HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/02/2002, 3 - COURT STREET REZONING TO ELIMINATE AN EXPIRED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE (R 51-02) I
council N. 02-02.
agenda Repoat '3N° .
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direc
?",
By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner(�).E,,, FK
SUBJECT: COURT STREET REZONING TO ELIMINATE AN EXPIRED PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE (R 51-02)
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
As recommended by the Planning Commission on May 8, 2002, introduce an ordinance to print,
approving a Negative Declaration of environmental impact, and amending the City's zoning map
designation from Central-Commercial with the Historical Preservation and Planned
Development overlay zones (C-C-H-PD) to Central-Commercial with the Historical Preservation
overlay zone (C-C-H) for the Court Street parking lot site (999 Monterey Street), based on
findings.
DISCUSSION:
Situation
Back in 1989, the project site was rezoned to its present zoning of C-C-H-PD to accommodate a
previous project that was never built. The special standards that the Planned Development (PD)
provided are not relevant to other developments. The zoning regulations include a provision to
remove a PD overlay, if the project for which the PD was approved is not developed within a
designated timeframe. It has now been over a decade since the project expired for which the PD
rezoning was approved. Therefore, as a clean-up item, the Council is being asked to remove the
unutilized PD zoning,rezoning the site from C-C-H-PD to C-C-H.
On May 8, 2002, with little discussion and no public testimony, the Planning Commission
unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the rezoning from C-C-H-PD to CC-
H and adopt the Negative Declaration of environmental impact.
Data Summary
Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo
Existing Zoning: C-C-H-PD
Proposed Zoning: C-C-H
General Plan Land Use Designation: General Retail
Environmental Status: The Development Review Manager recommended a Negative Declaration
on April 18, 2002. Final action on the initial study will be taken by the City Council.
Project Action Deadline: Legislative actions not subject to processing deadlines.
3-1
Council Agenda Report—Court Street Rezoning(R 51-02)
Page 2
Site Description
The Court Street site is the existing City surface parking lot located at the corner of Osos,
Monterey and Higuera Streets, and including Court Street. It is located in the City's downtown
core near the main retail shopping district and the City and County government centers.
Surrounding land uses include retail shops, offices, restaurants, entertainment uses, and housing.
Analysis of Rezoning Request
The project site is currently zoned Central-Commercial with the Historical Preservation and
Planned Development overlays (C-C-H-PD). It is designated as General Retail on the land Use
Element map.
On March 7, 1989 the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 1135 (1989 Series) which
approved a rezoning to add the PD overlay and approved a preliminary development plan for the
Court Street Center Project. As defined in Section 17.50.010 of the zoning regulations, "a PD
rezoning must occur simultaneously with approval of a specific project." After approval of the
preliminary development plan, the applicant for a project has six months, or other specified
timeframe in the adopted ordinance, to submit a final development plan. No construction can
begin until a final development plan has been submitted and approved by the City. In the case of
the Court Street Center Project, for a variety of reasons, including issues with the financial
backing of the project, the building permit plans that would have constituted the final
development plan were never submitted.
Section 17.62.090 of the zoning regulations sets out the process for revocation of a PD zoning.
The section states:
"If a final development plan is not carried out in the time specified in the development plan
or within an approved extension period, the Planning Commission and City Council may
remove the PD designation according to the usual procedure for city-initiated rezoning. "
It has now been nearly 12 years since the Court Street Center Project officially expired because
the final development plan was never submitted. The PD overlay zoning was applicable for that
particular project and is no longer relevant to potential future site development. If an
imaginative new project were proposed on the site that needed exceptions to property
development standards, then the applicant would need to apply for the particular entitlements
that suit the specific proposal.
In conclusion, the PD rezoning is preceding the review of the Copelands Project because it
relates to a past development project on the site and is not relevant to the new project. A Planned
Development is not necessary to support the Court Street component as planned in terms of
proposed uses or any exceptions to property development standards. Whether or not the
Copelands Project is ultimately approved, the amendment to the site's zoning would still be
relevant.
3-2
Council Agenda Report—Court Street Rezoning(R 51-02)
Page 3
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the zone change.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny the proposed rezoning, based on inconsistency with the general plan.
2. Continue review of the amendment with specific direction to the applicant and staff.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Vicinity map
Attachment 2: Initial Study ER 51-02
Attachment 3: 5-8-02 Planning Commission minutes
Attachment 4: Draft Ordinance
LA Copelands\Staff Reports\R 51-02(Council Report)
3-3
Attachment I
V
VICINITY MAP R 51 -02
999 Monterey A
Attachment 2
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 51-02
1. Project Title:
Court Street Parking Lot Rezoning
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:
Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7168
4. Project Location:
999 Monterey Street
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
General Retail
7. Zoning:
Central-Commercial with the Historical Preservation and Planned Development overlay zones
(C-C-H-PD).
8. Description of the Project:
Rezone property from C-C-H-PD to C-C-H.
3-5
Attachment 2
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The project site is currently used as a surface parking lot. The project area is surrounded by
urban development including buildings occupied by office, retail, restaurant and residential uses.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
Rezoning — amend the zoning map to eliminate the obsolete PD overlay zoning applied to the
site with the review of an expired project.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None
�� CITY OF SAN LUIS OHISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL C 1-961"T 2001
J.
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
Sigrtif cance
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 Omspo 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL(MEALIST 2001
Attachment 2
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and X
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed u on the proposed project, nothing further is required.
April 18,2002
^igna Date
Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Director(Development Review) Community Development Dir.
Printed Name for
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL QiEQCLIST 2001
1
Attachment 2
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue.should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17,"Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California
Administrators Code. 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 OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL QIE(I "sT 2001
Httacnment z
Issues, Discussion and Supper _y Information Sources Sources Pc Potentially Less Than No
Sigmucant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 51-02 Mitigation
Incorporated
1.AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not
limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic X
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 effect day of nighttime views in the area?
Removal of the existing PD overlay zoning will have no impact on the physical appearance of the site because it was tied to a
preliminary development plan that expired more than 10 years ago.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of
Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps X
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 their location or nature,could result in conversion of X
Farmland,to non-agricultural use?
Removal of the existing PD overlay zoning on the project site, which is located in the downtown core, has no potential to
affect agricultural resources.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 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 increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment X
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Removal of the existing PD overlay zoning on the project site does not affect the ability of the City to control and regulate
future development proposals which could generate additional vehicle trips and have consequent air quality impacts.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or
through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a X
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
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional X
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
`� CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONME ,3CI1Q)LIST 2001
Attachment
Issues, Discussion and Suppc a Information Sources Sources Pi 4 Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 51-02 Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or X
ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native X
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
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?
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act X
(including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.)
through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or
other means.
Removal of the existing PD overlay zoning on the project site will not result in any physical changes to the site that could
potentially impact biological resources.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X
archeological 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?
Removal of the existing PD overlay zoning on the project site will not result in any physical changes to the site that could
potentially impact cultural resources.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 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
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the X
State?
Removal of the existing PD overlay zoning on the project site will not result in any physical changes to the site that could
potentially impact energy and mineral resources.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse X
effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map X
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
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially X
iii CITY OF SAN Luis OaISPo 7 INITIAL STUDY EWRONMENTAYIC lisT 2001
Attachment
Issues, Discussion and Suppo. Information Sources Sources Pt 4 Potentially t ess Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 51-02 Mitigation
Incorporated
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
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life X
or property?
Removal of the existing PD overlay zoning on the project site will not result in any physical changes to the site that could
potentially impact its soils and geology.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
though the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous X
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions X
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter X
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, X
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section X
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
two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety X
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury,
or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands X
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are
intermixed with wildlands?
Removal of the existing PD overlay zoning on the project site will not result in any physical changes to the site that could
potentially create issues with natural hazards or hazardous materials.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would X
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(eg.The production rate of preexisting
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
capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or X
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
�/ CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAf, 1 1TIST 2001
Nttacnmem L
Issues, Discussion and Suppo. Information Sources Sources Pi ..y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 51-02 Mitigation
Incorporated
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
a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map X
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area,which X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
Removal of the existing PD overlay zoning on the project site will not result in any physical changes to the site that could
potentially create issues with hydrology or water quality.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would the project:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the I X
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 conservation plans?
The project site is currently zoned Central-Commercial with the Historical Preservation and Planned Development overlays (C-
C-H-PD). On March 7, 1989 the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 1135 (1989 Series)which approved a rezoning to add
the PD overlay and approved a preliminary development plan for the Court Street Center Project. As defined in Section
17.50.010 of the zoning regulations, "a PD rezoning must occur simultaneously with approval of a specific project" After
approval of preliminary development plan,the applicant for a project has six months,or other specified timeframe in the adopted
ordinance,to submit a final development plan. No construction can begin until a final development plan has been submitted and
approved by the City. In the case of the Court Street Center Project,for a variety of reasons, including issues with the financial
backing of the project,the building permit plans that would have constituted the final development plan were never submitted.
Section 17.62.090 of the zoning regulations sets out the process for revocation of a PD zoning. The section states:
"!f a final development plan is not carried out in the time specified in the development plan or within an approved
extension periog the Planning Commission and City Council may remove the PD designation according to the usual
procedure for city-initiated rezoning."
It has now been nearly 13 years since the Court Street Center Project officially expired because the final development
plan was never submitted. The PD overlay zoning was applicable for that particular project and is no longer relevant to
potential future site development. If an imaginative new project were proposed on the site that needed exceptions to
property development standards, then the applicant would need to apply for the particular entitlements that suited the
specific proposal.
Conclusion: The City's processing of the rezoning is the appropriate way to eliminate the PD overlay on the site consistent with
Section 17.62.090 of the zoning regulations. No further mitigation is recommended.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise X
Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X
�� CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAQCFI�L$IIST 2001
Attachment 2
Issues, Discussion and SuppL Information Sources Sources P ..y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 51-02 Mitigation
Incorporated
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the X
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Removal of the existing PD overlay zoning on the project site will not result in any physical changes to the site that could
potentially create noise issues.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or X
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people
necessitating the construction of replacement housing X
elsewhere?
Removal of the existing PD overlay zoning on the project site does not affect the ability of the City to control and regulate
future development proposals which could generate additional demand for housing.
13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times,or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X
f) Other public facilities? X
Removal of the existing PD overlay zoning on the project site does not affect the ability of the City to control and regulate
future development proposals for public services issues.
14.RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical X
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an X
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Removal of the existing PD overlay zoning on the project site does not affect the demand for parks and other recreational
facilities.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic,which is substantial in relation to X
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management X
agency for designated roads and highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. X
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
MAL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENT3214uST 20011
Auacnmem z
Issues, Discussion and Suppc d Information Sources Sources P. ..y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 51-02 Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? X
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards, X
noise,or a change in air traffic patterns?
Removal of the existing PD overlay zoning on the project site does not affect the ability of the City to control and regulate
future development proposals which could generate additional vehicle trips and have consequent impacts to transportation
facilities,traffic and parking.
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
A-
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
treatment,wasterwater treatment,or storm drainage facilities, X
the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and X
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate X
capacity to serve the project's projected demand and 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?
Removal of the existing PD overlay zoning on the project site does not affect the ability of the City to control and regulate
future development proposals for impacts to utilities and service systems.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop X
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?
Removal of the existing PD overlay zoning on the project site is basically a clean-up administrative action that has no impact
on the physical characteristics of the site that could result in environmental impacts.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable X
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
future projects)
See explanation under 17.a).
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or X
indirectly?
�/ CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAQC14IC51ST 2001
- Attachment
Issues, Discussion and Suppo. a Information Sources Sources Pc y Potentially Less Than No
Signiticant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 51-02 Mitigation
Incorporated
See explanation under 17.a).
CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTA3:"1161ST 2001
0
Attachment 2
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.
A Final EIR was certified through Ordinance No. 1135 (1989 Series)on March 7, 1989 with the approval of the earlier Court
Street Center Project. That EIR covered the specific environmental issues associated with the previously proposed and now
expired project. This EIR is available for review in the Planning Library located in the City's Community Development
Department at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. However, for the purpose of this initial study that is documenting the
potential impacts of the more administrative action of eliminating the site's PD overlay,the details of that EIR analysis were
not necessarily relevant or used for tiering.
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.
See 18.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.
None.
19. SOURCE REFERENCES
I. I City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Map&Regulations,February 2000.
Attachments:
vtcnJ=M"
3-17
cr �,
o�
eP
ZIN
VICINITY MAP R 51 -02
999 Monterey
A
3-18
SAN LUIS OBISPO Attachment 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 81 2002
CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, May 8, 2002, in the. Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California.
ROLL.CALL:
Present: Commrs. Stephen Peterson, Jim Aiken, Michael Boswell, James Caruso,
Orval Osborne, and Chairwoman Alice Loh.
Absent: Commr. Alan Cooper..
Staff: Community Development Director John Mandeville, Deputy Community
Development Director Michael Draze, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo,
Deputy Public Works Director Tim Bochum, Associate Planner Glen
Matteson, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
There were no public comments.
PROJECTS:
1. 999 Monterey Street R and ER 51-02; Request to rezone a site from C-C-H-PD
(Central-Commercial, with Historical Preservation and Planed Development overlay
zoning) to C-C-H (Central-Commercial, with an Historical Preservation overlaying
zoning), and environmental review; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Community Development Director John Mandeville presented the staff report asking the
Commission to review the initial study of environmental impact, and recommended
approval of the amendment to the City Council, based on findings, which he outlined.
He clarified they are asking the Commission to make a recommendation to the City
Council on the Negative Declaration and on the proposal to remove the PD overlay
zone.
Commr. Caruso asked what the zoning was prior to 1989.
Director Mandeville explained it was Central-Commercial, with a PD overlay zoning
attached to it.
Commr. Caruso noted it is returning to the pre-1989 zone.
3-19
Planning Commission Mi. _ es Attachment 3
May 8,2002
Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no public comments.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Aiken moved that the Commission accept staff's recommendation and
recommend the City Council approve the zone change to C-C-H, in accordance with the
findings listed in the staff report. Seconded by Commr. Caruso.
AYES: Commr. Aiken, Caruso, Peterson, Boswell, Osborne, and Loh.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commr. Cooper.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion carried 6-0.
Chairwoman Loh noted a correction on page 2 of the staff report, that the years have
been 13 and not 12, and requested a correction to the Initial Study page as well.
2. Citywide. GPA and ER 33-02; Discussion of the General Plan Housing Element
update; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Deputy Community Development Director Michael Draze presented the staff report
recommending approval of the draft work scope.
Commr. Peterson questioned if an outreach meeting was in reference to a Planning
Commission meeting or some other type of meeting.
Deputy Director Draze explained it means any type of meeting where the public has an
opportunity to be involved; some could involve Planning Commission meetings and
public workshops.
Commr. Peterson asked how the plan integrates consultants into the process.
Deputy Director Draze explained they would be bringing in consultants. He also noted
there would be a combination of staff resources in the department that would be
involved, and that student intems would be brought in to work on specific finite portions
of the project.
Commr. Peterson expressed concern that there is an outreach meeting at the end of the
work scope portion, and not another one shown until the end of the policy and program
development stage. He asked if another outreach meeting, including Planning
Commission involvement, be added in this section.
Deputy Director Draze felt it would be appropriate.
3-20
Attachment 4
ORDINANCE NO. (2002 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION
FROM CENTRAL COMMERCIAL WITH THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION AND
PLANNED DEVLOPMENT OVERLAYS (C-C-H-PD) TO CENTRAL COMMERCIAL
WITH THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION OVERLAY (C-C-H) FOR THE COURT
STREET PARKING LOT LOCATED AT 999 MONTEREY STREET (R 51-02)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 8, 2002 and
recommended approval of the amendment to the City's Zoning Map; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 2, 2002 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed revisions are consistent with the
General Plan,the purposes of the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission;and
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative
Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed
map amendment to the Zoning Regulations, and reflects the independent judgment of the City
Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following findings:
1. The proposed zoning amendment will not result in any changes to the required property
development standards or range of allowed uses at the site which would result in
potential impacts on, or physical changes to, future site development.
2. The project is consistent with the General Plan, as the removal of the PD overlay has no
impact on the underlying zoning category of Central-Commercial, which is consistent
with the site's General Retail Land Use Element designation.
3. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department
on April 18, 2002, which describes significant environmental impacts associated with
project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not
have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
3-21
Attachment 4
Ordinance No. (2002 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 3. The Zoning Regulations Map Amendment(R 51-02) is hereby approved.
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 2nd day of July 2002, AND FINALLY
ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of ,
2002, on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CityAttorney Jeff Jorgensen
L:\Copelands\R 51-02(Council Ordinance)
3-22