sabstidtial'adverse change�iiitfie•signific"ce`df,a �C
f
194oncresource?;(Sde.GEQAGmdeliiies750645)
b) .Cause a stitistahtial adverse,ctfangejitt the samfcahce ofari ;–
,archapological res6d' e�(see CEQA Gwdehnes'':150615)
,L7ir W- -oc indirectly destroy'a unique paleontolbgtcal resource.
t%r'sit of �iie geologic featttre?
dJ Disturb an'"human tematns ineludkng those tntetreel outside of I _ '„
-r-
fortnalcemetene§�. :_;__ a'..;•._: w
- _ –
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:
EV'—p' tctwi€fis op denergycbnsTe Vafig>}plaps '�:a ` mor ' 3 "
} Lise•non rengvyableresources in a wasteful�tid l efGdtent;' � .?L`"
"r �_',T'-.EP��a?°. C �t �- `.f. a ' -•. .F�,t � � ,p- � �'�- i�,
s
io
Result iii t6es 'jfiii a 6bhty of a'known mineral ec�owcd
{ t .t 4
•�fiaGwcgaTd���aTtie t�the.xegton ancltharestdtarts n�the- >i.
���lalCl�i+i,.i.�3k ��.�.��"µ� 'd S c.��_y: a,N�•_ .
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:
lleo��tittctpprigal'sub ae '
Wo, .tt R t
ofa�cgterthyutt fatflt� deft tM.
.-
eq. me 16St feicf.nf AIgfi it"Ph619 Earthgn e i at7lt ul�p
issufetl'by the St:1 vgeolctgist for ilie ate,Orr_,, ad cin•a'ftr3;
s$ ° •a�'Sn .'talpial„ n1 �ItF `} „�k: 'nQV1�ft,fd4yrt� �.d” trza
x g
t[Milt ttin [
a��);`ve �ytatoitadfpat�ulnattldtttln2� . a M
`�'� Li'.6�8ad9lades
In��7�y
. to �IQ�.Sitl �4 3 t•��..."� � 4.mQ DRy
- ult ig
ill tta#'%tfiQfitb o'1 °Qt ' F w dC.✓
CITY OF SAN Luis 08Isp0 8 INmAL STUDY ENviRONMENTAL CNEcKusT 2005
Aftachment6
issues, Discussion and Supportirig .,iformation Sources Sources Potet.. ..y Potentially less inan No
Dan Lemburg/Village Marketplace GP/R 78-05 Significant Significant s;Imp ct Impact
Issues Unless mpact
ER#78-05 Mitigation
Inco orated
e) Be located on a geologic unii'or soil that is unstable,or that
Would become unstable as result of the project,and potentially .'
testilrnon or off site landslides,lateral•spreading,subsidence,
liquefadlion,or,collap?en "
d3 Be located on axpaosive soil,,as defined in Table l8 1 B bf the v
Unifooiin11iiading Code(1994] creating'.siibstautial nsks to life
ctr. ro erl ?L._
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
The City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region-CaloOifornia
Osos/Hosgri fault.
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. 4
Conclusion
No impacts to geology or soils is anticipated.
& HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the ro'ect:
Ix
a�rr to azs gmficanf$aaaid to the gulilii or the egvifffRhcnt iu,g
t �6-aQR4'i routine-UW iiansport or'i sposal ti liazardou?^ ! c t
p
�y�'tIlaterlalS?:,;ahr . 4m, y,.,�.y °rp .,.o q .
..a ..c. d Zi, ✓ i� i �^
Cxeate'a significant haza'kno the publid or the envirogmenr k lC E
-' ,ZYirotigh're rsnnably forest cable ulisetand.accideni coiklitioKS
ttivoling ttie Blease of hazaidou tnateYials vita tfie ,.
F� °fit hazar�aussmissiott-or handle hazardous ciracntely: M z
tt�t3terials,8ttbat er gva site glyatCt K `«
itttbpxisting proposed schao ,. €.
OF.St ughft-B`fO. 1, „Sbi1�CfCS O 14
'
jd0 Or hazardous or ac'ately hazakdq*
'','� .+p i
is}: Be located Qfi mitelucli isnalnded.on list ahazd'QusMIR,
` mattsrialii sj ttas compfl ursuaa�00P ftmeitE
a•ze?.sjryau it would crea fe asigni cant hsza yd"alb
c'
i'} •.F�g�'a�S�jet�Located����aa airpgiti fond us�>�an,o�,'lvij#�itU� , �w �?
;,ieit�m���pitt�c woiil8 F r®3tilt�x'� .�
CRY OF SAN Luis 081SP0 9 INM&STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcKusT 2005
�-aa
Attarhmeni
IssuDiscussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Potent=wy Potentially Less Than No 6
es,
Dan Lemburg/Village Marketplace GP/R 78-05 Significant Significant Significant hnpact
ER #78-05 Issues Unless impact,
Mitigation
Inco orated
Impatr imp�emenfatton pf,orphystcallyinteyfer�"�ewtth;the u '�"' +��
�Yy�adopted etnerg'ei�cy esponse pian or epieYge�cy;¢i+hcitatitSB"�,�
r tfiapose pebpl or strut tures to a stgntfigant nS oE'l se,ui�ury, .x .-;
Vie,
t or_death;irtGolvtng wldland f res, mcludingsW�tere anldliis a�re<<;
M adjacent Ca;itrbantzed:areas or where residents arelgtetnuited
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 QUALYrY. Would theproject:
TN Y[olafe any wateF qual►tyslandardsor taste dtscttarpe J —r`
off reglltreInen[5�
StYbstagttally,:depteie groundwater supplies or titierfere `4=X
btanttaywtth,groundwateffecharge such thatxhetetwould be>>,
a net�ectt in agiufervolum qr�a to ring of�1oa1'' A''
rwatec table level(e g Tle produc[ton�rare of piepextttttlg<
a$ q
y W�' 'would chop t�a tgve "wtush wduld not sh port'
i.-0 c',t'•. J ,�,T,! � 3` i ... ,$moi � kr t .° ,x.
ng landitses for tvl�uch,permtis have bee ,1 Hied}� �r<Y
rr e:..
,ot c�cnibUteunof£waterwhtcr rvlrould exceed the _ -K,-
capacttroPezis€tttg� ilatinosfo�utwatdrat aes�e
d msifp '
oytde�atldtugnal soufces of tt�toff�i1i d ;ac ate +
�ancludtng tial nok htriCted tb wetlands n anan p-: sit:
,s-, `
�� ns}ceeeRs,
Reas,rtversalces ss[uaties tidal areas
:��Y t �'r� ..
Sitl'tanualtaltac thet xis�ut �iatna a agterp o ' stte�i
Her wh�gh�y.would result anistibstan TI qgs eq,"I "Ij yns1+✓przOffS}Fe 41,11 �� q�te>;tk�e�9$ISUng nage _a�tei0 4b Nst o t .. r .+, '
ttDsiuteraw�lttch wtq�uld# sulci su-tanttal ' 4drngl a
of F.�iYIi81•Ct'1-'� a gx''� �. � s iF' °r '`e t�
�
a
y sir ° t�
�' �tl'�e�rdor$turf wsfke�G t •�
Hit en rDl1► 1u a : j ..� g
Evaluation ZZZ
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.
I
CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 10 IwnAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005
��- a3
Attachment 6
issues, Discussion and Supporfing,..,ormation Sources sources Potefii _�" Potentially L;11hao No
Dah Lemburg/Village Marketplace GP/R 78-05 significant significant significant Impact
ER #78-05 Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Inrn
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 stone 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:
rnf ;F n-'rvmr9n
fMet yvtih appltcable Iar�d'us°sc p an,; �l cy;aiv egula ion,o ;,.
Sm "`MuY^ '* `S.`s= '` ytiaG 't.3
,zan.� g'bpcy/swtthl�ut�,cdichbn`?�over the�•jpro�ect�i�d`�ted„"for
Zpu ose.gfavotdmg+or�rntttgahggan,envtronmental�t{;�ffect�'"��`��"^{:a
t " ,}C�h'y "twt6?rv"'adn`eyr�•^aa n"1e4'2lt+'cNaa4Wbil'tvse h'"MaYyabt4FoaAt"n'pmgtr
g'y. ME,
coliununti c. neivation -IansI: ,`
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:
to
-
6 n .,
Cmr of SAN Luis Owspo INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKLw 2005r�(�
" G"1
Attachment 6
Issues, Discussion and Supporting n,tormation Sources Sources Poten....,,y Potentially Less Than No
Dan Lettiburg/Village Marketplace GP/R 78-05 Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#78-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
ambient net Ojeyels i p j'ect wicini'ty-At ve'levels existing,,
without the prgject?
c),. Pxposuti.of persons:to or generation of excesstve•groupdt orne G
vibratton'dr groundhorne noise levels? .
d) Fqr a profeot located"in"an airport land use plan or within. X
two.miles of a-public airport or public'use airpor"t,'would the '
prbject expose people residing or"woddug rn tfie�project qea to
eacesstve_ Iroise 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),q Ygduoe substantial population growth -n,an area-eii6er'dti&i7y
fi F example 'hy pr3pbsmjj•rf W hofiii5 F businesses) or
pr4.,indiryetly (far example tiurougitt exteRsfo-- bf,coadg, oi"altheY?'
Iyispl a substanuat numbers of existing 3io�ising rr people n5 ?y=;
r ngtyrsttattttp [fie ;construction of 'relarcerttenY tioirsmg
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 tate 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 an of the public services:
Ar)
SCJ "�L'1;1�-i115� -. ��'v• •..� ,� r.`.,�•
.i2oads and[iffier iransportatictn infrastructure? N s
i1CCIlttiefi$ - a .p a' a •�e`^ a A• ° .r
IN
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
CrrY OF SAN LUIS Oatspo 12 INmaL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcKusT 2005
elf%'
Attachr-nernt 6
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Potenuouy 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:
Tnctease the use of exisGn neighboeho"nd oc regional par or,3 _. UR
tither recreational faciLtres such that substanna):pliysrcal
rietenoration of the facility would occur ar be acceleratedl- i
A� SY , •o
b�'* rCelnde 2ecreaUonalfactlttaes,Qr rte,ii�theconstru(cuo"n�or- .,RE
cittl',�eereationalfacilite�,wlueh.mtght.liaxe.�tr.a3yer�-� - — -—- - - -
. 5tcal:e_ffef on the enwronment7, k <_ A_
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/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
Ga`m agincreasg ih.fr2�flic which�ssubst nttal ul laf on th �7C
'_axastutgllcloadand,capacicyofthestreetsytem��r Q +.
Ea�ceeither tnditQuall�-or sumulati*K, (eveL 4
� ;1etibl�sited liy the coiu�ty conge3tion masa' is ent
z.,ag TOUGeS ated roads and�ttQ}]yrayS r ti �z
¢glastattaltyatcrease hazardiine to 8e33ign featu_res(d g,shar� uw
i tt�vescm daitgerou5,intersections)or incomPattblWiffim
e uses g .
c �
a Resultinia dequate:emergency access
fa di It td tnad�equateparktn&.papacatyons�t yzo situ , s
Cottfllcf�n d&pted policies supportingaliern?tiyve' 4"`;�k ENO
z'frans otlaii`dA(e g b�s t Atduts,-btiycri racks)a s;�,�'
° etfltclyi e,.-n`th:SAKu,s'O14
btspo CgtuttyrfltTgar
Vse Plan t`bsulting in''W,b_ antral safetytrQrnSttassr s,rt i}sel
xitair traffic: attbrns2 r.n s,�. ?
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.
CRY of SAN LUIS O81SPo 13 INmAL STUDY ENvmomENTAL CHEcrasr 2005
Attachment 6
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Poteni,any Potentially L/--ss Than No
Dan Lemburg/Village Marketplace GP/R 78-05 significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #78-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
J
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect:
i
Exceed,wastewter treatmenlr[equu�ineiits o b apphcabje tier .
,[�
s dtegtonal 1atetQt�ajity Contrv�Boazd Iy � xa, '
b "tegfxtre r*result�n tti cella trtichon or xpkns�on"p£,It y a er
t a a?. .A� ar. r x.+. S�
n treatment,waste�vaCer tieittme�nt,v/ater qualtty cso.�tttrol�iorwsldrut e
irr di t age factl�nes,ffie eonstiucttonaof witch could mtise f Y'
'xtk"'�.$S1tufiFattyenv}tonmeRtal effet,ts'� Y'z. $-_ u''' ',
�Cffulvu Ck 'y 2 q"`t, G� ,ys
t�llage stlidtent yateruppltes avaC�ab'le to serves(he py�ij8ct i - =
fromd>EY t ttg ►lYtlements gndGiesources;bt arene and' n
i y,'� r`y3. n �(�R i s v�-1t'«"' � E "�€ :71r1i.i•LG�xS a�-.;�{ � v
'esu ertntnaGon,by e�vastewatertr 'tprovidei r
S rvesrn ma},serxe�jeeQo?QPatit, eg Ce ;� %
'x�i'd S. ,!a
1 ^ .tv ' >
the i ov deY:s ex s, comtnitineriC „ ��
p Y f s rve a project s+pro�ecied deiand m ad ttttn to
`=F• A is/c� 'nT + , s�,p b t..a
l �Befseivby aancflliwith stiffexegf permtt et" "capacity to•" � y
,
„3,�ccommada£�e flte pr�ecErs sold waste dtsp�osSl,ae�ksv"� ;�'}
''Comply vft6 federal;state,andlocal statutesland7eulatlons `
1
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^q F ^l �"aY N":.
sirolcthave+flreotenua1 to�deaethe ualt °ofRh� ':
� oA! §hbspita }er W9 he,j abitai x r 1Y'r w .
iese .` jail anon xdr o ve1J
�sta>rrt• t3�reat n tim area Qr `ival ��l`
N/A �i.
AWL
y,tttewr4Y °1faVC 9IId' Y tl�C ( flo-a. ' 'm
�y�tu3
w�lllll]AR3p 1 i. umr c c •..
s ela
G 441 22 y
N/A
WEI.
N/A
CrrY OF SAN Luis OBLsPo 14 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEC 2005
Attachrnent 6
18.EARLIER ANALYSES.
anter analysis.may-*.used where, pursuant Yo the ttermg pjagram EIR or ort er CEQA process, one or more effects have
,'bdefi'.adetjitately analyzed to an t artier ElI2 or,Negattve�eclarahon "Sectrgn)SO,03 (c);( ) (la),Jn this,.k!M&a clt"scu�staii;
§ Otrld`idengf -'the follf7win 'items:
a) Earlier anal` "rased. Idents .earlier anal se and statd:w ier ".ttie" are"yaila6je$6 i vaery
N/A
bj, Impacts at]equately addressed Identifynwhtcti'effects'from the above checklist weie�within the scope o andaadequately•'
,, analyied in;an earlier document pursuant to`applicable legal standards,and state whether such gffects were addtessed by,
iiii: atitin rrteasures�based-on the earlier anal s s _4
N/A
�s) 1Vlitigation measures:'For effects that-are'I:ess than SigmfteaitC filth Mi rgguqIncorporated," desrritie thb mit%gattpn,
{ 2tihasiires Qhu6 uerey corporaied qr F fined"die earlier 4ocumeht ani th6g ent.to which they address sitespeclft��.
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:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dirp/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 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
�O b
Attachment 7
council
acEnba Repoin J�N.b.
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 (GC-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 concept, 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 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.
Manning 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
�Yv
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.
AffacI iment /
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 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.
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
/c '3 D,
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 32109 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_GPARIER 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 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.
=33
Attachment 8
Council Resolution No. (2006 _sees)
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
Attanent 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)
098 #u-Yl' LSF
AR
l 4 �t } •i,
amu: ORCUTT
p.
r � A
} Current rezone requestX
3210 Broad �S
V Previously changed
�{ to C-C-S
a
"-g-
r �� � ysy 9F zf
D� Previously changed to C-C-S
a
i L
=: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 3212, 32207 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--TRIER 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
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-ne__—_—
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`h 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:
C orney Jonathan Lowell
GANumm mUtewning&PDA78-05(lemburg)1GPR 78-05 cc ord.doc
ll! 'aid)
�^ ``tachment 9 Exhibit
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)
CC i
r
ORCUTT
yl N
Current rezone tequest
-3216 Broad .S Previously changed
Q to C-C-S
t � '� .. .t +tom eta. -r O.• �� C
PDPreviously changed
& y J
r q r• r
e,
F
f -
- ' Attachment 10
RESOLUTION NO. (2006 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING
A MASTER USE PERMIT
FOR PROPERTY AT 3210, 32127 32209-32309 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 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.
l � �
Council Resolution No. (2006 Series) Attachment 1
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-
Exhibit A
Attachment 10
Use list for 3210, 32129 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
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.iJses-Allowed with-Planning-Commission-Appr-oval.----------
° Antennas and telecommunications facilities
° Homeless shelter