HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/15/2008, PH5 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING FOR PROPERTIES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MONTEREY STREET BETWEEN THE n •�
CoUnC1t Meeting Dde -1'6 Sr
acEnaa 12Epopt Item Numbcr�� fJ
C IT Y OF S AN L U IS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Director
Prepared By: Philip Dunsmore,Associate Planner
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING FOR
PROPERTIES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MONTEREY STREET
BETWEEN THE CHILDREN'S MUSEUM AND MISSION PLAZA AT
667,679,699 MONTEREY AND 1019 AND 1045 BROAD STREET.
(GP/R/ER 64-07).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission:
1. Approve a resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 64-07) and
amending the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use
designation of 667, 679, 699 Monterey and 1019 Broad from Office to General
Retail, 1010 Broad from Public Facility to General Retail, and 1045 Broad from
Office to Public Facility.
2. Introduce an ordinance changing the zoning at 667, 679, 699 Monterey and 1019
Broad from Office-Historic (O-H) to Downtown-Commercial Historic with Special
Considerations (C-D-H-S), 1010 Broad from Public Facility-Historic (PF-H) to
Downtown-Commercial Historic with Special Considerations (C-D-H-S), and 1045
Broad from Office Historic(O-H)to Public Facility-Historic (PF-H).
DISCUSSION
Situation
The City has received an application for a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning (GP/R) of six
parcels on the southern side of Monterey Street, east of the Children's Museum to the area
occupied by the Art Center east of Broad Street (Attachment 1 Vicinity Map). The proposal
amends the land use designations of five of the properties (667, 679, 699 Monterey and 1010 &
1019 Broad) from Office and Public Facility to General Retail, and the zoning from Office and
Public Facility to Downtown-Commercial. The land use designation for the property at 1045
Broad would be amended from Office to Public Facility and rezoned from O-H to PF-H. 1045
Broad includes the San Luis Creek corridor and improvements associated with the Mission Plaza
extension. All of the properties would remain within the Downtown Historic District. The
request has been made to facilitate the redevelopment of the Leitcher Apartment site at 667
Monterey and the Art Center at 1010 Broad (Attachments 2 and 3). The Planning Commission
staff report (Attachment 6) provides additional details regarding the proposed projects for this
vicinity.
The Planning Commission reviewed the rezoning and General Plan amendment request on
February 27, 2008, recommending the City Council approve the request(see Attachments 4 & 5).
J�_/
Council AgendaReport •
GP/R 64-07 (Monterey Street)
Page 2
Data Summary
Applicant: Shearedge Development
Representative: Michael Hodge
Address: 667, 679, 699 Monterey& 1010 Broad 1019/1021/1023 & 1045 Broad
Existing Zoning: Office-Historic(O-H), Public Facility-Historic (PF-H)
Proposed.Zoning: Downtown Commercial-Historic with Special Considerations(CD—H-S)
Existing General Plan: Office, Public Facility
Proposed General Plan: General Retail
Site Description and Project Description
See the attached Planning Commission Agenda Report (Attachment 6) for a complete site
description and project description.
c
0
9�
--
e ART Center site
proposed change from
PF-H to C-D-H
Leitcher Apartment site � PF-H
proposed change from moa I IDBroaa
0-H to C-D-H
899
Motterey 1919-1 �r0
W7 aaaa 9p �\GJ��P Ory
-H
P�aP
C— 7914 Broad
F-H
Creek Property
Proposed Change from
yA 0-H to PF-H
0
1pl0
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to adopt a resolution to recommend approval of the General
Plan amendment and rezoning to the City Council. Commissioner Ashbuagh, who cast the
dissenting vote, did not disagree with the rezoning, however he voted against the motion because
he felt that the Commission should have considered staff's recommendation to require buildings
fronting Monterey Street to incorporate reduced height limits. Instead, the motion required new
development to be reviewed by the Planning Commission to evaluate site impacts, such as height
and setback, on a case by case basis. As recommended by the Commission, each new
development will require a Planning Commission Use Permit. The use permit requirement would
.5=.2
Council Agenda Report
GP/R 64-07 (Monterey Street)
Page 3
be applied through the use of the Special Considerations (S) overlay-zoning district on the
property.
General Plan Consistency
The Planning Commission found the amendment and rezoning to be consistent with General Plan
policy including Land Use Element policies regarding building intensification and retention of
cultural facilities in the downtown, and implementing the Downtown Concept Plan. The attached
Planning Commission agenda report provides a more detailed analysis. The proposed
amendments would increase the City's inventory of C-D zoned land and increase opportunities
for commercial-retail uses and residential units on the upper floors in close proximity to the
City's commercial center.
The properties known as 667, 679 and 699 Monterey Street are underutilized and could be
redeveloped in the future to accommodate a mixture of commercial and residential uses while
acting as an extension of Mission Plaza and the downtown. In particular, the site of the Leitcher
Apartments could provide an opportunity for expansion of commercial uses across the creek,
accessed by the Creek Walk.
The Conceptual Physical Plan for the Downtown envisioned additional cultural uses at the site
with public amenities and a pedestrian pass-thru to the creek walk from the Palm/Nipomo
parking garage site. Additional revenue generating land uses are suggested by current major City
goals. Tentative plans for the redevelopment of the Art Center at 1010 Broad Street also entail an
intensified use of the site, with schematic plans including replacement of the existing building
with a larger modern structure that can accommodate the center's vaned and long term needs.
While the General Plan amendments and rezoning may be necessary for both of these projects to
proceed, these projects are also subject to several other entitlements, including review by the
Architectural Review Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee.
Special Considerations Overlay
The re-designation of these parcels would allow for a variety of uses that could promote
additional pedestrian traffic. While many of these uses would be compatible with adjacent
development, there are several commercial uses that could raise compatibility issues with the
adjacent residences and offices. To insure that new uses areappropriatelyselected for the site, the
Planning Commission has recommended that the Special Considerations overlay address use
compatibility. The S overlay would limit those commercial uses taking direct access from
Monterey Street to be limited to operations that would not depend on significant customer access
or create noise, odors, or other characteristics that would be incompatible with residential and
office uses. Additionally, the S overlay will allow the Commission to evaluate each project for
neighborhood compatibility. Each new land use or development project would be subject to a use
permit to ensure compliance. The resolution adopted by the Commission recommended the
Council establish an S overlay zone with the following criteria:
1. A Planning Commission Use Permit shall be required for all new structures or substantial
remodels and additions to existing structures.
Sr 3
Council Agenda Report
GP/R 64-07 (Monterey Street)
Page 4
2. In reviewing the Use Permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the design of structures
shall be compatible and complementary to structures on adjacent properties. Complementing
the design of historic structures shall take precedent over complementing design of other
existing buildings. Building massing, articulation, exterior materials, roof treatment, and
quality shall be compatible with adjacent and nearby historic structures.
3. Due to traffic and noise generation, the following land uses shall be prohibited within parcels
on the ground floor facing Monterey Street between Broad and Nipomo Streets:
Medical Services
Fitness/Health Facility
Night Club
Banks and financial services
4. The following uses may be allowed with approval of an administrative use permit
Bar/Tavern
General Retail-more than 2,000 square feet
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works Department has found that the proposed General Plan amendment and
rezoning requests will have a negligible affect on area traffic and public improvements. Because
of the site's downtown location, there would be unaccounted opportunities for shared trips and
an increased likelihood of patrons utilizing methods of transportation other than a car. However,
there will also be an increase in overall trips if the property is built-out under the proposed C-D
zoning. Additional discussion can be found in the attached Planning Commission staff report.
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. Accordingly, since the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. Amending the General
Plan for this location will not significantly alter revenues since the new designation will allow a
similar mix of commercial development.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve a resolution denying the proposed rezoning, based on findings of inconsistency with
the General Plan.
2. Continue review of the rezoning with specific direction to the applicant and staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1. Vicinity map
Attachment 2. Schematic redevelopment plans for Leitcher Apartment site
Attachment 3. Art Center conceptual plans
Attachment 4. February 27th 2008 Planning Commission resolution
Attachment 5. February 27th 2008 Planning Commission meeting minutes
ma=y
Council Agenda Report —
GP/R 64-07 (Monterey Street)
Page 5
Attachment 6. February 27" 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachment 7. Initial Study/Environmental Review (ER 64-07)
Attachment 8. Resolution adopting General Plan Amendment
Attachment 9. Ordinance adopting zone change
GXD-PLAWduo mUtcnnmg&GPA's\GPA 60-07(Momaey St re c)\GPR 64-07 Com cd Rcpon.doc
e✓
dye
a '
J Attachment 2
SHEAR EDGE
NE=
December 7, 2007
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Atttention: Phil Dunsmore
Re: General Plan Amendment and Rezone for 600 and 700 Block of Monterey Street
Dear Phil:
The application referenced above proposes to rezone the south side of the 600 & 700
blocks of Monterey Street from Office (0)to Commercial District (C-D). The primary
reason for the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone is to allow the creation
of a viable mixed-use environment on these critical blocks of Monterey Street. The
redevelopment of these blocks of Monterey Street will create a vital pedestrian
streetscape linking Mission Plaza,the Art Center, the Bello Building, 667 Monterey, and
the new Children's Museum.
The proposed GPA/rezoning creates a logical break between the existing O and the C-D
zones in accordance with City Council direction at the time the Soda Works property was
similarly rezoned. It allows the redeveloped properties to act as a transition in coverage,
density, and height from the O zone development standards to those of the C-D zone.
Finally, the financial benefits to the City include not only additional sales tax revenues
from the increased userstpedestrian in the downtown area but also the Transient
Occupancy Tax revenues to the City from the proposed hotel uses. The following
detailed information is provided per your request;
Specific Proposed Project Descriptions
Pmg)osed San Luis Obispo Art Center-
The proposed San Luis Obispo Art Center is a 22,000 square foot structure that will
accommodate the Art Center's exhibition, education, and related community functions
for the indefinite future. The new facility is intended to occupy an expanded role as an
essential component of San Luis Obispo's cultural life.
The proposed Art Center building incorporates pedestrian access at two levels by
incorporating a lower level entrance from Broad Street for classrooms, small conference
and community meeting rooms, and utilitarian requirements, including artwork
loading/unloading and trash and a middle level entrance from the building comer closest
to Mission Plaza accesses reception, a gift shop, and main exhibit and event spaces.
The upper floor contains additional gallery space as well as the Art Center's
administrative functions while the basement contains storage, mechanical, and curatorial
spaces.
Page 2 Attachment 2
Proposed 667 Monterey Development (Existing Leitcher House Site):
x�
The existing historic Leitcher House is proposed to be re-sited, renovated, and restored
with an adaptive re-use which will include ground level office space and two affordable
residential units on the second level.
The proposers new development alongside and behind the original Leitcher House
includes two new mixed-use buildings, separated by a public pedestrian connection
linking Monterey Street with the San Luis Creekwalk and existing bridge crossing, as
well as the rest of the downtown core area.
The building adjacent to the.Children's Museum will vary between 25'and 42' in height
along the Monterey Street frontage which extrapolates to approximately 45' at the rear of
the building. This articulation is designed to address and complement the scale and
mass of the new Children's Museum structure, while respecting the height and scale of
the existing structures across Monterey Street. Uses proposed for this building include
offieetretail space on the main level, five 2-story residential units on the second floor,
and three 2-story units on the third floor facing the creek.
The second building between the Leitcher House and the creek includes a hotel lobby
on the creek walk level, restaurant/bar with patio dining and office on the main level, and
seven hotel rooms on each of the second and third floors. A small underground parking
garage is proposed at the same level as the hotel lobby and creek walk,which will serve
the hotel (valet) and residential uses only.
The proposed architecture of the 667 Monterey Street development project is intended
to provide an appropriate and transitional design vernacular between the eclectic
structures extant and proposed for this section of Monterey Street. By evoking a "early
Californian urban craftsman"design aesthetic, the new buildings will complement and
respect the existing architectural context by providing details, materials, articulation, and
fenestration that respect historic elements of the neighborhood while simultaneously
addressing the more contemporary design features of the new Children's Museum and
proposed Art Center renovation. The new structures will not only provide a heightened
architectural focus and a sense of place for the renovated Leitcher House, but will also
serve as a backdrop for the newly created public"paseo"that will provide direct
pedestrian connectivity from Monterey Street to the existing Creekwalk and pedestrian
bridge, as well as the rest of the downtown area.
The Proposed Project Descriptions comply with all site coverage, FAR, residential
density, height, setback, and other development standards of the C-D zone.
Rationale for General Plan Amendment and Rezone
The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone is being requested to allow the
existing properties to be redeveloped under the property development standards for the
proposed Commercial District (C-D)zoning rather than existing Office(0)zoning. The
following discussion highlights the property development standards that necessitate the
change from 0 to C-D zoning.
Attachment 2
Page 3
1. The current O zoning only allows.a density of 12 dwellings units/acre
(17.34.020A) while C-D zoning allows a density of 36 units/acre (17.42.020.A).
The higher density is being requested in order to fulfill current city policy
objectives by providing both affordable and market-rate residential housing units
in the downtown area. This additional density will enable economically viable new
residential units to be added to the downtown area coincidental with the
redevelopment of the Leitcher House property..
2. The current O zoning allows a building height of 25 feet, up to 35 feet with an
administrative use permit, (17.34.020.C), while C-D zoning allows a base height
of 50 feet (17.42.020.C). The additional height above that allowed in the O zone
will be reserved for uses identified by the city council as policy objectives for
downtown redevelopment projects, including provisions for downtown residential
units as well as revenuettax generating uses, such as the proposed hotel. Also,
the additional height afforded in the C-D zone will encourage a mon: articulated
building design to provide an appropriate architectural transition from the height
and scale of the existing buildings across Monterey Street in the O zone to the
existing taller buildings in the C-D zone across the creek. Finally, the greater
height allowed in the C-D zone will allow the inclusion of the second floor
affordable residential units in the proposed renovation of the Leitcher House.
3. The current O zoning requires that parking requirements be met on-site
(17.34.020.F) while C-D zoning allows a number of different options to meet the
parking requirements (17.42.020.F). The flexibility of these options to meet the
parking requirements will help the City meet a number of planning goals and
policy objectives, including reducing vehicular traffic on Monterey Street,
increasing pedestrian connections in the downtown area, and maximizing
pedestrian oriented uses in downtown redevelopment projects. In addition,
flexible requirements for on-site parking will encourage new development to
devote more site and building area to revenue-generating uses such as retail and
hotel which will increase both sales tax and TOT revenue for the city instead of
revenue-neutral private parking spaces.
Specific General Plan Policies Furthered by this G.P.Amendment and Rezone
The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone will further the following stated
policies of the General Plan in "DOWNTOWN", Section 4.
4.1 Downtown's Role
Downtown is the cultural, social and political center of the City for its residents, as well
as home for those who live in its historic neighborhoods. The City wants its commercial
core to be economically healthy, and realizes that private and public investments in the
downtown support each other. Downtown should provide a wide variety of professional
and government services, serving the region as well as the city. The commercial core is
a preferred location for retail uses that are suitable for pedestrian access, off-site
parking, and compact building spaces. Civic, cultural and commercial portions of
downtown should be a major tourist destination. Downtown's visitor appeal should be
based on natural, historical, and cultural features, retail services, and numerous and
varied visitor accommodations.
s.. 9
Page 4 Attachment 2
Redevelopment in the area of the proposedpzone will include a wide mix of uses,
including a new cultural!acuity, retail services, visitor accommodations,
residential and offices as well as the restoration of a historic structure(the
Leitcher House). The rezoning will help the City to expand its Downtown area
while increasing its economic vitality.
4.2 Downtown Residential
4.2.1 Existing and New Dwellings
Downtown residential uses contribute to the character of the area, allow a 24-
hour presence which enhances security, and-help the balance between jobs and
housing in the community. Existing residential uses within and around the
commercial core should be protected, and new ones should be developed.
Dwellings should be provided for a variety of households, including singles,
couples, and groups. Dwellings should be interspersed with commercial uses. All
new, large commercial projects should include dwellings.
This policy will be furthered in a number of different manners. The Leitcher
House will be relocated and restored with two affordable units upstairs.
The new building proposed adjacent to the Leitcher House on Monterey
Street will include three 2-story residential units fronting Monterey Street
and two residential units facing the crook on the second floor, and three 2-
story units on the third floor facing the creek The new butIcIng proposed
behind the Leftcher House includes a total of 14 hotel rooms located on the
second and third floors.
4.3 Entertainment and Cultural Facilities
Cultural facilities, such as museums, galleries, and public theaters should be downtown.
An expanded art center is one of the projects that will be included in the area of
the proposed rezone.
4.4 Public Gatherings
Downtown should have spaces to accommodate public meetings, seminars, classes,
and similar activities in conjunction with other uses. Downtown should provide a setting
which is festive and comfortable for public gatherings.
The expanded Art Center will include spaces-to accommodate some of the desired
public gatherings. Its environment will certainly be festive and comfortable for
public gatherings
4.5 Walking Environment
Downtown should provide safe, exciting places for walking and pleasant places for
sitting. To invite exploration, mid-block walkways, courtyards, and interior malls should
be integrated with new and remodeled buildings, while preserving continuous building
faces on most blocks. Downtown streets should provide adequate space for pedestrians.
V..T-/o
AttachmentPage 5 2
The proposed redevelopment of 667 MonteCeey includes a pedestrian "paseo"
linking Monterey Street and the proposed Aftpomo Street parking structure to the
existing Creekwalk and pedestrian bridge crossing the creek. The proposed hotel
will also include pedestrian linkages from the hotel lobby as well as the
restaurant/dining patio areas. Pedestrian areas will include site amenities for the
use of the community and visitors to the community. The redevelopment of the
600& 700 b:ocks of Monterey Street will create a vital pedestrian streetscape
linking Mission Plaza, the Art Center, the Bello Building, 667 Monterey, and the
new ChHdren's Museum.
4.6 Public Safety
Indoor and outdoor public spaces should be observable from frequently occupied or
traveled places, to enhance public safety.
By facilitating the construction of the new Art Center, the rezoning will increase
pedestrian traffic thereby enhancing public safety.In addition, the proposed
redevelopment of 667 Monterey will facilitate observation of public gathering
spaces and pedestrian walkways greatly enhancing public safety.
4.7 Open Places and Views
Downtown should include many carefully located open places where people can rest
and enjoy views of the surrounding hills. Downtown should include some outdoor spaces
where people are completely separated from vehicle traffic, in addition to Mission Plaza.
As discussed above, the proposed rezone will help further pedestrian places and
views.
4.10 Parking
There should be a diversity of parking opportunities.Any major increments in parking
supply should take the form of structures, located at the edges of the commercial core,
so people will walk,rather than drive between points within the core. Retail uses outside
the core, and professional office developments, may have on-site parking for customers
and clients.
The proposed redevelopment of 667 Monterey will Include a small parking garage
below the main structures. The garage will include spaces for the hotel and
residential units only. The remainder of the required parking will be
accommodated off-site via in lieu parking fees. The parking scheme will further
the policy's goal of removing people from their cars and encouraging walking
between points within the downtown area.
4.11 The Creek
San Luis Obispo Creek should be protected and restored, provided this can be done in a
manner that minimizes human impact on meek life. Walking paths along the creek in the
downtown core should be provided as links in an urban trail system, provided this will not
further degrade wildlife habitat value of the riparian ecosystem.
Attachment 2
Page 6
As discussed above, the proposed rezone urn provide linkages to the existing
Creekwalk and pedestrian bridge crossing creek.
4.12 Building Conservation and Compatibility
Architecturally and historically significant buildings should be preserved and restored.
New buildings should be compatible with architecturally and historically significant
buildings, but not necessarily the same style.
The existing Leitcher House will be preserved and restored to its original historic
character, while the new buildings proposed on that site will be architecturally
compatible and complementary. The architecture of the new Art Center will reflect
its unique role in the community.
4.15 Sense of Place
To keep the commercial core's sense of place and appeal for walking, it should remain
compact and be the City's most intensely developed area.
The density of the proposed development within the rezone area will conform to
Downtown area's sense of place and pedestrian appeal while increasing the
density of development
4.16 Design Principles
`The following principles should guide construction and changes of use within the
commercial core.
4.16.1 Street level Activities
The street level should be occupied by stores, restaurants, and other uses
benefiting from and contributing to pedestrian traffic, such as offices with frequent
client visits. Stores and restaurants may occupy upper levels. Offices not having
frequent client visits should be located above street level.
The proposed expanded Art Center will obviously benefit from and
contribute to pedestrian traffic. The street level uses at 667 Monterey will
include office spaces in the restored Leitcher House, office/retail spaces in
the proposed building fronting Monterey Street, and hotel uses. Each of
these uses will also benefit from and contribute to pedestrian traffic.
4.16.2 Upper Floor Dwellings
Existing residential uses shall be preserved and new ones encouraged above the
street level.
All of the buildings proposed for 667 Monterey include residential uses
above the street level.
�'�oZ
Attachment
Page 7
4.16.6 Sidewalk Appeal u
Street facades, particularly at the street level, should include windows, signs, and
architectural details which can be appreciated by people on the sidewalks.
The street level of all the proposed new buildings has been designed to
create a pleasant pedestrian scale environment All architecture elements,
particularly the detailing of the street facades, will compliment that
environment
In addition, the Proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone will further the following
stated policy objectives of the General Plan:
• Publicly accessible, open viewing spaces at the upper levels.
• Adaptive reuse of a historical resource in a manner consistent with
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
0 Street level features such as a public plaza, public seating and/or
public art.
• A major pedestrian connection between Monterey Street and the
Creekwalk.
If you need anything else please contact me at 545.8753. Thank you.
R ards,
Michael H e
Shear dge artner
1026 Palm Street, Suite 201 San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 (o) 545.8753 (f)545.8755
A"achment
ILI
-wf N
co O
\ t CN CO
T° m �@ ' M
I l Q
° ° L,
a s I LO
� wr � N
00LLY
L
V co
CLu
L
o
F � I FE
r � �
IQ
C: L
� U
U U)CL O
rZ
65
ca
a. N
Chz Lo LU
td
m c�
0o d y
Co
) c cr)
o � w 0000
x
( o CO CL E- v
- S-//
IIAll
■..so
_ ! BMWsOMNI
a
-� E
JIM
;..._: -iii• III :7
(Illi
Vii; ���� ■ �_���, , ..
.1„
1■ ((A � •
��y�111•' IIV I IIS III) ■ _ 111111 y'. -
Low1■
/ 11. 1 11111 ,
•'i�'- l''� it III�III�'• _-`(. .4
! iC�ie 3r.:1 I■ ill Ili
111 ..
AtWon
taLo
G�:_••� ,
I
1` 1
�,.,, jam; •
i
I� �t
� .
t< ;
� r
II��II I:�i is
\I��I i ���illllll:
=-
2
OD 0
LO
le
00
LL
CD
a.
co
cu
o
cc
LU
IL Cf)
n�
OD w-
LU co 00
/� - -
�=� .
SAN LUIS OBISPO ART.CENTER
NEW ART CENTER BUILDING
JUNE,2002, NARRATIVE STATEMENT
INTRODUCTION
The San Luis Obispo Art Center is a non-profit corporation dating to 1952, and located at the
comer of Monterey and Barad Streets since 1967. The current 5,429 Square foot building has
been repeatedly remodeled but is growing increasingly inadequate for Art Center programs and
functions, as well as out-of-date in the areas of building technology, life safety, and accessibility.
Beginning in 1999 the Art Center, with the help of community members, generated a space needs
analysis, retained architectural and engineering consultants,and proceeded through the
schematic design process for a new building. Remodeling was deemed infeasible. The
accompanying design is for a 22,000 square foot structure that will accommodate the Art Center's
exhibition, education, and related community functions for the indefinite future.The new facility is
intended to occupy an expanded role as an essential component of San Luis Obispo's cultural
life.
At this time the Art Center would like a preliminary, non-voting review of the building.design, to
initiate dialogue and staff analysis, as well as to provide input to the General Plan Amendment
process, discussed below.
GENERAL PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE
The architectural program developed through the space needs assessment requires a larger
structure than nominally allowed under the current PF(public facilities)zone. The Art Center
proposes to process a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to the C-C(central
commercial)zone. The design presented here complies with the coverage, height limit, and other
building standards of the C-C zone.
The building design is presented for architectural review prior to initiation of the General Plan
Amendment process so that the Art Centers specific development plans form the basis of that
discussion. City departments have encouraged pursuit of a C-C land use designation, in part to
allow participation in the in-lieu-fee'parking program.
DESIGN CONCEPT
The Art Center's consulting architects, Barcelon&Jang are experienced museum and gallery
architects, based in San Francisco. They have worked closely,With the Art Center's building
committee to develop a building design based on the functional requirements of building spaces
and the urban relationships of the site to its neighborhood and larger context. Generally, the
building presents an honest, contemporary expression of its role as a center for the arts. Its
dialogue with existing structures consists primarily of view relationships and compatible materials
selections.
/7
Attachment 3:
Narrative Statement`
Page 2
r
A diagonal 'internal circulation scheme allows a lower level entrance from Broad Street for
classrooms, small conference and community meeting rooms, and utilitarian requirements,
including artwork loading/unloading and trash. The middle level entrance from the building comer
closest to Mission Plaza accesses reception, a gift shop, and main exhibit and event spaces. The
upper floor contains additional gallery space as well as the Art Center's administrative functions.
A basement:below the lower floor contains storage, mechanical,and curatorial spaces.
Two dominant features of the building are the oculus and the lantem.'The oculus, an inverted
cone at the building's center, serves as an orientation space and light well,extending through the
roof plane to form a shape that recalls surrounding volcanic peaks, The lantern is a flared cylinder
at the building comer nearest the creek. It provides Views to and from the Art Center and works
as a beacon announcing evening activities.
MATERIALS AND COLORS
A materials and color board is not being presented at this preliminary architectural review, but the
following exterior treatments are anticipated.
Lower walls: stone veneer, using a robust stone with a texture and color recalling the
stonework at the base of the Mission.
Upper walls: stone veneer, using a smooth stone in a light color that mediates neighboring
building colors, including the Mission's white, and the Camegie Library's ochre.
- Windows and glazing: dear view glass and frosted spandrel glass, in,aluminum frames.
- Paving and hardscape: textured and pigmented concrete compatible with'Mission Style'
sidewalks and dogleg extension treatments currently being designed by the City's consultant
r
lli�.Il 111.1 iiy�
1 .�'�
ti
< Illi
.y7a
yc
a.
N'i�,
r �+
.I �'I '01 '�(� a�s l
a � I, s T
I
L Y t.el
J'f ✓ -� {C G
,aJ
r:r.:tiJu•
7
kyr Ei aEn -�M.
�J
ice,. —•�': o't:`1}�..6i1
�I
1 d''-
1
L a�
g+I
L ,`}
P-i N
le
END
yy 4
v` `� fit.`rP Jj• +F',��r'Irk�..
d��•Sl\6 .1'I LPp
Attie 3
-
1XI
r f
77
J
a
r;nyy
err
k b'
A"�'r'✓C rill RR�r��
�:.•il 0 tK✓v W:c
n 'fin re,ajf y^.
i F
� Yfi 'rill
jM
� � t
kkk
Y'Y
or
� r
otX
F 7
5 ++fir
s •., Fkl,
�e
,r
t
t<
y'
's l
I rT
� %�ll� I _ b=Cit .lam tvV��yjy�S
v.� LI
y1 id
.l.rfl
-�;;'.'i..,ai tt• t y ^�.n: -- i - d��`� 3 ,3�4-��i'il
d r
r
!� y
1�
yr?:Y
WE I
rk
1 1 6i L
4
�j
` nC�ti
Sl� Pit
Ll :,
ti
NEW
well
m¢}}``;}, t
1111,
.yyt' �yypyl p 3 j ``
lowI = I
.y
r
t ,y
w :)J'
Ve.i S4 17
114 s
1 TZtl ga's
87
J7
ce
z jfe
w
0 z
C'A.
lit
! • A&dmCnt1
m
74 � <
f . . .
! I.
0
evil
:
� 2 e
)! �
\%S
& ) .
,V4
� | �
/ $ 7
§ { >
. ! � ■
|
171
.
,
a
�) Attachment 4
RESOLUTION NO.5498-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AMENDMENTS TO
THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS
FROM O-H TO C-D-S FOR PROPERTY AT 667 THROUGH 669 MONTEREY STREET
AND 1019 THROUGH 1023 BROAD AND FROM PF-H TO C-D-S
FOR PROPERTY AT 1010 BROAD STREET AND FROM O-H TO PF-H AT 1045
BROAD STREET
GP/R/ER 64-07
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
February 27, 2008 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/ER 64-07,
Shearedge Development, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the draft Negative Mitigated
Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff;
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative
Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
project, and reflects the independent judgment of the Commission.
2. The proposed rezoning is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element policies
regarding Downtown zoning, which designate such districts for locations that are
appropriate to serve cultural facilities, mixed-use projects and specialty retail uses.
3. The proposed land use amendment will facilitate implementation of the Conceptual
Physical Plan for the City's Center and will help to stimulate redevelopment of
underutilized properties within the downtown core.
4. An S overlay zone shall be applied in order to ensure adequate review of building
massing and setbacks and create a specifically refined list of allowed land uses. The
proximity to the creek, the size and configuration of the property and adjacent lower
density office and residential uses warrant the refined land use list and requirement fora
Planning Commission Use Permit.
'Resolution No.5498-08 Attachment 4
GPR 64-07 Lietcher/Art Center Rezone
Page 2
SECTION 2. Action.
The Commission hereby recommends approval of a General Plan amendment and rezoning from
and adoption of said Mitigated Negative Declaration (GP/R/ER 64-07), as shown on attached
Exhibit A including:
Conditions:
The areas to be rezoned (exclusive of the creek parcel) shall contain an S-overlay zone subject to
the following criteria:
1. A Planning Commission Use Permit shall be required for all new structures or substantial
remodels and additions to existing structures.
2. In reviewing the Use Permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the design of structures
shall be compatible and complementary to structures on adjacent properties. Complementing
the design of historic structures shall take precedent over complementing design of other
existing buildings. Building massing, articulation, exterior materials, roof treatment, and
quality shall be compatible with adjacent and nearby historic structures.
3. Due to traffic and noise generation, the following land uses shall be prohibited within parcels
on the ground floor facing Monterey Street between Broad and Nipomo Streets:
Medical Services
Fitness/Health Facility
Night Club
Banks and financial services
4. The following uses maybe allowed with approval of an administrative use permit
Bar/Tavern
General Retail-more than 2,000 square feet
Mitigation Measures:
1. Aesthetics
Prior to issuance of any construction permits, the applicants shall submit an exterior lighting plan
ensuring that exterior lighting associated with the project shall not spill over the property line in
excess of one foot-candle. Glare light shall be reduced by shielding lights and recessing light
sources within fixtures.
Monitoring Pro ram:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily by the Community Development
Department staff.
2. Cultural Resources
Resolution No.5498-08
' + Attachment 4
GPR 64-07 Lietcher/Art Center Rezone
Page 3
2. Cultural Resources
A. During demolition and construction activities, the applicant shall retain a qualified
historic/prehistoric archaeologist to monitor all earth-moving activities (e.g., excavation, grading,
utility trenching). Weekly monitoring reports shall be prepared that discuss the area and depth of
disturbance, the nature of any resources encountered, and any other information outlined in the
conditions of approval and Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan. In the event that significant
artifacts are encountered, construction within the immediate area shall cease until the area is
surveyed by a qualified archaeologist approved by the City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Director. If the artifacts cannot be preserved in place, then the archaeologist shall
be provided the necessary time and funding .to recover the "scientifically consequential
information from or about the resource" as required by CEQA § 15026.4. A final report of
findings should be prepared and all significant cultural materials should be cataloged and curated
at a local archaeological collection facility that meets appropriate state and federal standards.
B. A Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan should be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and
approved by the City prior to the 'issuance of construction permits. The plan should detail the
protocols and methods that will be initiated should any historic or archaeological resources be
encountered during demolition or construction, and include provisions and directives for specific
content for weekly monitoring reports.
C. During demolition and construction activities, the County Coroner shall be contacted in the
event that any human remains are discovered.
D. If City designated historic properties are re-located, moved, or otherwise modified, all work
shall be performed consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation. Original
exterior materials, trim, windows, roofing, and detailing shall be preserved and restored rather
than replicated.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with these requirements shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for architectural review and review by the City's Cultural Heritage Committee. An
archeologist (subject to approval by the Community Development Department) shall be retained
by the project sponsor prior to the issuance of grading, demolition or construction permits. The
archeologist shall submit a cultural resources monitoring plan to the City prior to the
commencement of any site work. All construction personnel shall be instructed to comply with
the monitoring plan.
3. Land Use and Planning
Mass, scale, form and design theme of any new buildings within the block to be rezoned shall be
compatible and complementary to existing significant historic structures such as the Mission, the
Carnegie Library, the Leitcher apartment building, and Master list historic residential properties
on Monterey Street. The Secretary of Interior standards, the City's Community Design
Guidelines, and General Plan policies that are designed to protect historic resources shall be
closely followed when modifying existing structures or building new structures within the subject
Resolution No.5498-08 J Attachment 4
GPR 64-07 Lietcher/Art Center Rezone
Page 4
properties.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily by the Community Development
Department staff.
4. Noise
The construction of future residential uses 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.
On motion by Commissioner Stevenson, seconded by Commissioner Gould - Wells, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Brodie, Carpenter, Christianson, Gould-Wells, Multari, Stevenson,
NOES: Ashbaugh
REFRAIN: none
ABSENT: none
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 27th day of February, 2008.
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission
.�=30
Attachment 4
Resolution No.5498-08 ( � Exhibit A
GPR 64-07 Lietcher/Art Center Rezone
Page 5
General Plan Amendment / Rezone 64-07
o C
� 'vO
QPM'
ART Center site
proposed change from
PF-H to C-D-H-S
Leitcher Apartment site ����y P F-H
proposed change from �o�
O-H to C-D-H-S
�,P -D Ov
O-
PSP
O
C F-H
Creek Property E
Proposed Change from
O-H to PF-H
o:1
0
Draft Planning Commission Minutes_
Attachment 5
2/27/08
Page 2
There were no comments made from th public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Multari questioned how the o ers would know of any changes to the exterior of the
condos, if the easement would come up on the preliminary title report, and would these
easements have been required if there v as no map application?
Commr. Stevenson, discussed the pro isions of the Map Act and proposed the need for an
improvement plan outlining Jbmr.
s.
Commr. Brodie, questionedificates would memorialize the conditions of the Map
Act.
Chairperson Christianson, y a certificate of compliance could not just have the
tentative map attached with s highlighted.
On motion b Commr. Ashrove theappeal and overturn the recommendation to
den the ma waiver. Secomr. Multari
AYES: Commrs. Ashbaugh, Mult ri, Gould-Wells, Christianson, Brodie, and Stevenson
NOES: Commr. Carpenter
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion carried on a 6 : 1 vote.
2. 667, 679, & 699 Monterey Street and 1010, 1019, 1021, & 1023 Broad Street.
GP/R 64-07: Request to re-designate properties from Office-Historic (O-H) and Public
Facility (PF-H) to General Retail (C-D-H); Shear Edge Development, applicant. (Phil
Dusnmore)
Associate Planner, Phil Dunsmore, presented the staff report recommending the Commission
adopt a resolution that recommends the City Council:
1. Approve a resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 64-07) and
amending the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use designation
of 667, 679, 699 Monterey and 1019 Broad from Office to General Retail, 1010 Broad
from Public Facility to General Retail, and 1045 Broad from Office to Public Facility.
2. Adopt an ordinance changing the zoning at 667, 679, 699 Monterey and 1019 Broad
from Office-Historic (O-H) to Downtown-Commercial Historic with Special Considerations
(C-D-H-S), 1010 Broad from Public Facility-Historic (PF-H) to Downtown-Commercial
Historic with Special Considerations (C-D-H-S), and 1045 Broad from Office Historic (O-
H)to Public Facility-Historic (PF-H).
.�-3z
Draft Planning Commission Minui, Attachment 5
2/27/08
Page 3
Mr. Dunsmore explained the proposed S overlay zoning and the boundaries of the requested
rezoning.
John Belsher, applicant representative, supported the project because it is the only property
south of Monterey that is not zoned downtown commercial. He supported the proposed mixed
use components of the project because it would encourage pedestrian traffic in downtown and
the creek area. He also expressed concerns that the staff recommended set backs limit the
proposed plans for development.
Bruce Fraser, 971 Osos Street, Building Trustee for the Art Center, felt the zone change would
allow the Art Center to meet the land use plans. He expressed concern for the recommended
set back due to its location. He did not support the S-Overlay at 1010 Broad Street unless the
specific setbacks were eliminated from the properties.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Marshall Ochylski 1026 Palm Street, SLO, supported the plans presented by staff and the
applicant in regards to the zoning and setbacks.
Dan Leitcher, state that his grandfather had purchased the current Leitcher Apartment years
ago and approves of the project. He would like to see the Leitcher Apartments redeveloped
soon.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Ashbaugh questioned if the ARC and CHC reviewed the Art Center plans and generally
supported the proposed zone change. He also expressed concern about the creek setbacks on
both properties.
Commr. Stevenson, questioned what is the status of the Art Center plan and how is it
addressing the building set back.
Commr. Stevenson, supported the changing of the zoning to downtown commercial.
Commr. Carpenter, questioned the S-Overlay height and supported re-zoning changes. He
noted that the area is unique and sensitive in it's proximity to the Mission.
Chairperson Christianson also approves of the project proposed zone change and potential for
mixed-use development.
Commr. Gould-Wells, approved the motion and looked forward to seeing the project come back
through the ARC and the Planning Commission with some changes in regards to a use permit.
Commr. Multari stated some items that he felt needed to be amended to the Resolution. These
changes are indicated on the copy of the Resolution in the staff report.
. X33
Draft Planning Commission Minute_--'
� Attachment a
2/27/08
Page 4
On motion by Commr Stevenson to adopt the staff recommended resolution based on the
findings and conditions and including a change to condition 1 to eliminate the setback
requirements.Seconded by Commissioner Gould-Wells
AYES: Commrs. Multari, Gould-Wells, Carpenter, Brodie, Christianson, and Stevenson
NOES: Commr. Ashbaugh
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion carried on a 6:1 vote.
Study Session:
3. Orcutt Area Specific Plan. SP/ER 2 -98: Introduction to the public hearing draft
of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan; Barb ra Parsons, applicant. (Michael Codron)
Associate Planner, Michael Codron, resented the staff report. He stated that the current
Plan is a Public Hearing Draft, ands uld be considered a working document. In regards to
the Draft Environmental Impact Re rt (DEIR) he stated it is a program level EIR. The
Planning Commission will review the raft EIR at the April 9, 2008 meeting.
The DEIR identifies three impacts thare considered Class 1, significant and unavoidable,
in the areas of aesthetics, air quality nd noise (related to traffic). The Class II impacts are
those that are considered potentiall significant, but that can be mitigated to less than
significant levels with the incorporati n of specific mitigation measures that are outlined in
the DEIR. Mr. Codron outlined the s nificant impacts that are discussed in the DEIR. Mr.
Codron discussed the financial plan a d explained that Orcutt Area fees will be "add-ons" to
City-wide infrastructure requirements.
Andrew Merriam, representative of a applicant, explained that there are thirteen land
owners with sizes of the land rangir 3 from % of an acre to 144 acres. He provided an
overview of the proposed open spa and mixed-use land areas. Mr. Merriam presented
renderings of the plan to the Comrr ssion and discussed how the commercial area was
intended to be close to the park areE to make it a compelling urban design feature, which
will help to insure its success.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Jeanne Helphenstine, applicant, represe ing the 144-acre Righetti property, stated that it has
taken a lot of time and energy to produce plan that all of the property owner could agree upon.
Chairperson Christianson closed the pu lic comment period to insure that the Commission
would have enough time to ask staff ques ons and discuss the specific plan.
.�-31
Attachment 6
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM# 2
BY: Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner(781-7522) DATE: February27, 2008
FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director of Community Development P,D
FILE NUMBER: GP, R, ER 64-07
PROJECT ADDRESS: 667, 679, 699 Monterey& 1010, 1019/1021/1023 Broad
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment and Rezone for property located on the west end of
Monterey Street to accommodate a mixed-use project on the vacant Leitcher apartment property
and to accommodate the proposed reconstruction of the Art Center at the corner of Broad and
Monterey Streets.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached Planning Commission resolution which recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve a resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 64-07) and
amending the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use designation of
667, 679, 699 Monterey and 1019 Broad from Office to General Retail, 1010 Broad from
Public Facility to General Retail, and 1045 Broad from Office to Public Facility.
2. Adopt an ordinance changing the zoning at 667, 679, 699 Monterey and 1019 Broad from
Office-Historic (O-H) to Downtown-Commercial Historic with Special Considerations
(C-D-H-S), 1010 Broad from Public Facility-Historic (PF-H) to Downtown-Commercial
Historic with Special Considerations (C-D-H-S), and 1045 Broad from Office Historic
(O-H) to Public Facility-Historic (PF-H).
BACKGROUND
Situation/Project Description
The City has received an application for a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning (GP/R) of six
parcels on the southern side of Monterey Street, east of the Children's Museum to the area
occupied by the Art Center east of Broad Street. The request includes the parcel on the west side
of Broad Street, currently occupied by antique and rug shops. Specifically, the proposal amends
the properties' land use designations from Office and Public Facility to General Retail, and the
zoning from Office and Public Facility to Downtown-Commercial. All of the properties would
remain within the Downtown Historic District. The request has been made to facilitate the
redevelopment of the Leitcher Apartment site at 667 Monterey and the Art Center at 1010 Broad
(see Attachment 4, conceptual plans).
According to the project representative, Michael Hodge, the primary reason for the amendment is
to facilitate the redevelopment of the property that formerly contained the Leitcher apartments.
This property is now vacant and contains the historic Leitcher apartment building. To streamline
processing of General Plan amendments and rezoning of contiguous parcels, the Art Center has
since merged their request with the property owners of the Leitcher apartments. On May 16,
S-3.5�
GP/R, ER 64-07 - Attachment 6
667, 679, 699 Monterey& 1010, 1019/1021/1023, 1045 Broad
Page 2
2006, the City Council reviewed preliminary plans for the Art Center and directed those
applicants to pursue the entitlements necessary for the project to proceed.
Preliminary project plans for redevelopment of the Leitcher Apartment site include restoring the
historic structure, constructing two new mixed-use structures, and developing a pedestrian
connection from the creek walk through the site to Monterey Street. The applicant anticipates
submitting a complete project application with complete architectural plans following completion
of the General Plan Amendment. It is important to remember that the design, height, parking,
mix of uses, etc., of the future project are not at issue now, but will be evaluated in detail by the
Architectural Review Commission at a later date:
If the proposed amendments are supported, staff recommends that the commercially designated
sites be designated with a Special Considerations overlay to insure that new development is
compatible in scale with adjacent historic structures, and that future uses do not impact the
adjacent residences and offices. Additionally, if the properties fronting Monterey Street are re-
designated as General Retail, it would be appropriate to change the designation of the western
extent of the City-owned creek walk to the south of the Leitcher Apartments, addressed as 1045
Broad, from Office (O-H) to Public Facility (PF-H), for consistency with the designation of
Mission Plaza, (see attachments 2 and 3 — General Plan and Zoning maps). The Planning
Commission should review these general plan/zoning amendments and the environmental
document and make a recommendation to the City Council, which will take a final action on the
requests.
Data Summary
Applicant: Shearedge Development
Representative: Michael Hodge
Address: 667, 679, 699 Monterey& 1019/1021/1023 Broad
Existing Zoning: Office-Historic (O-H)
Proposed Zoning: Downtown Commercial-Historic with Special Considerations(CD—H-S)
Existing General Plan: Office
Proposed General Plan: General Retail
Address: 1010 Broad
Existing Zoning: Public Facility-Historic (PF-H)
Proposed Zoning: Downtown Commercial-Historic with Special Considerations (CD—H-S)
Existing General Plan: Public Facility
Proposed General Plan: General Retail
Address: 1045 Broad
Existing Zoning: Office with the Historic District overlay(O-H)
Proposed Zoning: Public Facility with the Historic District overlay(PF-H)
Existing General Plan: Office
Proposed General Plan: Public Facility
GP/R, ER 64-07 Attachment 6
667, 679, 699 Monterey& 1010, 1019/1021/1023, 1045 Broad
Page 3
Environmental Status: An Initial Study of Environmental Review resulting in a Mitigated
Negative Declaration has been prepared (ER 64-07). Final action on the initial study will be
taken by the City Council at a later date.
Site Description
The privately-owned properties (667, 679 Monterey & 1019/1021/1023 Broad) are currently
developed with a mixture of residential, office, and retail-commercial uses, and the three City-
owned properties (699 Monterey& 1010, 1045 Broad) are developed with a small public parking
lot, the Art Center, and the southwestern portion of the creek walk adjacent to San Luis Creek.
From west to east, the parcels immediately to the north of the project site are designated Office
(O-H), Public Facility (PF-H), and General Retail (CD-H), and are developed with residential
units, offices, the Camegie Library, and the Mission. Other surrounding uses include retail-
commercial and office uses, the new Children's Museum, and Mission Plaza. The area is within
the Downtown Historic District, Downtown Core, and Downtown Concept Plan area. Zoning
surrounding the site is shown in the graphic below and on the attached vicinity map (Attachment
1).
IP.
C
�
� O
Qpm
ART Center site
proposed change from
PF-H to C-D-H
Leitro e C sed chan from � �y PF-H
0-H to C-D-H g �O� +oto Breed
699
679
1019-102
Monterey rQ C9
667 Broad
6 -H
C_
PaP
0
C_ 1045 Broad
F-H
Creek Property
Proposed Change from
0-H to PF-H
o�
0
�P�y�
Attachment 6
GP/R, ER 64-07 -'
667, 679, 699 Monterey& 1010, 1019/1021/1023, 1045 Broad
Page 4
EVALUATION
General Plan Consistency
General Plan Policy 4.1 states: "The commercial core is a preferred location for retail uses that
are suitable for pedestrian access, off-site parking, and compact building spaces. Civic, cultural
and commercial portions of downtown should be based on natural, historical, and cultural
features, retail services, and numerous and varied visitor accommodations".
All of the subject properties are directly adjacent to the downtown core and are depicted in the
Downtown Concept Plan as appropriate for more intensive development,particularly commercial
uses oriented toward the creek area. This block is a logical location to create the boundary
between General Retail and Office since other properties to the east and west are already within
the C-D zone. The boundary now follows the creek for this location. Following the amendment,
Monterey Street would be the boundary between C-D and Office.
General Plan Policy 4.3 states: "Cultural facilities such as museums, galleries, and public
theatres should be downtown. Entertainment facilities, such as nightclubs and private theaters
should be in the downtown too. "
The proposed plans for the Art Center and the conceptual plans for other properties on Monterey
Street are appropriate to include in C-D zoning. Currently, the Mission is within the C-D zone
and the C-D zone extends northward to Palm Street to include the Palm Theatre and other uses.
C-D zoning will also allow office uses to continue.
The General Plan Amendment and Rezone, and future redevelopment is consistent with Land
Use Element policies regarding building intensification within the Downtown Planning Area,
facilitating the expansion and retention of cultural facilities in the downtown, and implementing
the Downtown Concept Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendments and Rezone would
increase the City's inventory of C-D zoned land and increase opportunities for commercial-retail
uses and residential units on the upper floors in close proximity to the City's commercial center.
The properties known as 667, 679 and 699 Monterey Street are underutilized and could be
redeveloped in the future to accommodate mixture of commercial and residential uses while
acting as an extension of Mission Plaza and the downtown. In particular, the site of the Leitcher
Apartments could provide an opportunity for expansion of commercial uses across the creek,
accessed by the Creek Walk. Tentative plans for the redevelopment of the Art Center at 1010
Broad Street also entail an intensified use of the site,with schematic plans including replacement
of the existing building with a larger modern structure that can accommodate the center's needs.
While the General Plan Amendments and Rezonings may be necessary for both of these projects
to proceed, these projects are also subject to several other entitlements, including review by the
Architectural Review Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee.
.� -3 F
GP/R, ER 64-07 Attachment 6
667, 679, 699 Monterey& 1010, 1019/1021/1023, 1045 Broad
Page 5
Downtown Concept Plan
The Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center identifies this location as cultural/historical
district and illustrates the extension of Mission Plaza extending to Nipomo Street. With the
extension of Mission Plaza, it is assumed that Monterey Street between Broad Street and Nipomo
Street would be closed to through vehicular traffic similar to Mission Plaza between Chorro and
Broad. The extension of General Plan Policy 4.19 states: "The City will consider including
features of "A conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center" as appropriate, in its Zoning
Regulations, architectural review guidelines, engineering standards, and capital improvement
program. "
As proposed in conceptual development plans for the Lietcher apartment site, the downtown
concept plan identifies new pedestrian connections to the creek. Amending the land use
designation and facilitating the redevelopment of these properties has the potential to implement
the concept plan. The redevelopment of the Art Center, the completion of the Children's
museum, and finally the redevelopment of the Leitcher apartment site with a pedestrian path
linking to the creekwalk will enhance this important corridor while stimulating additional
pedestrian traffic. The current office zoning does not allow for enough density or variety in land
uses to facilitate redevelopment. Although there are no current plans to modify this portion of
Monterey Street as an extension to Mission Plaza, redevelopment of each property may help to
commence such plans by introducing additional pedestrian level attractions and allowing the
expansion of the Art Center as a cultural facility. Modifying the land use from Office to C-D is
consistent with the intent of the Downtown Concept Plan.
Development Standards and Allowed Uses
The re-designation of these parcels would allow for a variety of uses that could entail additional
pedestrian traffic. While many of these uses could be compatible with adjacent development,
there are several commercial uses that could pose potential compatibility issues with the adjacent
residences and offices. To insure that new uses are appropriately selected for the site, staff has
recommended that the Special Considerations overlay address use compatibility on those
portions of the properties fronting onto Monterey Street. The proposed language in the draft
resolution would limit those commercial uses taking direct access from Monterey Street to be
limited to operations that would not depend on significant customer access or create noise, odors,
or other characteristics that would be incompatible with residential and office uses. The S overlay
could also be established with specific performance criteria that can limit building height,
setbacks, and design. Each new land use or development project would be subject to a use permit
to ensure compliance. Staff has drafted the following language that may be used as findings for
the S overlay zone:
1. Street yard setbacks for all structures facing Monterey Street shall be as follows:
A. Structures or portions of structures 25 feet in height or greater shall maintain a
setback of 10 feet or more from the street property line at Monterey Street as
measured from existing grade.
Attachment 6
GP/R, ER 64-07 j
667, 679, 699 Monterey& 1010, 1019/1021/1023, 1045 Broad
Page 6
B. Structures or portions of structures 35 feet in height or greater shall maintain a
setback of 15 feet or more from the street property line at Monterey Street as
measured from existing grade.
C. Structures or portions of structures exceeding 35 feet in height shall maintain a
setback of 25 feet or more from the street property line at Monterey Street as
measured from existing grade.
2. Design of structures shall be compatible and complementary to structures on adjacent
properties. Complementing the design of historic structures shall take precedent over
complementing design of other existing buildings. Building massing, articulation, exterior
materials, roof treatment, and quality shall be compatible with adjacent and nearby
historic structures.
3. Due to traffic and noise generation, the following land uses shall be prohibited within
parcels on the ground floor facing Monterey Street between Broad and Nipomo Streets:
Medical Services
Fitness/Health Facility
Night Club
Bar/Tavern
General Retail-more than 2,000 square feet
Banks and financial services
Compatibility with surrounding development
Any future development of the site will be subject to Architectural Review which includes
evaluation of neighborhood compatibility and compatibility with the adjacent historic structures.
This application to rezone the properties to C-D would increase the development potential of the
properties in terms of density, lot coverage, and maximum height. Because property
development standards could allow for larger buildings than might be appropriate given
surrounding historic development, staff has recommended that the Special Considerations
overlay also address scale and massing of new development to insure that it is done with
appropriate consideration given to adjacent historic properties. With this overlay zone specific
findings of compatibility must be made during the review of new structures in reference to
height, setbacks, and massing.
Traffic &Circulation
Broad and Nipomo Streets provide access to the project sites at Monterey Street. The City's
General Plan Circulation Element designates Monterey Street as an Arterial Street until it
intersects with Chorro Street. Between the Mission and Nipomo Streets, Monterey Street is
considered a local commercial street. Because of the site's downtown location, there would be
unaccounted opportunities for shared trips and an increased likelihood of patrons utilizing
methods of transportation other than a car. However, there will also be an increase in overall trips
if the property is built-out under the proposed C-D zoning.
The C-D designation would both allow for additional residential dwelling units, additional retail
space and reduce the parking requirement by one-half. To ensure that adequate off-street parking
J=7 d
GP/R, ER 64-07 Attachment 6
667, 679, 699 Monterey& 1010, 1019/1021/1023, 1045 Broad
Page 7
is provided, the applicant would be required to provide or pay in lieu fees for additional parking
spaces. This would allow consistency with policies within the City's General Plan calling for
increased opportunities for downtown dwellings and the intensification of downtown commercial
areas, while maintaining neighborhood quality.
Conclusion
The General Plan Amendment is appropriate at these locations to facilitate necessary
redevelopment and to implement the Downtown Concept Plan and applicable General Plan
Policies. This change will allow for underdeveloped sites to be redeveloped as a more intrinsic
extension of the downtown.
Extension of the commercial district would be appropriate in this location because it would.
➢ Allow for increased density and commercial activity near the City's commercial center.
➢ Provide an opportunity for more intensive mixed-use development
➢ Allow for the expansion of cultural institutions
➢ Facilitate historic preservation and re-use
➢ Expand the walking environment in the commercial core
➢ Highlight the natural creek corridor
➢ Implement the Downtown Concept Plan by helping to facilitate the expansion of Mission
Plaza.
REFERRALS
The project proposal was routed to various City departments, including Public Works, Utilities
and the Fire Department, and comments received have been incorporated into the staff
recommendation and mitigation measures where appropriate.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Commission may recommend 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. Vicinity Map
2. Schematic redevelopment plans for Leitcher Apartment site with project description
GP/R, ER 64-07
'.� Attachment 6
667, 679, 699 Monterey& 1010, 1019/1021/1023, 1045 Broad
Page 8
3. Art Center conceptual plans
4. Initial Study(ER 64-07)
5. Draft Planning Commission Resolution
G:\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&GPA's\GPA 64-07(Monterey St rezone)\GPA 64-07 PC Staff report.doc
tl�-yam
Attachment 7
I IITLAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 64-07
1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment and Rezone, GP/R 64-07
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Philip Dunsmore,Associate Planner, AICP (805) 781-7522
4. Project Location:
Properties on the south side of Monterey Street on the block between Nipomo and Broad Street
from 667 Monterey Street through 1010 Broad Street. The following addresses are included in
the project area:
667 Monterey Street
679 Monterey Street
699 Monterey Street
1010 Broad
1019 Broad
1021 Broad
1023 Broad
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Shearedge Development, Michael Hodge
1026 Palm Street, Suite 201
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
6. General Plan Designation: Office and Public Facility
7. Zoning: Office-Historic (O-H) and Public Facility-Historic (PF-H).
1. Description of the Project:
The City has received an application to amend the General Plan land use designations from
Office and Public Facility to General Retail. The current Office-Historic (O-H) and Public
Facility-Historic (PF-H) zone would be changed to Downtown-Commercial-Historic (C-D-H).
This request was made to facilitate the redevelopment of the Leitcher Apartment site at 667
Monterey, and the Art Center at 1010 Broad. If these amendments are supported, the western
extent of the City-owned creek walk to the south of the Leitcher Apartments, addressed as 1045
S'
Attachment 7
Broad, would also be re-designated from Office (0-H) to Public Facility (PF), for consistency
with the designation of Mission Plaza and to modify the zoning on an isolated pocket of Office-
designated land.
Construction of New Art Center. The rezoning of the property will facilitate the redevelopment
of the Art Center located at the southeast comer of Broad and Monterey Street. The
redevelopment project of the Art Center would consist of the demolition of the existing 5,429
square-foot, 20-foot tall building and the construction of a new 23,000-square foot building with
building elements that will extend up to 45 feet in height. The new building would consist of
two stories over a basement (essentially a 3-story building). The scale of the new building has
been designed with the purpose of providing adequate space for exhibition, education and related
cultural events. The proposed project would include minor street improvements including
installation of bulb-outs and decorative paving in the crosswalks. These improvements would
be compatible with applicable ARC-approved modifications to the proposed Mission Plaza
Project. No formal plans have been submitted to the City at this time and such plans will require
review by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) and architectural review. The CHC has
conceptually reviewed the project. The scope of this environmental review is strictly associated
with the change in zoning designation from Office(0)to Commercial-Downtown(C-D)
Redevelopment of Leitcher Apartment site. The Leitcher apartment site, a designated historic
property at 667 Monterey Street is currently abandoned and in a blighted state. The building is
proposed to be re-sited, renovated, and restored with an adaptive re-use which will include
ground level office space and two affordable residential units on the second level. Two new
mixed-use buildings are proposed adjacent to the historic residence and are proposed to include
retail and residential uses. A hotel is proposed adjacent to the mixed-use project with
approximately 14 guest rooms. Underground parking and site improvements including a new
pedestrian connection to the existing creek path are proposed. No formal plans have been
submitted to the City at this time and such plans will require review by the CHC and architectural
review. The scope of this environmental is strictly associated with the change in zoning
designation from Office(0)to Commercial-Downtown(C-D)
Other properties. No development plans are proposed for the existing City parking lot at the
southwest comer of Broad Street and Monterey or the adjacent property containing the
residential/office structure at 679 Monterey Street. These properties would be re-zoned to C-D
with this application.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings The properties are currently developed with a mixture of
residential and commercial uses. The Art Center is on a City owned property at the southeast
comer of Broad and Monterey, and a small public parking lot is on the City owned property at
the southwest comer of Broad and Monterey. The parcels on the north side of Monterey Street
are developed with residential units, offices, the historic Carnegie Library, and the Mission.
Other surrounding uses include commercial and office uses, the new Children's Museum, and
Mission Plaza. San Luis Obispo Creek is south of, and immediately adjacent to the subject
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
.:! --yy
Attachment 7
properties. South of the creek, properties are developed with multi-story commercial buildings on
Higuera Street.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
General Plan (Land Use Map) amendment and rezone to facilitate redevelopment of the Art
Center and Leitcher Apartment property.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Attachm
ent 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.
X Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources X Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
X Cultural Ressources 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 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 Oatspo 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
t5'—y6
jj Attachment 7
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.
Z
Signature Date
Doug Davidson,Deputy Director of Community Development For: John Mandeville,
Printed Name Community Development Director
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
-5-y7
} i 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 CBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
• /\ Ah Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Support.. 6 Information Sources Sources Poter. .y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 64-07 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, 10 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 1, 10 X
the site and its surroundings?
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) Based on the City's Circulation Element, there are no scenic vistas in the vicinity of the project site or the
downtown area; therefore, the proposed project would not impact any officially designated scenic vistas. In
addition, views of nearby hillsides which are deemed to be an important visual resource (LU 4.13, LU 4.16.4)
would not be impacted as result in an increase building height due to existing lack of views, surrounding mature
vegetation,and surrounding adjacent structures.
b) The project site is not along or near a designated local or state scenic highway. Therefore,there is no impact
to visual resources along these routes.
c) The existing SLO Art Center is not considered an architecturally or historically significant structure; however, it
is located within the City's Downtown Historic Preservation District, an "area where buildings with pre-1941
architectural styles create a recognizable character." (SLOMC § 17.54.010.b.1) The City's Historical Preservation
Program Guidelines (Section D.2) states that new primary structures within a Historical Preservation District
should further promote the historical character of that district area through careful attention to building form, bulk,
scale, site location and landscaping. All new buildings need not be designed in the same style of surrounding
structures; however, elements of the styles and building forms should be included in the new structure, and it
should complement the architectural character of the area(LU 4.12).
The existing structure is 5,429 square feet in size, 1 story, and 20 feet tall; the proposed redeveloped structure
would be 23,000 square feet in size, 3 stories with a basement, and 50 feet tall. In order to meet the City
guidelines, the proposed project design consists of a contemporary landmark building, which uses materials (e.g.,
mission style sidewalks, stone veneer, etc.)that echo components of nearby historic structures. The design of the
structure has been presented to City Commissions during preliminary review meetings, and approval of a final
design is subject to review by both the Cultural Heritage and Architectural Review Commissions.
The new building will be significantly larger than the existing Art Center. The multi-story rotunda will dominate the
creek walk at this location, changing the character of the area from its mostly natural feeling to one more
dominated by the built environment. The proposed terrace and deck will infringe on the existing landscaping
adjacent to the creek walk, and remove the walkway that currently provides access from the Art Center to the
creek and bridge. This bridge provides a well used access from Monterey Street to the back of many businesses
on Higuera Street. The scale of the building, the loss of landscaping, and the encroachment on the creek walk
have the potential to change the natural character and inviting scale of the existing configuration. However, based
on feedback from the Architectural Review Commission and the Cultural Heritage Commission, the proposed
project design could be found consistent with City design guidelines and policies; therefore, the proposed project
would be visually consistent with the overall character of the area.
At 667 Monterey Street, the General Plan Amendmenttrezoning will allow for the development of a mixed-use
commercial-residential project with increased density, lot coverage, and taller buildings than the present zoning,
thereby potentially changing the aesthetic condition of the property. The current Office zoning allows for 12
dwelling units per net acre, 50% lot coverage, and buildings with 35-foot maximum height limit. The proposed C-D
zoning will allow for up to 36 dwelling units per net acre, with 100% lot coverage (less the 15-foot street yard
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
.:! '-Y9
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporti.;Information Sources sources Poo I Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
setback that is required because the site is adjacent to Office zoned property and less the required 20-foot creek
setback) and building heights up to 50 feet. Therefore, the zone change could alter views and create light and
glare for the adjacent residential properties given the scale of development which could be allowed. However,
future site development will require review by the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC), which will shall
address/mitigate the project's impacts to views and other potential aesthetic issues like light/glare to a less than
significant level.
d) The City's guidelines for lighting prohibits light in excess of one foot-candle from spilling over the property line.
Glare resulting from proposed lighting could be reduced by implementation of standard requirements to shield
lights and recess light sources within fixtures. These guidelines shall be incorporated as a mitigation measure to
ensure compliance and minimize potential light impacts to nearby residences and the creek corridor.
Conclusion
The project will have a less than significant impact on area aesthetics when the above mitigation is incorporated
into the project. The City's Community Design Guidelines and Zoning Regulations are designed to protect existing
properties from aesthetic impacts. No further mitigation is necessary. Although the designation change will allow
for more intensive development, the vicinity is already substantially developed with multi-story buildings and
improvements. The rezoning of the property may also facilitate the renovation of existing abandoned and blighted
buildings that currently exist on the site, thereby improving the aesthetic condition of the property.
Mitigation
1. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, the applicants shall submit an exterior lighting plan ensuring
that exterior lighting associated with the project shall not spill over the property line in excess of one foot-
candle. Glare light shall be reduced by shielding lights and recessing light sources within fixtures.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland 12 X
of 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, 10 X
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use?
Evaluation
a), b), c) The site is a series of small developed parcels surrounded by developed properties and public streets
within the urban core. No agricultural uses exist on site or on surrounding properties. The Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency designates this property as Urban Land. There is no
Williamson Act contract in effect on the project site. No impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources
are anticipated with development of the project site.
Conclusion
The project does not have the potential to impact agricultural resources.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO H INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECIaIST 2007
5—SCJ
krach.-meni 7
Issues, Discussion and Support,. d1 Information Sources Sources Poten Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 64 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially 13,14 X
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable 13,14 X
air quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 9, X
concentrations? 13,14
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number 13,14 X
of people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any 13,14 X
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors ?
Evaluation
a), b), c)San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State PM10 (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 project, 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, this project will be
subject to the City's Grading Ordinance which includes dust control measures to reduce any potential impacts. At
this time, the scope of the "project' has not been refined, and this review is primarily to consider the land use
designation change. The change in land use designation will have negligible or less than significant impacts to air
quality.
There are no traffic load or capacity problems currently associated with the existing development and none
anticipated as a result of the proposed project since the affected properties are small and even if built out would
not introduce significant additional development. However, additional trips will be generated with redevelopment of
each property and considering the change from office to retail uses. As the project site is in the City s downtown
district, the nature of many trips to the downtown are multi-purpose in that people, including those visiting the SLO
Art Center, are patronizing more than one business. As a result, the project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is considered non-attainment.
Rezoning of the property may facilitate demolition of some existing structures. Demolition of existing structures
can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper demolition and disposal of
asbestos containing material (ACM). Appropriate demolition and/or relocation permits will need to be obtained
through the Building Division which will ensure proper removal, transport and disposal of any potentially hazardous
material. The demolition permit(s) require approval by the APCD.
The project itself, once established, would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
During project construction, however, there may be increased levels of fugitive dust associated with construction
and grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy-duty construction equipment. The
City has addressed these construction related impacts through standards in the Grading Ordinance and mitigation
measures in the General Plan EIR. Compliance with these standards is monitored during the building permit plan
check process and by field inspections conducted by Building Division inspectors.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Suppon.. ,'Information Sources Sources Pots,� Potenvatly Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 64 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
e) No objectionable odors currently emanate from the use of these sites; therefore, it is anticipated that no
objectionable odors would result from the larger facility as there will be no change in operation, only building size.
Conclusion
Changes to the land use designation will result in less than significant impacts to air quality. As the project area re-
develops, project conditions will accommodate air quality control during any proposed construction. This shall be
done on a case by case, project specific basis. No mitigation is necessary at this time.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 5, 10 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, 10 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 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, 10 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?
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 interruption,or other means?
CITY OF SAN Luis 08isPo 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Support,.., Information Sources Sources Poten Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 64 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
Evaluation
a), b) San Luis Obispo Creek, adjacent to potential development sites, is within the area to be rezoned. Federally
protected species such as steelhead trout, frequent the creek. Additionally, the creek and surrounding environs
acts as habitat for a variety of protected amphibians, birds, and other wildlife. Although no construction is
proposed within the boundary of the creek, construction near creek banks has the potential to result in impacts to
riparian vegetation and creek stability. A concrete pedestrian walkway and landscape area lies between the
proposed project sites and the creek. City policies do not allow construction activities to encroach within 20-feet of
the top of the creek bank. Therefore, if future development is constructed consistent with City Policy, no impacts
will occur to the creek area and the associated riparian habitat. Changes to the zoning for this vicinity is not likely
to impact the creek area since creek protection and creek setbacks will remain unchanged.
c) The project is a General Plan (Land Use Map) amendment and rezone which is necessary to accommodate a
future mixed-use residential/commercial project, the development of which will require separate review by the
City's Urban Forester and approval by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). At this time, there is no
indication that significant trees or other vegetation would be impacted by a project since the majority of the project
area is already developed.
d) The property is completely surrounded by urban development and the proposed GPA/R will not interfere with
the movement of any wildlife species or migratory wildlife corridor. The affected properties are already developed
with structures and hardscape. No changes to the creek area or associated corridors are proposed. A pedestrian
walkway and a formal landscape area lies between potential development sites and the creek.
e) The proposed project is a General Plan (Land Use Map) amendment and rezone 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) As discussed above, the project site does not propose interference with the existing creek or associated habitat
areas. New construction will be required to follow the City's Creek Setback Ordinance, consistent with Chapter 17
of the Municipal Code, therefore no mitigation is necessary.
Conclusion
Modifying the land use designation does not have the potential to impact biological resources. Individual
development projects will require separate review to ensure compliance with the City s Creek Setback Ordinance
and the City's General Plan policies regarding natural resources. No mitigation is necessary.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 9,18, X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 20
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 10,19 X
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of 21 X
formal cemeteries?
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo I 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
—1 12
AffamMizin
Issues, Discussion and Supports.- ,e Information Sources Sources Pofn,. Potentially Less Titan No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
Evaluation
a), b) Based on a Cultural Resource Investigation (2006) performed by Dr. John Parker of Parker and
Associates, the proposed project site for the Art Center; located at the southeast comer of Broad and Monterey
Streets, is located within a known historic site. Historical maps and drawings indicate that the project site was
part of the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa until the City street system was created. After development of the
street system and subdivision of mission property, the project area contained two dwellings that faced Monterey
Street and two dwellings that faced Broad Street. The two Monterey Street dwellings remained until sometime
before 1950 when one was demolished. One of the Broad Street structures was used by a dressmaker and one
was used by a cobbler before 1903. By 1909, a bottle storage building existed next to the cobbler's structure.
By 1926, the bottle storage building had become an auto repair business and the cobbler's structure was used
as an office. Sometime after 1950, all of these structures were removed and the current concrete block
structures were built. Based on Dr. Parker's study, there is a high probability that the project site will contain
buried archaeological features and artifacts from the pre-Mission and Mission eras. It is expected that historic
resources and artifacts (1850-1930) will be encountered during demolition and grading. Along with individual
artifacts, it is likely that historic foundation footings, trash deposits, and privy pits will be encountered that may
contain cultural material important in reconstructing the history of both the Mission and early development of the
Town of San Luis Obispo. Mission San Luis Obispo and its related structures are considered historically
significant cultural resources as defined in the Calif. Pub. Res. Code (5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Sect. 4852). Both
the Mission and early San Luis Obispo City structures represent critical periods in California's economic and
cultural growth. Any intact cultural features representing these two time periods would be considered
"significant" archaeological resources. Destruction of significant cultural resources would result in a potentially
significant impact.
The project site at 667 Monterey Street is on the City s list of contributing historic resources. Moving the structure
and developing the site with new construction has the potential to create impacts to historic and/or archeological
resources unless mitigation measures are incorporated. Note archeology work done.
b); and, d) Based on a records search performed by Dr. John Parker at the Regional Archaeological Information
Center(Dept. of Anthropology, U.C. Santa Barbara), the project site for the Art Center had not been the subject
of an archaeological inspection in the past; however, the project site was listed as within the boundaries of a
known sensitive archeological site. Dr. Parker conducted an archaeological surface survey of the project site to
identify any archaeological resources. As a result of the survey effort, Dr. Parker identified numerous
archaeological artifacts that span prehistoric time (pre-1772) to historic San Luis Obispo era (1850-1930). Due
to the fact that a high number of artifacts were observed during the field inspection, and the fact that adjacent
parcels contained buried trash deposits, structural remains, and significant artifacts, it is likely that intact
historical and archaeological features will exist buried within the project site. General Plan EIR Cultural
Resources Policy 6 (Archaeological Resources Discovered During Construction or Through Other Activities)
states that "Where substantial archaeological resources are discovered during construction of a new
development...all activities shall cease until a qualified archaeologist knowledgeable in the Chumash culture can
determine the significance of the resource and submit alternative mitigation measures" Destruction of
significant cultural resources would result in a potentially significant impact. As part of Cultural Resource
Investigation, Dr. Parker has provided several recommendations to reduce potential impacts to archaeological
and historical which are likely to occur within the project site. These recommendations have been incorporated
into the mitigation measures provided in the following section.
c) There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features within the project site.
Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts to cultural resources,
including the disturbance and/or destruction of archaeological and historic resources, unless mitigation is
incorporated.
CnY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
...T-15-y
1 -1 Atar�",S-It 7
Issues, Discussion and Support..-) Information Sources Sources Potm Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Mitigation Measures
1. During demolition and construction activities, the applicant shall retain a qualified historic/prehistoric
archaeologist to monitor all earth-moving activities (e.g., excavation, grading, utility trenching). Weekly monitoring
reports shall be prepared that discuss the area and depth of disturbance, the nature of any resources
encountered, and any other information outlined in the conditions of approval and Cultural Resources Monitoring
Plan. In the event that significant artifacts are encountered, construction within the immediate area shall cease
until the area is surveyed by a qualified archaeologist approved by the City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Director. If the artifacts cannot be preserved in place, then the archaeologist shall be provided the
necessary time and funding to recover the"scientifically consequential information from or about the resource"as
required by CEQA § 15026.4. A final report of findings should be prepared and all significant cultural materials
should be cataloged and curated at a local archaeological collection facility that meets appropriate state and
federal standards.
2. A Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan should be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and approved by the City
prior to the issuance of construction permits. The plan should detail the protocols and methods that will be initiated
should any historic or archaeological resources be encountered during demolition or construction, and include
provisions and directives for specific content for weekly monitoring reports.
3. During demolition and construction activities, the County Coroner shall be contacted in the event that any
human remains are discovered.
4. If City designated historic properties are re-located, moved, or otherwise modified, all work shall be performed
consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation. Original exterior materials, trim, windows,
roofing, and detailing shall be preserved and restored rather than replicated.
6. 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?
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 22 X
III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? 11 X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? 9 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 11 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 11 X
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially
result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence,
liquefaction,or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 1 I X
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life
or property?
Evaluation
a) c) The City of San Luis Obispo is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which extends along
the coastline from central California into 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.
CITY OF SAN Luis Owspo 13 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
,5�—��
At*achment 7
Issues, Discussion and Support.. )Information Sources sources Pote... Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 64-07
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 runs in a northwest direction and is
about one mile from the City s westerly boundary. Because 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 site 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. Structures 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 be built to resist
such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake.
b) The project area and immediate vicinity is a disturbed site as it has been in use since the Mission was
established in 1788. Small commercial and residential establishments have occupied the area since the late
1880s, and the Art Center has been in this location since 1967. The amount of original topsoil left is unknown and
assumed to be minimal. Once the site is redeveloped, there will be no erosion as the site will be fully improved
with the construction of buildings, hardscape or landscape. Current plans for the art center show the construction
of a new basement, approximately 11 feet deep. Excavation and construction has the potential to substantially
increase erosion potential on site during construction. Prior to site disturbance, each project application will be
required to include a drainage and erosion control plan. Such a plan is required for any construction project within
the City. Furthermore, each project is required to comply with the City's Waterways Management Plan which
includes a comprehensive list of Best Management Practices. Therefore, no additional mitigation will be
necessary.
c), d) The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction,
which is true for most of the City, and the site contains highly expansive soils as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994). A soils engineering report will be required to be submitted as part of the building
permit process to ensure the integrity of the structures and infrastructure. The soils engineering report is a
standard City requirement for any new substantial construction permit. Therefore, no additional mitigation is
necessary.
Conclusion
Based on compliance within existing standard regulations, implementation of the proposed project would result in
less than significant impacts.
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect:
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
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 1NmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Attachment 7
•Issues, Discussion and Support.. J Information Sources Sources Poter, Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 6407 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, 4 X
or death, involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed
with wildlands?
Evaluation
a) The project does not involve the routine use,transport, or disposal of hazardous materials.
b), c), d) The project site in and of itself would not result in the release of hazardous materials into the
environment. It is also unlikely that soil contamination may have occurred within this property as it has been
historically used for purposes that do not include hazardous materials. However, since demolition of the existing
building would occur as part of the project, a soil assessmentlinvestigation should be conducted to the satisfaction
of the City's Fire Department to verify the condition of the soil under and around the existing building prior to
approval of a new development project or construction permit.
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 more than two miles north of the San Luis Obispo County Airport, outside the Airport Land
Use Plan Area.
h) The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the site as having a low potential for impacts from wildland
fires.
Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts. Project development and
construction will require more defined soil analysis which may result in additional soil work prior to construction.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 7,28 X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 18,28 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
CnY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
—-5_7
Issues, Discussion and Suppon. JInformation Sources Sources rota, Potentially Less Than o it
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 64 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 7,28 X
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters
(including,but not limited to,wetlands,riparian areas,ponds,
springs,creeks,streams,rivers, lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays,
ocean,etc.)?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 7,28 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 28 X
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 9 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 9,25 X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h) Will the project introduce typical stone water pollutants into 25 X
ground or surface waters?
i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, 25,28 X
temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity?
Evaluation
a)Amending the Land Use designation is not likely to result in impacts to hydrology and water quality. However, if
the project area is redeveloped, grading and construction activities have the potential to discharge incidental
sediment and construction related pollutants, into San Luis Creek. Precautions should be taken to prevent
accidental discharge of such contaminants into San Luis Creek, such as limiting fueling and maintenance to
specked staging areas, and ensuring that proper erosion and pollution control barriers are placed between the
work area and the creek. A hazardous materials plan should be prepared and approved prior to project (or
demolition)approval.
b) If properties are to be redeveloped, water to the project would be supplied by the City of San Luis Obispo
through existing City infrastructure. Increases in building sizes may result in increased water use and wastewater
production and could require a larger water meter. If a larger water meter is required, additional water allocation
will also be required as there would be additional demand on the City's water supply. The City currently has water
to allocate, and does so on a "first-come, first-served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are
issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Water will need to be provided by the Citys Utilities Department and it
must be shown that supplying the project will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources or interfere with
groundwater recharge. An analysis of the Art Center's water and wastewater needs and a will serve letter from the
City's Utility Department are required prior to completion of the environmental determination or project approval.
c), d) The proposed redevelopment of these sites has a minimal potential to increase the amount of impervious
surfaces on the site and affect drainage patterns, and the amount and rate of surface runoff. This is because the
majority of the project area (with the exception of a portion of the Leitcher apartment site) is already developed
with impervious surfaces (parking lots, and structures). A detailed assessment of the drainage impacts will be
required prior to project approval consistent with the City's Waterways Management Plan and Drainage Design
Manual. To ensure that potential drainage impacts are minimized to a level of insignificance, redevelopment of the
site is required to be designed to meet all applicable City codes. Site drainage will be evaluated with the grading
plans as part of the Building Permit process. The historical drainage pattern is anticipated to be maintained based
on a comparison of the existing and proposed building footprints and site topography. The capacity of the storm
CITY OF SAN Luis OaisPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Issues, Discussion and Supporu. - Information Sources Sources Pot6---); Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 64 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
drains and wastewater treatment plant will need to be evaluated for their ability to handle the change in site
drainage and characteristics.
e) The project design does not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner
which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite as the site is already substantially developed with
impervious surfaces. Any increase in impervious surfaces, as mentioned above, should be explained in detail and
submitted in the drainage and grading plan, prior to project approval.
f), g), h)The project site is within the A Flood Zone which is subject to 100-year flooding. Any new building design
will need to comply with FEMA requirements and the City's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. Any new
housing will be subject to a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. Existing City regulations are designed to reduce flood
impacts to a less than significant level, therefore no additional mitigation is necessary.
Conclusion
Based on existing conditions, the characteristics of the proposed project, and established City policies that are
designed to mitigate site drainage,flooding and water quality,there will be a Less than significant impact.
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 1 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 conservation fans?
Evaluation
a) The proposed GPA/R does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The GPA/R
would change the land use designation of the site from Office and Public Facility to Downtown Commercial. The
existing Historic overlay zone would remain. This portion of Monterey Street is also shown on the City's
Conceptual Physical Plan for the Downtown. The conceptual physical plan illustrates that this portion of Monterey
Street may be closed to vehicular traffic in the future. The rezone does not conflict with the conceptual physical
plan and instead may help to facilitate the plan through redevelopment of vacant or underutilized properties.
The rezone would allow additional residential density, as the proposed zoning of C-D would allow a greater density
of housing on the site (36 units/acre) than is allowed by the current Office and Public Facility zoning (12
units/acre). This furthers the goals of the Citys General Plan Housing Element. The GP/R and future mixed-use
commercial and residential development proposal is consistent with Land Use Element policies regarding the
expansion of housing opportunities in the Downtown Planning Area. Additionally, the C-D designation will allow for
a wider range of commercial uses and additional development flexibility, thereby encouraging the adaptive re-use
and redevelopment of existing blighted buildings. The project will also be consistent with Housing Element goals
and polices on production and land use efficiency. The proposed GP/R will increase the City's inventory of C-D
zoned land and increase opportunities for residential units above ground-level retail and in close proximity to the
City's commercial center.
To ensure that the re-designation of this site from a office and public facilities to a designation which would allow a
combination of commercial and residential uses does not negatively impact the adjacent historic residential
development to the north, and significant historic properties such as the Camegie Library and the Mission, a
mitigation measure has been proposed to ensure the site's compatibility with sensitive adjacent land uses.
Mitigation Measure: Land Use and Planning
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIsPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIsT 2007
..:f'-s11q
Issues, Discussion and Support,.-; Information Sources sources Po .y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Mass, scale, form and design theme of any new buildings within the block to be rezoned shall be compatible and
complementary to existing significant historic structures such as the Mission, the Carnegie Library, the Leitcher
apartment building, and Master list historic residential properties on Monterey Street. The Secretary of Interior
standards, the City's Community Design Guidelines, and General Plan policies that are designed to protect historic
resources shall be closely followed when modifying existing structures or building new structures within the subject
properties.
Conclusion
The General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of the property is an issue of neighborhood compatibility. The
proposed project to re-designate this site would provide a transition from the Office zone to the north and the
Downtown Commercial (C-D) retail uses to the south. Under the C-D designation, a mixture of commercial uses
and residential density of up to 36 units per acre would be allowed, as compared to the 12 units per acre allowed
with the current office designation. Any future development project at the site will be subject to Architectural
Review and review by the City's Cultural Heritage Committee, which includes evaluation of neighborhood and
historic compatibility.
10.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise 3,16 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 8 X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome 3,16 X
vibration or groundborne 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) According to the Noise Contour Map in the Noise Element, the project site is located within an area susceptible to 60-65
decibels (dB) Ldn due to transportation noise. Maximum noise exposure for residential uses is 45 dB for indoor spaces and
60 dB for outdoor activity areas. The building code is already designed to reduce indoor noise exposure by approximately
15-20 dB. Contemporary construction practices include enhanced window, roof, and wall insulation to help energy
conservation and noise attenuation.
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 o 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.
d) The project is outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area.
Mitieation Measure: Noise
The construction of future residential uses 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
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 18 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
.recd
Issues, Discussion and Support..-)Information Sources Sources Po Potentially less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 64-07 Issues Unless impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
General Plan Noise Element. Specific construction details shall be identified as recommendations in the study.
Conclusion
Development of the site with a mixed-use commercial and residential project could expose people to unacceptable noise
levels, if not properly mitigated. A mitigation measures has been recommended to ensure that noise impacts are identified
and reduced to a less than significant level.No further mitigation is necessary.
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 1,26 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 1,26 X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Evaluation
a) The proposed project will amend the City's General Plan,to allow higher density housing than is currently allowed on the
site. 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 Office (0), the site could
accommodate 12 dwelling units per acre. If the property was designated Downtown Commercial,the site could accommodate
36 dwelling units per acre. Based on these assumptions, the GPA/R will allow for an increase in population and housing.
While a slight increase in population can be expected,the anticipated increase is within the General Plan's projection and will
not induce substantial growth into the area or result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections since the
size of each property is not significant (all sites are less than one acre). This type of development (infill) is encouraged
because it can take advantage of existing facilities for water,sewer,storm drainage,transportation and parks.
b)The site of the future mixed-use project, is currently vacant and contains an abandoned apartment building. The proposed
GPA/R would increase the density allowed on the site, and increase housing opportunities for residents while utilizing
existing infill opportunities. Development of the property with apartments or condominiums could be a beneficial impact on
housing. The City's Inclusionary Housing Requirement requires that any future project with five or more lots or dwellings to
either construct affordable units or pay an in-lieu fee. Compliance with the City's Inclusionary Housing Requirements will be
implemented and evaluated at the time of development permit application.
Conclusion
The population growth created by the project is considered less than significant. This change is consistent with Land Use and
Housing Element policies encouraging a variety of housing es,efficient infill development,and compact urban form
12.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? 2, 8 X
Other public facilities? 8 X
Evaluation
a), b), e), f) As an infill site, adequate public services (fire, police, roads and other transportation infrastructure, and other
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
�l
Issues, Discussion and Support.. Information Sources Sources Pote,. Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
public facilities) are available to service the property. Whether the site is 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.
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 of 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 increase with the proposed land use designation and zoning, it should be noted that the number of school-aged children
might be slightly lower than allowed under the current designation, because mixed use developments tend to attract fewer
young families that traditional multi-family housing units,catering instead to young professionals and retirees.
d) Park in-lieu fees are required to be paid as part of the future condominium subdivision to insure that City residents have
adequate access to park facilities as required by the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan.
Conclusion
No resource deficiencies have been identified with respect to public services.
13.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 parcel and associated residential density, 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 were pursued resulting 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 Emerson Park and Sinsheimer Park.
b)No site specific development plan is proposed at this time. However,given the size of the parcel, 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
re uired.
14. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 16 X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 16 X
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads and highways?
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Il.
Issues, Discussion and Support,. , -Information Sources sources Poter. Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 64-07 Issues Unless impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp 25 X
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 25 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 25 X
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise,
or a chane in air trafficpatterns?
Evaluation
a) b) c) d) Monterey and Broad Streets provide access to the project site. The City's General Plan Circulation Element
designates Monterey Street as an Arterial Street, which provides circulation between major activity centers and residential
areas. This portion of Monterey Street is noted in the Downtown Concept plan as a future pedestrian mall,potentially closed
to through vehicular traffic.As designed,the project complies with the Fire Department's requirements for emergency access.
The Fire Department has not yet been consulted on the project. Input should be obtained from the Department prior to project
approval.
a), b) The existing Art Center is accessed from its main entrance on Broad Street. Traffic generation associated with the
proposed Art Center expansion is not expected to be substantially more than current traffic generation;however,consultation
with the City Transportation Department is still required prior to project approval. There are no existing traffic load or
capacity problems associated with the existing development, and the existing use does not exceed the level of service
standards established by the County congestion management agency for nearby streets and highways.
c) The proposed Art Center is outside of the Airport Safety Zone.The project will not require the use of large cranes or other
structures that could affect air navigation.The project will not create any impairment to local air traffic or navigation.
e) The designation of this site as Downtown Commercial would confer all of the property development standards of this zone
upon the parcel, including those regarding parking. In the C-D zone parking is reduced by one-half for dwellings, food
services and entertainment facilities, and to one space per 500 square feet for all other uses. The additional density and other
commercial development allowed on the site could increase the parking demand generated by the site. Currently,there are no
on-site parking spaces for the properties that wish to redevelop. Should each property redevelop as anticipated,each property
will need to supply parking or pay in-lieu fees to the City for each parking space.
d) There are no traffic hazards that the proposed project would be subject to or create. An unloading zone(white zone)will
be maintained in front of the Art Center and bulb-outs and crosswalks would be installed at the Broad Street/Monterey Street
intersection to improve pedestrian safety.
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. There is currently limited on-site
parking associated with the Art Center. No new parking is proposed with the new project. The City Council introduced an
ordinance on September 3, 2002 that would provide property owners the ability to pay fees in-lieu of providing parking for
this area of the downtown; therefore, the SLO Art Center is eligible for payment of parking-in-lieu fees rather than providing
physical parking spaces on or near the site.On street parking is available on Broad immediately adjacent to the project site;in
two small lots, one immediately across Broad Street and the other across Monterey. Finally, there is a large lot located on
Nipomo and Palm Streets, less than a block from the Art Center. This parking should be adequate for the increased capacity
of the proposed Art Center. Consultation with the City Transportation Department and Public Works is still required prior to
project approval to determine if the required parking for the expanded building will exceed the existing capacity.
g) Implementation of the proposed project would not impede existing alternative transportation methods, such as
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
_�
. .�'t ^:"i art 7
Issues, Discussion and Suppon. J Information Sources Sources Pote.. Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
ER 64 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
bike/pedestrian paths, transit stops, etc. Bus stops are located nearby, at Nipomo and Higuera Streets, Nipomo and Marsh
Streets,as well as Broad at Marsh Street and Chorro at Monterey,directly though the Mission Plaza.Bicycle parking facilities
would be incorporated into the project,consistent with City Policy 4.0.4 of the Circulation Element of the City General Plan.
h) The project is not within the Airport Land Use Plan area. Implementation of the project would not conflict with the Plan
or result in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise or a change in air traffic patterns.
Conclusion
Transportation and Traffic Impacts,including parking,will be less than significant. Although traffic and parking demand will
increase incrementally with the development of a future project at this site, its location on the periphery of the downtown
makes it appropriate for a more urban use. Traffic and parking fees are set at a level considered to be sufficient to offset the
effects of the additional demand.No further mitigation is required.
15.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 7,28 X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 28 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 7,28 X
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 7,28 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 8 X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations 8,25 X
related to solid waste?
Evaluation
a),b)The GPA/R will allow for the development of a project with slightly higher water demands. However,the incremental
change is not considered to be significant. This project has been reviewed by the City's Utilities Engineer and no
resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified. Future site development is subject to water impact fees which were
adopted 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 site.
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
am CITY OF SAN LUIS OHISPo 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
%f- 6
Issues, Discussion and Suppori�.-, Information Sources Sources Pot . Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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
Less than significant impacts have been identified relative to utilities and service systems.
16.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
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 geologzic features on theproject
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 project and would not be cate orized as cumulatively simificant.
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.
17.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.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
S —46—
�, 11 Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Support,:, Information Sources Sources Poter Potentiatly IcssThan No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
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 s and Open Space Element 2006
6. City of SLO General Plan Energy Conservation Element,Aril 1981
7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,July 1996
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
12. Website of the Farland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FNR*AP/
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,e 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 Airport Land Use Plan
25. 2001 Uniform Building Code
26. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element,May 2004
Reauired Mitigation and Monitoring Program
1. Mitigation Measure:Aesthetics
Prior to issuance of any construction permits, the applicants shall submit an exterior lighting plan ensuring that exterior
lighting associated with the project shall not spill over the property line in excess of one foot-candle. Glare light shall be
reduced by shielding lights and recessing light sources within fixtures.
➢ Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for architectural review
and building permit primarily by the Community Development Department staff.
2. Mitigation Measures: Cultural Resources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Support..., Information Sources Sources Pote Potentially Less Than xo
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
A. During demolition and construction activities, the applicant shall retain a qualified historic/prehistoric
archaeologist to monitor all earth-moving activities(e.g., excavation, grading, utility trenching). Weekly monitoring
reports shall be prepared that discuss the area and depth of disturbance, the nature of any resources
encountered, and any other information outlined in the conditions of approval and Cultural Resources Monitoring
Plan. In the event that significant artifacts are encountered, construction within the immediate area shall cease
until the area is surveyed by a qualified archaeologist approved by the City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Director. If the artifacts cannot be preserved in place, then the archaeologist shall be provided the
necessary time and funding to recover the "scientifically consequential information from or about the resource" as
required by CEQA § 15026.4. A final report of findings should be prepared and all significant cultural materials
should be cataloged and curated at a local archaeological collection facility that meets appropriate state and
federal standards.
B. A Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan should be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and approved by the City
prior to the issuance of construction permits. The plan should detail the protocols and methods that will be initiated
should any historic or archaeological resources be encountered during demolition or construction, and include
provisions and directives for specific content for weekly monitoring reports.
C. During demolition and construction activities, the County Coroner shall be contacted in the event that any
human remains are discovered. .
D. If City designated historic properties are re-located, moved, or otherwise modified, all work shall be performed
consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation. Original exterior materials, trim, windows,
roofing, and detailing shall be preserved and restored rather than replicated.
➢ Monitoring Program:
Compliance with these requirements shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for architectural
review and review by the City's Cultural Heritage Committee. An archeologist (subject to approval by the Community
Development Department)shall be retained by the project sponsor prior to the issuance of grading,demolition or construction
permits. The archeologist shall submit a cultural resources monitoring plan to the City prior to the commencement of any site
work.All construction personnel shall be instructed to comply with the monitoring plan.
3. Mitigation Measure: Land Use and Planning
Mass, scale, form and design theme of any new buildings within the block to be rezoned shall be compatible and
complementary to existing significant historic structures such as the Mission, the Carnegie Library, the Leitcher
apartment building, and Master list historic residential properties on Monterey Street. The Secretary of Interior
standards, the City's Community Design Guidelines, and General Plan policies that are designed to protect historic
resources shall be closely followed when modifying existing structures or building new structures within the subject
properties.
➢ Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for architectural review
and building permit primarily by the Community Development Department staff.
4. Mitigation Measure: Noise
The construction of future residential uses 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
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Am Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Suppor l.- `Information Sources sources Potec,. Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
�3
Attachment 8
RESOLUTION NO. (2008 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP DESIGNATION FROM
OFFICE TO GENERAL RETAIL FOR PROPERTY AT 667 THROUGH 669
MONTEREY STREET AND 1019 THROUGH 1023 BROAD STREET AND FROM
PUBLIC FACILITY TO GENERAL RETAIL FOR PROPERTY AT 1010 BROAD
STREET AND FROM OFFICE TO PUBLIC FACILITY AT 1045 BROAD STREET
GP/R/ER 6407
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing in the Council
Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on February 27, 2008 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 April 15,
2008 for the purpose of considering Application GP/R/ER 64-07; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration of
environmental impact for the project as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the recommendation
of the Planning 'Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff,presented at said hearing.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project entitlements in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines, and reflects the
independent judgment of the Council. The Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative
Declaration incorporating all of the mitigation measures listed below into the project:
Mitigation Measures:
1. Aesthetics
Prior to issuance of any construction permits, the applicants shall submit an exterior lighting plan
ensuring that exterior lighting associated with the project shall not spill over the property line in
excess of one foot-candle. Glare light shall be reduced by shielding lights and recessing light
sources within fixtures.
Resolution No.####-08 _ • Attachment a
GPR 64-07 Lietcher/Art Center Rezone
Page 2
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily by the Community Development
Department staff.
2. Cultural Resources
A. During demolition and construction activities, the applicant shall retain a qualified
historic/prehistoric archaeologist to monitor all earth-moving activities (e.g., excavation, grading,
utility trenching). Weekly monitoring reports shall be prepared that discuss the area and depth of
disturbance, the nature of any resources encountered, and any other information outlined in the
conditions of approval and Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan. In the event that significant
artifacts are encountered, construction within the immediate area shall cease until the area is
surveyed by a qualified archaeologist approved by the City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Director. If the artifacts cannot be preserved in place, then the archaeologist shall
be provided the necessary time and funding to recover the "scientifically consequential
information from or about the resource" as required by CEQA § 15026.4. A final report of
findings should be prepared and all significant cultural materials should be cataloged and curated
at a local archaeological collection facility that meets appropriate state and federal standards.
B. A Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan should be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and
approved by the City prior to the issuance of construction permits. The plan should detail the
protocols and methods that will be initiated should any historic or archaeological resources be
encountered during demolition or construction, and include provisions and directives for specific
content for weekly monitoring reports.
C. During demolition and construction activities, the County Coroner shall be contacted in the
event that any human remains are discovered.
D. If City designated historic properties are re-located, moved, or otherwise modified, all work
shall be performed consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation. Original
exterior materials, trim, windows, roofing, and detailing shall be preserved and restored rather
than replicated.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with these requirements shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for architectural review and review by the City's Cultural Heritage Committee. An
archeologist (subject to approval by the Community Development Department) shall be retained
by the project sponsor prior to the issuance of grading, demolition or construction permits. The
archeologist shall submit a cultural resources monitoring plan to the City prior to the
commencement of any site work. All construction personnel shall be instructed to comply with
the monitoring plan.
3. Land Use and Planning
Mass, scale, form and design theme of any new buildings within the block to be rezoned shall be
compatible and complementary to existing significant historic structures such as the Mission, the
Carnegie Library, the Leitcher apartment building, and Master list historic residential properties
on Monterey Street. The Secretary of Interior standards, the City's Community Design
�'-76
( • Attachment 8
Resolution No.####-08 _
GPR 64-07 Lietcher/Art Center Rezone
Page 3
Guidelines, and General Plan policies that are designed to protect historic resources shall be
closely followed when modifying existing structures or building new structures within the subject
properties.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily by the Community Development
Department staff:
4. Noise
The construction of future residential uses 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.
SECTION 2. General Plan Amendment Approval & Findings. The General Plan
Amendment included as part of City Application No. GPA 64-07, which amends the Land Use
Element Map as shown on the attached Exhibit A, is hereby approved, based on the following
findings:
1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration
adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of'the proposed project, and
reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with General Plan Land Use
Element policies regarding Downtown-Commercial zoning, which indicate such districts
are appropriate for cultural facilities, mixed-use projects and specialty retail uses.
3. The proposed General Plan amendment will facilitate implementation of the Conceptual
Physical Plan for the City's Center and will help to stimulate redevelopment of
underutilized properties within the downtown core.
4. A Special Consideration overlay zone shall be applied in order to ensure adequate review
of building massing and setbacks and create a specifically refined list of allowed land
uses. The proximity to the creek, the size and configuration of the property and adjacent
lower density office and residential uses warrant the refined land use list and requirement
for a Planning Commission Use Permit.
SECTION 3. Adoption.
1. The Land Use Element Map is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A.
Resolution No.####-08 _
Attachment 8
GPR 64-07 Lietcher/Art Center Rezone
Page 4
2. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in
documents, which are on display in City Hall and are available for public viewing
and use.
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 ,2008.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jon owell, City Attorney
GACD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&GPA's\GPA 64-07(Monterey St rezone)\CC Reso GPR 64-07.doc
Exhibit A
Attachment 8
General Plan Amendment /Rezone 64-07
Q
PF-H
o-H y -D-H-S
aP
C-
C-D- -S
c-D P-F-H P-F-H
oho c
�-73
I ��
:,I A r
�e�`
�a�r
P
• Attachment 9
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO. #### (2008 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING FOR PROPERTY AT
667 THROUGH 669 MONTEREY STREET AND 1019 THROUGH 1023 BROAD
STREET FROM OFFICE-HISTORIC (O-H) TO DOWNTOWN-COMMERCIAL-
HISTORIC-SPECIAL CONSIDERATION (C-D-H-S)AND FROM PUBLIC FACILITY-
HISTORIC (PF-H)TO DOWNTOWN-COMMERCIAL-HISTORIC-SPECIAL
CONSIDERATIONS FOR PROPERTY AT 1010 BROAD STREET AND FROM OFFICE
(0) TO PUBLIC FACILITY(PF) AT 1045 BROAD STREET
(GP/R/ER 64-07)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on February 27, 2008 and recommended approval of Application GP/R/ER 64-07, a
request to amend the City's Zoning Map designations as noted above; 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 April 15,
2008, for the purpose of considering Application GP/R/ER 64-07; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration of
environmental impact for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation
and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the
General Plan, the purposes of the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed map amendment to the Zoning Regulations, and reflects the independent judgment
of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council makes the following findings:
1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration
tff -75/
n Attachment 9
Ordinance No. (2008 Series)
GP/R 64-07
Page 2
adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, and
reflects the independent judgment of the Commission.
2. The proposed rezoning is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element policies
regarding Downtown zoning, which designate such districts for locations that are
appropriate to serve cultural facilities,mixed-use projects and specialty retail uses.
3. The proposed land use amendment will facilitate implementation of the Conceptual
Physical Plan for the City's Center and will help to stimulate redevelopment of
underutilized properties within the downtown core.
4. A Special Consideration (S) overlay zone shall be applied in order to ensure adequate
review of building massing and setbacks and create a specifically refined list of allowed
land uses. The proximity to the creek, the size and configuration of the property and
adjacent lower density office and residential uses warrant the refined land use list and
requirement for a Planning Commission Use Permit.
SECTION 3. Action. The Zoning Regulations Map Amendment (GP/R 64-07) is
hereby approved as shown in Exhibit A, and subject to an S-overlay zone with the following
criteria:
1. A Planning Commission Use Permit shall be required for all new structures or substantial
remodels and additions to existing structures.
2. In reviewing the Use Permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the design of structures
shall be compatible and complementary to structures on adjacent properties. Complementing
the design of historic structures shall take precedent over complementing design of other
existing buildings. Building massing, articulation, exterior materials, roof treatment, and
quality shall be compatible with adjacent and nearby historic structures.
3. Due to traffic and noise generation, the following land uses shall be prohibited within parcels
on the ground floor facing Monterey Street between Broad and Nipomo Streets:
Medical Services
Fitness/Health Facility
Night Club
Banks and financial services
4. The following uses maybe allowed with approval of an administrative use permit
Bar/Tavern
General Retail-more than 2,000 square feet
,�-;7,5-
Attachment 9
Ordinance No.(2008 Series)
GP/R 64-07
Page 3
SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage,
in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall
go into effect at the expiration of thirty(30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the 15'h day of April, 2008, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the _ day of , 2008, on the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk Audrey Hooper
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Ci Attorney Jonathan Lowell
G:\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&GPA's\GPA 64-07(Monterey St rezone)\GPR 64-07 DRAFT cc ord.doc
7�
Attachment 9
0 Exhibit A
GPR.M-07 Lietcher/Art Center Rezone
General Plan Amendment/Rezone 64-07
O� C
9
� O
QPM'
ART Center site
proposed change from
PF-H to C-D-H-S
Leitcher Apartment site y
proposed change from PF-H
O-H to C-D-H-S
�- X090
PSP
C F-H
Creek Property
Proposed Change from
O-H to PF-H
o10
—72,
RESOLUTION NO.9960 (2008 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING PARIONNG IN-LIEU FEES
WBEREAS, Chapter 4.30 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code provides for the
option of paying a fee to the City in-lieu of providing parking spaces in the Parking In-Lieu Area
and provides for setting fees by resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered the staff analysis regarding an increase of this
fee and the recommendations of the Downtown Association; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo that the parking in-lieu fee for the Parking In-Lieu Area shall be amended as follows:
1. New Construction. The parking in-lieu fee shall be $16,400 ($8,200 for
Community Partners) per vehicle space not otherwise provided and as required by the zoning
regulations for new construction.
2. Additions to Existing Buildings. The parking in-lieu fee shall be $16,400
($8,200 for Community Partners) per vehicle space not otherwise provided and as required by the
zoning regulations for an addition.
3. Change in Occupancy Requiring Additional Parking Spaces. The parking in-
lieu fee shall be $4,100 ($2,050 for Community Partners) per vehicle space not otherwise
provided and as required by the zoning regulations for a change in occupancy. The number of
spaces required by the change in occupancy shall be the difference between the number required
by the new use and the number required by the previous occupancy.
4. Annual Adjustment. The parking in-lieu fees set forth above shall be adjusted
annually on July 1 of each year by the annual percentage change in the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics (or successor agency)consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) all-cities
average for the prior calendar year.
Upon motion of Vice Mayor Brown, seconded by Council Member Carter, and on the
following vote:
AYES: Council Members Carter, Mulholland and Settle, Vice Mayor Brown and
Mayor Romero
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
R 9960
7�
Resolution No. 9960 (2008 Series)
Page 2
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 19`h day of February 2008.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
�ii�
Audrey Hor
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jo athan P. Lowell
City omey