HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/15/2006, PH 1 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING FOR 851 AND 860 HUMBERT AVENUE; INITIATION OF THE PROCESS TO CO council
j acEnaa REpoRt
CITY OF SAN LUIS 081SP0
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Janne Hill,Associate Planner
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING FOR 851 AND 860
HUMBERT AVENUE; INITIATION OF THE PROCESS TO
CONSIDER ABANDONMENT OF PORTIONS OF HUMBERT
AVENUE AND FREDERICK STREET, AND; ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW (GP, R, ABAN, ER.27-06).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, take the following actions on the project:
1. Adopt a resolution approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 27-06) and amending
the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use designation of the parcels
addressed as 851 and 860 Humbert Avenue from Services & Manufacturing to Medium-
High Density Residential.
2-. Adopt a resolution of intention to abandon portions of Frederick Street and Humbert
Avenue, and set a public hearing for September 19, 2006.
3, Introduce an ordinance changing the zoning of the parcels addressed as 851 and 860
Humbert Avenue from Manufacturing (M) to Medium-High Density Residential with the
Special Considerations overlay (R-3-S).
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The Planning Commission has recommended approval of a. General Plan Amendment and
Rezoning for 851 and 860 Humbert Avenue, abandonment of portions of Frederick Street and
Humbert Avenue, and Mitigated Negative Declaration. These entitlements are necessary for the
applicant to proceed with the development of the site with low- and moderate income housing.
On August 16, 2005, the City Council contributed a $600,000 loan from the City's Affordable
Housing Fund to the Housing Authority to fill a gap in financing to acquire the property; a
portion of which would be developed as a Limited Equity Housing Cooperative (LEHC). Staff is
recommending that the City Council approve the requests.
DISCUSSION
Situation
The City has received an application for a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning (GP/R) for
two undeveloped parcels east of Broad Street, and abandonment of the adjacent undeveloped
Council Agenda Report
GP, R, ABAN, ER, 27-06
Page 2
portions of Fredrick Street and Humbert Avenue. The larger of the two parcels, 851 Humbert, is
approximately 4.27 acres, while the smaller, 860 Humbert, is approximately 0.39 acres in area.
The applicant would like to amend the properties' Land Use designation from Services &
Manufacturing to Medium-High Density Residential and Zoning from Manufacturing (M) to
Medium-High Density Residential with. the Special Considerations overlay (R-3-S) (see
Attachments 8A and 9A — General Plan Land Use.and Zoning Maps). Both properties are
currently vacant, and with the proposed designation would become available for development
with residential units (see Attachment 2, letter from the project applicant).
The California Streets and Highways Code (State Law) requires that any proposed street vacation
or abandonment be reviewed for General Plan conformity prior to final action by the legislative
body. The Planning Commission'recommended that the abandonment is in conformance with
the General Plan, and that the City Council adopt a "Resolution of Intention" to consider
abandonment of the public right-of-way. This sets a date and time for final abandonment in
accordance with Section 8300 of the California Streets & Highways Code. If passed, a final
"Resolution of Abandonment" will be adopted and recorded with the County Recorder. If the
abandonment is denied, the Housing Authority would have to redesign its project.
Previous Review
On June 14, 2006, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
project to the City Council. The discussion focused on potential safety issues related to increased
trespasson the Union Pacific Railroad property and compatibility with neighboring industrial
uses. The Planning Commission ultimately supported the project, recommending conditions of
approval related to site development, directing the applicant to incorporate design features which
will minimize the likelihood of trespass, and which address the interface between the
manufacturing and residential land uses (See Planning Commission Resolution 5454-06, the
minutes from the meeting, and staff report, Attachment 4).
Data Summary.
Address: 851 and 860 Humbert Avenue; portions of Frederick Street and Humbert Avenue
Applicant: Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo County
Representative: Debbie Rudd, RRM Design
Existing Zoning: M (Manufacturing)
Proposed Zoning: R-3-S (Medium-High Density Residential with the Special Considerations
overlay)
Existing General Plan: Services &Manufacturing
Proposed General Plan: Medium-High Density Residential
Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended by the Deputy
Director on June 7, 2006 (ER 27-06). Final action on the initial study
will be taken by the City Council.
Site Description
The subject properties, 851 and 860 Humbert, are vacant parcels separated by the undeveloped
i-z
Council Agenda Report
GP, R, ABAN, ER, 27-06
Page 3
portions of Fredrick Street and Humbert Avenue which are proposed for abandonment. The
larger of the two properties, 851 Humbert, was historically known as the railroad wye. Today, the
site is raised several feet over neighboring properties due to the accumulation of fill materials left
on the site over the course of many years. The smaller parcel, 860 Humbert, is also undeveloped,
and currently has no improved access, as Humbert Avenue to the south and Frederick Street to
the east are both undeveloped at this location.
The applicant has also requested to abandon the undeveloped. portions of Fredrick Street and
Humbert Avenue which currently divide the two properties. The total area of abandonment
would be 23,760 square-feet, which would be reverted to the three adjacent properties. These
undeveloped rights-of-way include a 60 by 270 foot strip of land adjacent to 881 Francis, 860
Humbert, and 851 Humbert, and a 60 by 120 foot strip of land between 860 and 841 Humbert
(see Attachment 9, Exhibit A).
The surrounding area is developed with a mixture of residential and commercial properties: to
the immediate south is Villa Rosa, an attached townhome development(zoned R-3-PD), to the
west are multiple small service commercial businesses, to the north is a mixture of service
commercial businesses and older single family residences, and to the east is the railroad right-of-
way and additional housing. Other surrounding uses include the Broad Street corridor,
Sinsheimer Park, and the railroad safety path. Because of the historic development pattern of the
area, the neighborhood is commonly known as Little Italy. Zoning surrounding the site is shown
in the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1).
General Plan-and Zoning Mau Amendments
The undeveloped properties are currently designated as "Services & Manufacturing" on the
General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map and zoned Manufacturing (M). Although these map
designations are consistent with those of properties to the north and west, the (as-built) situation
in the neighborhood is a far more eclectic mixture of industrial, commercial and residential uses.
Under the current M zoning there are several uses which would now be considered inappropriate
for the area, particularly given the conceptual plans for revitalization of the Broad Street corridor
which are now being discussed. The proposed Medium-High Density Residential land use
designation would eliminate the undesirable siting of a large manufacturing facility on these sites
adjacent to residential uses, and would allow for an expansion of the residential uses (Attachment
8, Exhibit A and 10,Exhibit A).
1. Consistency with Housing Element Policies
The General Plan Amendment and Rezoning, and future development of the properties with
residential uses is consistent with both Land Use and Housing Element (HE) policies. Most
significant is HE Policy 6.3.7, which states that the City should "Consider amendments to the
General Plan to rezone commercial, manufacturing or public facility zoned areas for residential
use, to promote higher-density, infill or mixed-use housing where land development patterns are
no longer valid and where impact to Low Density Residential areas is minimal." This policy and
the associated map (HE Figure 1) identify the Little Italy district and portions of the Broad Street
corridor, which includes the subject properties, as having a land use designation which may no
longer be appropriate, and where rezoning to a residential use would have minimal impact to
Council Agenda Report
GP, R, ABAN, ER, 27-06
Page 4
Low Density Residential areas. The City has initiated work on an area plan to implement this
Housing Element policy. Other Housing Element Policies, such as HE 11.2.1, comment on
giving priority to residential uses over commercial uses where property is suited for either. HE
4.2.4 states that "the City shall affirmatively further fair housing and promote equal housing
opportunities for persons of all economic segments of the community" a goal that is part of the
Housing Authority's mission as a provider of low-income and special needs housing.
1. Consistency with Land Use Element Policies.
LUE Policy 2.2.2 states that "residential areas should be separated or screened from
incompatible; nonresidential activities, including most commercial and manufacturing business,"
and WE Policy 2.2.10 states that "housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in
scale and in character with that neighborhood." The requested rezoning would implement both
of these policies, as it would allow for the properties to be developed with housing of a similar
density to the development adjacent to the south. Given the proximity to both residential uses
and the public park, the properties would not be ideally suited for many of the uses allowed under
the current zoning, therefore modifying their designation from commercial/industrial to
residential would not significantly impact the overall supply of M-zoned land available and
appropriate for service commercial or industrial development. However, because there is
industrial activity in the immediate vicinity, several conditions of approval are recommended to
ensure that future development addresses the interface between the residential and industrial
uses, and to require that future residents be informed of the adjacent manufacturing uses.
Affordable Housing
As explained in Attachment No. 2, the.Housing Authority is proposing a unique housing type at
851 Humbert, namely a Limited Equity Housing Cooperative (LEHC). Cooperatives are a hybrid
of ownership and rented housing: While a cooperative owner has the tax advantages of home
ownership, the ownership itself is a collective share of the development instead of ownership of
a particular unit outright. In a LEHC, resale proceeds are restricted to maintain permanent
affordability and the units must be owner occupied. On August 16, 2005, the City Council
contributed a $600,000 loan from the City's Affordable Housing Fund to the Housing Authority
to fill a financing gap to acquire the property and to enable such a housing development. The
property at 860 Humbert is proposed for rental apartments geared towards lower income families.
Abandonments
In order to abandon the rights-of-way, the California Streets and Highways Code requires the
Council to determine whether the abandonments are consistent with the City's General Plan.
This means that a determination needs to be made on whether the rights-of-way will be needed
for present or future public purposes. In addition, continued access to any City or public utility
services and improvements needs to be properly preserved.
The General Plan Circulation Element designates Fredrick Street and Humbert Avenue as local
streets. The abandonment of these portions of Fredrick and Humbert does not conflict with
future circulation needs since the excess rights-of-way are unimproved segments of road which
i-y
Council Agenda Report —
GP, R, ABAN, ER, 27-06
Page 5
are not necessary to serve any properties, and all of the-adjacent parcels will retain existing
access to public rights-of-way (Attachment 5). Furthermore, the street network in the area
consists of short blocks. Abandonment will not result in significantly longer routes to nearby
commercial services. Based on this information, and as supported by the City Public Works
Department, it can be concluded that this right-of-way is not planned for any future roadway
improvements, and abandonment of these segments of road would not conflict with any City
General Plan or circulation goals.
Typically, if the Council determines that rights-of-way should be abandoned, easements must be
reserved for public and private utilities to the satisfaction of the City and the respective utility
companies. However, because there are no public or private utilities in the portions of rights-of-
way to be abandoned the reservation of these easements is not necessary. Based on the comments
of the City Public Works Department and other utilities companies, staff has found that the
proposed abandonment of rights-of-way will not adversely impact existing or future utilities in
the immediate area or in the City as a whole.
Disposition of Abandoned Right-of-Way
Unless the rights-of-way are owned in fee by the City, the underlying property reverts back to the
adjacent property owners when abandoned. The Gas Company does not maintain piping
facilities in the area proposed for abandonment. According to the Lot Book Guarantee documents
submitted by the applicant, and verified by the City Public Works Department, the rights-of-way
are not owned by the City, and would be reverted back to adjacent property owners if it is
abandoned.
Conclusion
The General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of 851 and 860 Humbert Avenue, and
Abandonment of portions of Fredrick Street and Humbert Avenue is appropriate. They will
allow the site to be developed in a logical manner with residential uses at a density similar to the
adjacent properties. This is consistent with City goals to increase residential density in in-fill
locations where it will not be detrimental to existing single-family residential development.
CONCURRENCES
The project proposal was routed to various City departments, including the Housing Programs
Manager, Public Works, Transportation, Utilities and Neighborhood Planner; and comments
received have been incorporated into the staff recommendation and mitigation measures where
appropriate. The project has also been reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission and found
to be consistent with ALUP safety policies (Attachment 3).
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 a
significant loss of property within the M zoning district, or significant increase of R-3 zoned
Council Agenda Report
GP, R, ABAN, ER, 27-06
Page 6
property. The loss of 4.66 acres of M zoned land will likely result in only minor decreases in
City revenues, when considering the types of uses which could likely be developed on the site
given the adjacent uses. Also, the future development of housing units will not on the sites will
not significantly affect the City's fiscal stability.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny the General Plan amendment, rezoning, and rights-of-way abandonment, based on
findings of inconsistency with the General Plan or other policies.
2. Continue the project if additional information is needed, with specific direction given to
staff.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Letter from the project representative dated February 8, 2006
3. Action notice and staff report from May 17, 2006 ALUC Hearing
4. Planning Commission Resolution#5454-06, Draft Minutes, and Staff Report
5. Proposed abandonment and street improvements exhibit
6. Preliminary development plan
7. Initial Study (ER 27-06)
8. Draft Resolution Amending the General Plan
Exhibit A: General Plan Land Use Map
Exhibit B: ALUC Disclosure Agreement
9. Draft Resolution of Intention to Consider Abandonment
Exhibit A: Abandonment Map
10. Draft Ordinance Amending the Zoning Regulations
Exhibit A: Zoning Map
11. Draft Resolution denying the project
G:VHi11\GPA and RZ\GPA-R 27-06(Humbert)HATC 27-06 Report(8.15.06).doc
III �
� 1
A No-
Jill
w 1
VICINITY MAP GP/R, • 1 .
8t ABAN
• 1
Attachment 2
February 8, 2006
Ms. Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Re: General Plan Amendment/Zone Change for 851 Humbert Avenue (APN: 004-951-
015) and 860 Humbert Avenue (APN: 004-924-012)
Description of Project:
The Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO) is submitting a General Plan
Amendment/Zone Change application for the parcels located at 851 Humbert Avenue and 860
Humbert Avenue in the City of San Luis Obispo. The request is to convert the existing zoning of
these parcels from Manufacturing (M) to Medium-High Density Residential (R-3). HASLO
proposes to develop a Limited Equity Housing Cooperative (LEHC) on the approximate four acre
lot at 851 Humbert Avenue, and an affordable rental product on the approximate ''/. acre lot at
860 Humbert Avenue. The LEHC project would include 62 dwelling units, 42 of which would be
two-bedroom units and 20 three-bedroom units. The property at 860 Humbert Avenue would
include 16 rental units with both one-and two-bedroom apartments.
The strategy behind an LEHC is to make housing affordable by removing property from the
speculative real estate market and controlling the initial cost of owning a home. The
cooperative housing product would ultimately provide stable and potentially profitable living
situations for those who might otherwise be displaced by rent increases or property sales.
The affordable rental units would be designed to complement the site and architectural
character of the LEHC project, and would.provide additional rental opportunities to the city's
housing market. The site is a perfect location for this type of housing and service collaboration
as it is close to local services, including public transit, parks, and the downtown area.
The primary goal of both projects is to provide a diverse mix of housing opportunities
strategically placed on the site to enhance a sense of community through building design and
orientation, and the integration of pedestrian-friendly paths that establish strong connections
both internally and to surrounding uses.
Relationship to Existing Policies:
Both projects reinforce Program 6.3.7 of the Housing Element of the General Plan, which states
that the city should consider amendments to the General Plan that rezone commercial,
manufacturing, or public facility zoned areas for residential use. The program also indicates
that the city wishes to promote higher density housing, which these projects would provide.
The program specifically targets the Little Italy District/Broad Street Corridor that our project
site lies within. 851 Humbert Street is on the southern border of this area.
The proposed projects would enhance the city's effort to balance residential development by
focusing not only on the annexation of new land, but also infill development and densification
within city limits as outlined in Program 6.3.9. The projects are proposed on vacant land within
the city.
The projects would also help the city realize the goal set forth in Program 6.3,11 , which aims to
develop multi-family housing design standards to promote innovative, attractive, and well-
integrated higher-density housing. The Humbert Limited Equity Housing Cooperative is an
innovative strategy to address the issue of housing affordability and ownership in the City of
San Luis Obispo. The program indicates that projects that include a significant commitment to
Attachment 2
affordable housing may also be eligible to receive density bonuses, parking reductions and
other development incentives, including city financial assistance. The city has already adhered
to this policy by awarding HASLO funding for this project from the City's Affordable Housing
Fund.
New Conditions or Community Desires:
These projects are designed to respond to community desires by providing housing alternatives
that meet the need for affordable housing and ownership opportunities in San Luis Obispo. The
product of this rezone request complements many of the goals and objectives specified in the
city's General Plan, particularly those regarding the Broad Street Corridor and affordable
housing.
Relationship to Other General Plan Elements:
The proposed General Plan Amendment/Zone Change relates most directly to the Land Use
Element. For instance, the proposed projects help the city employ Land Use Policy 2.3.2, which
states that the city should connect residential areas with parks, schools, and other areas of the
city. The proposed projects are adjacent to Sinsheimer Park and would connect to the bike trail
that is planned along and over the railroad tracks. The bicycle.trail would provide a convenient
connection to the local high school.
The proposed projects are also in accordance with Land Use Policy 2.4.7 concerning medium-
high-density residential land uses. The policy states that this type of development should be
primarily attached dwellings in two- or three-story buildings, with common outdoor areas and
very compact private outdoor spaces. The proposed project meets those criteria by offering
two-to three-story structures with a large common outdoor area in the middle of the
development. As a cooperative housing development, the project is focused around public or
communal spaces.
Land Use Policy 2.5 concerning affordable housing is also furthered by these projects. This
policy aims to conserve and increase residential opportunities for residents with very low, low,
or moderate incomes. Also it states that residential expansion areas should include a wide
range of housing types and costs to meet the needs of various income levels and housing
preferences. The proposed residential development not only increases opportunities for low-
and moderate-income residents, but the unique ownership structure also adds to the diversity
of home ownership opportunities in the city.
Respectfully,
Carol Hatley
Acting Executive Director/Director of Finance
Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo
487 Leff Street
P. O. Box 1289
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
cc: Ronald.Whisenand, Deputy Community Development Director
/- 9
Attachment 3
1850
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
Chairman: Roger Oxborrow
Commissioners: James Gleim
Jim Heggarty
Terry Orton
Richard Pottratz
Robert Tefft
Gerrit Vanderziel
NOTICE OF AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ACTION
ALUC 2006-006
HEARING DATE: May 17, 2006
RECOMMENDATION TO: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
SUBJECT:: Jaime Hill, Planner; Applicant, Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo County; City
File Numbers: GP/R ER2 27-06
On May 17, 2006, the Airport Land Use Commission determined the above referenced project consistent
with the San Luis Obispo County Regional.Airport Land Use Plan and referred it back to the County of
San Luis Obispo based on Finding A, Consistency requirements listed in the staff report and the
Disclosure Statement for the Humbert Affordable Housing Project. Copies of the Airport Land Use
Commission recommendations are attached.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at(805) 781-5612.
Sincerely,
Chris Macek, Secretary
Airport Land Use Commission
(Planning Department Use Only)
Date NOFA Mailed May 30, 2006
Cc: City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
Community Development
Attn: Jaime Hill
Enclosed: X Airport Land Use Commission Recommendations
County Government Center,San Luis Obispo CA 93408
Attachment 3
Staff Report
San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission
DATE: May 17,2006
TO: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
FROM: BILL ROBESON, COUNTY PLANNING AND BUILDING
REFERRING AGENCY: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO:
Jaime Hill, Planner; Applicant, Housing Authority of San Luis
Obispo County; City File Numbers: GP/R ER2 27-06.
SUBJECT: A MANDATORY REFERRAL FOR DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY OR
INCONSISTENCY FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING
PROJECT. THE SITE TOTALS 7.21 ACRES AND IS CURRENTLY ZONED
MANUFACTURING (M) AND IS PROPOSED TO CHANGE TO MEDIUM HIGH
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH A SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS OVERLAY(R-3-
S).
THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 851 AND 860 HUMBERT AVENUE(SEE ATTACHED
VICINITY MAP) INSIDE THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND IS LOCATED IN
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN-SAFETY
AREA S-2.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend a determination of Consistency to the City of San Luis Obispo for the rezoning of the
7.21 acre site shown on the site plans in the Staff Report submitted based on the following:
Finding: The rezoning of the subject parcels is consistent with the San Luis Obispo County
Regional Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) because the maximum density of residential
development proposed(78 dwellings)will not exceed the limitations provided by Table 9 (7.21 x
12 d.u.per acre =86 maximum) of the ALUP and all other applicable ALUP policies are satisfied.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proposal: Mandatory referral for determination of a change in zoning.The intent of the General Plan
Amendment and Rezone is to develop the site with affordable housing units,including owner-occupied
and rental units.
San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Plan
Airport Land Use Area: The site for the proposed rezone is located in Safety Area S-2; the site is
outside all Airport Noise Contours and is under the Right Crosswind Departure, Runway 29
(standard).
Setting
Existing Uses: vacant/undeveloped
Site Area: 7.21 acres
Attachment 3
Staff Repoli City of SLO/Housing Au:_ry GPA/REZONE Page 2
Discussion
Section 4.42.6 Gross Land Area states, "When the area of a referred action or project abuts a
street right-of-way, "gross land area" may also include those portions of the right-of-way which lie
between the boundary of the referral area and the centerline of the right-of-way." In using this
measurement technique allowed by the ALUP, the maximum number of dwelling is limited to 98
dwelling total. According to preliminary plans, 78 dwellings are proposed in a combination of 1,
2 and 3 bedroom units. However, there is some clarification needed regarding the calculation of
"Gross Land Area" and including Rail Road right-of-way in that Gross Land Area. Section
4.4.2.6 specifically refers to "street right-of-way". The area in question amounts approximately 1
acre, which could, depending on your Commission's determination, equate to a decrease in 12
dwelling from the 98 dwelling initially calculated and an allowable maximum of 86 dwelling units.
Since the applicant has proposed 78 dwelling units, the decrease may have no effect; however
the clarification of this point is significant for review of future proposals.
Recommendation
Staff advises your Commission to determine that the proposed General Plan Amendment and
Rezoning be found consistent with the ALUP, because the maximum number of people per acre
for residential development set by the ALUP, will not be exceeded.
Consistency Requirements for Humbert Avenue Affordable Housing Project
The following are required as part of the determination process by the ALUC. All future and
associated development with the "Humbert Avenue General Plan Amendment and Rezone" are
required to meet all requirements set herein and all other applicable ALUP regulations..
1. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters), and potential
occupants (whether as owners or renters) will receive the disclosure document approved
by the Airport Land Use Commission in conjunction with this review prior to entering any
contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or otherwise occupy any property or
properties within the airport area.
2. The maximum residential density allowed is limited to 86 dwelling units total.
3. Avigation easements will be recorded for all properties involved in the proposed
development.
Attachment 4
RESOLUTION NO.5454-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION,GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 851 AND 860 HUMBERT AVENUE; AND
ABANDONMENT OF PORTIONS OF FREDRICK STREET AND HUMBERT
AVENUE; GP/R/ABAN/ER.27-06
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
June 14, 2006, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/ABAN/ER 27-06,
Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo County, applicant; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the General Plan
Amendment,rezoning, and abandonment; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required bylaw; and .
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission has conducted a public hearing on May
17, 2006 and found the proposed General Plan Amendment to be consistent with the Airport
Land Use Plan;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact as prepared by staff; and
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
A. General Plan and Zoning Map amendments
1. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative
Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the
proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the Commission.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning is consistent with General Plan Land
Use Element policies regarding the expansion of housing opportunities and maximizing the
development potential of infill sites. Additionally the project is consistent with General Plan
Housing Element goals and polices which encourage facilitating housing production and
land use efficiency, including HE Policy 6.3.7 which specifically identifies this area as
potentially being appropriate for residential uses. /��
Attachment 4
Resolution No.5454-06
Page 2
3. The modification of 851 and 860 Humbert from an industrial designation (Manufacturing:
M) to a residential designation (Medium-High Density Residential: R-3) . would not
adversely impact the overall supply of manufacturing property in the area, as the proximity
of the sites to residential and park uses make it undesirable for many industrial uses.
4. The modification of 851 and 860 Humbert from an industrial designation (Manufacturing:
M) to a residential designation (Medium-High Density Residential: R-3) would not result in
an inappropriate development on the site, as the Special Considerations "S" overlay will
insure that future residents are aware of the existing airport,railroad, and manufacturing uses
in the vicinity..
5. The modification of 851 and 860 Humbert from an industrial designation (Manufacturing:
M) to a residential designation (Medium-High Density Residential: R-3) would not result in
an inappropriate density on the site, as the Special Considerations "S" overlay will insure
that future development of the sites is consistent with ALUP safety policies.
6. The Special Considerations "S" overlay is appropriate at this site, as it will ensure that future
development of the sites are consistent with ALUP safety policies and City noise standards.
To ensure that future development of.851 and 860 Humbert does not exceed ALUP density
standards and is consistent with City noise policies, the following standards shall apply to
the Special Considerations overlay for these sites:
Airoort Safety
a. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters), and potential
occupants (whether as owners or renters) will receive the disclosure document approved
by the Airport Land Use Commission in conjunction with this review prior to entering
any contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or otherwise occupy any property or
properties within the airport area.
b. Development of the sites shall be evaluated for consistency with the City Zoning
Regulations and Airport Land Use Safety policies,including maximum density of.persons
per acre, with development not to exceed a total of 86 front doors.
c. Aviation easements will be recorded for all properties involved in proposed development.
Noise
d. The construction of future residential uses at 851 Humbert Avenue shall be accompanied
by an acoustical analysis (noise study) to ensure that interior spaces and exterior private
use areas are designed to mitigate noise impacts to levels determined acceptable by the
City_'s_.General_Plan_Noise Element._Specificconstruction_details shall be. identified as
recommendations in the study.
e. All owners and occupants shall receive disclosure concerning the adjacent manufacturing
uses and potential noise exposure.
i�y
Attachment 4
Resolution No.5454-06
Page 3
B. Abandonments
1. The proposed abandonment of rights-of-way are consistent with the General Plan because
they are no longer needed for present or future public purposes.
2. Development of the rights-of-way as public streets would not serve any reasonable public
purpose since those properties fronting the rights-of-way gain access from other improved
streets, and there are no existing infrastructure improvements within the areas to be
abandoned.
3. The rights-of-way abandonments will benefit the general public by eliminating unused right-
of-way and eliminating the City's costs for maintaining additional infrastructure
improvements.
4. The proposed rights-of-way abandonments are categorically exempt from environmental
review under Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
SECTION 2. Action.
The Planning Commission does hereby recommend adoption of said mitigated Negative
Declaration and approval of the requests for a general plan amendment and rezoning of 851 and
860 Humbert, as shown on attached Exhibit A an B and including the standards for the "S"
overlay described above, and including the ALUP approved disclosure agreement which is
included as Exhibit C; and approval of abandonment of portions of Frederick Street and Humbert
Avenue, as shown on attached Exhibit D, with incorporation of the following mitigation
measure, conditions, and code requirements:
Mitigation Measure
1. To ensure development of the properties is in compliance with Airport Land Use Plan safety
provisions and the City's noise standards, the Special Considerations "S" overlay as
described in Finding No. 5, above, shall be applied to the zoning designation of the
properties..
Conditions
2. The street abandonment shall not be finalized by the City until after all of the project
discretionary approvals have been secured by the Housing Authority for their affordable
housing project.
3. The rights-of-way necessary to complete the cul-de-sac's at the Francis and Humbert street
.----..ends shall-.be offered-or.re-offered.for dedication to the city concurrent with or prior to final.—
street abandonment. The required offers shall reflect city standard cul-de-sac designs to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4. A public pedestrian and vehicle access easement shall be provided from Humbert to _
Lawrence in the area of the former Victoria Ave. abandonment to the satisfaction of the City �s
Attachment 4
Resolution No.5454-06
Page 4
Engineer. Said easement shall be offered to the city concurrent with or prior to final street
abandonment.
5. Development proposals for future uses at the site shall incorporate design features, such as
positioning of buildings, berming, and/or fencing to reduce direct access from the site to the
railroad tracts to discourage residents and guests from trespassing across railroad right-of-
way.
6. The Architectural Review Commission shall review design features of future development
proposals to address the interface between manufacturing and.residential land uses.
On motion by Commissioner Stevenson, seconded by Commissioner Carter, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Stevenson, Ashbaugh, Christianson, Carter, and Chairperson
Miller
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Brown and McCoy
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 14th day of June, 2006.
Doug Davi on, Secretary
Planning Commission
/ lee
Openspace,-
r Servic s.,4'
-Manufacturing ,.r'
,1 ,� ,''i� � � ,`l; ., "•-tib
� i� i� ��r J ,,,tom t'i ,•\ ,`,, ''tif.��4.�"�., ~� ~ ~ �r
! ".fir-6 }'f r/� r/�•`44 " '5'`1,5 ''`
/ ` ;,l•�'� . . �� f'f �t L. ,..,,,..����1A.�i.�y"'�".x/r�'/L�,�T#/��'�����.v��l'��1'�h�.�V+.�i l� ,/�i 45( '`.,�
,1.I T�wla� _.1�..�^.��'//�./� ��fig"�.� e ,,,.7 •��i..��.�F-�� / �•~ ,
_
1 i 1 i 11
Attachment 4
•
IL
zs �u
x.
�
PF
r �
Clos
. s
r ,
Y
{
4
1
i
F rr 1
on ¢°
9 e'
3m D
FJ k
Zoning Map Legend 0 R-1
GPfR(ABAN/ER 27-06 ® GS 0 PF M R-2
850 and 861 Humbert
M ClUS = R-3
Attachment 4
EXX Eff
�^
DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS-Humbert Affordable ousing Project
For Lease, rent orpurchase=This.would be Hart of a list of. eneral Disclosures that
would be.sizned by the lessees, renters or purchasers in order to open a contract for sale
The purpose of this disclosure is to give you information,whi ch may affect your
purchase. You should independently verify the information 4erein.
VICINITY TO AIRPORT. Buyer and renters understands t lat the Project is in the
proximity to the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport a of that the Airport is
approximately 8,800 feet from the project. The Project is wii iin the Airport Safety Area
S-2 of the Airport Land Use Plan. The Buyer understands th t the property may be
impacted with noise, vibration,and safety issues from the Ai. ort operations and/or by
the operations of aircraft using the airport.
OVERFLIGHT OF PROPERTY. The Buyer/Renter unders ds that the property is
subject to a Recorded Avigation Easement and is subject to o` er flights by aircraft using
the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. t4
All owners,potential purchasers,occupants(whether as own s or renters), and potential
occupants(whether as owners or renters)regarding the property and projects known as
the Humbert Affordable Housing Project will receive full and accurate disclosure
concerning the noise, safety;or overflight impacts associated with airport operations prior
to entering any contractual obligation to purchase, lease,.renf or otherwise occupy any
property or properties within the airport area. The following ormation is provided to
disclose the information listed above:
1. The project is located within 1.5 miles of the San Luis Ob'po County Regional
Airport. The airport is in operation 24 hours a day,every day.
2. The project is located directly below portions of FAA-des igaated traffic patterns that
will be followed by aircraft departing from and approac ' gto land at the San Luis
Obispo County Regional Airport.The site, therefore,*may be subject to noise and
vibration from aircraft flying at relatively low altitudes at y time of the day or
mi ni
night. There is no required mum altitude for aircraft .lat are taking off from or
approaching to land at an airport.
3. Because of pilot training activities at the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport,
the site may be subjected to repetitive overflight by studeat t pilots practicing take-offs
and landings in fixed-wing aircraft.
There is no required minimum altitude for aircraft that art taking off-from or
- --- — ----approaching to land at an airport. -
4. The nearby Broad Street corridor is a designated practice i rea for training of
helicopter pilots. This site,therefore,may be subject to re 3etitive overflight by
helicopters at low altitudes and to the noise and vibration associated with such
/9
Attachment 4
Humbert Affordable Housing rroject,Draft Disclosure Statement Page 2
Operations. Helicopters are specifically exempted from I AA-designated minimum
altitude requirements.
For CC&Rs–This would be included in the text
VICINITY TO AIRPORT. The Property is in the proximity to the San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport and that the Airport is approximate y 8,800 feet from the
Project. The Project is within the Airport Safety Zone S-2 of the Airport Land Use Plan.
The property may be impacted with noise,vibration, and saf ty issues from the Airport
operations and/or by the operations of aircraft using the airport.
OVERFLIGHT OF PROPERTY. The entire property is s 'ect to a Recorded
Avigation Easement and is subject over flights by aircraft usi iig the San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport.
All owners,potential purchasers,occupants (whether as owners or renters), and potential
occupants(whether as owners or renters)regarding the pro ty and project known as the
Humbert Affordable Housing Project will receive full and a disclosure concerning
the noise,safety, or overflight impacts associated with airpori operations prior to entering
any contractual obligation to purchase, lease,rent or otherwi'a occupy any property or
properties within the airport area. The following information is provided to disclose the
information listed above:
1. The project is located within 1.5 miles of the San Luis Obispo County Regional
Airport. The airport is in operation 24 hours a day,every day.
2. The project is located directly below portions of FAA-designated traffic patterns that
will be followed by aircraft departing from and approaching to land at the San Luis
Obispo County Regional Airport. The site, therefore,may be subject to noise and
vibration from aircraft flying at relatively low altitudes at anytime of the day or
night. There is no required minimum altitude for aircraft t at are taking off from or
approaching to land at an airport.
3. Because of pilot training activities at the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport,
the site may be subjected to repetitive overflight by studei Lt pilots practicing take-offs
and landings in fixed-wing aircraft.
There is no required minimum altitude for aircraft that are taking off from or
approaching to land at an airport.
4. The near by Broad Street corridor is a designated practice area for training of
helicopter pilots. This site,therefore,maybe subject to repetitive overflight by
helicopter;at low altitudes and to the noise and vibration ociated with such
— --- erations. Heti e�rs are t if'ic exein ted from F degig -ted minnnuin
� � � � may- P - gna
altitude requirements.
h1lLcLGIIYI'1�11[ ti}
\` G\\
\ \ I
C)\\\ - X.
8�1 Fr ci Portion of Frederick Street-
`\ to be abandoned
"
S` CO Hum rt ���• `� �`''�.
\851 Humbert
"
Portion of Humbert Avenue
to be abandoned
�\ o �\ \
\\
Abandonment of Portions of Frederick Street and Humbert Avenue
GP/R1ABAN ER 27-06
850 and 861 Humbert j��
Attachment 4
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 14, 2006
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Charles Stevenson, John Ashbaugh, Andrew Carter,
Vice-Chair Carlyn Christianson and Chairperson Andrea Miller
Absent: Commissioners Jason McCoy and Peter Brown .
Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Associate
Planner Jaime Hill, Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick, and
Recording Secretary Jill Francis
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
The agenda was accepted as written.
MINUTES: Minutes of May 24, 2006.
The minutes of May 24, 2006 were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 851 & 860 Humbert Avenue ,-,,GP/R ER:and:ABAN 27-06; Request to amend the
General Plan Land Use Element Map from services and Manufacturing to Medium-
High Density Residential and the Zoning Map from M to R-3-S; street abandonment
of Frederick Street and a portion of Humbert Avenue, and environmental review; M
zone; Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Jaime Hill)
Associate Planner Jaime Hill presented the staff report, recommending the Commission
adopt a resolution which recommends that the City Council amend the Land Use Element
Map from Services and Manufacturing to Medium High-Density Residential, change the
zoning from M (Manufacturing) to R-3-S (Medium-High-Density Residential with a Special
Considerations overlay zone), allow the abandonment of portions of Frederick Street and
Humbert Avenue, and adopt the mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact.
Deputy Director Doug Davidson explained the concept of co-op housing.
Carol Hatley, applicant, spoke in support of the project, discussed money coming in from
the State, cooperative ownership, and expressed the need for the abandonment.
Attachment 4
Planning Commission Minute_ _
June 14,2006- Page 2
Jeff Dillon, project architect, discussed the lack of access from Francis Street and the
design and financing details of the future project.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Dan Kallel, San Luis Obispo, expressed his concern as to whether he would be able to
continue to utilize his property, which is zoned Manufacturing, as work/live in the future,
since it is currently a single-family residence. He supported the project and the need for
housing but was concerned with how the zoning changes may affect the local businesses
at this and other new project areas.
Steve Delmartini, San Luis Obispo, agreed with Mr. Kallel on the need to be careful with
zoning changes and noise exposure complications. He noted that. many of these same
issues were raised during the review of the De Tolosa residential development on Los
Osos Valley Road.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioners Stevenson and Ashbaugh expressed concerns related to circulation,
potential safety issues related to increased trespass on the Union Pacific Railroad
property, and compatibility with neighboring industrial uses. The discussion focused on
circulation and the need for an additional pedestrian crossing to the east side of the
railroad, particularly given the additional residences that are being proposed to the west
and the increased trips that will be made to Sinsheimer Park and elementary school.
Commr. Stevenson asked about future financial impact, noted that the future bike trail will
be on City-owned property adjacent to the railroad right-of-way, discussed safety fencing,
grading and need to eliminate refuse on the site, and requested that concerns to be
forwards to the ARC regarding illegal trespass, vandal-proof fencing and available/safe
pedestrian access.
Commissioners Christianson, Carter, and Miller felt ,that these issues were more
appropriately discussed during future review of a development project, rather than during
the GP/R/ABAN process.
In response to a concern raised by Mr. Kallel, the Commission pointed out that a
condition of approval would require that future occupants be notified of the adjacent
industrial uses and potential noise exposure
Commr. Carter asked the applicant if there was an opportunity to purchase adjacent
property. He expressed concerns with pedestrian access to adjacent areas, and noted
that the project entitlements before them were the land use designation and
abandonment only, and not a development project.
Commr. Miller supported the project, noting it will be a welcome replacement to the now
vacant property and will improve the continuity of development in this area.
Attachment 4
Planning Commission Minute_
June 14, 2006 Page 3
Commr. Ashbaugh questioned the limited general plan amendment allotment, the reason
for two different projects, and the density factor.
There was also some discussion about the.proximity of bus stops and transit lines to the
site, and development of the Victoria Street extension as a private versus public street.
On motion by Commr. Stevenson to support staff's recommendation recommending
approval -to City Council of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment
and .zone change for property located at 851 and 860 Humbert: and abandonment of
Portions of Fredrick_Street- and Humbert Avenue, based on. findings and subiect to
mitigation measures and conditions,_ with two -additional- conditions added: 5)
Development proposals for future uses at.the site shall incorporate design features, such
as positioning of buildings, berming, and/or fencing to reduce direct access from.the site
to the railroad tracts to discourage residents and guests from trespassing across railroad
right-of-way; and 6) The Architectural Review Commission shall review design features of
future development proposals to address the interface between manufacturing and
residential land uses. Seconded by Commr. Ashbaugh.
AYES: Commrs. Ashbaugh, Christianson, Miller, Carter and Stevenson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Brown and McCoy
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 5:0 vote.
2. Staff
A. Agenda Forecast
Deputy Director Doug Davidson presented an agenda forecast of upcoming projects.
3. Commission
ADJOURMENT:
With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m. to
the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Wednesday June 28,
2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Respectfully submitted by
Jill Francis
Recording Secretary
Approved by Planning Commission on June 28, 2006.
Diane R. Stuart, CM
Management Assistant
/-2y
Attachment 4
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM# 1
BY: Jaime Hill, Associate Planner(781-7165) �— DATE: June 14, 2006
FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director of Community Development b
FILE NUMBER: GP, R, ER, ABAN 27-06
PROJECT ADDRESS: 851 and 860 Humbert Avenue
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment and Rezone of two parcels addressed as 851 and 860
Humbert Avenue, east of Broad Street and adjacent to the railroad right-of-way, from
Manufacturing (M) to Medium-High Density Residential with the Special Considerations overlay
(R-3-S), and abandonment of undeveloped right-of-way at the intersection of Fredrick Street and.
Humbert Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached Planning Commission resolution which recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve a resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 27-06) and
amending the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use designation of
the parcels addressed as 851 and 860 Humbert Avenue from Services &Manufacturing to
Medium-High Density Residential.
2. Adopt an ordinance changing the zoning of the parcels addressed as 851 and 860
.Humbert Avenue from Manufacturing (M) to Medium-High Density Residential with the
Special Considerations overlay (R-3-S).
3. Approve a resolution allowing the abandonment of portions of Frederick Street and
Humbert Avenue based on findings and subject to conditions.
BACKGROUND
Situation/Proiect Description
The City has received an application for a General Plan amendment and Rezoning (GP/R) for
two undeveloped parcels east of Broad Street, and abandonment of the adjacent undeveloped
portions of Fredrick Street and Humbert Avenue. The larger of the two parcels; 851 Humbert, is
approximately 4.27 acres, while the smaller 860 Humbert is approximately 0.39 acres in area.
The applicant would like to amend the properties' land use designation from Services &
Manufacturing to Medium-High Density Residential and zoning from Manufacturing (M) to
Medium-High Density Residential with the Special Considerations overlay (R-3-S) (see
Attachments 2 and 3 —General Plan and Zoning Maps). Both properties are currently vacant, and
with the proposed designation would become available for development with residential units
(see Attachment 4, letter from the project applicant).
The applicant has also requested to abandon the undeveloped portions of Fredrick Street and
Humbert Avenue which currently divide the two properties. The total area of abandonment
would be 23,760 square-feet, which would be reverted to the three adjacent properties. These
/--2 s
Attachment 4
GP/R, ER, ABAN 27-06 _
851 and 860 Humbert
Page 2
undeveloped rights-of-way include a 60 by 270 foot strip of land adjacent to 881 Francis, 860
Humbert, and 851 Humbert, and a 60 by 120 foot strip of land between 860 and 841 Humbert
(see Attachment 5). The Planning Commission's role is to review the proposed General Plan
Amendment, Rezone, and Street Abandonments for consistency with the City's General Plan and
to make a recommendation to the City Council. In regards to the street abandonment, the
Planning Commission should be aware that the California Streets and Highways Code requires a
street vacation (abandonment) be done in the interest of the public and not an individual property
owner. The Council will consider whether to adopt a "Resolution of Intention," which would set
a public hearing to consider the matter of final abandonment. If passed, a final "Resolution of
Abandonment"will be adopted and recorded with the County Recorder.
Data Summary
Address: 851 and 860 Humbert Avenue; portions of Frederick Street and Humbert Avenue
Applicant: Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo County
Representative: Debbie Rudd, RRM Design
Existing Zoning: M (Manufacturing)
Proposed Zoning: R-3-S (Medium-High Density Residential with the Special Considerations
overlay)
Existing General Plan: Services &Manufacturing
Proposed General Plan: Medium-High Density Residential
Environmental Status:. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended by the Deputy
Director on June 7, 2006 (ER 27-06). Final action on the initial study
will be taken by the City Council.
Site Description
The subject properties, 851 and 860 Humbert, are vacant parcels separated by the undeveloped
portions of Fredrick Street and Humbert Avenue which are proposed for abandonment. The
larger of the two properties, 851 Humbert, is an irregularly-shaped parcel that is approximately
4.27 acres (186,000 square feet) in size. The property was historically known as the railroad wye,
as it was developed with rail lines that allowed trains to turn around after their northernmost stop
in San Luis Obispo..After rail lines were continued north over the Cuesta Grade use of the wye
was discontinued. Today, the site is raised several feet over neighboring properties due to the
accumulation of fill materials left on the site over the course of many years. The smaller parcel;
860 Humbert, is approximately 0.39 acres (16,800 square feet) and is also undeveloped. There is,
currently no developed access to this parcel, as Humbert Avenue to the south and Frederick
Street to the east are both undeveloped at this location.
The surrounding area is developed with a mixture of residences and commercial properties.
Immediately to the south is Villa Rosa, an attached townhome development, to the east are
multiple small service commercial businesses, to the north is a mixture of service commercial
businesses and older single family residences, and to the east is the railroad right-of-way and
additional housing. Other surrounding uses include the Broad Street Corridor, Sinsheimer Park,
and the railroad safety path. Because of the historic development pattern of the area, commonly
known as Little Italy, there is an interesting mixture of residential and industrial uses which is not
/-26
Attachment 4
GP/R, ER, ABAN 27-06
851 and 860 Humbert
Page 3
reflected in the current land use designation for the area. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in
the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1).
EVALUATION
1. General Plan Amendment and Rezone
General Plan Consistency
The undeveloped properties are currently designated as "Services & Manufacturing" on the
General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map and zoned for Manufacturing (M). Although these
map designations are consistent with those of properties to the north and west, the (as-built)
situation in the neighborhood is a far more eclectic mixture of industrial, commercial and
residential uses. Under the current M zoning there are several uses which would now be
considered inappropriate for the area, particularly given redevelopment plans for the Broad Street
Corridor which are now being developed. The proposed Medium-High Density Residential land
use designation would eliminate the undesirable siting of additional manufacturing facilities
adjacent to residential uses, and would allow for an expansion of the dense residential uses which
surround the site. .
The General Plan Amendment and Rezone, and future development of the properties with
residential uses is consistent with both Land Use and Housing Element policies. Most significant
is HE Policy 6.3.7, which states that the City should "Consider amendments to the General Plan
to rezone commercial, manufacturing or public facility zoned areas for residential use, to
promote higher-density, infill or mixed-use housing where land development patterns are no
longer valid and where impact to Low Density Residential areas is minimal". This policy and the
associated map (HE Figure 1) identify the Little Italy district and portions of the Broad Street
corridor, which includes the subject properties, as having a land use designation which may no
longer be appropriate, and where rezoning to a residential use would have minimal impact to
Low Density Residential areas. Other Housing Element Policies, such as HE 11.2.1 comment on
giving priority to residential uses over commercial uses where property is suited for either, and
HE 4.2.4 which states that "the City shall affirmatively further fair housing and promote equal
housing opportunities for persons of all economic segments of the community" a goal that is part
of the Housing Authoritys mission as a provider of low-income and special needs housing.
LUE Policy 2.2.2 states that "residential areas should be separated or screened from
incompatible, nonresidential activities, including most commercial and manufacturing business,"
and LUE Policy 2.2.10 states that "housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in
scale and in character with that neighborhood". The requested rezoning would implement both
of these policies, as it would allow for the properties to be developed with housing of a similar
density to the development adjacent to the south. Given the proximity to both residential uses
and the public park, the properties would not be ideally suited for many of the uses allowed under
the current zoning, therefore modifying their designation from commercial/industrial to
residential would not significantly impact the overall supply of M-zoned land available and
appropriate for service commercial or industrial development. However, because there is
industrial activity in the immediately surrounding area a mitigation measure has been
Atiachmenf 4
GP/R, ER, ABAN 27-06
851 and 860 Humbert
Page 4
recommended which would require future occupants be informed of the adjacent manufacturing
uses and potential noise exposure.
Compatibility with surrounding
, hl
development—Any future development of Y 4 a
the site will be subject to Architectural
Review which includes evaluation of a . PF
neighborhood compatibility. Currently the _• .
c/o
sites are vacant. Their re-designation from «`
a commercial designation to one which
would allow residential uses at a density
similar to surrounding properties will _ Currently
allow them to be developed consistently "=' Proposed R. SI
with neighboring properties, providing
housing in an area with existing "4- j
infrastructure and adjacent to public
facilities and schools. Also, with the qx •, ,/ :" 'e �_
proposed land use designation the future
redevelopment of the sites will be required `` ` °`• y •a{ �.r3: sL,
to comply with the R-3 development
standards for height and setbacks, rather
than the more liberal developments
standards of the existing Service & l
Manufacturing designation and M zoning. h
Project Location
Airport]Land Use Plan Consistency
The project site is designated in the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) as being within Safety Area
S-2, which limits density to 12 front doors per acre. As calculated by the ALUP, the properties
measured out to the centerline of the adjacent right-of-ways total 7.21 acres and would be
allowed 86 front doors. At their May 17, 2006 hearing, the Airport Land Use Commission
reviewed the project and found the proposed residential land use designation consistent with
Airport Land Use Plan safety policies, with the incorporation of three "consistency requirements"
which have been applied to the standards of the "S" overlay(see Attachments 7 and 10).
Density
General Plan Land Use Element Policy 7.2 states that "Development should be permitted only if
it is consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan". Unlike the ALUP
practices described above, City density calculations for the gross site area are made exclusive of
adjacent right-of-way, by a count of the number of bedrooms within the dwellings, with a two-
bedroom dwelling being equivalent to 1.0 density units. Exclusive of the right-of way the total
site area is 4.66 acres, which at the proposed 18 units per acre (allowed in the R-3 zone) would
allow a density of 83.88 units. Because a project which includes a significant number of studio
and 1-bedroom units could exceed the number of front doors allowed by the ALUP while G
Attachment 4
GP/R, ER, ABAN 27-06 -
851 and 860 Humbert
Page 5
remaining compliant with City standards, a mitigation measure has been incorporated into the
Initial Study requiring application of the Special Considerations" (S) overlay to the properties. As
mentioned previously, the "Special Considerations" (S) overlay would mandate that any future
development of the properties be subject to use permit review, specifically to insure compliance
with ALUP safety policies, including density maximums of 12 front doors per acre. These
standards are enumerated in the draft resolution as part of the findings recommended for
approval of the R-3 zoning designation.
Affordable Housing
As explained in Attachment No. 6, the Housing Authority is proposing a unique housing type at
this location; a Limited Equity Housing. Cooperative (LEHC). Cooperatives are a hybrid of
ownership and rented housing; while a cooperative owner has the tax advantages of home
ownership, the ownership itself is a collective share of the development instead of ownership of
a particular unit outright. In a LEHC, resale proceeds are restricted to maintain permanent
affordability and the units must be owner occupied. On August 16, 2005, the City Council
contributed a $600,000 loan from the City's Affordable Housing Fund to the Housing Authority
to fill a gap in financing to acquire the property.
Noise
The Initial Study identifies potentially significant impacts from noise from the adjacent industrial
operations and railroad. A portion of 851 Humbert is identified in the City's General Plan Noise
Element as being within the 65dB contour. To ensure that noise concerns are adequately
addressed with future development of this site the "S" overlay contains a standard which would
require an acoustical analysis be prepared to ensure that any future project at 851 Humbert is
designed to meet the standards contained in the City's Noise Element for exposure of residents to
transportation noise sources and that future occupants be notified of the proximity of
manufacturing uses.
2. Abandonments
In order to abandon the rights-of-way, the California Streets and Highways Code requires the
Planning Commission to determine whether the abandonment is consistent with the City's
General Plan. This means that a determination needs to be made on whether the rights-of-way
will be needed for present or future public purposes. In addition, continued access to any City or
public utility services and improvements needs to be properly preserved. The following
paragraphs discuss pertinent issues associated with the request and evaluate whether the public
way will be needed for future City purposes.
Future Circulation Needs
The General Plan Circulation Element designates Fredrick Street and Humbert Avenue as local
streets. The abandonment of these portions of Fredrick and Humbert does not conflict with
future circulation needs since the excess rights-of-way are unimproved segments of road which
are not necessary to serve any properties. All of the parcels that are adjacent to these segments of
Attachment 4
GP/R, ER, AB AN 27-06
851 and 860 Humbert f
Page 6
road will retain existing access to public rights-of-way; 881 Francis will continue to take access
from Francis, 860 Humbert will continue to take access from Humbert (at the end of a new cul-
de-sac), and 851 will have access from the cul-de-sacs proposed the ends of both Francis and
Humbert (see Attachment 8). Based on this information, and as supported by the City Public
Works Department, it can be concluded that this right-of-way is not planned for any future
roadway improvements. Since the portions of the rights-of-way requested for abandonment
would only affect three parcels, which would maintain adequate access from improved streets,
abandonment of these segments of road would not conflict with any City General Plan or
circulation goals.
Public Utilities
Typically, if the Council determines that rights-of-way should be abandoned, easements must be
reserved for public and private utilities to the satisfaction of the City and the respective utility
companies. These easements would insure that the affected local utilities retain rights to repair
and service any facilities within the areas proposed for abandonment. However, because there
are no public or private utilities in the portions of rights-of-way to be abandoned the reservation
of these easements is not necessary. The rights-of-way abandonment proposal was reviewed by
the Public Works and Utilities Departments, and local utility companies for their review and
comment. Based on their comments, staff has found that the proposed abandonment of rights-of-
way will not adversely impact existing or future public utilities in the immediate area or in the
City as a whole.
Disposition of Abandoned Right-of-Way
Unless the rights-of-way are owned in fee by the City, the underlying property reverts back to the
adjacent property owners when abandoned. The Gas Company. does not maintain piping
facilities in the area proposed for abandonment According to the Lot Book Guarantee documents
submitted by the applicant, and verified by the City Public Works Department, the rights-of-way
are not owned by the City, and would be reverted back to adjacent property owners if it is
abandoned.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The proposed General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and abandonments were routed to various
City departments, including Public Works, Transportation, Utilities and Fire. These departments
commented that the proposed re-designation of the sites from industrial to residential and
abandonment of unimproved rights-of-way would not effect their provision of services.
However, future development of the sites will need to be reviewed for consistency with City
standards, through the architectural review process as is customary.
Conclusion
The General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of 851 and 860 Humbert Avenue. from.
Manufacturing (M) to Medium-High Density Residential with the Special.Considerations overlay
(R-3-S) seems appropriate at this location, as many of the uses allowed under the current zoning
would be incompatible with the adjacent residential uses. The requested residential designation
Attachment 4
GP/R, ER, ABAN 27-06
851 and 860 Humbert
Page 7
will allow the properties to be developed with residential uses at a density similar to the adjacent
properties, consistent with City goals to increase residential density in in-fill locations, and where
it will not be detrimental to existing single-family residential development.
While staff is recommending approval of this request, it should be noted that absent a Council
action overriding the ALUP front door policies or approval of a Cluster Development Plan,
redevelopment of the site within the maximum allowable density will somewhat direct the unit
type mix. Future plans will be evaluated for consistency with City property development policies
and standards, neighborhood compatibility, and ALUP regulations. Despite this constraint, the
proposed land use designation will allow for additional housing units to be developed in an area
particularly well suited for residences.
REFERRALS
The project proposal was routed to various City departments, including the Housing Programs
Manager, Public Works, Transportation, Utilities and Neighborhood Planner, and comments
received have been incorporated into the staff recommendation and mitigation measures where
appropriate. The project has also been reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission and found
to be consistent with ALUP safety policies.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Commission may approve a resolution recommending approval of the project with
modified findings and/or conditions.
2. The Commission may approve a resolution recommending that the City Council deny the
proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone, based on findings of inconsistency with
the General Plan as specified by the Planning Commission.
3. The Commission may continue review of the project, if more information is needed.
Direction should be given to staff and the applicants.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2. )
3.
4. Zoning Map
5. Abandeament Map
6. ruary
7. _ g
8. PrQgesed.al�ar�de�aet�td s
9. P
10. Iattixl Studq( I '96)
11. Braft-Plann'
i
s m Attachment S
lit
V
i = ;
FRANCIS STREET
u •
n \ •
I m
I I 4 6 \
0 ,I
A
ig w
HUMBERT AVE
x F t a
He \ ^c
., o
s
:? (D LAWRENCEAR /
: O
N
:n
E lQ
Do
0
CL
CD
CD
6 0 _� i
IMIN
O RM
N3 g u "
rfl CD
C, i
� r
v+ s�
...........
/3z
Attachment 6
f rwArJcib:�rRE r �i \
It•r
Fr
$� a aQ I
r
-p
I I I I
I
I. I ,I \
J,•��1 1
>
td
to
\ 1\
" a1\
c " m
I I I Kl �m I�
o` I I I _ a .
fiUMSERTAVE'
-tX> 1
Dia
III II Vv
f
II IIv0 u
o. �](] H d I 11
va V A K
2 m K K
Z I I L
o
III I I AA
rD
p � LAWRENCEDR
Fa Fv fa FP a
p a a a o
E fl-
D o Q H�$ S D 5• {�$$. Q i a 3 N
r-1 C
n I €€ a -9
:0 (D ('D
-
:pN 7
:..........
€ S ®bosh®.�...........
................
/-3,3
pppp Attachment 7
SII 1111111iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillilillift" AIlii
l
a of sAn luls OBISPO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 27-06
1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Abandonment GP/R/ABAN 27-06
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:
Jaime Hill, Associate Planner(805) 781-7165
4. Project Location: 851 and 860 Humbert
Portions of Frederick Street and Humbert Avenue, east of Broad Street
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Housing Authority of SLO
487 Leff
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
6. General Plan Designation: Services &Manufacturing
7. Zoning: Manufacturing
8. Description of the Project:
General Plan Amendment and Rezone to change the parcels Land Use designation from Services
& Manufacturing to Medium-High Density Residential, and Zoning designation from
Manufacturing (M) to Medium-High Density Residential with the Special Considerations overlay
(R-3-S), and abandonment of unimproved portions of Frederick Street and Humbert Avenue
rights-of-way.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The subject properties are vacant lots separated by
undeveloped portions of Frederick Street and Humbert Avenue. The larger property, 851
Humbert, is an irregularly shaped parcel that is approximately 4.4 acres in size. The smaller
parcel, 860 Humbert, is a rectangular-shaped property of approximately 0.39 acre (16,870 square-
feet) in size. The properties to the north and west are designated for Manufacturing(M) uses, and
are developed with a mixture of commercial business and older single-family residences.
Properties to the south are designated Medium-High Density Residential with the Planned
OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. 3�
�� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
- Attachment 7
Development overlay (R-3-PD) and are developed with a mixture of townhomes and
condominiums. Immediately to the east of the site is the Union Pacific Railroad. Other
surrounding uses include the railroad bike path, the Broad Street Corridor, and various
manufacturing, service-commercial and residential uses.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
The applicant is requesting a General Plan (Land Use Map) amendment and rezone, and
abandonment of City rights-of-way to accommodate redevelopment of the site.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
The site is within Airport Safety Area S-2, which mandates that General Plan and Zone
reclassification requests be brought before the Airport Land Use Committee for a determination
of compliance with the Airport Land Use Plan. On May 17, 2006 the ALUC reviewed the project
and found the proposed residential land use designation consistent with Airport Land Use Plan
safety policies.
�r C17Y OF SAN LUIS Omspo 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 7
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 X Hazards&Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources X Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing
Resources
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de tninimis 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)).
CITY OF SAN LUIS Onto.F0 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
' Ritachment Z
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
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 X
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or,mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Sign&f&e Date
Doug Davidson,Deputy Director of Community Development For:John Mandeville,
Printed Name Community Development Director
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
r Attachment. 7
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of
Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case;a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
CITY OF SAN LUIS Oetspo 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
A:,'t=hmenf 7
Issues, Discussion and Supportii.. a,,vrmation Sources Sources Potc .]'Y- Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #27-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited 1,9, X
to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings 10
within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 1,9, X
the site and its surroundings? 10
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 1, 23 X
adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area?
Evaluation
a), b), c),d)The subject properties are currently surrounded by urban uses and are not within a location that is considered a
scenic vista, nor are Frederick Street or Humbert Avenues designated as roads of scenic value within the General Plan
Circulation Element.
The General Plan Amendment/rezoning (GPA/R) will allow for redevelopment of the properties with residential uses. The
current Manufacturing zoning designation would allow for mixed-use projects with residential densities of 24-units per acre,
with approval of a Planning Commission Use Permit, with up to 75% lot coverage, a floor area ration of 1.5, and buildings up
to 35-feet in height. The proposed R-3 zoning would allow for up to 18 dwelling units per net acre, with 60% lot coverage
and building heights up to 35-feet.
The land use designation change would result in reduced lot coverage and development of residential rather than commercial
structures. Future site development will require review by the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC), which will
address/mitigate the project's impacts to views and other potential aesthetic issues like light/glare to a less than significant
level.
Conclusion
The proiect will have a less than significant impact on area aesthetics.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of 11 X
Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a 9 X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to 9 X
their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
Evaluation
a), b), c) Both sites are currently undeveloped despite being surrounded by urban uses and public streets. The Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency designates these properties as Urban Land. There are
not Williamson Act contracts in effect on the project sites. No impacts to existing on-site or off-site agricultural resources are
anticipated with future development of the project sites.
Conclusion
The project does not have the potential to impact agricultural resources.
3. AIR QUALM. Would theproject:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 13,14 X
existing or projected air quality violation?
CRY OF SAN LUIS Owsao 6 INrnAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Af+aChman¢ 7
EER
s, Discussion and Supporta.,, I._.,rmation Sources Sources Pott. i,- Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
27-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 13,14 X
quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 8, X
concentrations? 13,14
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 13,14 X
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 13,14 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 ozoneprecursors)?
Evaluation
a), b), c),e)San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State PM lo(fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in
diameter)air quality standard. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced
by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was
developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District(APCD)to meet that requirement.The CAP is a comprehensive
planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor
vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan.
Temporary impacts from the development of the sites, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities,
vehicle emissions from heavy duty equipment and naturally occurring asbestos, has the potential to create dust and emissions
that exceed air quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods. However, development projects will be subject to
the City's Grading Ordinance which includes dust control measures to reduce any potential impacts.
d)The project is a General Plan(Land Use Map) amendment and rezone and right-of-way abandonment,which are necessary
to facilitate the future development of the sites with residential projects, which will not create objectionable odors under
normal circumstances.
Conclusion
The project does not have the potential to impact air quality.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 5,9 X
through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a
candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or 5,9 X
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 5, 8 X
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident 5,9 X
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation 5 X
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
/ --O
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporth., n...,rmation Sources Sources PotL .It- Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #27-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands 5 X
as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but
not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.)through direct
removal,filling,hydrological interni tion,or other means?
Evaluation
a), b) According the Natural Diversity Database of the California Department of Fish and Game, there are no species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on or near the project sites,nor is riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified.
c) The project is a General Plan (Land Use Map)amendment and rezone and right-of-way abandonment, which are necessary
to facilitate future development of the sites with residential projects,the development of which will require separate review by
the City's Urban Forester and approval by the Architectural Review Commission(ARC).
d) The properties and rights-of-way are completely surrounded by urban development and the proposed GPA/R/ABAN will
not interfere with the movement of any wildlife species or migratory wildlife corridor.
e) The proposed project is a General Plan (Land Use Map) amendment and rezone and street abandonment which does not
conflict with any local policy protecting biological resources nor any adopted habitat conservation plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan.
f) The sites are not near any natural waterway and will therefore have no adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands.
Conclusion
The project does not have the potential to impact biological resources.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 8,9, X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 18
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 19,21 X
archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 9,19 X
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of 19,21 X
formal cemeteries?
Evaluation
a), b)Based on review of the City's Historic Site Map and Land Use Information System,the subject sites are not located on
or near a known sensitive archaeological site or historic resource. Both sites are currently vacant and are not listed as Master
List or Contributing Historic properties.
c) There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project sites or street rights-of-way.
d) The project sites and street rights-of-way are outside of the areas designated on the City's Burial Sensitivity Map as
potential burial sites.
Conclusion
The project does not have the potential to impact cultural resources.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1 5 1 1 1 1 X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient 5 1 x
CRY OF SAN LUIS OBtsPo 8 INRUIL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcKusT 2006
yr
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supportii , t„,ormation Sources Sources Pot. A., Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #27-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 5 X
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
State?
Evaluation
a) b) The GPA/R/ABAN will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or promote the use of non-renewable
resources in an efficient manner. Future development of the area must comply with the policies contained in the General Plan
Conservation and Open Space Element, adopted by the City Council in April, 2006. New development will be encouraged to
minimize the use of conventional energy for space heating and cooling, water heating, and illumination by means of proper
design and orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure. The City implements energy conservation
goals through enforcement of the California Energy Code, which establishes energy conservation standards for residential and
nonresidential construction. Future development of this site must meet those standards. The City also implements energy
conservation goals through Architectural Review. Project designers are asked to show how a project makes maximum use of
passive means of reducing conventional energy demand, as opposed to designing a particular image and relying on
mechanical systems to maintain comfort.
c)No known mineral resources exist within the project site that would be of value to the region or to the residents of the State.
Conclusion
The proiect does not have the potential to impact energy and mineral resources.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including risk of loss,injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the 22 X
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
H. Strong seismic ground shaking? 22 X
III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? 11 X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? 11 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? I 1 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that I 1 X
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially
result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence,
liquefaction,or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the1 I X
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life
or property?
Evaluation
a) c) San Luis Obispo County, including San Luis Obispo is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which
extends along the coastline from central California to Oregon.This region is characterized by extensive folding, faulting,and
fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced northwest trending
ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California.
Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special
studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to
constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County,the special Studies
Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults.The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near
Los Osos Valley Road.According to a recently conducted geology study(source 25), the closest mapped active fault is the
Los Osos Fault, which ruins in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because
Ctrr OF SAN LUIS OwspO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL C•HECKLST 2006
Issues, Discussion and Supportii.3 rt...,rmation Sources Sources Pota. .t,, Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#27-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time(the last 10,000 years),portions of the Los
Osos fault are considered"active". Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas,located about 30 miles to the
northeast,the Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to the northeast,and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located
approximately 12 miles to the west.
Although there are no fault lines on the project sites or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of"High Seismic
Hazards,"specifically Seismic Zone 4, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected
to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Any new development must be designed in compliance with
seismic design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. To minimize this potential impact,the
Uniform Building Code and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an
earthquake.
b)The sites are basically flat,though elevated above adjacent parcels due to accumulated fill material,and development of
the sites with only 60%coverage by residential uses rather than up to 75%coverage by commercial structures allowed by the
current zoning would not have any greater impact on soil erosion or loss of topsoil.The Uniform Building Code contains
standards requirements that address soil erosion and loss of topsoil associated with future site redevelopment.
c), d) The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project sites have a high potential for liquefaction, which is
true for most of the City, and the sites contains highly expansive soils as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (2001), though due to the significant amount of unconsolidated fill in the area native soil characteristics may not be
present. Recommendations included in a soils report, which is routinely required as part of any development application,are
sufficient to mitigate potential hazards from building in these areas. In general, the presence of expansive soils requires
additional base for roadways and flat work and deeper footings for building foundations.
Conclusion
The proiect does not have the potential to impact geology or soil resources.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pr Ject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 25 X
through the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 25 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 9,25 X
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous 25 X
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 9 X
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 24 X
two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with, the 4 X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
b) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, 4 X
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supportit,, ire,, rmation Sources Sources PotL A,, Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#27-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
or death,involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed
with wildlands?
Evaluation
a) The General Plan (Land Use Map) amendment and rezone and street abandonment will facilitate development of the site
with residential uses in place of the commercial-industrial uses that are currently allowed. The project will not increase the
likelihood of the routine use,transport,or disposal of hazardous materials.
b), d) The site does not contain any known hazardous substances and is not located in an area of high risk, nor will the
proposed land use change or abandonment cause any hazardous emissions or require handling of hazardous wastes.
c) The project is approximately t/4 mile from an existing school site (Sinsheimer Elementary School), however, the project
will not involve hazardous emissions or include handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances or waste.
e) The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5.
f) The project site is designated in the Airport Land Use Plan as being within Safety Area S-2, which limits the density to 12
front doors per acre. As measured by the ALUP,the properties out to the centerline of the adjacent rights-of-way contain 7.21
acres and would be allowed 86 front doors. City standards calculate density for the gross site area exclusive of any adjacent
rights-of-way, by a count of the number of bedrooms within the dwellings. Exclusive of the rights-of way the total site area is
4.66 acres, which at the proposed 18 units per acre would allow a density of 83.88 units. If the sites were developed with
studio units, which have a density calculation of 0.5, there could be the potential for the maximum number of permissible
doors to be exceeded. A mitigation measure is recommended to insure that the future development of the sites are in
compliance with the ALUP.
g) The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshall and will not conflict with any emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
h) The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the site as having low potential for impacts from wildland fires.
Mitigation Measure: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
1) The "Special Considerations" (S) overlay shall be applied to the sites to insure that future development is in compliance
with Airport Land Use Plan density maximums of 12 front doors per acre.
Conclusion
The project does not have the potential to create or otherwise impact hazards or hazardous materials. A mitigation measure
has been recommended which would apply the "Special Considerations" overlay to the project sites to ensure that future
development complies with the Airport Land Use Plan standards.No further mitigation is necessary.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALM. Would the ro'ect:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 6, 8 X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 17, 8 X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g.The production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 6,26 X
capacity of existing orplanned storm water drainage systems or
CITY OF SAN LUIS OatsPO 1 I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
yy
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supportil,, u,,ormation Sources Sources Pott _-ty Potentially Less Than No
Signiticant Significant Significant Impact
ER#27-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters
(including,but not limited to, wetlands,riparian areas, ponds,
springs,creeks,streams,rivers,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays,
ocean,etc.)?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 6,25 X
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 25 X
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
fl Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 8 X
a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 8,25 X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into 25 X
ground or surface waters?
i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, 25 X
temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity?
Evaluation
a), b)The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Future site development will
be served by the City's sewer and water systems and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources.
c), d) h) i) Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City's
Waterways Management Plan. This plan was recently adopted for the purpose of insuring water quality and proper drainage
within the City's watershed. The Waterways Management Plan requires that site development be designed so that post-
development site drainage does not exceed pre-development run-off. This can be achieved through a combination of
detention and use of pervious surfaces to increase water absorption on-site. Compliance with the requirements of the plan is
sufficient to mitigate any potentially significant impacts of the project in the area of water quality and hydrology. Future
development plans will be evaluated by the Public Works Department and must be designed in a manner that is consistent
with the requirements of the Waterways Management Plan.
e),f),g)The project site is not within either the 100-year or 500-year flood zones per the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map. All future development will need to comply with the City's local ordinances,Flood Damage
Prevention Regulations and Waterways Management Plan. Site drainage will be adequately evaluated as part of the required
Architectural Review and Building Permit processes that will occur with any future development of the sites.
Conclusion
The project does not have the potential to impact water quality or hydrology. Drainage patterns will be evaluated for
consistency with existing City codes as part of the future development of the site.No further mitigation is necessary.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of I 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? 1,9 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 5 X
community conservationplans?
a), b), c) With the incorporation of mitigation described in Section 8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 11:
Noise, the proposed General Plan (Land Use Map) amendment, rezone and street abandonment does not conflict with any
applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project. The GPA/R/ABAN would
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
;'I.nennt 7
Issues, Discussion and Supportil,, irtirmation Sources Sources Pott Air Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #27-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
change the land use designation of the site from Manufacturing (M) to Medium High-Density Residential with the Special
Considerations overlay(R-3-S)and allow flexibility in site design and circulation to facilitate future residential development.
The rezone of the properties from Manufacturing (M) to a residential designation will result in a reduction of the overall
supply of property available for Services and Manufacturing uses, somewhat reducing opportunities for those seeking to
establish industrial uses in the City. However, these sites account for only a minor portion of the sites available for industrial
development in the City, and given surrounding land use patterns would not be ideal for many of the uses that could be
allowed with the existing land use designation.
The proposal to designate these sites for residential development is consistent with Housing Element policies regarding the
expansion of housing opportunities and giving preference to residential uses over commercial uses where appropriate. The
project is also consistent with Housing Element goals and polices on production and land use efficiency. The Little Italy
District, as the area surrounding the project site is known, is specifically called out in Housing Element Program 6.3.7.a as a
location where the land development pattern is no longer valid, and which may be appropriate for rezoning from
manufacturing to a residential designation.
The abandonment of these portions of Fredrick Street and Humbert Avenue, which are designated as local streets in the
General Plan Circulation Element, does not conflict with future circulation needs since the excess rights-of-way are
unimproved segments of road which are not necessary to serve any properties. All of the parcels that are adjacent to these
segments of road will retain existing access to public rights-of-way; 881 Francis will continue to take access from Francis,
860 Humbert will continue to take access from Humbert (at the end of a new cul-de-sac), and 851 will have access from the
cul-de-sacs proposed the ends of both Francis and Humbert. Since the portions of the rights-of-way requested for
abandonment would only affect three parcels, which would maintain adequate access from improved streets, abandonment of
these segments of road would not conflict with any City General Plan or circulation goals.
Conclusion
With the incorporation of mitigation described in Section 8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 11: Noise, the
proposed GPA/R does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project. Any future development project at the site will be subject to Architectural Review which includes evaluation of
neighborhood compatibility, and Use Permit approval to ensure consistency with ALUP Safety Zone S-2 standards and City
noise policies.No further mitigation is required.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise 3,6 X
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
Element, or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in 25 X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne 3,15 X
vibration or groundbome noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 24 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
a),d)According to the Noise Contour Maps in the Noise Element and the Airport Land Use Plan a portion of 851 Humbert is
located within an area susceptible to 65 decibles(dB)Ldn due to railroad noise. Maximum noise exposure for residential
uses is 45 dB for indoor spaces and 60 dB for outdoor activity areas. Development of the site with a residential project could
expose people to unacceptable noise levels due to both railroad operations and adjacent industrial uses, if not properly
mitigated. Mitigation measures have been recommended to ensure that noise impacts are identified and reduced to a less than
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
/ Z/&
xY`(2tCnm,z1 fll f
Issues, Discussion and Supportir., i,..,anation Sources Sources Pote. At. Potentially IessThan No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #27 06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
significant level and to require that future occupants be informed of the of the adjacent manufacturing uses and potential noise
exposure.
b) The construction of a future development project will temporarily increase ambient noise levels. Construction noise is
regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates times of construction and maximum noise levels that may be
generated. The project will have to meet the noise standards contained in the Ordinance, which includes limitations on the
days and hours of construction. No further mitigation is necessary.
c) The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundborne noise levels or vibration.
Mitigation Measure:Noise
2) Development proposals for future residential uses at 851 Humbert shall be accompanied by an acoustical analysis (noise
study) to ensure that interior spaces and exterior use areas are designed to mitigate noise impacts to levels determined
acceptable by the City's General Plan Noise Element. Specific construction details shall be identified as recommendations in
the study.
3)All owners and occupants shall receive disclosure concerning the adjacent manufacturing uses and potential noise
exposure.
Conclusion
Development of 851 Humbert with a residential project could expose people to unacceptable noise levels, if not properly
mitigated. A mitigation measure has been recommended to ensure that noise impacts are identified and reduced to a less than
significant level.No further mitigation is necessary.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 1,25 X
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people 1,25 X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Evaluation
a)The proposed project will amend the City's General Plan Land Use and Zoning Maps and allow abandonment of portions
of the adjacent rights-of-way, to facilitate the development of residential units rather than industrial space at this location.
According to 2003 California Department of Finance (CDF) estimates, there was an average of 2.3 persons per occupied
household in the City of San Luis Obispo. Under the existing land use and zoning designation of Manufacturing (M), the
properties could accommodate a mixed-use project with a total of 115 dwelling units and 264 people. However, given the
shape of the sites and Airport Land Use restrictions on persons per gross area for commercial spaces in addition to dwellings,
it is unlikely that a mixed-use project would reach its residential density potential. If the properties were designated Medium-
High Density Residential (R-3-S), they would be able to accommodate 86 dwelling units and 198 people. Based on these
assumptions, the GPA/R/ABAN will allow for a slight decrease in population and housing and less intensive use of the
properties overall. Both properties are undeveloped, despite being bordered by urban development, and represent infill
development opportunity. This type of development is encouraged because it can take advantage of existing facilities for
water,sewer,storm drainage,transportation and parks.
b)Both properties and the rights-of-way are currently undeveloped.
Conclusion
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
y�7
Attacn°nent 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporti..y ormation Sources Sources Poi, Potentially Than an No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #27-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
The project does not have the potential to impact population or housing.
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? 8 X
b) Police protection? 8 X
c) Schools? 8 X
d) Parks? 8 X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 8 X
Other public facilities? 8 X
Evaluation
a), b), d), e), f) As an infill site,adequate public services (fire, police, roads and other transportation infrastructure, and other
public facilities) are available to service the properties without the portions of right-of-way that are proposed to be
abandoned. Whether the sites are developed with commercial or residential uses will not significantly alter the levels of public
service available to the site. Future development must comply with applicable City codes and State regulations and building
permits will be issued to insure consistency with these requirements.The proposed abandonments will not effect access to the
sites,which will continue to be accessible from the existing developed rights-of-way.
c)The school districts in the State are separate governing bodies with authority to collect fees to finance school construction
and parcel acquisition. Section 65955 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a subdivision or collecting
any fees beyond those required by the school district itself, to mitigate effects of inadequate school facilities. Any effect that
the additional children will have on school facilities will be mitigated in whole or in part by the districts per square foot fees,
charged at the time of building permit issuance for any development. Although the allowed residential density for the site
would decrease with the proposed land use designation and zoning, it should be noted that the number of school-aged children
might be slightly higher than allowed under the current designation, because mixed use developments (allowed under the
current designation)tend to attract fewer young families than traditional multi-family housing units.
Conclusion
No resource deficiencies have been identified with respect to public services.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or 8 X
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or 25 X
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Evaluation
a) Future site development will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However, given
the size of the parcels and associated residential density, and the fact that the allowed density of the site (people living and
working on-site) will actually be reduced with the proposed land use designation, no significant recreational impacts are
expected to occur.Additionally, Park Land In-Lieu fees will be required to be paid to the City to help finance additional park
space, maintenance or equipment in the vicinity, per existing City policy, if a tentative map is pursued in the future which
results in the creation of additional parcels or condominium units.The City also collects a Dwelling Unit Construction tax that
goes to a Park Improvement Fund with building permits for multi-family projects where further subdivision of parcels is not
necessarily proposed. Collection of these fees help offset the impacts of new projects on the City's recreational facilities.
The project site is located near existing recreational facilities such as Meadow Park and Sinsheimer Park.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBiSPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
AaaCiar.t 7
Issues, Discussion and Supportii., .armation Sources Sources POh Potentially less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #27 06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
b)No site specific development plan is proposed at this time. However,given the size of the parcels,future site development
is not likely to include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
Conclusion
Park and recreation facility demand will increase incrementally with the development of the project. Park-in-lieu fees are set
at a level considered to be sufficient to offset the effects of the additional demand for park facilities. No further mitigation is
required.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 2, 15, X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? 25,26
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 2, 15 X
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads and highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g. sharp 2,26 X
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 2,26 X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 25 X
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 2 X
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land 24 X
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards, noise,
or a chane in air trafficpatterns?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e) The subject properties can be accessed via several small Local Streets, including Lawrence, Francis and
Humbert, all of which directly access Broad Street.The City's General Plan Circulation Element designates Broad Street as a
Highway/Regional Route, which connect the city with other parts of the county and is used by people traveling throughout the
county and state and is designated as a primary traffic carrier. The aforementioned Local Streets, which directly serve the
sites, are designed to directly serve the residential development that they front and channel traffic to Residential Collector
Streets. The abandonment of portions of Fredrick Avenue and Humbert Street does not conflict with the General Plan
Circulation Element or future circulation needs since the excess rights-of-way are unimproved segments of road which are not
necessary for to serve any properties, nor planned for improvment. All of the parcels that are adjacent to these segments of
road will retain existing access to public rights-of-way; 881 Francis will continue to take access from Francis, 860 Humbert
will continue to take access from Humbert (at the end of a new cul-de-sac), and 851 will have access from the cul-de-sacs
proposed the ends of both Francis and Humbert.
The proposed land use change from Services and Manufacturing to Medium-High density residential will not result in an
increase in anticipated vehicle trips to and from the site. The proposed residential use is expected to generate 500-600
average daily trips (ADT). If the property were developed as a mini-warehouse, it would generate approximately 700-900
ADT.Traffic flows will change with a residential land use and therefore, any application for development will be required to
review and evaluate the project's impact to the intersection of Lawrence and Broad Street.
f) Future site development will require review by the ARC for compliance with City's policies and standards
supporting/requiring alternative transportation, such as,bus turnouts and bicycle parking.
g)The project site is located within ALUP Safety Zone S-2 and the 65 dB single event noise contour of the ALUP,but is not
directly in a flight path where occupants would be subject to hazards associated with airport operations or frequent excessive
noise levels.
Conclusion
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIsPo 16 INmAL STUDY ENvIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
/-y/C?
Issues, Discussion and Supportir,, . .irmation Sources Sources Pore. .., Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#27-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
The project does not have the potential to create impacts to traffic or transportation, including airport operations. Mitigation
measures recommended in Section 8: Hazards & Hazardous Materials, and Section 11: Noise, will assure compliance with
Airport Land Use Plan density standards and City noise standards.No further mitigation is necessary.
16.UTEL=S AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 6,25 X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 6,25 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 6,25 X
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 6,25 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 6,25 X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations 6,25 X
related to solid waste?
Evaluation
a), b) This project has been reviewed by the City's Utilities Engineer and no resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been
identified. Future site development will be subject to review for consistency with City policies and-standards, and water
impact fees will be required to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water supply,
treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it.
c) The City has adopted Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new development and land use
changes do not jeopardize adequate water service to current and new customers. Section 17.89.030 of the regulations states
that a water allocation shall be required to: "obtain a connection to the city water system for a structure or facility not
previously connected; change the use of land or buildings, whether or not a construction permit is also required; obtain a
construction permit." Compliance with the City standards and State requirements will assure that impacts to water supplies
are less than significant.
d) The City wastewater treatment plant and existing sewers in the vicinity have sufficient capacity to serve the project sites.
The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. The on-
site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Impact fees
are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Facility. The fees are
set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of each new residential unit in the project.
e) f) Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californians dispose of
roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air
quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and
county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. The GPA/R will allow
for the development of a project with slightly higher solid waste generation. However, this incremental change is not
expected to create significant impacts to solid waste disposal. Future site development will be required to comply with the
City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element.
Conclusion
The project does not have the potential to impact utilities and service systems.
�! CRY Of SAN LUIS OBIsPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Issues, Discussion and Supporti , armation Sources Sources Pot Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#27 06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the maior periods of California history or prehistory?
As discussed in the biological section of this study, there are no species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,policies, or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service on or near the project site, nor is riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified. With
regard to historical resources, the project is not located on or near a known sensitive archaeological site or historic resource.
There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on theproject site.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but X
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
futureprojects)
The impacts identified in this initial study arespecific to this prolJect and would not be categorized as cumulative!y significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or
indirectly?
With the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on
humans.
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,August 1994
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 and Open Space Element,April 2006
6. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,July 1996
7. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element,May 2004
8. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
9. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database
10. Site Visit
11. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service,Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 18 INITIAL STUDY ENvIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supportii-y . Jernation Sources sources Pott_ _., Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#27-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
12. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
h ://www.consrv.ca.gov/dirp/FMMP/
13. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District,2001
14. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Air Pollution Control District,2003
15. Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation Manual,6 Edition,on file in the Community Development
Department
16. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook,May 1996
17. _ 2002 City of San Luis Obispo Water Resources Report
18. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development
Department
19. City of San Luis Obispo,Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community
Development Department
20. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma
21. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma
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.. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines
24. San Luis Obispo County ort Land Use Plan
25. Applicant's letter of intention,dated February 8,2006
26. Plans showing road to be abandoned
Required MitigationandMonitoring Program
1. Mitigation Measure: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The "Special Considerations" (S) overlay shall be applied to the sites to insure that future development of the sites are
consistent with ALUP safety policies and City noise standards. To ensure that future development of 851 and 860 Humbert
does not exceed ALUP density standards and is consistent with City noise policies, the following standards shall be apply to
the Special Considerations overlay for these sites:
Airport Safety
a. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters), and potential occupants (whether as owners or
renters) will receive full and accurate disclosure concerning the noise, safety, or overflight impacts associated with airport
operations prior to entering any contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or otherwise occupy any property or
properties within the airport area.
b. Development of the sites shall be evaluated for consistency with the City Zoning Regulations and Airport Land Use Safety
policies,including maximum density of persons per acre,with development not to exceed a total of 96 front doors.
c. Aviation easements will be recorded for all properties involved in the proposed development
➢ Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for Use Permit approval
as required by the"Special Considerations"overlay.
2. Mitigation Measure: Noise
CITY OF SAN Luis OBtSPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENviRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
�z
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporti .y - .armation Sources Soirees Pote.._.., Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
ER#27-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incor orated
The "Special Considerations" (S) overlay shall be applied to the sites to insure that future development of the sites are
consistent with ALUP safety policies,and City noise standards. To ensure that future development of 851 Humbert does not
exceed ALUP density standards and is consistent with City noise policies, the following standards shall be apply to the
Special Considerations overlay for these-sites:
Noise
d. The construction of future residential uses at 851 Humbert Avenue shall be accompanied by an acoustical analysis(noise
study) to ensure that interior spaces and exterior private use areas are designed to mitigate noise impacts to levels
determined acceptable by the City's General Plan Noise Element. Specific construction details shall be identified as
recommendations in the study.
➢ Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans and the acoustical analysis
submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily by the Community Development Department staff.
e. All owners and occupants shall receive disclosure concerning the adjacent manufacturing uses and potential noise
exposure:
9 Monitoring Program:
A noise disclosure shall be recorded and incorporated into the CC&R's of any future residential development. If at any time
future subdivision is requested, this disclosure shall be recorded on the individual deeds along with the Final Subdivision
Map,prior to final inspection of the construction.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 8
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX (2006 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP FROM SERVICES &
MANUFACTURING TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENISTY RESIDENTIAL FOR
PROPERTY AT 851 AND 860 HUMBERT AVENUEY; GP/ER 27-06
WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission has conducted a public hearing on May
17, 2006 and found the proposed General Plan Amendment to be consistent with the Airport
Land Use Plan;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 14, 2006,
and recommended approval of the project; 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 August
15, 2006, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/ER 27-06, Housing Authority
of San Luis Obispo County, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, 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. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative
Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed
project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts
said Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures into the project:
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
1. The "Special Considerations" (S) overlay shall be applied to the sites to insure that future
development of the sites are consistent with Airport Land Use Plan safety policies and City
noise standards. To ensure that future development of 851 and 860 Humbert does not exceed
ALUP density standards and is consistent with City noise policies, the following standards
shall be apply to the Special Considerations overlay for these sites:
Aimort Safety
a. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters), and potential
occupants (whether as owners or renters) will receive full and accurate disclosure
z _ Attachment 8
Resolution No.XXXX(2006 Series)
Page 2
concerning the noise, safety, or overflight impacts associated with airport operations prior
to entering any contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or otherwise occupy any
property or properties within the airport area.
b. Development of the sites shall be evaluated for consistency with the City Zoning
Regulations and Airport Land Use Safety policies, including maximum density of persons
per acre, with development not to exceed a total of 96 front doors.
c. Aviation easements will be recorded for all properties involved in the proposed
development
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for Use Permit approval as required by the "Special Considerations" overlay.
Noise
2. The "Special Considerations" (S) overlay shall be applied to the sites to insure that future
development of the sites are consistent with ALUP safety policies and City noise standards.
To ensure that future development of 851 Humbert does not exceed ALUP density standards
and is consistent with City noise policies, the following standards shall be apply to the
Special Considerations overlay for these sites:
3. The construction of future residential uses at 851 Humbert Avenue shall be accompanied by
an acoustical analysis (noise study) to ensure that interior spaces and exterior private use
areas are designed to mitigate noise impacts to levels determined acceptable by the City's
General Plan Noise Element.. Specific construction details shall be identified as
recommendations in the study.
4. All owners and occupants shall receive disclosure concerning the adjacent manufacturing
uses and potential noise exposure.
Monitoring Program:
A noise disclosure shall be recorded and incorporated into the CC&R's of any future residential
development. If at any time future subdivision is requested, this disclosure shall be recorded on
the individual deeds along with the Final Subdivision Map, prior :to final inspection of the
construction.
SECTION 2. Findines. That this Council, after consideration of the amendment to the
Land Use Element Map from Services and Manufacturing to Medium-High Density Residential,
and abandonment of portions of Fredrick Street and Humbert Avenue, and considering the
Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports
thereof, makes the following findings:
1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration
Attachment 8
Resolution No.XXXX(2006 Series)
Page 3
adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project,
and reflects the independent judgment of the Council.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning is consistent with General Plan Land
Use Element policies regarding the expansion of housing opportunities and maximizing the
development potential of infill sites. Additionally, the project is consistent with General Plan
Housing Element goals and polices which encourage facilitating housing production and land
use efficiency, including HE Policy 6.3.7 which specifically identifies this area as potentially
being appropriate for residential uses.
3. The modification of 851 and 860 Humbert Avenue from an industrial designation to a
residential designation would not adversely impact the overall supply of manufacturing
property in the area, as the proximity of the sites to residential and park uses make it
undesirable for many industrial uses.
4. The modification of 851 and 860 Humbert Avenue from an industrial designation to a
residential designation would not result in an inappropriate development on the site, as the
Special Considerations "S" overlay will insure that future residents are aware of the existing
airport, railroad, and manufacturing uses in the vicinity.
5. The modification of 851 and 860 Humbert Avenue from an industrial designation to a
residential designation would not result in an inappropriate density on the site, as the Special
Considerations "S" overlay will insure that future development of the sites is consistent with
ALUP safety policies.
6. The Special Considerations "S" overlay is appropriate at this site, as it will ensure that future
development of the sites are consistent with ALUP safety policies and City noise standards.
7. The project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the
Commission.
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby adopt said mitigated Negative
Declaration and approve the request for a General Plan amendment of 851 and 860 Humbert
Avenue, as shown on attached Exhibit A, and including the standards for the "S" overlay
described above, and including the ALUP approved disclosure agreement which is included as
Exhibit B, and with incorporation of the following mitigation measure, conditions, and code
requirements.
Mitigation Measure
1. To ensure development of the properties is in compliance with Airport Land Use Plan safety
provisions and the City's noise standards, the Special Considerations "S" overlay shall be
applied to the zoning designation of the properties.
i
Attachment 8
Resolution No. XXXX(2006 Series)
Page 4
2. Development proposals for future uses at the site shall incorporate design features, such as
positioning of buildings, berming, and/or fencing to reduce direct access from the site to the
railroad tracts to discourage residents and guests from trespassing across railroad right-of-
way.
3. The Architectural Review Commission shall review design features of future development
proposals to address the interface between manufacturing and residential land uses.
SECTION 4. The Community Development Director shall cause the amendment to the
General Plan Map to be reflected in documents, which are on display in City Hall and are
available for public viewing and use. Copies of the map showing the particulars of the proposed
abandonment are on file in the office of the City Clerk, at 990 Palm Street.
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:
City Clerk Audrey Hooper
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ity ttomey Jon than Lowell
G:UHiII\GPA and RL\GPA-R 27-06(Humbert)HA\CC Reso 27-06(GPA).doc `'
chffient 8
6r, ° �. �� i • • ,
oa
6
0 �
ParC
INI
ei
�Q
B o
4
Fra ° �� �� :• °�� �° � �v
� A v
ential`
e
n
\�
n
{e ���n�Me High D —
Med'iu'rrlr�s' �� ale � � �@ - r� did tial
f
Low ear s'ity`\
^ ! I
Res inttai-l ,'4
General Plan Map Legend 0 Low Density Res
GP.R:.kBAN ER ".1-7-06 ® Service &Manufacturing Park 0 Medium Density Res
S,;0 and 861 Hiunb ert
-. Open Space Public Medium High Density Res
JPO
Attachment 8
Exhibit "B"
DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS—Humbert Affordable lousing Project
For Lease rent or purchase—This would be part of a list of General Disclosures that
wouldbe signed by the lessees, renters or purchasers in or to open a contract for sale.
The purpose of this disclosure is to give you information,w+h may affect your
purchase. You should independently verify the information herein.
VICU41TY TO AIRPORT. Buyer and renters understands t iat the Project is in the
proximity to the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport ai d that the Airport is
approximately 8,800 feet from the project. The Project is wit the Airport Safety Area
S-2 of the Airport Land Use Plan. The Buyer understands the property may be
impacted with noise,vibration,and safety issues from the Ab port operations and/or by
the operations of aircraft using the airport.
OVERFLIGHT OF PROPERTY. The Buyer/Renter unders tands that the property is
subject to a Recorded Avigation Easement and is subject toover flights by aircraft using
the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport.
All owners,potential purchasers,occupants(whether as owners or renters), and potential
occupants(whether as owners or renters)regarding the prope ly and projects known as
the Humbert Affordable Housing Project will receive full and accurate disclosure
concerning the noise, safety,or overflight impacts associated with airport operations prior
to entering any contractual obligation to purchase, lease,rent or otherwise occupy any
property or properties within the airport area. The followingoration is provided to
disclose the information listed above:
1. The project is located within 1.5 miles of the San Luis Ob' o County Regional
Airport. The airport is in operation 24 hours a day, every day.
2. The project is located directly below portions of FAA-designated traffic patterns that
will be followed by aircraft departing from and approac ' g to land at the San Luis
Obispo County Regional Airport.The site,therefore,may be subject to noise and
vibration from aircraft flying at relatively-low altitudes at any time of the day or
night. There is no required minimum altitude for aircraft ,iat are taking off from or
approaching to land at an airport.
3. Because of pilot training activities at the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport,
the site may be subjected to repetitive overflight by student pilots practicing take-offs
and landings in fixed-wing aircraft.
There is no required minimum altitude for aircraft that are taking off from or
approaching to land at an airport.
4. The nearby Broad Street corridor is a designated practice i rea for training of
helicopter pilots. This site,therefore,may be subject to re 3etitive overflight by
helicopters at low altitudes and to the noise and vibration sociated with such
Attachment 8
Oxhibit 111311
Humbert Affordable Housing rroject,Draft Disclosure Statement Page 2
operations. Helicopters are specifically exempted:from AA-designated minimum
altitude requirements.
For CC&Rs—This would be included in the.text
VICINITY TO AIRPORT. The Property is in the proximit to the San.Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport and that the Airport.is approximate y 8,800 feet from the
project. The Project is within the Airport Safety Zone S-2 o the Airport Land Use Plan.
The property may be.impacted with noise,vibration,and safic ty issues from the Airport
operations and/or by the operations of aircraft using the airp
OVERFLIGHT OF PROPERTY. The entire property is su, ectto a Recorded
Avigation Easement and is subject over flights by aircraft us' g the San J uis Obispo
County Regional Airport.
All owners,potential purchasers,occupants(whether as own or,renters), and potential
occupants(whether as owners or renters)regarding the -prop and project known as the
Humbert Affordable Housing Project will receive full and rate disclosure concerning
the noise,safety,or overflight impacts associated with airpo operations prior to entering
any contractual obligation to purchase, lease,rent or otherwh a occupy any property or
properties within the airport area. The following information is provided to disclose the
information listed above:
1. The project is located within 1.5 miles of the San Luis O 'spo County Regional
Airport. The airport is in operation 24 hours a day, every day.
2. The project is located directly below portions of FAA-designated traffic patterns that
will be followed by aircraft departing from and approacliftig to land at the San Luis
Obispo County Regional.Airport. The site,therefore,ma Ibe subject to noise and
vibration from aircraft flying at relatively low altitudes at any time of the day or
night. There is no required minimum altitude for aircraft are taking off from or
approaching to land at an airport:
3. Because of pilot training activities at the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport,
Y e
the site may be re titive overflight by stude t pilots practicing take-offs
subjected to pe
and landings in fixed-wing aircraft.
There is no required minimum altitude for aircraft that are taking off from or
approaching to land at an airport.
4. The near by Broad Street corridor is a designated practice for training of
helicopter pilots. This site,therefore,may be subject to _re etitive overflight by
helicopters at low altitudes and to the noise and vibration associated with such
operations. Helicopters are specifically exempted from F designated minimum
altitude requirements.
i Attachment 9
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX (2006 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL OF
INTENTION TO ABANDON PORTIONS OF THE FREDERICK STREET
AND HUMBERT AVENUE RIGHTS-OF-WAY; ABAN 27-06
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a regular public hearing on June 14,
2006, for the purpose of making a General Plan determination and formulating a
recommendation to the City Council on a request for abandonment of excess rights-of-way
including portions of Frederick Street and Humbert Avenue;
WHEREAS, research of the title report shows that the City of San Luis Obispo does not
have fee ownership of land underlying the Street rights-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the proposed rights-of-way
abandonment is consistent with the City's General Plan, and recommended that the City Council
approve the abandonment , based on findings and subject to conditions as indicated in the
Planning Commission Resolution, incorporated herein by reference;
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 August
15,/2006, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application ABAN 27-06, Housing Authority
of San Luis Obispo County, applicant; and
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Action- Intention to Abandon. It is the intention of the City of San Luis
Obispo to abandon portions of Frederick Street and Humbert Avenue as shown on the map
marked Exhibit A, on file in the office of the City Clerk, pursuant to Section 8300 et seq. of the
State of California Streets and Highways Code, and that the abandonment shall be based on the
following findings, and subject to the following conditions:
Findings
1. The proposed abandonment of rights-of-way are consistent with the General Plan because
they are no longer needed for present or future public purposes.
2. Development of the rights-of-way as public streets would not serve any reasonable
public purpose since those properties fronting the rights-of-way gain access. from other
improved streets, and there are no existing infrastructure improvements within the areas
to be abandoned.
3. The abandonment of rights-of-way will benefit the general public by eliminating unused
right-of-way and eliminating the City's costs for maintaining additional infrastructure
improvements.
Attachment 9
Resolution No.XXXX(2006 Series)
Page 2
4. The proposed abandonment of rights-of-way are categorically exempt from
environmental review under Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Conditions
1. The street abandonment shall not be finalized by the City until after all of the project
discretionary approvals have been secured by the Housing Authority for their affordable
housing project.
2. The rights-of-way necessary to complete the cul-de-sacs at the Francis and Humbert street
ends shall be offered or re-offered for dedication to the City concurrent with or prior to
final street abandonment. The required offers shall reflect City standard cul-de-sac
designs to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3. A public pedestrian and vehicle access easement shall be provided from Humbert to
Lawrence in the area of the former Victoria Ave. abandonment to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer. Said easement shall be offered to the City concurrent with or prior to final
street abandonment.
4. Development proposals for future uses at the site shall incorporate design features, such
as positioning of buildings, berming, and/or fencing to reduce direct access from the site
to the railroad tracts to discourage residents and guests from trespassing across railroad
right-of-way.
5. The Architectural Review Commission shall review design features of future
development proposals to address the interface between manufacturing and residential
land uses.
SECTION 2. Copies of the map showing the particulars of the proposed abandonment are
on file in the office of the City Clerk, at 990 Palm Street.
SECTION 3. Tuesday, September 19, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the City
Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California is the time and place set for hearing all
persons interested in or objecting to the proposed abandonment, which time is more than fifteen
(15) days from the passage of this resolution.
SECTION 4. This resolution, together with the ayes and noes, shall be published once in
full at least ten (10) days before the public hearing on the proposed street rights-of-way
abandonment, in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this city.
SECTION 5. The City Engineer shall post at least three (3) notices of the proposed
abandonment in prominent locations near the portion of the street rights-of-way to be abandoned
Attachment 9
Resolution No.XXXX(2006 Series)
Page 3
at least fourteen (14) days before the date set for the hearing in accordance with Section 8322 of
the Streets and Highways Code.
SECTION 6. The City Engineer shall notify utility companies affected by the proposed
abandonments within ten (10) days after adoption of the Resolution of Intention in accordance
with Section 8347 of the Streets and Highways code.
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:
City Clerk Audrey Hooper
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
C orney Jonathan Lowell
G:UHiII\GPA and RZ\GPA-R 27-06(Humbert)HA\CC Re-so 27-06(GPA.ABAN).doc
z 3
.t,,. � �� � � \`•ti �:• /® X91 BI
t \\ �� \ y 41j \� �•/
its•
t88\1 Fr ci portion of Frederick Street
\. •
to be abandoned
Y ta�G `, \ t•\ '��" 860 Hum r# �..
851 Humbert
VII
'\ -� •� '� eta . � � - �
Portion of Humbert Avenue
o to be abandoned
\
\
/•'\\ \ i' ter,.^ 1 .,.
Abandonment of Portions of Frederick Street and Humbert Avenue
GPR.ABAN ER 27-06
S i 0 and 861 Munb est
l_e�
Attachment 10
ORDINANCE NO.XXXX (2006 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FOR THE PROPERTY AT 851.AND 860 HUMBERT
AVENUE FROM MANUFACTURING (M) TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL WITH THE SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS OVERLAY (R-3-S);
GP/R/ER 27-06
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 14, 2006,
and recommended approval of the project; 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 June 14,
2006, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/ABAN/ER 27-06, Housing
Authority of San Luis Obispo County, applicant; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration
adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed
project; and reflects the independent judgment of the Council.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning is consistent with General Plan
Land Use Element policies regarding the expansion of housing opportunities and
maximizing the development potential of infill sites. Additionally, the project is
consistent with General Plan Housing Element goals and polices which encourage
facilitating housing production and land use efficiency, including HE Policy 6.3.7 which
specifically identifies this area as potentially being appropriate for residential uses.
3. The modification of 851 and 860 Humbert Avenue from an industrial designation
(Manufacturing: M) to a residential designation (Medium-High Density Residential: R-3)
would not adversely impact the overall supply of manufacturing property in the area, as
the proximity of the sites to residential and park uses make it undesirable for many
industrial uses.
Ze
Attachment 10
Ordinance No: XXXX (2006 Series)
Page 2
4. The modification of 851 and 860 Humbert Avenue from an industrial designation
(Manufacturing: M) to a residential designation (Medium-High Density Residential: R-3)
would not result in an inappropriate development on the site, as the Special
Considerations "S" overlay will insure that future residents are aware of the existing
airport, railroad, and manufacturing uses in the vicinity.
5. The modification of 851 and 860 Humbert Avenue from an industrial designation
(Manufacturing: M) to a residential designation (Medium-High Density Residential: R-3)
would not result in an inappropriate density on the site, as the Special Considerations "S"
overlay will insure that future development of the sites is consistent with ALUP safety
Policies.
6. The Special Considerations "S" overlay is appropriate at this site, as it will ensure that
future development of the sites are consistent with ALUP safety policies and City noise
standards. To ensure that future development of 851 and 860 Humbert Avenue does not
exceed ALUP density standards and is consistent with City noise and land use policies,
the following standards shall apply to the Special Considerations overlay for these sites:
Airport Safety S
a. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters), and
potential occupants (whether as owners or renters) will receive the disclosure
document approved by the Airport Land Use Commission in conjunction with this
review prior to entering any contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or
otherwise occupy any property or properties within the airport area.
b. Development of the sites shall be evaluated for consistency with the City Zoning
Regulations and Airport Land Use Safety policies, including maximum density of
persons per acre, with development not to exceed a total of 86 front doors.
c. Aviation easements will be recorded for all properties involved in proposed
development.
Noise
d. The construction of future residential uses at 851 Humbert Avenue shall be
accompanied by an acoustical analysis (noise study) to ensure that interior spaces and
exterior private use areas are designed to mitigate noise impacts to levels determined
acceptable by the City's General Plan Noise Element. Specific construction details
shall be identified as recommendations in the study.
e. All owners and occupants shall receive disclosure concerning the adjacent
manufacturing uses and potential noise exposure.
Attachment 10
Ordinance No. XXXX (2006 Series)
Page 3
SECTION 2. Action. The Zoning Regulations Map Amendment (R 27-06) is hereby
approved as identified within Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. 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 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 day of 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:
City Att6wjonathan Lowell
G:VHiII\GPA and RZ\GPA-R 27-06(Humbert)HA\CC Ord 27-06(Zoning).doc
1-67
bit X
PF
ill
cloy
4
Fta Q,. rr
� op
Ge
eta'
�\ 8
i
f '
jIl I
I
Zoning Map Legend R-1
GRR;A4BAN.%ER 27-06 - GS PF R-2
8 50 and 861 Hiunb eA
M a0s u R-3
Attachment 11
RESOLUTION NO.XXXX (2006 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
ELEMENT MAP AND ZONING REGULATIONS FOR PROPERTY AT
851 AND 860 HUMBERT AVENUE,AND ABANDONMENT OF
PORTIONS OF THE FREDERICK STREET AND HUMBERT AVENUE
RIGHTS-OF-WAY; GP/ABAN/ER 27-06
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 14, 2006,
and recommended approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on August 15, 2006, and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, 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. That this Council, after consideration of the amendments to the
Land Use Element Map, Zoning Regulations Map, abandonment of portions of Frederick Street
and Humbert Avenue, and environmental review, and considering the Planning Commission's
recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the
following findings:
[Council specifies findings]
SECTION 2. Denial. The amendments to the Land Use Element Map, Zoning
Regulations Map, and Municipal Code are hereby denied.
On motion of seconded by and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Attachment 11
Resolution No.XXXX(2006 Series)
Page 2
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of 2006.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk Audrey Hooper
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jonathan Lowell
G:VHiIl\GPA and RZIGPA-R 27-06(Humbert)HATC Reso 27-06(DenU).doc
council F,
j acEnaa nEpoat P,#.-)
CITY O F SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Director
Prepared By: Jaime Hill,Associate Planner
SUBJECT: AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING REGULATIONS
TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW TEMPORARY PARKING IN THE
BUSINESS PARK ZONE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SP,
R/TA, ER 107-06).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission:
1. Adopt a Resolution approving a Negative Declaration and amending the Airport Area
Specific Plan to allow temporary parking in the Business Park zone;
2. Introduce an Ordinance amending the Zoning Regulations to allow temporary parking in
the Business Park zone.
DISCUSSION
Situation/Previous Review
The City of San Luis Obispo has proposed an amendment to both the Zoning Regulations and
Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) to allow temporary parking lots in the Business Park (BP)
zone. The City's Parks and Recreation Department has proposed this revision in anticipation of
an opportunity to develop off-site temporary parking adjacent to the Damon Garcia Sports
Complex which is in the BP-SP zone. This project is still in its conceptual stages, and would be
processed as a separate application if the text amendments are approved by City Council. The
City Council is being asked to take action on the proposed Zoning Regulations and AASP
amendments, and to consider the environmental document reviewing these amendments
(Attachment 2).
On June 19, 2006, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) unanimously determined that the
project is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. On July 26, 2006, the Planning Commission
unanimously recommended approval of the proposed Zoning Regulations and AASP
amendments, and environmental document (see Planning Commission Resolution #5459-06 and
Meeting Update, Attachment 3). If Council approves the proposed text amendments,
development plans for temporary parking lots in the BP zone of the AASP will be subject to the
Community Development Department Director's approval through the Administrative Use
Permit process.
Z—/
Council Agenda Report
SP, R/TA, ER 107-06 (Parking in BP zone)
Page 2
Data Summary
Address: Business Park Zone, Airport Area Specific Plan
Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo Parks & Recreation Department
Representatives: Betsy Kiser, Director of Parks & Recreation
Zoning: BP-SP (Business Park-Specific Plan)
General Plan: Business Park
Environmental status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended by the Deputy
Director on July 12, 2006 (ER 107-06). Final action on the initial
study will be taken by the City Council.
Project action deadline: Specific Plan and Zoning Regulations amendments are not subject to
permit streamlining requirements.
Effected Area
The proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations and AASP would allow temporary parking
facilities in BP zones within areas included in the AASP. Currently the only properties
designated as Business Park in the City are within either the AASP or Margarita Area Specific
Plan (MASP) areas. Parking as a primary use would continue to be prohibited within BP zones
in the Margarita Area. The BP zone within the AASP includes approximately thirty-four acres of
land bordered by South Higuera Street and Broad Street, south of Tank Farm Road. The land is
mostly flat and suitable for development. Staff has prepared an exhibit showing land that is
zoned BP and is within the AASP that would be effected by the proposed text amendment, and
could be potentially utilized for temporary parking (Attachment 1). The exhibit includes all
parcels within the AASP, including those which are currently outside the City Limits.
Proiect Description
The proposed project includes amendments to the Zoning Regulations and AASP to allow
temporary parking facilities in the BP Zone. As defined in Section 17.08.010 of the Zoning
Regulations, temporary (or intermittent) uses are those which are established at a particular
location for less than one year, or which occur for no more than 90 days in a year, but which may
continue from year to year. If amended, such uses would be allowed in the BP-AASP zone with
the CDD Directors' approval through the Administrative Use Permit process. As previously
mentioned, these text amendments have been proposed by the City's Parks & Recreation
Department in anticipation of an opportunity to construct off-site temporary parking adjacent to
the Damon Garcia Sports Complex in the BP-AASP zone.
The Zoning Regulations and AASP include tables which list the uses that are allowed to locate in
various zones, including the BP district. Some uses are allowed by right, while others require
approval of an Administrative Use Permit or Planning Commission'Use Permit. Some uses are
prohibited without any permit path available. Presently, parking facilities of all types are allowed
only in the BP zone when incidental or in support of other allowed uses.
The Zoning Regulations identify three types of primary parking uses: Parking Facilities, Multi-
Story Parking Facilities, and Temporary Parking Facilities, all of which are currently prohibited
�-z
i
Council Agenda Report
SP, R/TA, ER 107-06 (Parking in BP zone)
Page 3
in the BP zone. The desirability of parking as a primary use differs throughout the City, in
accordance with the City's vision for how the area will develop, in terms of the uses allowed and
the density of development. Permanent single and multiple-story parking facilities are desirable
in areas of the City where small lot sizes make provision of on-site parking inefficient or where
opportunities for shared trips make a consolidated parking arrangement advantageous.
Temporary parking facilities are often utilized to accommodate intermittent events or to allow for
phased construction of projects where it is beneficial to have development of permanent parking
facilities occur after building occupancy, such as in the case of some large campus developments.
Currently temporary parking facilities are allowed with discretionary review in all commercial
zoning districts except the Agricultural (AG) and BP zones. The proposed text amendment
would include modifying Zoning Regulations Table 9: Uses Allowed By Zone, to permit
temporary parking in the BP zone with Administrative Use Permit approval (Attachment 5,
Exhibit A).
The AASP consolidates the three types of parking facilities into one general category, which
consistent with the Zoning Regulations, does not allow for parking facilities as a primary use in
the BP zone. The proposed amendment would alter the AASP Table 4.3: Allowed Uses, to
permit parking facilities with Administrative Use Permit approval (Attachment 4, Exhibit B).
This designation would also be assigned a new "note," No. 9. Numbered notes are used
throughout the table to provide direction on when conditionally allowed.uses may be appropriate,
or to establish specific findings which must be made in order to approve a use. Note No. 9
would limit parking facilities to temporary and/or intermittent uses to ensure that parking
facilities as primary uses do not proliferate in the area. The AASP Table 5.3: Outdoor Use
Areas, would also be modified to allow the maximum area of outdoor use area to exceed the
actual building coverage on site, with approval by the Director(Attachment 4, Exhibit B).
Staff supports the proposed Specific Plan and Zoning Regulations amendments for three primary
reasons. First, there are several uses allowed in the BP zone which may have a foreseeable need
for additional overflow parking which at this time could not be accommodated. Second, the
proposed text amendments are consistent with the AASP policies as they will facilitate dividing
parking areas into multiple small lots and phasing the construction of large "campus"
developments. Third, the proposed amendments will not result in a significant loss of land
designated for research and development in the City or region.
Evaluation
Staff has evaluated the proposed project with three principle questions in mind. Is the project
consistent with the General Plan? Is the project consistent with the intent of the Airport Area
Specific Plan? Is the project compatible with surrounding land uses? The evaluation below is
intended to answer these questions and includes an overview of the proposed development plan
and the environmental document prepared for the project.
A. General Plan and Specific Plan Consistency
The purpose of the Business Park General Plan designation is described in the Land Use Element
(LUE) of the City's General Plan as follows:
Council Agenda Report
SP, R/TA, ER 107-06 (Parking in BP zone)
Page 4
Business parks may be developed in areas designated for them. Business parks are
to accommodate research and development and light manufacturing in a campus
like setting. They should provide high quality design of public and private
facilities. Land designated for a business park should not be further divided or
developed until the City annexes the area and approves a master plan for the
business park(LUE Policy 7.9.1).
The BP designation is implemented in the City's Zoning Ordinance by the BP zoning district.
The AASP provides more precise implementation of the BP designation by addressing the site
planning, property development standards, and design features that are desirable for maintaining
the community character and assuring the intended setting. These aspects of the Specific Plan
Will have a significant effect on the types of business development that will locate in the area.
The AASP specifically addresses preferred parking designs, and the need to have safe and
efficient vehicular parking areas that are designed to be in scale with, and visually subordinate to,
the development and landscape setting.
Temporary parking is a conditionally allowed use in all commercial zones citywide, except for
the BP zone. These temporary off-site parking facilities are often necessary to accommodate
overflow parking needs for special or intermittent events that generate parking demands beyond
what is typically needed daily. Allowing the use of temporary parking is desirable as it minimizes
the development of over-sized parking areas that are utilized only infrequently. Allowing this
type of use promotes other goals in the General Plan, such as efficient use of land and the
promotion of a diverse and dynamic commercial sector..
B. Development Compatibility
It is important to consider the overall compatibility of the proposed land use with other
development in the AASP and beyond. As previously mentioned, temporary parking lots are
currently allowed in all other commercial districts, except for the BP zone. One reason for this is
that it is often advantageous to utilize temporary parking facilities during phased development, or
to provide.overflow parking to meet higher than average needs for specific events. Off-site
parking on a temporary basis could be appropriate given the type of development and land use
anticipated in the AASP area.
Because parking as the primary function of a site would be limited to temporary (or intermittent)
use, there would not be a long-term loss of land designated for business parks. In contrast, this
amendment will allow properties to develop parking in a more comprehensive and logical
manner. The option to use temporary parking during phased project construction, or off-site
parking for special events, facilitates orderly development with only the parking necessary for the
daily needs of businesses.
The project is also compatible with adjacent development because it will augment the parking of
those facilities on a temporary basis, without permanently effecting long-term land use patterns.
Council Agenda Report -
SP, R/TA, ER 107-06 (Parking in BP zone)
Page 5
D. Environmental Review
The attached initial study and Negative Declaration evaluates the potential for significant impacts
associated with the project (Attachment 2). The initial study is an evaluation of the proposed
Specific Plan and Zoning Regulations amendments. The initial study does not specifically
address the potential environmental effects of the future parking facilities development, as the
details of such a project are unknown at this time. The environmental issues related to future
development projects would reviewed at the time of project submittal.
CONCURRENCES
The proposed text amendments have been reviewed by other City Departments. Their concerns
relate to site-specific design issues, which will be evaluated at the time of application of
individual projects.
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 AASP and Zoning
Regulations, which are consistent with the General Plan, will not significantly alter revenues
since any new parking facilities developed in the BP-AASP zone will be temporary in nature and
will not result in a loss of land available for those uses anticipated for the area.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council could deny the project if it is determined that the proposed Zoning Regulations
and Specific Plan amendments are not consistent with the General Plan or with the AASP.
2. The Council could continue discussion if additional information is needed. Direction should
be given to staff and the applicant.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Map of the properties designated BP within the AASP
Attachment 2: Initial Study of Environmental Impact and Negative Declaration
Attachment 3: Planning Commission Resolution, Draft Minutes, and Agenda Report
Attachment 4: Draft Resolution approving AASP text amendments and environmental review
Exhibit A—Amendment to the AASP Table 4.3: Allowed Uses and table notes
Exhibit B—Amendment to the AASP Table 5.3: Outdoor Use Areas
Attachment 5: Draft Ordinance approving a Zoning Regulations text amendment
Exhibit A—Amendment to the Zoning Regulations Table 9: Uses Allowed By Zone
Attachment 6: Draft Resolution `B" denying the project
G:UHil]\GPA and RZ\SPA-Z Text Amend(Parking in BP)\CC staff report(parking in BP).doc
.. ��`` 1I 1111 •Q
1111 I!
/ ■• ISP`rI�+�
1
.00f
/Ir4f, 06
74
r��s ♦ f��I���` Imo.n�'_s-,
Attachment 2
Cl ® SAn hulls OBISPO
990 Palm Street; San Luis Obispo, QA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 107-06 .
1. Project Title:
Zoning Regulations and Airport Area Specific Plan Amendment
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:
Jaime Hill, Associate Planner(805) 781-7165
4. Project Location:
City-wide
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo, Parks and Recreation Department
Betsey Kaiser, Director of Parks_ and Recreation
1341 Nipomo
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Business Park
.7. Zonings
BP-SP(Business Park and the Airport Area Specific Plan)
8. Description of the Project:
Amendment of the Zoning Regulations and Airport Area Specific Plan to allow temporary and/or
intermittent parking facilities in the Business Park(BP)zone.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
City-wide
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
Amendments to the Zoning Regulations and Specific Plans require review by the Planning
Commission and approval by the City Council.
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. !y
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. 2— /
Attachment 2
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Zoning Regulation and Specific Plan Amendment requests must be brought before the Airport
Land Use Committee for a determination of compliance with the Airport Land Use Plan.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 2
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 g;
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing f >'
Resources yam..^.,;,-T,^t`r*.+
� .
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section.711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
CITY OF SAN Luis Osis o 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
2-9
Attachment 2
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of.this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and X
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation. measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant' impact(s) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
-7 2- /V �o
Signat Date
Doug Davidson,.Deputy Director of Community Development For:John Mandeville,
Printed Name CommunityDevelopnient Director
�7 Crry of SAN Luis oa,spo 4 INm LL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CmEOKusT 2006
f
Attachment 2
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any, used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more"Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made;an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis;" may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code.of
Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated;"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
CRY of SAN Luis Osispo 5 .INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
P�z-//
Attachment 2
Issues, Discussion and Supportii-.- ..armation Sources Sources Pole _ Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 107-06 Issues Unless impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2,8 X
b), Substantially damage scenic resources;including,but not limited 2, 8 X
to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings,
within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the-existing visual:character or quality of; -2,8, X
the site and its surroundings? 22
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 2,8, X
,adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area? 22
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) This amendment would allow for parking as a temporary use in Business Park zones in the AASP. Parking
facilities could be aesthetically unpleasing if designed improperly. However, individual parking facilities will require the
Director's approval, which will include review of impacts to aesthetics and scenic resources.
The Community Design Guidelines and Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) both provide direction on the siting, screening,
and landscaping of parking lots to minimize the visual impact from surrounding sites. Temporary parking facilities will
require approval from the Director, who will consider these policies and determine the extent of potential aesthetic impacts
on a case by case basis,and necessary mitigation measures.
Conclusion
This is a City-wide Text Amendment, which itself does not have the potential to impact visual resources. Site specific
impacts will be addressed on a case by case basis. New projects will be reviewed for consistency with the Community
Design Guidelines and AASP.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) _ConverfPrirrie
and,Uuique Farmland,or Farmland of 5 X
%_LV Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on!be'*maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of;,,::
;,the Catifornia.Resources Agency_to non-agricultural use?-.., i-
-61 ;Conflict wtib.existingzoning for agricultural ase;or'a X
- WilliamsonActcontract?
,>Involve other changes in the existing envrronmen[wlu'ch,due to`V X
UtrSu location or nature,could result:in conversion ofPArial
•to non a 'caltural use. s F
Evaluation
a), b), c) This amendment would allow for parking as a temporary use in Business Park zones in the AASP. At the current
time there are no properties that are actively farmed or held under Williamson Act Contract that are zoned Business Park.
Future development of parking facilities will require the Director's approval, which will include an evaluation of site- and
project-specific impacts to agricultural resources.
Conclusion
This is a City-wide Text Amendment,which itself does not have the potential to impact agricultural resources.Site specific
impacts will be addressed on a case by case basis.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project
a) .Violate any air quality standard or contribute sutistanfially td an 12, 13 X
existing or,projected air q*uality violation? -
-b .Conflict with or nh4nint'implementahon of the a licalile air 12, 13 X
Crr y OF SAN Luis Oetsvo 6 ImTu%L STUDY EmmoNmENTAL CNEcmisT 2006
2 i2-
Attachment 2
Issues, Discussion and Supportir. ...ormation Sources Sources Pots _ " Potencess Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 107-06 Issues Unless hnpact
Mitigation
Incorporated
quality plan?
C) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 8, 12, X
concentrations? 13
'd) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of' 12, 13 X
people?
e) Result i'n a curnulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 12, 13 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
thre.sholds_for ozoneprecursors)?,
Evaluation
a), b),c),e)San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State PMto(fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in
diameter)air quality standard. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced
by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP)for San Luis Obispo County was
developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District(APCD) to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive
planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor
vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan.
This amendment would allow for parking as a temporary use in Business Park zones in the AASP. Any excavation and
construction activities would be limited to grading and paving, which has the potential to create dust and emissions that
exceed air quality standards for temporary and/or intermittent periods. However, these activities will be subject to the City's
Grading Ordinance which includes dust control measures to reduce any potential impacts.
Future development of parking facilities will require the Director's approval, which will include an evaluation of site- and
project-specific air quality issues.
d) The project is a Specific Plan and Zoning Regulations amendment to allow temporary parking facilities, which will not
create objectionable odors under normal circumstances.
Conclusion
This is a City-wide Text Amendment, which itself does not have the potential to impact air quality. Site specific impacts will
be addressed on a case by case basis.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
'a `1Have a,AbsWi6al adverse effect,;'iffier drtec'11"or mduecil-orro" 5 X
&toughliabitatmodifications,on any species.identified as a
Candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional
plans,:pelicies;or regulations,or by the California Department
,of Fish-and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a subst ial adverse effect;on any riparian habitat or 5 X
other sensitive natural community identified in lural or regional
plans,policies;or regulations,or by the California Department .
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? _
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting - 5 X
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or
'ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)?.
A Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident ? 5 X
or migratory fish or wildlife species or-with es
tablighed native
resident of migratory wildlife coiridots,or impede the use bf °
wildlife nursery sites?
»fl%et with the iovis'ons of an'adotited habita s`rvatiori< 5 X
Crrr of San Luis OwsPo 7 INrnAL STUDY ENviRoNmENTAL CtmEcKusT 2006
Attachmcnt 2
Fissues, Discussion and Supportii.__"..,ormation Sources Sources Potc _ Potentially less Than No
Significan,t Significant Significant Impact
107-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
— _---------
Plan,
-,._ _.-_Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved
local;regional,or state habitat conservation plan?'-
f).` Have a'substantial adverse effect on fedeially protected' If 5 X
as defined in Section 4.04.ofthe Clean WateiAct(including,but,
noflimited,to,marshes,vernal pools-,etc)through direct,
J
. rerhoy4 fillip ;h drolo ical inte_ .tion;or other means?,'
Evaluation
a), b),c), d), e), f) This amendment would allow for parking as a temporary use in Business Park zones in the AASP. Any
excavation and construction activities would be limited to grading and paving, which has the potential to impact biological
resources. However, these activities will be subject to the City's Creek Setbacks and Grading Ordinance, which includes
standards such as creek setbacks to reduce any potential impacts.
Future development of parking facilities will require the Director's approval, which will include an evaluation of site- and
project-specific biological issues.
Conclusion
This is a City-wide Text Amendment,which itself does not have the potential to impact biological resources. Site specific
-impacts will be addressed on a case by case basis after the adoption of this amendment.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect:
) 'as e asubstantial adverse change in the significance of a ' 17, 18 X
rr histonc resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064 5)
4) a Cause a substantial adverse change In the significance of`,an X
archaeological.r6source?;(Sce.CEQA Guidelines 15064:5)
c);'e Dlrectiy IiiInclirectly.destroy a unique paleontological resource,'. X
>` ;ti r�stte or unique geologic feature? a
rl) tsturb at9y Human remains,including those Interred outside of '= X
?`formal cemeteries?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) This amendment would allow for parking as a temporary use in Business Park zones in the AASP. Any
excavation and construction activities would be limited to grading and paving, which has the potential to disturb cultural
resources. However, these activities will be subject to the City's Guidelines for Historical and Archaeological Resource
Preservation and Grading Ordinance which includes measures to reduce any potential impacts.
Future development of parking facilities will require the Director's approval, which will include an evaluation of site- and
project-specific consistency with the City's Guidelines for Historical and Archaeological Resource Preservation.
Conclusion
This is a City-wide Text Amendment,which itself does not have the potential to impact visual resources.Site specific impacts
will be addressed on a case by case basis.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect:
Va
ConQicf:w•th�adopted energy conservation plans? g X
4')) _'Uase hon4enewable resoprces in a wasteful aild'ineffictent F+ X
+}n tl](Y111W
£) Resultinihelossbfawmlabilty-of aknown t*neraliesource' X
that otiid be of value to fl e-regton and the residents,o€.the
_.States `
Evaluation
CITY OF SAN LUIS oBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENviRoNMENTAL CNECKUST 2006
�- Attachment 2
Issues, Discussion and Supportir ...irmation Sources Sources pori.. Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 107-06 Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
mw orated
a), b), c)This amendment would allow for parking as a temporary use in Business Park zones in the AASP. Any excavation
and construction activities would be limited to grading and paving, which does not have the potential to impact City
conservation plans or otherwise use resources in a wasteful manner.
Future development of parking facilities will require the Director's approval, which will include an evaluation of site- and
project-specific consistency with City standards for recycling and energy conservation.
Conclusion
This is a City-wide Text Amendment,which itself does not have the potential to impact visual resources.Site specific impacts
will be addressed on a case by case basis.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
a) .Expose:people or structures to potential substantial'adver_se• 11
e'ffet&j,including risk bf loss,_injury or death involving
t I:j `Rupture of a knowh eailhquake"fault,as delineated iii the X
most recerit,Algriis[Priolo Earthquake'Fault Zoning avlap `+
issued by the=State:Geologist for the area,'or bas4oii other.;';
substantial;evidence of a known fault?
,II Strong seismic grouhil'shakirigT: X
r ,III Seismic rrelated,ground failure,including liquefaction.� X
I -IV Landslides or inudflows? f X
bj+ Resultin�substanual soil erosion or the ion's of topsoils+ 'r+ X
ssk
c) •Be located oii a geologic uniror soil that rs unstt
able,or,that :; X
~ ivvould become utistable as a,result ottfie project;and potentially
yresultin,onoroff-site landsjieles,lateralspreading;. st ence,
', )iquefaction,or collapse? r g `p;
1? er
`d Be loca�ed.on ea atistve soildfitiedn Table+18 1 B:of the X
;as
' Lhuforat Building Go(re(1994),creahag substantial nsks to life
:.or
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) This amendment would allow for parking as a temporary use in Business Park zones in the AASP. Any
excavation and construction activities would be limited to grading and paving, which has the potential to create erosion and
loss of topsoil. However, these activities will be subject to the City's Grading Ordinance which includes erosion control
measures to reduce any potential impacts.
Future development of parking facilities will require the Director's approval, which will include an evaluation of site- and
project-specific geology or soils issues.
Conclusion
This is a City-wide Text Amendment,which itself does not have the potential to impact visual resources.Site specific impacts
will be addressed on a case by case basis.
S. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the ro'ect:
s .°E reate'asigmf caiitliazturl to the piibiii:or the environment 4 X
° th[ough.wt, heme tautiae isle,trttnspoct or-dispgsal of hazattlous;
b)�_'Create;3signi is -hazard to the public or the envuonmeot tee'>. X
through reasoDalily foteseeahle upset and accident conditions
nvolvigg tcarelease of hazardous matentils into'the.
L da ♦ C¢6 ,.
-envuonment�„
Eimt emissions or handle=hazard"ou'&acafel X
CITY OF SAN LUIS OwsIro 9 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
2
Issues, Discussion and Supportii.,, ....,irmation Sources Sources Pok Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Signifcant Impact
ER#107-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
hazardods�mater als,'suhstances,or waste within one=;,gdacter
A mile of an existing or proposed school?.: G";1
d) _Expose people or structures to existing souices;bffiazazdous X
emissions or hazardous or'acutely.hazardous
substances, or waste's
e7 Bo:loeated on a site which•is tnciuded ona Iist:of hazardous X
= materials sites compiled pursuant to Crovernmenf'Code Section'
65962.5 and;as a result,it Wo Id create a significant hazard-lib' '
the public or the environment?,
Fos aproject located withinan airport and use.plan,or withui X
rtwi).miles-of iptiblic azrpori,would the prcject+result in`a safety;,:
}hazard fomite people residing or working in the projectarea� . y.
g) `Jutpair implementation of,or.physically interfere withiAhe X
i adopted emergency;.response plan or emergbii y3evaciiation .,,
P an
h) E se. eo le of§teuctiyes to a significant nskof lose injury; X
-or dealli;'involving-wtldland fires,includmg`where wildly ids are
hfiadiacentTrii urbanized areas or where-residents are intermixed t'
Evaluation
a), b),c), d),e), f), g),h) This amendment would allow for parking as a temporary use in Business Park zones in the AASP.
It is unlikely that individual temporary parking facilities would create hazards or expose people to hazardous materials.
Future development of parking facilities will require the Director's approval, which will include an evaluation of site- and
project-specific consistency with City standards.
Conclusion
This is a City-wide Text Amendment, which itself does not have the potential to impact hazards and hazardous materials.Site
specific impacts will be addressed on a case by case basis.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the ro'ect:
otaie airy water quality standaz7s or vi aste�7ischargex ){
n t a ., r' xt , 3 .,�rYi^ v,. a� mte 5y
a •^eginielilCnptgF � '"€ a4,', s, `'r15 .. c& All mar;
b Su�listaq talIVA Iete groundwater supplies or ter�fere s� X
' s6bstantially with.groundwater r charge sCli+t}iat there would�5e j
`)a net,defidit m aquifer voliiIIte or a lowenng oche 1pca x 6
I'" e
groun�dwatertablelevetst{
l(e'g.The production>rate 8l pte=exng
r4 aleby wells would,drop to a;level which woCtid tioUsri 4 M
r pPd .
etisouigaland uses for winch permits hate beep gianteti
T) ieate or eontnbute nm-66,titer which would ejceed die`'' ' ° 8,9, X
Mt aityAf existipg or planned storm water tlrar'nage sxst ms or, ; 22
-provtdo).Wmaonal sgtuoes of runoff trito�rirface? a�ns' a -
(nc�udt
*'but notf mired to,we�iands,>fPartatrareas„po4ds,�
q r,
;°'�spnngS,.nreek's{streaitis,nvers,lakes,gstularitss,:l��dal areas,=bay
�
a Substantially alter the ex�tsiitig.dratnage pattern pfie stte.bY —8,9, X
'areadmamannerwWh _-uIJ:resultinsubstahtiale�osiot►or, Y! 22
skt$ 13t10II•UILSI,I��orQfIsite'f
:e._} ,.StibSWIIt>all}+2ltCCWI�iC,�AStlllg rd[nagC &tfCQL-�Ltf- P2.61teE, .. 9 X
°° is a:riiamter wlifoli would resuitiin subs "'Ealloacliri' c "
CrrY OF SAN Luis OetSvo 10 INImAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2006
- I __1 Attachment 2
Issues, Discussion and Supportir,, .i.tormation Sources Sources Potc. Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#107-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X
a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into 8,9, X
ground or surface waters? 22
i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, 8,22 X
temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity?
Evaluation
a),b)c),d),e),f), g),h), i)This amendment would allow for parking as a temporary use in Business Park zones in the AASP.
Construction of parking facilities will create additional impervious surfaces, which could increase stormwater runoff and
potentially alter natural drainage patterns of a site, including potentially impacting flood risks. Additionally, landscaping may
be required as necessary for screening and to implement the Community Design Guidelines and RASP, however water
required to irrigate any additional landscaping will be negligible. However, these activities will be subject to the City's local
ordinances, including creek setback requirements,Flood Damage Prevention Regulations,and Waterways Management Plan.
Future development of parking facilities will require the Director's approval, which will include an evaluation of site- and
project-specific hydrology and water quality issues.
Conclusion
This is a City-wide Text Amendment, which itself does not have the potential to impact hydrology and water quality. Site
specific impacts will be addressed on a case by case basis.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a)' Conflict with-applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 1,8 X
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
li) .Physically divide an established community? 1, 8 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural' X
community conservation Tans?
a), b), c) This amendment would allow for parking as a temporary use in Business Park zones in the AASP. Currently, the
only properties designated as Business Park in the City are within either the AASP or Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP)
areas.Parking as a primary use would continue to be prohibited within BP zones in the Margarita Area.
Temporary parking facilities are often utilized to accommodate overflow parking, or to allow for phased construction of
projects where it is beneficial to have development of permanent parking facilities occur after building occupancy, such as in
the case of some large campus developments. Though this amendment would allow parking in BP zones, it would also limit
parking facilities to temporary and/or intermittent uses to ensure that parking facilities as primary uses do not proliferate in the
area.
The addition of parking as a temporary and/or intermittent use in the BP zone would be compatible with the goals of the land
use plan, as several uses allowed in the BP zone may have a foreseeable need for additional parking facilities for special
events, which at this time could not be accommodated. Temporary and/or intermittent parking is currently a conditionally
allowed use in all commercial zones citywide, except for the BP zone. These temporary off-site parking facilities are often
necessary to allow for overflow parking, or intermittent events that generate parldng demands beyond that typically needed
daily. Allowing the use of temporaryfintermittent parking is also desirable as it minimizes the development of over-sized
parking areas that are utilized only infrequently. Allowing this use will promote other goals in the General Plan, such as
efficient use of land and the promotion of a diverse and dynamic commercial sector.
CRY OF SAN Luis Oerspo 11 INrRAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcKusT 2006
17
Attachment 2
Issues, Discussion and Supportia, ...irmation Sources Sources Pote. _ Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 107-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Temporary and/or intermittent parking is periodically necessary as an ancillary use to many of the uses allowed for in the BP
zone. Allowing for off-site parking on a temporary basis provides flexibility for occasional events which could not otherwise
be accommodated. Further, off-site parking is often necessary to accommodate short-term parking constraints resulting from
phased site development or installation of public improvements.
The proposed text amendment is also consistent with the AASP policies as it will facilitate dividing parking areas into
multiple small lots. In addition, the project will not significantly deplete land designated for research and development in the
City or region. Finally, all future projects will require the approval of the Director, which will ensure compliance with
applicable land use and planning standards.
Conclusion
The proposed text amendment to allow temporary and/or intermittent parking facilities in the Business Park zone does not
conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) "Exposure of people to or generation of t`unacceptable noise r 3 X
;levels as%defined"by M6 San Luis Obispo General Plan Norse
;Element;of general noise levels in excess of standards -
established in the Noise Ordinance?
tb) A substantial temporary,periodic;or perrnanent,tncrease�n X
anibient.noise levels in the project vicinity above levels exmsdiig.
-without thevproject?
c) j:Exposure of persons to or-generation'bf excessiye e grouodbom „• X
xibration or groundborne noise levels? ;, a
A`,Foixa project located ivithin:an airport land use plan;or.within , 23 X
two miles of a public agport or publid use:.ai�rpoit would the 4
° piolect expose people residing or working in thepro3ect area to u'
v
-t-eXCeSsi,y ttoise le_veIS
Evaluation
a), b), c), d)This amendment would allow for parking as a temporary use in Business Park zones in the AASP.Parking lots
do not normally create an unacceptable level of noise and do not create areas in which people live and/or work in which they
could be exposed to unacceptable levels of noise.
Future development of parking facilities will require the Director's approval, which will include an evaluation of site- and
project-specific noise issues.
Conclusion
This is a City-wide Text Amendment, which itself does not have the potential to create noise impacts. Parking lots will not
create or expose people to unacceptable levels of noise under normal circumstances. Site specific impacts will be addressed
on a case by case basis.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
4Y'-Indtice!'Subsfiintial "'
'poptila6an growth in an area,- 'they directly 1 X
(for"Oxample' b ;"proposing new homes or, businesses),or
. tnelrecfly '(for e°jcaniple; xhfoetgh ertztenston of;roads'
Jo other
ffifictu
I)isp a e b)'standid numbers.of jexistirig Imousin #w me4ple X
necessitating the"' con9sgg,ictonr i` hainp
elsee2 ling
Evaluation
CITY OF SAN Luis OeisPO 12 INrr1AL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcKLisT 20'06
v'- /U
Attachment 2
Issues, Discussion and Supportir,, ..,,ormation Sources Sources Pott. Potentially Liess Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 107-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a), b) This amendment would allow for parking as a temporary use in Business Park zones in the AASP. Temporary parking
lots do not induce population growth, and because the parking lots would be built in the BP (Business Park) zone where
housing is not allowed,no housing or people would be displaced.
Future development of parking facilities will require the Director's approval, which will include an evaluation of site- and
project-specific impacts to population and housing.
Conclusion
This is a City-wide Text Amendment, which itself does not have the potential to impact population and housing. Site specific
impacts will be addressed on a case by case basis.
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 protections - X
b)'Police protection?` X
c)- $ctiools? X
X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructures X
Other''abbe faciHtiesv X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), f) This amendment would allow for parking as a temporary use in Business Park zones in the AASP.
Temporary parking lots do not create additional burdens on public services because they would only be permitted to provide
overflow parking for otherwise allowed uses.
Future development of parking facilities will require the Director's approval, which will include an evaluation of site- and
project-specific impacts on public services.
Conclusion
This is a City-wide Text Amendment, which itself does not have the potential to impact public services.Site specific impacts
will be addressed on a case by case basis.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
X Increase4tl a use of existing neighborhood or Yegional g`acks'or ' X
-other�receatiopal facilities such that substantial plrystcal� `
a deteftoration of the.factlity would occutot,be acceierated? r
�b)--.Include f gcreationalfacilities ox require-the'C.gnstructiotn o[, : X
t _expansion dfrecreational facilities,which,alight have ai:adverse
li :kali-effect on the environment?
Evaluation
a), b)This amendment would allow for parking as a temporary use in Business Park zones in the AASP. Temporary parking
lots do not create additional burdens on recreation services because they would only be permitted to provide overflow parking
for otherwise allowed uses.
Future development of parking facilities will require the Director's approval, which will include an evaluation of site- and
project-specific impacts on recreation facilities.
Conclusion
CiTr of Sart Luis OBWO 13 INITIAL STUDY EiwirtommENrat.CHECKLIST 2006
z�9
Attachmcnt 2
Issues, Discussion and Supportir,, ..,..,rmation Sources Sources Pott. Potentially Less7ban No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 107-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
This is a City-wide Text Amendment, which itself does not have the potential to impact recreation facilities. Site specific
impacts will be addressed on a case by case basis.
15. TRANSPORTATIONIMFFIC. Would the reject:
a) Cause-an increase in traffic-which is substandif,iri relation w the = 2, 14 X
exisfin
g1raffic load and capacity of the,street system?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 2, 14 X
standard established by the county congestion management .
'agency for designated roads and highways?
c) 'Substantially increase hazards due to design features(6;g:sharp 2 X
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,
'farm equipment)?
,d).'.Result in Inadequate emergency,access? z• 2 X
e),,'Result in'iniidequate parking capacity onsite orioffsitii '- X
f) ,Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 2 X
transportattotr(e;g. bus turnouts,,bicycle racks)v '
g) Conflict:with the with San Luis•Obispo County;Atrport.Land 23 X
u' Use Plari'resultigg'in siibsiari'tsalsafety risks from hazards;noise,';
r_achan e_in_airtraffc. atteru? ,
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e) f), g) This amendment would allow for parking as a temporary use in Business Park zones in the AASP.
Temporary parking lots do not create additional vehicle trips or create additional parking demand because they would only be
permitted to provide overflow parking for otherwise allowed uses. New facilities would be reviewed for consistency with the
City's Circulation Element and compliance with Engineering Parking&Driveway standards.
Future development of parking facilities will require the Director's approval, which will include an evaluation of site- and
project-specific impacts to transportation facilities and traffic.
Conclusion
This is a City-wide Text Amendment, which itself does not have the potential to impact transportation and traffic. Site
specific impacts will be addressed on a case by case basis.
16.UrUSIIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the miect:
a� y Exceed_wastewater treatmenGreguut menus f=tleapplicab7e 6 X
Regional Water•Quality Cori iYofB' d�
b) R nuesp%result;in the construchoa or-expansibn of nevK'water z. 6 X
treatment;-waste water treatmen4,water gtWity'control,or storm
drainagefacrlities,t}ie cons truction,6f which ct uild pa»se . "'
(gtifimin I6nviconmentaleffects
c)'
Have sufficient water supplies available tpsezytiie.project 6 X
" from existing entidettents and resources,or arc'liew and
007
.expanded-water resources needed? - t '• ,
Renu 4n a:determination by the wastewater treatment pYpui er 6 X
which��erves )c may serve the project that•it has:adequai :
paserve, the prof rls prt3jected demand an addition tb rA
- the provider's existing commitment? a '
Be servedbyalandfill Vieth sufficient permitted, acityt4 6 X
} s accomtz3otlate;the:pro,lett'asolid wastetlisposaineeds?-.Ts, o
f)7 Comply.with federal,state,and local statutes and re 'iitations 6 X
w � 7
n•
v related 6solid waste9 -
Evaluation
Ctry OF SAN tuts Owspo 14 INmAL STuOv EwmONMENTAL CNEcKwT 2006
Attachment 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting .... ,rmation Sources Sources Pote. Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant hnpact
ER# 107-06 Issues Unless impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a), b), c), d), e), f) g) This amendment would allow for parking as a temporary use in Business Park zones in the AASP.
Temporary parking lots may require limited water for irrigation of required landscaping. However, as temporary facilities
only minimal landscaping would be required.
Future development of parking facilities will require the Director's approval, which will include an evaluation of site- and
project-specific impacts on utilities and service systems.
Conclusion
This is a City-wide Text Amendment,which itself does not have the potential to impact utilities and service systems.Site
specific impacts will be addressed on a case by case basis.
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Fa) Does the project have the potential to degrade.the qualitg of the x X
� environment,'substannally reduce the habitat of fish;oi'wtldhfe
species,cause a fish or wildlife popiilatton to drop beldw"self `
smtammg levels,.threaten'to:eliminate'a pldd :W"imal ;-:_ `
H
.i:community,reduce.the number or restiict the range of a rare or
endangered,plant or animal,or eliminate important exatriples of
ti .. ihe ma o"r_` mods�of California histo :'or, reliisto'�_ ;. _ v ° "`
This is a City-wide Text Amendment, which itself does not have the potential to impact biological, historical, or cultural
resources.Site specific impacts will be addressed on a case by case basis.
�) Doessthe p;pec[have impactsthat are<►ndivtdually htruted but X
:cumulanvely considerable? ;("Cumulanvely coiiderable'! w^
' iieans tfiaf the incremenial,effects of a prodect"are cgnsideiii
>s :when vtewednn con`nection'wtth the;effects"of tlie'past p�ro�ects,
fi
` the effects of otheilcurrent prgl";,and the effects of probal7e>
a .
The impacts identified in this initial study arespecific to this project and would not be categorized as cumulatively si ificant.
Does the.poject have enZti oiimental effects which will cause X
>, t _
4 {h fsubstati ial adverse effects onthtmian beings,eitherdtie or „
sind�CCti' z
N � tL ..,.y ...-. ;1.:iu�5i c.�...:.
The project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on humans.
18.EARLIER ANALYSES.
FJ L .!'.`*0 Z'YF' 'T:; Y(L "'R^T "SwA' .^^X'G: E"'?[ C'j" X`.Y" T`R' CA�' '"'�"CP^f iL. '"Y" .t/4-va )nP'-=T 'K'•%'^i.
�arhet�iiaiysis may be�used,whece,purstiant.�o-the tiering�progragi EIR,'or'�ther�.�HQAxpzocess~one or more e�'fects ltave�,
3S�S:e, '^T.,.Gii '.°fY"..i k i• a s.^ {.� Y .rc25' � 12°tL r �¢ t i'ya'"S'.v�VC A At5 4l� d s '"{,.,tt'T ;�
, en�adeq'uatelyyzed m an earlier or Negaue Dectaratton �Stzou, 5063 ¢�,(3k�) Tn this case a usstan
should
_ _ _earlaer�anal ,ses_and state;�here•.tliie _aSa"aYaxlAble�3'g?`,ir'evtew.,., y�_. . �� � �'
�LEarl"rertanal sis used. Isle .�,__ ".-,.�
N/A
�) 'Impacts adequately atltdressed. Tclenhfy vtfhtch efeEts tithe al�8ve t est Grp zthip the scope of and adegnately
�->ailzalyied_-in aneat7ierdOcutuent'pursnatrtta.�applicaMeslegaLstandfiiz3s,an e'idhethes�uc6=e`fecfs were,addi"esseli by°'
{''0'.�fnitl ation;measufes,base]on the eat'fier`arial'sis °ai •• •� ' �a a�..��e."�,. "'^' °,.� t>� � a, :? a"..a-tt
N/A
6gahoin measures.,For et#ects tlia't are"Less4han Si caii th IVlifi Inc rated; describe the int doll_
�) d a
n f ,{meas ures,Which were mcorpgrated,or refined ftditi the;6awlterd6cument,and�tesxtenti#o Jkhich_they address stte-sp6M6
3.. L
�q ^."4 ,�R.��'�' "' .V`n
N/A
19. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. I City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,September 2004
2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,November 1994
3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996
CRY OF SAN Luis OBIsPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
z-moi
Att_achmcnt 2
Issues, Discussion and Supportirry":,._,rmation Sources Sources Pote." Potentially Less Than No
Significant" Significant Significant Impact
ER# 107-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000
5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element,April 2006
6. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element;July 1996 ,
7. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element,May 2004
8 City of SLO Airport Area Specific Plan _
9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
10. -City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database
11. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Surve of San Luis Obispo County
12. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District,2001
13. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,.Air Pollution Control District,2003
14. Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation Manual,6 Edition,on file in the Community Development
Department
15. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook,May 1996
16. 2002 City of San Luis Obispo Water Resources Report
17. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development
Department
18. City of San Luis Obispo,Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community
Development Department
19. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma
20. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map.
21. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990
22. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines
23. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan
Cm OF SAN Luis Oetspo 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
2-zz
Attachment 3
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5459-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY
COUNCIL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING
REGULATIONS AND AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW
TEMPORARY PARKING IN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONE;
SP,R/TA 107-06
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
July 26, 2006, for the purpose of considering Application No. SP, R/TA 107-06, a request to
amend the Zoning Regulations and Airport Area Specific Plan to allow temporary parking
facilities in the Business Park Zone; and
WHEREAS, said Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the proposed text amendments
on July 19, 2006, and found them to be consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Negative
Declaration of environmental impact prepared for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings:
1. The proposed Zoning Regulations and Specific Plan amendments are consistent with the
General Plan because they will promote the efficient use of land and a diverse and dynamic
commercial sector by providing for additional parking facilities for intermittent events,
while will facilitating dividing parking areas into multiple small lots.
2. The proposed Zoning Regulations and Specific Plan amendments will not harm the general
health, safety or welfare of people working or living in the City, as individual projects will
be reviewed by the Director for consistency with City policies and standards.
3. The use is compatible with other land uses in the Airport Specific Plan Area because
temporary parking facilities are conceivably necessary to accommodate intermittent uses
and to allow for phased development. �7
ate-
r"'7 Attachment 3
Resolution No. 5459-06
Page 2
4. The Initial Study of Environmental Impact and the Negative Declaration adequately evaluate
and address all of the potential impacts of the text amendments.
Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend
that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration for the project and approval of Application
No. SP,R/TA 107-06, a request to amend the Zoning Regulations and Airport Area Specific Plan
to allow temporary parking facilities in the Business Park Zone.
On motion by Commissioner Ashbaugh, seconded by Commissioner Christianson, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Ashbaugh, Brown, Christianson, Miller, Carter, McCoy, and Stevenson
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 26`s day of July, 2006.
Doug Davi son, Secretary
Planning Commission
G:VMII\GPA and RZ\SPA-Z Text Amend(Parking in BP)\PC Reso.spa-zdoc
��y
- Attachment 3
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 26, 2006
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Charles Stevenson, John Ashbaugh, Andrew Carter,
Jason McCoy, Peter Brown, Vice-Chair Carlyn Christianson, and
Chairperson Andrea Miller
Absent: None
Staff: Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore,
Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick, Director of Parks and Recreation
Betsy Kiser and Recording Secretary Jill Francis
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
MINUTES: Minutes of July 12, 2006. Approve or amend.
The minutes of July 12, 2006 were approved as submitted.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 215 Bridge Street. A 72-06; Request for work/live units in the Manufacturing zone;
M-PD zone; John and Kay Semon, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore)
Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending the
Commission approve a work-live component in the Bridge Street project, based on
findings and subject to conditions and code requirements.
George Garcia, applicant's representative, gave a slide presentation highlighting the
project components.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commrs. Stevenson and Ashbaugh expressed concerns that were related to the general
work/live concept and how certain components, such as amount of floor area dedicated to
living space, would be enforced. Other commissioners felt that this was a good location to
adopt the work/live concept and supported the proposal.
Draft Planning Commission Minh,, s Attachment 3
July 26, 2006
Page 2
Commr. Stevenson questioned why this project did not go back to the City Council.
Commr. Ashbaugh asked if the Council had reviewed floor plans, questioned whether it
was presented to the Council as a work/live project, noted that he felt the public's
concerns should be given full consideration, and expressed concern about setting a
precedent with the approval of this project.
Commr. Carter discussed the project design particulars and asked staff about the open
area across the creek.
Commr. Christianson reiterated her feelings when the project was first presented as
residential along the driveway, and expressed support for the work/live nature of the
project.
Commr. McCoy felt the project gives the community an opportunity to experiment with
the work/live concept.
Commr. Miller agreed that the project presents an opportunity to attempt a work/live
project.
Commissioners Stevenson and Ashbaugh did not support the concept due to basic
concerns with the applicability of the work/live concept, the history of opposition to
residential uses at this location, and the potential for enforcement difficulties.
On motion by Commr. Christianson to adopt a resolution to approve a work/live
component based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements.
Seconded by Commr. Carter.
AYES: Commrs. Miller, Brown, McCoy, Carter and Christianson
NOES: Commrs. Ashbaugh, Stevenson
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 5 :2 vote.
2. City-Wide. R/TA, SP and ER 107-06; Request to amend the Zoning Regulations
and Airport Area Specific Plan to allow temporary parking in the BP zone, and
environmental review; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Jaime Hill)
Associate Planner Jaime Hill presented the staff report and gave a brief presentation
explaining the proposed text amendments, and pointing out that individual development
proposals would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. She recommended the
Commission adopt the resolution recommending approval to the City Council of the
proposed changes to the Zoning Regulations and Airport Area Specific Plan, and
recommend adoption of the proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for
the project.
Draft Planning Commission Mint., _1
July 26, 2006 Attachment 3
Page 3
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Stevenson had questions about the definition of "temporary" and "intermittent,"
and the types of improvements that are generally made to temporary parking lots.
Commissioners Ashbaugh and Brown commented that they would like to see more
shared parking facilities in the future, rather than additional large parking lots.
On motion by Commr. Ashbaugh to adopt the resolution recommending the Council
approve- the. proposed changes to the Zoning Regulations and Airport Area Specific
Plan..-and recommend.adoption of the proposed Negative Declaration of,
Impact for the project. Seconded by Commr. Christianson.
AYES: Commrs. Miller, Ashbaugh, Brown, McCoy, Carter, . Stevenson, and
Christianson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 7 0 vote..
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
A. Agenda Forecast
Deputy Director Doug Davidson gave an agenda forecast of upcoming agenda items
and projects. He. reminded the Commission of the Community Development
Department's move to 919 Palm Street, and noted that the office would be closed on
Friday, August 11th and Monday, August 14th.
4. Commission
ADJOURMENT:
With no further business before the commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. to
the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Wednesday August 9,
2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Respectfully submitted by
Jill Francis
Recording Secretary
Attachm , � 3
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM# 2
FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director p.p, MEETING DATE: July 28, 2006
PREPARED BY: Jaime Hill, Associate Planner(781-7165)a• H
FILE NUMBER: SP/R TA, ER 107-06
PROJECT ADDRESS: City-Wide
SUBJECT: Request to amend the Zoning Regulations and Airport Area Specific Plan to allow
temporary and/or intermittent parking facilities in the Business Park (BP) Zone and
environmental review.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached Resolution recommending approval to the City Council of the proposed
change to the Zoning Regulations and Airport Area Specific Plan, and recommend adoption of
the proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the project.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicant, the City's Parks and Recreation Department, has proposed an amendment to the
Zoning Regulations and Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) to allow temporary and/or
intermittent parking facilities in the Business Park (BP) Zone. The applicant is exploring a
potential opportunity to develop off-site parking facilities adjacent to the Damon Garcia Sports
Fields, near the intersection of Broad Street and Industrial Way. Staff has evaluated the requested
text amendments and prepared an Initial Study of. Environmental Impact and Negative
Declaration for the project. The Initial Study is an evaluation of the proposed specific plan and
zoning regulations amendments. The initial study does not specifically address the potential
environmental effects of the future parking facilities development, as the details of such a project
are unknown at this time. The environmental issues related to future development projects would
reviewed at the time of project submittal. At this time staff's report includes an evaluation of the
proposed specific plan amendments and zoning text amendment in terms of consistency with
City goals and policies, and an evaluation of the proposed use in terms of its compatibility with
other land uses allowed in the BP zone. Amendments to the Zoning Regulations and Specific
Plans require review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council.
Data Summary
Address: City-Wide
Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo, Parks and Recreation Department
Representative: Betsy Kiser, Director of Parks and Recreation
Project Description: Amendment of the Zoning Regulations and Airport Area Specific
—ZO
Attachm ;�t 3
SP/R TA, ER 107-06 (Parking in BP zone)
Page 2
Plan to allow temporary and/or intermittent parking facilities in the
Business Park (BP) zone.
Environmental status: The Community Development Director approved a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact for the project on July 12,
2006.
Project action deadline: Specific Plan and Zoning Regulations amendments are not subject
to permit streamlining requirements.
Praiect Description
The proposed project includes amendments to the Zoning Regulations and AASP to allow
temporary and/or intermittent parking facilities in the Business Park (BP) zone and within the
AASP. The City's Parks and Recreation Department has proposed this revision in anticipation of
an opportunity to develop off-site parking adjacent to the Damon Garcia Sports Complex in the
BP-SP zone. This project is still in its conceptual stages, and would be processed as a separate
application if the text amendments are approved by City Council.
EVALUATION
The proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations and AASP would allow temporary and/or
intermittent parking facilities in BP zones within areas included within the AASP. Currently, the
only properties designated as Business Park in the City are within either the AASP or Margarita
Area Specific Plan (MASP) areas. A map showing the location of BP designated land that is
within the AASP area and an exhibit showing the proposed revisions to the Specific Plan and
Zoning Regulations are attached to this report (Attachments .1, 3A, and 313). Parking as a
primary use would continue to be prohibited within BP zones in the Margarita Area. Because
specific plans are intended to provide more precise direction on the development of a particular
area, to allow parking facilities in the Airport Area Specific Plan the use must also be allowed
for in the Zoning Regulations. In other words, a specific plan can be more restrictive than the
Zoning Regulations, but in no case less restrictive.
The Zoning Regulations and AASP both include tables which list the uses that are allowed to
locate in various zones, including the Business Park district. Some uses are allowed by right,
while others require approval of an Administrative Use Permit or Planning Commission Use
Permit. Some uses are prohibited without any permit path available. Presently, parking facilities
of all types are allowed only in the BP zone when incidental or in support of other allowed uses.
The Zoning Regulations identify three types of primary parking uses: Parking Facilities, Multi-
Story Parking Facilities, and Temporary Parking Facilities, all of which are currently prohibited
in the BP zone. The desirability of parking as a primary use differs throughout the City, in
accordance with the City's vision for how the area will develop, in terms of the uses allowed and
the density of development. Permanent single and multiple-story parking facilities are desirable
in areas of the City where small lot sizes make provision of on-site parking inefficient or where
opportunities for shared trips make a consolidated parking arrangement advantageous.
Temporary parking facilities are often utilized to accommodate intermittent events or to allow
o)
Attachment 3
SP/R TA, ER 107-06 (Parking in BP zone)
Page 3
for phased construction of projects where it is beneficial to have development of permanent
parking facilities occur after building occupancy, such as in the case of some large campus
developments. The proposed text amendment would include modifying Zoning Regulations
Table 9: Uses Allowed By Zone, to permit temporary parking in the BP zone with Directors Use
Permit Approval (Attachment 3A).
The AASP consolidates the three types of parking facilities into one general category, which
consistent with the Zoning Regulations, does not allow for parking facilities as a primary use.
The proposed amendment would alter AASP Table 4.3: Allowed Uses, to permit parking
facilities with Directors Use Permit Approval (Attachment 3B). This designation would also be
assigned a new "note," No. 9. Numbered notes are used throughout the table to provide direction
on when conditionally allowed uses may be appropriate, or to establish specific findings which
must be made in order to approve a use. Note No. 9 would limit parking facilities to temporary
and/or intermittent uses to ensure that parking facilities as primary uses do not proliferate in the
area. AASP Table 5.3: Outdoor Use Areas, would also be modified to allow the maximum area
of outdoor use area to exceed the actual building coverage on site, with approval by the Director
(Attachment 3C).
Staff supports the proposed specific plan and zoning regulations amendments for three primary
reasons. First, there are several uses allowed in the BP zone which may have a foreseeable need
for additional parking facilities for intermittent events, which at this time could not be
accommodated. Second, the proposed text amendment is consistent with the AASP policies as it
Will facilitate dividing parking areas into multiple small lots. Third, the project will not
significantly deplete land designated for research and development in the City or region. The
following evaluation provides a detailed discussion of these and other issue areas.
General Plan and Specific Plan Consistency
The purpose of the Business Park General Plan designation is described in the Land Use Element
(LUE) of the City's General Plan as follows:
Business parks may be developed in areas designated for them.
Business parks are to accommodate research and development and
light manufacturing in a campus like setting. They should provide
high quality design of public and private facilities. Land designated
for a business park should not be further divided or developed until
the City annexes the area and approves a master plan for the
business park (LUE Policy 7.9.1).
The Business Park designation is implemented in the City's Zoning Ordinance by the Business
Park zoning district. The Airport Area Specific Plan provides more precise implementation of the
Business Park designation by addressing the site planning, property development standards, and
design features that are desirable for maintaining the community character and assuring the
sought-after setting. These aspects of the Specific Plan will have a significant effect on the types
of business development that will locate in the area. The AASP specifically addresses preferred
Attachment 3
SP/R TA, ER 107-06 (Parking in BP zone)
Page 4
parking designs, and the need to have safe and efficient vehicular parking areas that are designed
to be in scale with and visually subordinate to the development and landscape setting.
Temporary and/or intermittent parking is a conditionally allowed use in all commercial zones
citywide, except for the BP zone. These temporary off-site parking facilities are often necessary
to allow for special or intermittent events that generate parking demands beyond that typically
needed daily. Allowing the use of temporary/intermittent parking is also desirable as it
minimizes the development of over-sized parking areas that are utilized only infrequently.
Allowing this use seems to promote other goals in the General Plan, such as efficient use of land
and the promotion of a diverse and dynamic commercial sector.
Land Use Compatibility
As discussed in the previous section, staff believes that temporary and/or intermittent parking is
periodically necessary as an ancillary use to many of the uses allowed for in the BP zone.
Allowing for off-site parking on a temporary basis provides flexibility for occasional events
which could not otherwise be accommodated. Further, off-site parking is often necessary to
accommodate short-term parking constraints resulting from phased site development or
installation of public improvements.
The proposed Zoning Regulations and Specific Plan amendments were brought before the
Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for their input on June 19, 2006. The ALUC
unanimously determined that the project is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan.
Discussion focused on the definition of"temporary" and the fact that the density of people would
not be increased if temporary parking facilities were allowed. Noise was not considered to be a
significant issue because of the type of use.
Loss of Business Park Zoned Land
Staff has prepared an exhibit (see Attachment 1) showing land that is zoned BP and is within the
AASP that would be effected by the proposed text amendment, and could be potentially utilized
for temporary and/or intermittent parking. The exhibit includes all parcels within the AASP,
including those which are currently outside the City Limits.
Because parking as a primary function of a site would be limited to temporary and/or intermittent
use, there would not be a long-term loss of land designated for Business Parks. In contrast, this
amendment will allow properties to develop parking in a more comprehensive and logical
manner. The option to use temporary parking during phased project construction, or off-site
parking for special events facilitates orderly development with only the parking necessary for the
daily needs of businesses.
Overall, staff believes that any loss of BP zoned land due to the proposed Zoning Regulations
and Specific Plan text amendments will be negligible. As previously discussed, the amendment
will provide for the development of temporary and/or intermittent parking, a use that would be
considered by many to be complementary to existing allowed uses in the Business Park zone.
17 � /
Attachment 3
SP/R TA, ER 107-06 (Parking in BP zone)
Page 5
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Community Development Director has approved a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact for the project. The Initial Study (Attachment 2) evaluates the potential impacts that the
Zoning Regulations and Specific Plan text amendments may have on the environment. No
potentially significant impacts were identified. However, the document does discuss specific
issue areas that will need to be evaluated when specific temporary and/or intermittent parking
facilities are proposed. Similar to these uses in other areas of the City, temporary parking
facilities will be reviewed by the Director for compliance with City standards.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the proposed Zoning Regulations and Specific Plan
amendment if more information is needed, and provide direction to staff and the applicant
regarding additional materials or data necessary to act on the project.
2. Recommend denial of the proposed Zoning Regulations and Specific Plan amendment to
the City Council. Denial should be based on findings if the Commission determines that
the proposal is inconsistent with the General Plan or the Airport Area Specific Plan.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Map of the properties designated BP within the AASP
Attachment 2: Initial Study of Environmental Impact and Negative Declaration
Attachment 3: Draft Resolution with Staff Recommendation to Approve Proposed Amendment
Exhibit A—Amendment to the Zoning Regulations Table 9: Uses Allowed By Zone
Exhibit B—Amendment to the AASP Table 4.3 Allowed Uses and table notes
Exhibit C—Amendment to the AASP Table 5.3: Outdoor Use Areas
G:VHil)\GPA and RZ\SPA-Z Text Amend(Parking in BP)\PC Repon.SPA-Z(parking in BP).doc
Attachment 4
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX (2006 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC
PLAN TO ALLOW TEMPORARY.PARKING IN THE BUSINESS PARK
ZONE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SP, RITA, ER 107-06)
WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing on July 19, 2006, for the purpose of evaluating the request to amend the Zoning
Regulations and Airport Area Specific Plan to allow temporary parking in the Business Park
zone, and found these amendments consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing on July 26, 2006, for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council regarding the request to amend the Zoning Regulations and
Airport Area Specific Plan to allow temporary parking in the Business Park zone; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, August 15; 2006, and has
considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the evaluation and recommendation of
staff and the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the project is consistent with the City of San
Luis Obispo General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact as prepared by staff.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following
findings:
1. The proposed Specific Plan amendments are consistent with the General Plan
because they will promote the efficient use of land and a diverse and dynamic
commercial sector by providing for additional parking facilities on a temporary basis
and for intermittent events, while will facilitating dividing parking areas into
multiple small lots.
2. The proposed Specific Plan amendments will not harm the general health, safety or
welfare of people working or living in the City, as individual projects will be
reviewed by the Director for consistency with City policies and standards.
3. The use is compatible with other land uses in the Airport Specific Plan Area because
temporary parking facilities are conceivably necessary to accommodate intermittent
uses and to facilitate for phased development.
4. The Initial Study of Environmental Impact and the Negative Declaration adequately
evaluate all of the potential impacts of the text amendments.
2 S,3
' Attachment 4
Resolution No.XXXX (2006 Series)
Page 2
Section 2. Environmental Review. The City Council does hereby adopt a Negative
Declaration for the request to amend the Zoning Regulations and Airport Area Specific Plan to
allow temporary parking facilities in the Business Park zone.
Section 3. Action. The City Council does hereby approve the request to amend the
Airport Area Specific Plan to allow temporary parking in the Business Park zone, as shown in
the attached Exhibit A and B.
On motion by 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:
Jonat Lowell, City Attorney
G:UHiII\GPA and RZ\SPA-Z Text Amend(Parking in BP)\CC Reso(AASP text change and er).doc
Attachment 4
AASP Table 4.3-Allowed Uses
Zoning District ®_
Land Use PF C-S M BP 1h'bIt "All
INDUSTRY,MANUFACTURING&PROCESSING,WHOLESALING
Furniture and fixtures manufacturing,cabinet shop D A
Industrial research and development D D D
_
Laboratory.=Medical,.analytical,research,testing A A A
Laundry,dry cleaning plant A A A,
Manufacturing-Heavy D PC
Manufacturing-Light D A A
Petroleum product storage and distribution D
Photo and film processing lab A A D
Printing and publishing A A A
Recycling facilities-Collection and processing facility D
Recycling facilities-Scrap and dismantling yard D
Recycling facilities-Small collection facility D A_
Storage yard D A
Warehousing,indoor storage. A. A D,
Wholesaling and distribution A A PC
.Zoning District.
Land Use PF C-S M BP
LODGING
Homeless shelter PC PC PC
Hotel,:motel a PC
Zoning.District
Land Use PF C-S M BP
RECREATION,EDUCATION,&PUBLIC ASSEMBLY USES
Bar/taJem D D D,
Club,lodge,private meeting haJil D
Commercial recreation facility-Indoor PC PC D
Commercial recreation facility-Outdoor PC PC
Fitness/health facility A A A,
Night club D,
Park,playground D
Public assembly facility PC PC
Religious facility° D D,
School--Specialized education/traininge - - A - A p
Sports and active recreation facility PC PC PC
Sports and entertainment assembly facility PC PC
Zoning District
Land Use PF C-S M BP
RESIDENTIAL USES
Caretaker quarters A A A D
Zoning District
Land Use PF CS M BP �j
RETAIL SALES Z —�3 s
Attachment 4
Auto and vehicle sales and rental -- A PC
Auto.pads sales,with installation A A
Auto parts sales,without installation A A I�it "All
Building and landscape materials sales,indoor A A
Building and landscape materials sales,outoor A. A
Convenience store D D D,
Farts supply and feed store A D
Fuel dealer(propane,etc) D A
Furniture,furnishings,and appliance stores A
General retail-2,000 sf or less Al
Office-supporting retail,2.000 sf or less A,.
Office-supporting retail,More than 2,000,up to 5,000 sf D,
Produce stand A
Restaurant8 D D Al
Service station(see also'vehicle services-) A
Warehouse stores-45,000 sf or less gfa D
Warehouse stores-more than 45.000 sf gfa PC
Zoning District
Land Use PF C-S M BP
SERVICES-BUSINESS,FINANCIAL&PROFESSIONAL
Banks and financial servicese D D,
Business support services A A A,
Medical Service-Doctor Office° D4. D.
Medical Service-Clinic,Lab,Urgent Care D4 D4
Office-Business and service° A
Office-Govemmente A D
Office-Processing - - A D A
Office-Production and administrativee A D A
Office-Airport Related Services° A A A A
Office-Professional° A
Photographer,photographic studio A
Zoning District
Land Use PF C-S M BP
SERVICES-GENERAL
Catering service A A
Copying and Quick Printer Service A A D,
Day rare-Adult,Child Day Care Center° A6 A6 D,
Equipment rental A A
Food banktpackaged food distribution center D D
Maintenanceservice,client site services A A PC
Mortuary,funeral home D D
Personal services A D,
Zoning District
Land Use PF CS M BP
SERVICES-GENERAL
Personal services-Restricted D
Public safety facilities A D
Public utility facilities A A A
Repair service-Equipment,large appliances,etc. A A
Social service organization° D
Vehicle services-Repair and maintenance-Major A A
�1
Vehicle services-Repair and maintenance-Minor A A ' – Attachment L
Vehicle services-Carwash D D
Veterinary clinicfhospital,boarding,large animal D D bit "N'Veterinary clinicthospital,boarding,small animal,indoor A
Veterinary clinicthospital,boarding,small animal,outdoor D D
Zoning District
Land Use PF C-S M SP
TRANSPORTATION&COMMUNICATIONS
Airport Facilities/Expansion PC PC PC PC
Ambulance,taw,and/or limousine dispatch facility A D D
Antennas and telecommunications facilities PC D D D
Broadcast studio° As As Ae
;Parking facility --- -PC __.. _----D—
Refuse
- _D_Refuse Hauling,Septic Tank,Portable Toilet Sewers PC D
Truck or freight terminal A A D
Water and wastewater treatment plants and services PC PC PC PI'l
Attachment 4
Numbered Notes to Table 4.3: Exhibit 99
ARI
PV
1. These activities are considered secondary .uses for business parks. Within da
development project site, their combined floor area shall not exceed 25 percent of the
total floor area. Some are also subject to limits on individual floor area, as shown in
the body of the table. Floor area limitations shall not apply to bank headquarters.
2. Use permit review shall consider that the C-S zone is primarily intended to
accommodate uses not generally suited to other commercial zones because of noise,
truck traffic, visual impacts and similar factors.. A use permit may be approved only
when the church will not likely cause unreasonable compatibility problems with
existing or likely future service commercial uses in the vicinity. Use permit
conditions may include measures to mitigate incompatibility.
3. In the C-S zone, nightclubs must contain a minimum of four thousand five hundred
square feet of floor area. The required use permit process shall address parking,
neighborhood compatibility and security issues.
4. In order to approve a Medical Service use in the C-S or BP zones, the Hearing Officer
must make the following findings:
a) The proposed medical service is compatible with surrounding land uses.
b) The proposed medical service is located along a street designated as an arterial or
commercial collector in the Circulation Element and has convenient access to
public transportation.
c) The proposed medical service will not significantly increase traffic or create
parking impacts in residential neighborhoods.
d) The proposed medical service is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan.
e) The project will not preclude service commercial uses in areas especially suited
for these uses when compared with medical services.
f) The project site can accommodate the parking requirements of the proposed
medical service and will not result in other lease spaces being under-utilized
because of a lack of available parking.
5. Allowed by right only in the S-lc and S-2 aviation safety areas (as defined in the
ALUP), where an employer provides on-site child care to'14 or fewer children for the
exclusive benefit of employees. Larger facilities for employees may be approved by
the Planning Commission, if allowed by the Airport Land Use Commission.
6. Broadcast studios are allowed by right except that an administrative use permit is
required to permit any on-site antennas, dishes, or transmission towers; or any radio,
microwave orther type of airbound transmission from the.project site or any other site
within the Airport Area.
2-�f
Attachment 4
IIAII
7. Caretakers quarters shall have a maximum floor area of 1,000 square'fe�Alsh1-1
not be allowed in aviation safety area S-la or the runway protection zone, as defined
in the ALUP.
8. These uses are identified in the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use
Plan as noise-sensitive, specific sound-attenuation requirements may apply. Refer to
the ALUP for more information.
9. Parking as a primary use in the BP Zone shall be limited to temporary or intermittent
use. The Director may establish requirements as necessary, including but not limited
to days and hours of operation, site planning, and improvements.
<3 9
Attachment 4
j-xnibit °Bu
Airport Area Specific Plan
Table 5.3
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Specific Plan
OUTDOOR USE AREAS
Land Use Category
Outdoor Storage
Or Manufacturing Business Park Service Manufacturing
Commercial
Cannot exceed
actual building
coverage on
site e• xcent
when allowed 50%of site
Maximum Area by the Director No limit
as a temporary area
and/or
intermittent
use.
Behind Behind
Location buildings& buildings 6t Outside
outside outside setbacks
setbacks setbacks
Required as for Required as for Dust-free,all-
Paving parking lots parking lots Feather surface
acceptable
Not visible Not visible Not visible from
Screening from off site from streets or streets or
residential sites residential sites
Required,
except upon
written approval
Restroom(s)and indoor office Reuied Rid by Director for
and worker eating area qrequrestorage with no
public visitation
and no on-site
workers
- Attachrr;ent 5
ORDINANCE NO.XXXX (2006 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING
REGULATIONS TO ALLOW TEMPORARY PARKING IN THE BUSINESS PARK
ZONE; SP, R/TA,ER 107-06
WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing on July 19, 2006, for the purpose of evaluating the request to amend the Zoning
Regulations and Airport Area Specific Plan to allow temporary parking in the Business Park
zone, and found these amendments consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing on July 26, 2006, for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations
to the City Council regarding the request to amend the Zoning Regulations and Airport Area
Specific Plan to allow temporary parking in the Business Park zone; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, August 15, 2006, and has
considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the evaluation and recommendation of
staff and the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the project is consistent with the City of San
Luis Obispo General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact as prepared by staff.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following
findings:
1. The proposed Zoning Regulations amendment is consistent with the General Plan
because it will promote the efficient use of land and a diverse and dynamic
commercial sector by providing for additional parking facilities on a temporary basis
and for intermittent events, while will facilitating dividing parking areas into
multiple small lots.
2. The proposed Zoning Regulations amendment will not harm the general health, safety
or welfare of people working or living in the City, as individual projects will be
reviewed by the Director for consistency with City policies and standards.
3. The use is compatible with other land uses in the Zoning Regulations because
temporary parking facilities are conceivably necessary to accommodate intermittent
uses and to facilitate phased development.
'r
Attachment 5
Ordinance No. 1487 (2006 Series)
Page 2
4. The Initial Study of Environmental Impact and the Negative Declaration adequately
evaluates all of the potential impacts of the text amendment.
SECTION 2. Action. The City Council does hereby approve the request to amend the
Zoning Regulations to allow temporary parking in the Business Park zone, as shown in the
attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. 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 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 day of 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:
omey Jonathan Lowell
G:UHill\GPA and RZ\SPA-Z Text Amend(Parking in BP)\CC Ordinance XXXX(zoning text change).doc
Attachment 5
city of son Luis osispo
JunE 2004 zonlnc, REculatlons
7'"
TABLE 9-USES ALLOWED BY ZONE-Continued
Permit Requirement by Zoning District Specific use
Land Use AG C/OS R1 R2 R3 R4 PF O(1) C-N C-C C-D C-R C-T C•S M BP Regulatlons
TRANSPORTATION&COMMUNICATIONS
Airport PC PC I PC D
Ambulance,taxi,and/or limousine dispatch
facility A D D(10)
Antennas and telecommunications facilities PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC D D D 17.16.120
Broadcast studio A A/D A A A A
Heliport PC PC PC
Parking facility PC(6)PC(6) PC(6) D(6) D(6) D(6)
Parking facility-Multi-level PC(6)PC(6) PC(6)PC(6) PC(6)PC(6)
Parking facility-Temporary PC D D 0 D. D D D - D 2 17.06.010
Railroad facilities D A
Transit station or terminal PC PC PC D A
Transit stop A A A A A A A A
Truck or freight terminal A A D
Water and wastewater treatment plans and
services I I I I T PC PC
Rey: A=Allowed D=Directors Use Permit approval required PC=Planning Commission Use Permit approval required
A/D=Directors approval on ground floor,allowed on second floor or above
Note: Footnotes affecting speific land uses follow the table.
pac,C 79
�2 -y3
Attachment 6
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX (2006 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
DENYING AMENDMENTS TO THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
AND ZONING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW TEMPORARY PARKING
IN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONE,AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
(SP, R/TA, ER 107-06)
WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing on July 19, 2006, for the purpose of evaluating the request to amend the Zoning
Regulations and Airport Area Specific Plan to allow temporary parking in the Business Park
zone, and found these amendments consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing on July 26, 2006, for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council regarding the request to amend the Zoning Regulations and
Airport Area Specific Plan to allow temporary parking in the Business Park zone; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, August 15, 2006, and has
considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the evaluation and recommendation of
staff and the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at
said hearing.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the amendments to the
Airport Area Specific Plan, Zoning Regulations, and environmental review, and considering the
Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports
thereof, makes the following findings:
[Council specifies findings]
SECTION 2. Denial. The amendments to the Airport Area Specific Plan and Zoning
Regulations are hereby denied.
On motion by seconded by and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2006.
o y
- � Attachment 6
Resolution No.XXXX (2006 Series)
Page 2
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney
G:UHiIl\GPA and RZISPA-Z Text Amend(Parking in BP)\CC Reso(Denial).doc