Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/19/2010, C4 - REINTRODUCTION OF THE CITY'S SIDEWALK CAFE ORDINANCE (TA 52-08) council °; , ,o j acEnaa REpoRt e C I TY OF SAN L U IS O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director Prepared By: Philip Dunsmore,Associate Planner SUBJECT: REINTRODUCTION OF THE CITY'S SIDEWALK CAFE ORDINANCE (TA 52-08) RECOMMENDATION Reintroduce an ordinance that incorporates text amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 5.50 relating to sidewalk cafes and approve a negative declaration for the project. DISCUSSION Situation On a 4-1 vote, the City Council approved amendments to the Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance on December 15, 2009. At the second reading of the amendments on January 5t', 2010, the City Council agreed to a change to the ordinance to allow extended morning hours allowing sidewalk cafes to start at 7 am rather than 8 am. Additionally, a typo was discovered in the final text language regarding the use of tables and chairs by non-customers of a business. Therefore the amendments to the Municipal Code must be reintroduced to the City Council. The proposed final version of the amendments is included as attachment 1. The item will be scheduled for a second reading by the City Council on February 2"d CONCURRENCES The Planning Division, Police and Public Works concur with the final adjustment to the am hours that allow sidewalk cafes and table and chairs permits to start at 7 am instead of 8 am. FISCAL IMPACT This final change to the ordinance will result in negligible fiscal impacts and may serve to increase revenue in some circumstances where coffee shops may provide early morning service that includes seating on the public sidewalk. ALTERNATIVE Continue review of the amendments with specific direction to staff. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft ordinance modifying Municipal Code Chapter 5.50. 2. Initial Study(ER 52-08) T:\Council Agenda Reports\Community Development CAR\TA 52-08 Sidewalk Cafes revisited 1-19-10.doc — I Attachment 1 ORDINANCE NO. 1539 (2009 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 5.5 RELATING TO SIDEWALK CAFES (TA 52-08) 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 May 13, 2009 and recommended approval of Application TA 52-08, amending the City's Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance; 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 January 19, 2010, for the purpose of considering Application TA 52-08; 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 approved the negative declaration prepared 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 text amendments are consistent with the General Plan, the purposes of the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances. WHEREAS, The City Council makes the following findings: 1. The proposed amendments are necessary to implement the City's goal of encouraging and expanding sidewalk dining. 2. The proposed amendments will implement the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center is to "give pedestrians priority in the downtown; and encourage walking by making downtown a varied and exciting place to be." 3. The proposed amendments are consistent with General Plan Policies that encourage walking, pedestrian amenities and the expansion of tourist facilities. Land Use Element Policy 4.5 is one such policy that encourages the walking environment within the downtown. 4. The proposed amendments will not significantly alter the character of the City retail areas = Attacbment 1 Ordinance No. 1539(2009 Series) TA 52-08 Page 2 or cause significant health, safety or welfare concerns, since the regulations do not alter the density, character, or allowed uses within the City. Instead, the amended regulations accommodate limited sidewalk cafes within City property. 5. Increases to the fees for sidewalk use are appropriate in lieu of requiring payment for impact fees for parking since the fees are based on the amount of area used. 6. The proposed amendments will not result in significant impacts to the environment, therefore the draft Negative Declaration is appropriate for the scope- of the text amendment. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Existing Chapter 5.50 (Sidewalk Cafes) of Title 5 (Licenses, Permits and Regulations) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. New Chapter 5.50 (Sidewalk Cafes) of Title 5 (Licenses, Permits and Regulations) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: 5.50.010 Intent This chapter is intended to provide opportunities for properly licensed and permitted restaurants, coffee shops and bakeries to offer outdoor dining on public sidewalks, in a manner compatible with pedestrian traffic and surrounding uses, in commercial zones where such uses are allowed. 5.50.015 Permits required A. A sidewalk cafe permit allows outdoor dining service in the public right-of-way, including the placement of chairs, tables, awnings, and umbrellas. A removable barrier between the path of travel and the outdoor dining area shall be required. Applications for a revocable permit for Sidewalk Cafes shall be made to the community development department. B. A Table and Chairs permit allows for the temporary placement of chairs and tables on the sidewalk in conjunction with a restaurant or other food/beverage service where seating for no more than six people are placed on the sidewalk. No barriers, or other fixed items are allowed on the sidewalk. Alcoholic beverages shall not be allowed. All items must be removed at close of business. Applications for a revocable permit for a Table and Chairs permit shall be made to the Community Development Department and shall be valid for one year from date of issuance. C. An encroachment permit may be required pursuant to Chapter 12.04 of this code. Attachment 1 Ordinance No. 1539(2009 Series) TA 52-08 Page 3 5.50.020 Architectural review At the Community Development Director's discretion, architectural review may be required pursuant to Chapter 2.48 of this code. 5.50.025 Application content Applications shall be made jointly by the business operator requesting use of a sidewalk area for outdoor dining and the property owner(s) of the building in which the business is located. Such application shall be accompanied by A. Signed consent of business owner(s) and property owner(s); B. Proof of liability insurance, meeting city standards, which names the city as additionally insured for the term of the permit to the approval of the City Risk Manager; C. A liability release agreement wherein the recipient(s) of the permit agrees to hold the City harmless from liability arising from the operation of such sidewalk cafe; D. A detailed site plan, drawn to scale, noting dimensions of the area proposed for outdoor dining; the proposed number and location of tables, chairs and other furnishings to be included in the dining area; the relationship of the outdoor dining area to the indoor dining area; and all sidewalk obstructions in the vicinity; E. A detailed description of the type, color, and material of all proposed outdoor furniture, such as tables, chairs,barriers, planters, umbrellas, signs, and lighting; F. An explanation of how any required additional parking will be provided; G. A statement of proposed hours of operation; and any other information deemed necessary by the Community Development or Public Works Directors. 5.50.030 Fees A. Sidewalk Cafe: In addition to application fees for Administrative Approval, the applicant(s) shall pay an annual sidewalk use fee. Encroachment permit fees shall be waived for the sidewalk cafe installation unless public improvements are proposed. If the sidewalk dining installation includes physical changes to an existing building, fees for architectural review may be required. If improvements are proposed to the existing sidewalk, including widening; sidewalk repaving, or any demolition or relocation of public property, an encroachment permit and associated public works inspection fees shall apply. Additional parking spaces or in-lieu fees for parking may be required. Fees shall be as adopted by resolution of the City Council. B. Tables :and Chairs permit: Permits are subject to application fees for Administrative Approval. Permits shall only be valid for one year and must be renewed annually subject to an additional administrative application. Annual sidewalk use fees shall not apply. Encroachment Attachment 1 Ordinance No. 1539(2009 Series) TA 52-08 Page 4 permit fees shall be waived unless public improvements, such as sidewalk widening or other public improvements are proposed. 5.50.035 Review procedures Public noticing and review procedures shall be the same as those required for an administrative approval. 5.50.040 Eligible sites Outdoor dining or the placement of tables and chairs must be within the frontage of an existing or proposed restaurant, coffee shop, or bakery approved for on-premises seating and incidental to the operation of that restaurant. 5.50.045 Required operational standards A. Alcoholic Beverage Restrictions. Establishments that serve alcohol must obtain any additional permits required by the Alcohol Beverage Control Board of the state of California. B. Hours of operation shall not begin prior to seven a.m. nor extend later than ten p. m. C. Parking shall be provided as required for restaurants in the zoning regulations. Expansion of dining areas within the public right of way frontage shall not normally trigger additional parking however, the City reserves the right to require additional parking or in- lieu fees in instances where significant parking impacts to the public supply may occur. Onsite bicycle parking may required in lieu of vehicle parking spaces. D. A path of travel for pedestrians, shall be maintained free and clear of any existing obstacles (street furniture, utilities, etc.) to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Community Development director. Such clear pathway shall link with pathways on each side of the property and shall generally allow a six-foot clear space. For new sidewalk construction, the pathway should generally be eight feet. E. Moveable barriers are required to delineate outdoor dining areas except under the approval of a"Tables and Chairs"permit where no alcoholic beverages are served. F. Moveable barriers shall be designed and attached to the sidewalk in a manner approved by the Public Works Director and may be subject to additional criteria as prescribed by the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. G. Where umbrellas or awnings are used, a vertical clearance of at least seven feet must be maintained. The placement, color, style, and types of outdoor furniture and barriers shall be consistent with and complement the design and appearance of the affected building to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. H. Items used within the outdoor dining areas may not be left outdoors overnight or when not in use. Attachment 1 Ordinance No. 1539(2009 Series) TA 52-08 Page 5 . I. Outdoor dining facilities shall be confined to the area shown on an approved site plan exhibit and shall not interfere with building egress to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official and the Fire Marshal. J. Outdoor dining areas shall be used for sit-down food and beverage service only. No stand-up or take-out service is permitted in the outdoor dining area. K. The outdoor dining area must be maintained in a clean and safe condition at all times with appropriate provision for trash disposal and recycling. L. The operation must meet all required County Health Department standards, obtain any necessary permits and service to the areas shall be conducted in a safe manner at all times. M. The permit issued shall not be transferable in any manner. N. The outdoor dining operation shall in no way interfere with access to utilities. O. Smoking shall be prohibited in the outdoor dining area. P. Table and Chairs permits are subject to the following additional criteria: 1. No alcoholic beverages may be served or consumed. 2. No more than 3 tables, with a maximum of two chairs per table may be placed on the sidewalk. All items must be removed from the sidewalk at close of business. 3. No barriers, fixed or movable,may be installed. 4. Annual sidewalk fees shall not apply. 5. Tables and chairs may be restricted for use by customers only, 5.50.050 Terms and expiration A. A sidewalk cafe permit will be for an unlimited term, unless a limited or probationary term is deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director. The permit shall automatically expire upon expiration of the business tax certificate or upon failure to pay the required annual sidewalk use fee. Operators wishing to renew an expired permit shall submit a new application with appropriate fees. Permits may be transferred to new business owners subject to City approval of a new application reflecting new ownership.. B. A Table and Chairs permit is valid for one year and may be renewed on an annual basis subject to payment of fees for an administrative approval application. 5.50.055 Grounds for denial of permit The Community Development Director shall deny the sidewalk cafe permit or Table and Chairs permit if the operation will not meet provisions of this chapter. 5.50.060 Revocation or suspension of permit A. The City retains the right to revoke or suspend the permit upon twenty-four hours written notice to the sidewalk cafe operator for any cause, regardless of conformance with these l��`b - Attachment 1 Ordinance No. 1539(2009 Series) TA 52-08 Page 6 provisions. Situations that may merit suspension or revocation include,but are not limited to: 1. Emergencies, parades, necessary construction or maintenance, at the discretion of the Public Works Director; 2, Suspension, revocation, or cancellation of any necessary health permit(s); 3. Incorrect or inadequate insurance coverage;or 4. Failure to comply with conditions of permit approval. B. Within twenty-four hours of receipt of written notice of revocation or suspension, regardless of any appeal of the action, the operation shall cease and the sidewalk cafe operator shall restore the sidewalk to the condition existing prior to the placement of outdoor dining facilities or to some other condition acceptable to the Public Works Director. C. The city retains the right to immediately revoke, suspend or modify the permit if. 1. Under a state of emergency the sidewalk use may effect the health, safety or welfare of the general public as determined by the Public Works Director,Police Chief or Fire Chief; 2. Failure to comply with certain conditions of the permit for sidewalk use is determined to constitute a health, safety or welfare hazard to the general public as determined by the Public Works Director, Police Chief or Fire Chief. D. If pursuant to the above requirements, sidewalks are not restored to order in the time specified by the City, the City may remove any and all facilities installed within the right of way: Reimbursement of City costs for said removal shall be the responsibility of the sidewalk permit holder. 5.50.065 Appeals Decisions of the Community Development Director to approve, deny, revoke or suspend a sidewalk cafe permit, or a Table and Chairs permit, may be appealed to the City Council subject to the provisions of Chapter 1.20. SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the 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 15th day of December, 2009, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of SanLuis Obispo on the _ day of ,2010, on the following roll call vote: Attachment 1 Ordinance No. 1539(2009 Series) TA 52-08 Page 7 AYES:. NOES: ABSENT: Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Elaina Cano APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Christine Dietrick GACD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Sidewalk Cafes\Council Draft Ordinance.doc Attachment 2 I������� ��,��i�ii► �Ii►1111111III►�►1°°°��i III � city of san WIS oBs o p Public Works Department • 919 Palm Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER 52-08 1. Project Title: Municipal Code Text Amendments for Sidewalk Cafes City File# 52-08 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner (805) 781-7522 4. Project Location: Citywide, City of San Luis Obispo 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: N/A 7. Zoning: N/A TY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECK�I�T°�QD9 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. Attachment 2 8. Description of the Project: Text amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 5.50 to update the City's Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance. The intent of the amendments is to improve participation in the Sidewalk Cafe program, clarify certain aspects of the regulations, and correct, update and in some instances modify language to better meet the intent of City goals and policies. A copy of the recommended text amendments are included as attachment 1. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Citywide 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Text amendments to Municipal Code Section 5.50 Sidewalk Cafes 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. �� CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009 Attachment 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous Recreation Materials Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance 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 fora no effect determination from Fish and Game. 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)). `9 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009 Attachment 2 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed-project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, nothing further is required. Signature Date Doug Davidson,Deputy Director of Community Development For:John Mandeville, Printed Name Community Development Director C� -lam `� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009 Attachment 2 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS': 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e:g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue:should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EK 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. i�� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009 Issues, Discussion and Supporth.9 !Information Sources Sources poten} _�' potentia r Significant Signifiq i� Ia ER # 52-08 Issues Unle$� p c Mitigation Inco orated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have asubstantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited X to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character_ or quality of X the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would X adversely.affectclay or nighttime viewsin the area? Evaluation a)b)c)d)The project involves amendments to Municipal Code text, updating, and in some cases modifying language to better meet the intent of City goals and policies. No significant changes to the existing intent of the sidewalk cafe ordinance are proposed,therefore,no impacts to aesthetics are anticipated. Conclusion: No Impact. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the,project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of 1,2,10 X Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California.Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to X their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Evaluation a)b)c)No impacts to agricultural resources would occur with implementation of the text amendments,since this code section applies only to use of existing City right of way and existing use of City sidewalks. Conclusion: No Impact. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the,project: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 1,9 X existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net in of any criteria X pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Evaluation a)b)c)d)e) The project will not impact air quality as it does not involve any amendments to City policy on air pollution, nor will it generate additional sources of air pollution. The changes only propose minor amendments to an existing ordinance that regulates the placement and operation of sidewalk cafes. �� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2069 Issues, Discussion and Supportiny-Information Sources sources Poteni._, Potn1c ^ Significant Si , i tER # 52 08 issues Unesse! Mitigation Incorporated Conclusion:No Impact. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or' 1 X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or. X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g.He Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nurserysites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? t) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Evaluation a)b)c)d)e)f)No biological impacts would occur as no specific site is under consideration. Conclusion: No Impact 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,10 X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X formal cemeteries? Evaluation a)b)c)d)No cultural impacts would occur as no specific site is under consideration. Conclusion:No Impact. 6. _ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1' X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner? c Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X �� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST LJ09�J Issues, Discussion and Supportint, Information Sources Sources Potent. Po u Significant S' ni i i t Itis t ER # 52-08 Issues Unless impact Mitigation Incorporated that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? Evaluation a)b)c)The project will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plansor promote the use of non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner. Conclusion:No impact. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 3,10 effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? II. Strong seismic ground shaking? X III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X IV. Landslides or mudflows? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that X would become unstable as a result of the project,.and potentially result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Evaluation a)b)c)d) The project will not expose people to geologic hazards because it will not modify City policy on development in areas with high geologic sensitivity. Conclusion:No Impact. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 3,10, X through the routine use, transport or disposal of hazardous 11 materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one=quarter mile of an existing or proposed.school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous }{ emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within X two miles of a public airport,would the project-result in a safety �� CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009(/� Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Potent.—,' Potent Significant SignAMA[ t ER # 52 08 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose, injury, X or death, involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation a)b)c)d)e)f)g)h)No hazardous impacts would occur as no specific site is under consideration. Conclusion:No Impact. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the roiect: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1,4 X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would.be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g. The production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters (including, but not limited to, wetlands, riparian areas, ponds, springs,creeks,streams,rivers,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays, ocean,etc.)? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into X ground or surface waters? i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, X temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity? Evaluation a)b)c)d)e)f)g)h)i)No impacts to water resources will occur as the project does not involve modifications to the City's policies on water and drainage and no specific site is under consideration. Conclusion: No Impact 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the roject: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 1-7 X an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the ��i/ CRY OF SAN LUIS OstSpo 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009 Issues, Discussion and Supporth.y Information Sources Sources Potent.. PotAn Less an No Significant Sig VnimER # 52 08 Issues U Mit Incorporated purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X community conservationplans? Evaluation a)b)c) The text amendments will ensure that the City's Sidewalk Cafe regulations are consistent with the General Plan. The City's General Plan encourages pedestrian friendly environments and encourages the use of sidewalk dining, therefore the proposed amendments will not result in impacts to land use and planning. Conclusion: No Impact. 11.NOISE.-Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of "unacceptable" noise 7 X levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element, or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome X vibration or grouindborne noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within X two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Evaluation a)b)c)d) Implementation of the text amendments will not conflict with the City's Noise Element and Noise Ordinance. The hours of operation for sidewalk cafes and the noise limitations that apply to them are not proposed to be modified. Conclusion: No Impact. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 2,6 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 X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Evaluation a)b) c) No impacts to population and housing will occur as the project does not involve modifications to the City's policies on residential densities or housing. Conclusion: No Impact. 13, PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision, or need, of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X b)_ Police protection? X CITY OF SAN Luis OBIsPO I O INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKuST 2009 Issues, Discussion and Support,,, Information Sources Sources Poten_ Potent' I, -- Significant Signify r r ER # 52 08 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated C) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X Other public facilities? X Evaluation a)b)c)d)e)f) The project will not impact public services as no specific site is under consideration Conclusion: No Impact. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or 8 X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical-effect on the environment? Evaluation - - a)b)No impacts to recreational facilities and programs will occur with implementation of the text;amendments. Conclusion: No Impact. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 2,5 X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service X standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways?. c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features (e.g. sharp X curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with .San Luis Obispo County Airport Land X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a change in air trafficpatterns? Evaluation a)b)c)d)e)f)g) This project is a text amendment, and therefore will not in itself create any effects on transportation or circulation. However, increased participation in sidewalk cafes, and including the widening of sidewalks to accommodate them does have the potential to modify parking availability and circulation. However,as with any new business or expansion of a business parking must be reviewed on a case.by case basis. Projects which trigger additional parking must either supply the parking spaces on-site or if part of a parking district must pay fees to offset the parking demand. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 4 X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X treatment, wastewater treatment,water quaiity_control, or storm_ �i CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009 Issues, Discussion and Supporti,_„ Information Sources sources roteii., Potentia Significant Signifi � WspuER # 52 08 Issues Unlesst Mitigation Inco rated drainage facilities, the construction of which, could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations X related to solid waste? Evaluation a)b)c)d)e)f)The project will not impact utility systems as no specific site is under consideration. Conclusion: No Impact. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Implementation of the text amendments will not degrade the quality of the environment. 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 future projects) No cumulative impacts are expected to occur from implementation of the text amendments. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings,, either directly or indirectly? Implementation of the text amendments will not create environmental effects that will have an adverse impact on human beings. 18.EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative.Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable.legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. N/A c Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Inco orated,"describe the mitigation �� CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2009 Issues, Discussion and Supports,.,, Information Sources Sources Poten P15 1 p Significant Sign u , tmtt ER # 52 08 Issues Unless Mitigation Incorporated measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. N/A 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Conservation and en Space Element,May 2006 2. Ci of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,September 2004 3. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000 4. City of San Luis Obispo Water and Wastewater Management Element,June 2004 5. City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element,November 1994 6. City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element,May 2004 7. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element and Noise Guidebook,May 1996 8. City of San Luis Obispo Parks,and Recreation Element,April 2001 9. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations,,June 27 2008 10. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Air Pollution Control District,2003 11. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Inventory and Geographic Information System,current database 12. County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan for SLO County Airport,May 2005 Attachment: Proposed Municipal Code text amendments,Chapter 5.50 Sidewalk Cafes �/ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEckiJsT 2009