HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/05/1995, 2 - REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY AT 791 ORCUTT ROAD FROM MANUFACTURING (M) TO SERVICE-COMMERCIAL SPECIAL CONSIDERATION (C-S-S). FILE NO.: R 122-95. ���MII�pIIIWllllllllllAllulll "1 r MEETI G D91E:
U�Nu�► cio san lues osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NU ER:
0
FROM: Arnold Jon ommunitelopment Director
By: Whitne McIlvaine, ssociate Planner
SUBJECT: Request to rezone property at 791 Orcutt Road from Manufacturing (M) to
Service-Commercial Special Consideration (C-S-S). File No.: R 122-95.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an ordinance to print approving a negative declaration and rezoning the parcel from
Manufacturing (M) to Service-Commercial-Special Consideration (C-S-S).
DISCUSSION
Data Summary
Project Address: 791 Orcutt Road
Applicant/Property Owner: Marilyn Stickler
Representative: John Mitchell
Zoning: Manufacturing (M)
General Plan: Services and Manufacturing
Environmental Status: The Director made an initial determination to prepare a negative
declaration on October 13, 1995.
Project Action Deadline: January 11, 1996
Reason for Rezoning Request
The property is under the same ownership as property at the corner of Broad Street and Orcutt
Road, which is zoned Commercial-Service with Special Consideration (C-S-S). Development
of the two properties will be linked by an internal private street. Both properties are subject to
similar constraints related to creek areas and limitations on site access due to the traffic levels
on adjacent streets. To better insure the integration and compatibility of development on the two
adjacent parcels, the applicant is requesting that the property at 791 Orcutt Road be rezoned to
have the same designation as the bordering property along Broad Street. Please refer to the
attached conceptual site development plan.
Site Description and Surrounding Development
The 4-acre (+/-) project site is currently vacant and occasionally used as horse pasture.
Surrounding uses include a gas station and homeless shelter across Orcutt Road, a vacant pasture
to the east and west across branches of Acacia and Sydney creeks, and service-commercial and
residential uses across Broad Street to the west. The Planning Commission approved a use
permit on May 24, 1995, and a master list of allowed uses on June 28, 1995 for commercial
development on the adjacent property which extends west to Broad Street (A 137-94). In 1993,
a planned-development office park was approved for the vacant parcel to the east. Developers
of the Parkside Research Park have until August 1997 to record the final tact map.
°��n►►'�i��il!IIII Ip1tIIIIhI City of san .is OBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations
Both Service-Commercial and Manufacturing zoning are consistent with the general plan
designation of Services and Manufacturing. Therefore, no general plan amendment is necessary
to accomplish this proposed rezoning. Furthermore, the zoning regulations describe Service-
Commercial zoning as more appropriate than Manufacturing for areas with public exposure along
arterial streets. Orcutt Road is shown as an arterial street in the Circulation Element.
Special Consideration Zoning
The Special Consideration overlay is requested to ensure that development of the project site
adequately addresses traffic, circulation, creek preservation, and downstream drainage impacts.
Administrative use permit approval is required for any use proposed on a property with a Special
Consideration zoning, unless a master list of uses is adopted with the rezoning. Staff
recommends the same master list of allowed uses approved for the adjacent property at 761
Orcutt Road be approved for this site. The master list is an exhibit in the attached draft
ordinance for approval.
Environmental Impact
Since the proposed zoning allows less intensive industrial uses than the current zoning, and since
the rezoning also includes a Special Consideration overlay to ensure site development adequately
addresses traffic, circulation, and creek issues, the Director determined that the rezoning would
not have any significant adverse impact on the environment and concurred with staff's
recommendation for a negative declaration.
Remaining Land Zoned Manufacturing
Conversion of this property to Service-Commercial zoning still leaves approximately 23 acres
of vacant land in the City zoned Manufacturing. Neither the general plan nor the zoning
regulations specify minimum land area by zone. The Planning Commission expressed concern
with the diminishment of the Manufacturing zone, but the majority of Commissioners concluded
the project site is better suited to less industrial Service-Commercial zoning because of physical
site characteristics, including proximity to Broad Street and Orcutt Road. A list of remaining
properties zoned Manufacturing is attached.
Planning Commission Review and Recommendation
On November 8, the Planning Commission acted to forward a recommendation to the City
Council supporting the adoption of the attached ordinance approving the rezoning. Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting are attached.
��►�►►►I�IIIIIIIiIi��" lilllll city of san _-Ais oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may:
1. Continue review with direction to the applicant and staff; or
2. Adopt a resolution denying the rezoning.
CONCURRENCES
No other City departments have concerns with the proposed rezoning. One member of the
public asked that future site development be sensitive to potential downstream flooding impacts.
The Planning Commission responded by listing downstream drainage impacts as a further reason
for applying the Special Consideration zoning. Please refer to Section 4 in the attached
ordinance.
Attachments:
draft ordinance approving the rezoning
draft resolution for denial .
list of remaining M-zoned properties
draft Planning Commission minutes
initial study
wmL:\cc\r122-95
—.23
n
a
•'1:A. .>��'nt7?fil 1111
I O '• r .�
D •V r��•O i,.Jr Y,R�\JIr\l�
AL1 l:�l'tw'f�'• :.��'�:n.j y1q]iy
C�w o�f`rt.�lJ ,/. !::_: fit^:.::.:"'�.�.••.
IL
PROVIDING
PUBLIC CCE55
1 f�
iC; — � i•Ija m v
yet:
Cr
O
s
.''..m.
I •9 ='n s� p� s0 n ITS
E E Eyj
�,
_�� �n 6 � � y _ Z C(///lam• � !!
W -4 N r STT SH m
f0 OS W 0) N pppl PD
O Ln y
I a
VJOHNBBERTRCMITCHELLLLAHITECT-us u•va rwnm,
Draft ordinance for approval
R 122-95
ORDINANCE NO. (1995 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP
TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM M TO C-S-S
AT 791 ORCUTT ROAD
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings
to consider appropriate zoning for the site in accordance with the California Government Code;
and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the proposed rezoning have been
evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's
Environmental Guidelines;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. Fines The proposed rezoning is consistent with general plan policies
related to the location of service commercial and manufacturing uses, and promotes the public
health, safety, and general welfare.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination An initial study concludes that the rezoning
will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment (ER 122-95). The Council
hereby approves a negative declaration.
SECTION 3. Rezoning Approval. The Council approves application No. R 122-95,
thereby amending the Official Zoning Map designation for the site from Manufacturing (M) to
Service-Commercial Special Consideration (C-S-S), as shown on and described by attached
Exhibit A.
SECTION 4. Special Consideration Zoning_ The Special Consideration zoning is
hereby established on this site to ensure that development adequately addresses traffic,
circulation, creek preservation, and downstream drainage impacts.
SECTION 5. Master List of Allowed Uses. Administrative use permit approval is
required' for any use proposed on a property with a Special Consideration zoning, unless a
master list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses is adopted as part of the rezoning. The
master list of allowed and conditionally allowed uses for this site is attached as Exhibit B.
1
e2_s
Draft ordinance for approval
R 122-95
SECTION 6.. Publication. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of
Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least 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 AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo at its meeting held on the day of , 1995, on motion of
seconded by , and on the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
*itto
wmL:ord\122-95
2
C s.
�'l�� I1r � a:i. � ♦O�i
, � ✓°�tr•w I ��
LL
;Z3s0 EXHIBIT A ^•� ° "; r�
Q '♦
V•
'0
r,r,
C
\Y
A
O
G
O
9 a°
A.
P
f
V
I
V
r
J r
I
I
a• _ r
I
i
' •Y• jYnuti / O �
i
Z A
f`pC.
�o2 N
:� y°•�.>.a� eats' ��. ;>, �.,
:a9: t�a.,4 �� � ♦ •' ♦tip) �� � /%% A L\� �t�
1 °i`��t •:') �.• iii° .♦• �r
.. '. N �.
' gyp. •^ ° � � ,:.
AN
5 V
61
4
O�
0'1= e2-7
EXHIBIT B
MASTER LIST OF ALLOWED AND CONDITIONALLY ALLOWED USES
32102 3256,3290 BROAD STREET AND 761 ORCUTT ROAD
A 137-94
1. -General_Criteria:
To minimize adverse impacts on wildlife resulting from human activity near the creek:
1. No outdoor speakers or amplified music is allowed in conjunction with any use
established.
2. Outdoor activities such as sales, storage, repair, or play areas shall be limited in
size and oriented toward Broad Street and away from the creek, subject to
administrative use permit approval.
3. Outdoor dining and seating shall be limited to an area similar in size and
configuration to the one shown on the attached conceptual site plan.
2. Allowed Uses (except where associated outdoor activities require administrative use
permit approval):
• Advertising & related services (graphic design, writing, mailing, addressing,
etc.)
0 Amusement arcades (See Section 17.08.060)
• Barbers, hairstylists, manicurists, tanning centers
• Broadcast studios
• Caretaker's quarters
• Catering services
• Computer services
Contractors - all types of general and special building contractor's offices
• Credit reporting and collection
• Delivery and private postal services
• Detective and security services
• Laundry/dry cleaners
-pick-up point
-self-service
• Offices (engineering) engineers, architects, and industrial design
• Photocopy services, quick printers
• Photofinishing - retail
• Photofinishing - wholesale, and blueprinting and microfilming services
• Photographic studios
• Post offices and public and private postal services
02'O
A 137-94
Master list of allowed uses
Page 2
• Printing and publishing
• Produce stands
• Repair services
-small household appliances, locksmith, seamstress, shoe repair
• Restaurants, sandwich shops, takeout food, etc.
• Retail sales - appliances, furniture and furnishings, musical instruments,
processing equipment, business, office and medical equipment stores, catalog
stores, sporting goods, outdoor supply.
• Retail sales - auto parts and accessories except tires and batteries as principal use
• Retail sales -groceries, liquor, and specialized foods(bakery, meats, dairy items,
etc.)
• Retail sales -indoor sales of building materials and gardening supplies (floor and
wall coverings, paint, glass stores, etc.)
• Retail sales and repair of bicycles
• Tattoo Parlors
• Ticket/travel agencies
• Wholesale and mail order houses
3. Uses Allowed with Director's or Chief Building Official's Approval by Letter
• Mobile home as temporary residence at building site
• Outdoor sales of Christmas trees and other seasonal agricultural products
4. Uses Allowed by Director's Approval of an Administrative Use-Permit:
• Animal hospitals, boarding, and grooming (small animals)
• Bars, taverns, etc. (without entertainment facilities)
• Building and landscape maintenance services
• Bowling alleys
• Cabinet and carpentry shops
• Circuses, carnivals, fairs, festivals, parades on private property
• Day care - day care center
• Equipment rental
• Feed stores and farm supply sales
• Laboratories (medical, analytical research)
• Repair services-large appliance, electrical equipment power tools, saw sharpening
• Retail sales - general merchandise (drug, hardware, discount, department and
variety stores)
• Retail sales - outdoor sales of landscape materials ( nurseries)
• Retail sales - tires and batteries
02—/
A 137-94
Master list of allowed uses
Page 3
• Secretarial & related services (court reporting, stenography, typing, telephone
answering, etc.)
• Temporary sales
• Temporary uses - not otherwise listed
• Utility companies
-engineering & administration offices
• Utility distribution facilities (See Section 17.08.080)
• Water treatment services
• Vending machines (See Section 17.08.050)
• Veterinarians
5. Uses Allowed by Planning Commission Approval of a Use Permit:
• Antennas (commercial broadcasting)
• Athletic and health clubs, fitness centers, game courts
• Cemeteries, mausoleums, columbariums .
• Churches, synagogues, temples, etc.
• Homeless shelters
• Manufacturing
• Organizations (professional, religious, political, labor, fraternal, trade, youth,
etc.) offices and meeting rooms
• Public assembly facilities (community meeting rooms, auditoriums,
convention/exhibition halls)
• Schools - business, trade, recreational, or other specialized schools
6. Any other uses are not allowed.
The following uses are not allowed:
Retail sales and rental - autos, trucks, motorcycles, RV's, boats, aircraft, mobile homes
Utility companies - corporation yards
Parking as a principal use
Railroad yards, stations, crew facilities
Airports and related facilities
Bus stations
Stadiums
Contractor's yards
Exterminators and fumigators
Gas distributors
Service stations
Concurrent sales of alcoholic beverages and motor fuel
Tire recapping
A 137-94
Master list of allowed uses
Page 4
Trailer rental
Trucking/taxi service
Ambulance service
Warehousing, ministorage, moving companies
Drive-in theaters
Hot tubs - commercial use
Mineral extraction
Retail sales,- outdoor sales of building materials (lumber yards)
Skating rinks
Swap meets
Swimming pools (public)
Amusement parks, fairgrounds
Animal hospitals and boarding, grooming, and training (large animals)
02��
Draft resolution for denial
R122-95
RESOLUTION NO. (1995 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING A CHANGE TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE PROPERTY AT 791
ORCUTT ROAD FROM MANUFACTURING TO SERVICE-COMMERCIAL SPECIAL
CONSIDERATION (R 122-95)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Fines. The Council, after consideration of the rezoning request R 122-95 and
staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings:
1. Rezoning the project site to Service-Commercial Special Consideration would result in an
insufficient area of land zoned Manufacturing.
The Council may specify additional findings.
SECTION 2. Denial. The request for approval of the rezoning R 122-95 is hereby denied.
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 1995.
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
APPROVED:
y o y
.Parcel # Zoning 1 Address Area lsgftAssessee
004-811.014 M 2210 BEEBEE 11923 SILVA MARY M
004-811-021 M 269 BRIDGE 39699 BRIDGE
004-811-021 M 275 BRIDGE 30600 BRIDGE STREET PTP A GEN PTP
004-811-023 M 279 BRIDGE 119000 BRIDGE STREET PTP A GEN PTP
004-811-033 M 285 BRIDGE 25000 BRIDGE STREET PTP A GEN PTP
004-922-024 M 2494 VICTORIA * 7700 TRUSSLER JARED A
053-061-038 M 861 ORCUTT 277500 SLO PARTNERS A GEN PTP
053-061-040 M 953 ORCUTT 21 000 SLO PARTNERS A GEN PTP
053-061-043 M 3580 SACRAMENTO • 116300 ROBISON ELECTRONICS INC A CORP
053-062-039 M 887 RICARDO 15530 ROBISON JOHN F TR ETAL
053-062-040 M 888 RICARDO 18129 ROBISON JOHN F TR ETAL
053-062-041 M 882 RICARDO 10282 ROBISON JOHN F TR ETAL.
053-062-042 M 874 RICARDO 10790 ROBISON JOHN F TR ETAL
053-062-043 M 856 RICARDO 11035 ROBISON JOHN F TR ETAL
053-062-044 M 846 RICARDO 11035 ROBISON JOHN F TR ETAL
053-062-045 M 830 RICARDO 17175 ROBISON JOHN F TR ETAL
053-062-046 M 814 RICARDO 17175 ROBISON JOHN F TR ETAL
053.063-001 M 3418 SACRAMENTO 10634 BAYLY ROY D III 8 THERESE M
053-063-014 M 3438 MIGUELITO 12351 NORRIS DL ETAL
053-063-016 M 848 VIA ESTEBAN 10380 MESA GILBERT R TRE ETAL
053-063-017 M 3439 ROBERTO 11535 MESA GILBERT R TRE ETAL
053-063-019 M 3427 ROBERTO 23646 TEMPLETON MARGARET J
053-201-012 M 3085 MCMILLAN 40260 BROWN ROGER M TRE ETAL
053-212-005 M 2855 MCMILLAN 17250 CURRY GARY A 8 DOROTHY J
— 143 V2 04• G 6 9 * VAGANT LAND 59999 58UTIlERN ...,I F l e .
053-22i 93i rS 5 ;64 eREUTT
053-224 931G 6 6 — eUT-
053.231-020 M-S750 CAPITOLIO 14000 TRUSSLER WILLIAM C TRE ETAL
Total AREA 1 (sq. ft.): 1171770
Total items listed: 28 / v
Report Specs
-(C->ZONINGI=M-PD .OR. C->ZONING2=M-PD ) .OR. (C->ZONINGI=M-S .OR. C->ZONING2=M-S ) .OR. (C->ZONINGI=M
-A->SIC=0015 .OR. A->SIC=0011
-F:\DATA\FO%OUT\MANVACAN
-Report began running 11/15/95 10:05:21 Report finished running 11/15/95 10:05:51
-Report does not include out-of-town parcels
Planning Cossion Meeting
November 8, 95
Page 7
Commissioner Read tated members of the community have not come forward to comment or
complain about this proje
Commissioner Hoffman stated his a works in that area and she sees the problems there
constantly.
Chairman Karleskint stated he recently had occasio to visit the hospital and stated it can be really
grid locked. But the due to the nature of the surgery c ter, it will ngtoftg in visitors.
Commissioner Whittlesey made a moti ap et eI n ive d aration and a use
permit to allow a surge nter o . e,gic ' a s, with th s and conditions of
the staff report as am d The 'o'w ded mmissione offman.
AYES: Commissio ourakis, Hoffman, Cross, Whittlesey, Ready, an Chairman
Karleskint.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Senn.
2. 791 Orcutt Road: (R and ER 122-95): Review of rezoning property from M to C-S-S and
Environmental Review of proposed rezoning, Marilyn Stickler, applicant.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 8, 1995
Page 8
Associate Planner McIlvaine presented the staff report.
Commissioner Cross asked staff if the "S" designation will allow the Commission to address creek
preservation when a project is submitted to the City.
_ —...., ... .
Associate Planner McIlvaine eyed yes. She sta a .herjce parcel's i anging in size which are
zoned manufacturing. '''`
LIJ
Commissioner Whittlese Askett'3fa how many parcels there are.
Associate Planner McIlvaine stated the figure is an estimate that comes from the land use
inventory which estimates each parcel size.
Commissioner Whittlesey stated there is a concern with land being whittled away. She asked staff
if the 23 acres were looked at with regard to a city of San Luis Obispo's size or if any other
research has been conducted.
Associate Planner McIlvaine answered no. She stated this kind of research will be done when
further looking into the airport area. She stated there is a manufacturer's association. While at
their meeting she raised the question as to the minimum parcel size for lots zoned manufacturing.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 8, 1995
Page 9 '
Four to five acres is a workable size. ° T 9
IL- 0
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
John Mitchell, 3211 Broad St., stated that if the creeks were identified and the required setbacks
were incorporated, it really wouldn't be conducive to manufacturing. That's why this will be in
companion with the other project. It's a relatively good sized parcel. There is a road and it will
connect this parcel with the other parcel. Mr. Mitchell offered to answer any questions.
Commissioner Kourakis asked Mr. Mitchell if any specific uses have been determined yet or is he
just asking for the zone.
Mr. Mitchell stated he is asking for the zone. He stated most users are not interested unless the
property is already zoned.
Ann Miller, 3380 Broad St., stated she is located down stream from this parcel. Ms. Miller stated
there are three streams that come together just south of her location. She is very concerned about
future development and the effort that will be made to absorb and maintain rain water. She uses
her property for her home and business. Her property is affected by flash flood conditions.
Commissioner Kourakis asked Ms. Miller to show the Commission on the diagram where her
Planning Commission Meeting
November 8, 1995
Page 10
property and the creeks are located.
Ms. Miller complied and stated flooding is a great concern.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS:
Commissioner Cross asked staff if run off was adequately addressed in the environmental review.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the impacts of drainage need to be reviewed
that change from C-S to M. It is difficult to determine drainage until a specific development is
planned. A more appropriate time to address this when there is a footprint with specific building
plans.
Commissioner Kourakis asked if something could be added to the Draft Ordinance, Page 1,
Section 4, in response to Ms. Miller's comments relative to drainage and flooding.
Associate Planner McIlvaine stated yes. She suggested using the wording "downstream drainage
impacts".
Commissioner Whittlesey expressed concerns regarding the loss of industrial properties.
Long-term research has not been conducted in this area. In looking at the list of C-S uses that
Planning Commission Meeting —`
November 8, 1995
Page 11
would be allowed, these uses are not necessarily needed for this site at the expense of losing
industrial zones.
Commissioner Ready referred the Commission to Exhibit B, Paragraph#5, Uses Allowed by
Planning Commission Approval of a Use Permit. He stated manufacturing is listed.
Chairman Karleskint stated he is concerned about the loss of industrial property, but, in this case,
the zone change makes sense for this piece of property.
Commissioner Whittlesey commented traffic will increase by the higher and more intense uses.
Commissioner Kourakis stated there are many things about this parcel that do commend it to a
C-S use. C-S is reasonable on this parcel at this location.
Commissioner Ready concurred with Commissioner Kourakis.
Commissioner Ready made a motion to forward the ordinance to the City Council with the
recommendation of approval and to adopt the same master list for allowed uses. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Ready.
AYES: Commissioners Kourakis, Hoffman, Cross, Ready, and Chairman Karleskint.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 8, 1995
Page 12
NOES: Commissioner Whittlesey.
ABSENT: Commissioner Senn.
3. 11 Santa Rosa Street: (A93-951: Appeal of an Administrative Use Permit approval to allow
a mixed use parking reduction; C-N Zone; Grillco, Inc. (Greg Georgas), applicant.
Associate Planner McIlvaine presented the staff report.
Commissioner Senn stated that he was not present for the last hearing, but did listen to the tapes
of the hearing.
Commissioner Whittlesey stated that she also was not present for the last hearing, but did listen to
the tapes of the hearing.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Sig Hadad, 1012 Pacific St., San Luis Obispo, stated apparently at the last meeting, the new
hearing date was set for October 25. Hudson's requested a continuance without contacting
Kinko's or Mr. McLennan. This request was granted by Ms. McIlvaine. She did not inform
����� � ���� i ► IIIIIIIIh►���►� ����► IIh city osAn hues oaspo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1 . Project Title: R 122-95, Stickler rezoning
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, Ca 93403
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Whitney Mcllvaine, Associate Planner 781-7175
4. Project Location:
791 Orcutt Road
APN: 053-221-031
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Marilyn Stickler, P.O. Box 389, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Represented by: John Mitchell, 3211 Broad Street, Suite 205, San Luis Obispo,
Ca 93401 5449727
6. General Plan Designation: Services and Manufacturing
7. Zoning: Manufacturing (M)
8. Description of the Project: The applicant wishes to rezone the property from
Manufacturing to Service-Commercial Special Consderation (C-S-S).
9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting:
Surrounding uses include a gas station and homeless shelter across Orcutt Road,
a vacant pasture to the east and west across branches of Acacia and Sydney
creeks, and service-commercial and residential uses across Broad Street to the
west.
The project is site is currently vacant and occasionally used as horse pasture.
OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including he disabled in all of its services,programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. C;2.2o
��� ►►►►��►►►i► ►► IIIIIIIh1°�� °111 IIIII city osAn luis oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval,
or participation agreement).
None.
2
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities.
v Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. ev2,;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.
X Land use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
Water Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
.. ...
Air Quality Public ServicesV.
Transportation and Utilities and Service
Circulation Systems
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, X
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 the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATIVE 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 significant effect(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, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." 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,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
(1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project.
3
e2-oZ�
October 13, 1995
ig ature / Date
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
Printed Name For
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 parentheses following each question.
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. .
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). 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. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
4
;Z-23
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? X
Both Service-Commercial and Manufacturing zoning are consistent with the general plan designation of Services and
Manufacturing. Therefore, no general plan amendment is necessary to accomplish this proposed rezoning.
Furthermore, C-S zoning is described in the zoning regulations as more appropriate than Manufacturing for areas
with public exposure along arterial streets. Orcutt Road is shown as an arterial street in the Circulation Element.
The Special Consideration overlay is requested to ensure uses established on the project site receive the same
consideration currently applied to the adjacent parcel at 761 Orcutt. The S designation has been applied to the
adjacent property to ensure that development on that site adequately addresses traffic, circulation, and creek
preservation. Administrative use permit approval is required for any use proposed on a property with a Special
Consideration zoning. Establishment of a master list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses is an acceptable
alternative to reviewing each use as it is proposed. The Planning Commission and City Council will review and
approve a master'list of allowed and conditionally allowed uses during their review of the rezoning request. Staff
anticipates it will be the same list approved for property at 761 Orcutt Road.
Since the proposed rezoning is more consistent with zoning regulations than current zoning because of the
property's public exposure, and since the rezoning also includes a Special Consideration overlay to ensure site
development adequately addresses traffic, circulation, and creek preservation issues, no further mitigation is
necessary.
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact X
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X
projections?
5
.2 -�.y
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Leas Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impam
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or X
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or major infrastructure?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? X
b) Seismic ground shaking? X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X
e) Landslides or mudflows? X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil X
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land? X
h) Expansive soils? X
i) Unique geologic or physical features? X
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
6
a�
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X
such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of X
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X
body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X
movements?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through X
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through
substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X
otherwise available for public water supplies?
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an X
exiting or projected air quality violation?
7
a��
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impac
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors? X
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp X
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment))?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility X
with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan)?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats X
.(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
or birds)?
8
e?-�7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, X
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and X
inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan X
or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X
hazard?
9
12_U2 8
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential X
health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, X
grass of trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? X
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fre protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
e) Other governmental services? X
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? X
b) Communications systems? X
10
a'�
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution x
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? x
e) Storm water drainage? x
f) Solid waste disposal? x
g) Local or regional water supplies? x
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? x
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? x
c) Create light or glare? x
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? x
b) Disturb archaeological resources? x
c) Affect historical resources? x
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which x
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
11
a2-3o
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impar
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X
potential impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks X
or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X
of the 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?
No site development is proposed in conjunction with this application for rezoning. Service-Commercial zoning
generally allows less intensive industrial activities than the site's current Manufacturing zoning, therefore, this
project would reduce the potential for significant adverse impacts resulting from such activities. Future site
development projects are subject to environmental review and architectural review, and therefore subject to
evaluation of consistency with adopted environmental protection policies and regulations.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- X
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals?
See discussion under 16. a.
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually X
limited, but cumulatively considerable? 1"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)
12
�-3/
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
See discussion under 16. a.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
See discussion under 16. a.
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.
Not applicable.
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.
Not applicable.
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.
Not applicable.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093,
321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App..3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of
Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
13
�2 - 3Z
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impar,
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 Land Use Element, policies 3.0 and 3.5
2 Circulation Element, Figure 2.
3 Zoning regulations, chapters 17.46 and 17.48
4 Initial Study ER 137-94.
5
6
7
8
9
14
- 33
j^
V•
/'
•r�•i �r
10
Qp
• , l
� J
/�1� •.oY4 J. A
tf
\\ Vy . � \ � /Y d L•� 'Co � Sly
•, 4
r
Ay
oil,
Y y r
�. I N °L 5� Od FL sonar
P V 1Ar n
\ ,•t` Jow•F `
/ O
I aL `,\ �■ L
•
D �
Y° 0
r
V m I
•
O '
,O VACw�p�
r J J YwOm� I•
G° � •S
♦01„ ••r
Tr°
T• I •y �asaai► `7
111r
y -L
"rr Y • ,�xJ
November 29, 1995 MEETING _y,�AGENDA��.
DATE. . REM #
MEMORANDUM
:a 'xK }vt�{f�,.i,C}iCh i3v,.y,:iyYn.wq}'.IX.:(+!w:i:F'iiiS:MS::SYi^,KMY•"O}�i}x:%i}:i);::f.\:.:m:ni::.iii:n:Cii:,,.'l.(!!.i i}::Sii ii i:::::'
S} .'.l..:n.y....::.......v.,..�}:}:.5•.}i Y::.i•.t:.y:' ..v.i}.rn..:.....:.. ..n..... .::u:xxmvrv:rvm:::.::.:::.e.....Y{%...:::.::nw::::.�...,.
:..5, .:Sii ..... .. ,.:....:.:.... ...:::.::.. ,s.:..�.C:.a.::::::.................::::.}::e.iiiii;i;;:!.i:::.:::::x::::::.:::.. .............�.n...i.:}::.,r::;:n:•.::'.:}}\>.iv:::ii
TO: Council Colleagues
FROM: Allen K Settle
SUBJECT: Remembering the Fairbanks'
It occurs to me that the Council has an opportunity to officially remember the Fairbanks'
in a very appropriate way. May I suggest that we contribute one of the beautiful downtown
benches in a suitable.location to commemorate Jeff, Ann, and Sienna Fairbanks.
/ss
c: John Dunn
JNCIL 0 CDD DIR
AO 0 FIN DIR
IT ACAO 0 FIRE CHIEF
[ATTORNEY PIPW DIR
D*t:LERKONG 0 POLICE CHF
h:fairbank 0 MOW TEAM 0 REC DIR
0 C D FILE 4 UTIL DIR
�+ Lam_ 0 PERS DIR
.�.f 143/
1
MEETING � AGENDA ,
DATE ----f ITEM # •�`
December 4, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Council Colleagues _
FROM: Allen K Settle 55
SUBJECT: FIRST COUNCIL MEETING IN JANUARY
May I suggest that the January 2, 1996 Council meeting be changed to Thursday, January
4th. This would allow Council Members and staff the opportunity to return from their
holiday. . . .and also grant additional preparation time for the meeting.
/ss
Iff��NCIL O CDD DIR
�ACAO O FIN DIR
❑ FIRE CHIEF
!, SME' 17 PW DIR
13 MOW TFJUTA� 3 POLICE CHF
ROC - 1�,
DIR ro1vitV
� FRE O Dill DIR
° D'q DEC 5 1995
C1ry CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA