HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/03/2002, PH 1 - CONSIDERATION OF THE CREATION OF A PARKING IN LIEU FEE ZONE IN THE DOWNTOWN AND INTRODUCTION OF MUN Continued From 8-20-02
council M°N ==
j ' acEnba Repom °�N� �-,- H 1
CITY OF SAN LU I S O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
Mike McCluskey, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Director of Community Development
Tim Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE CREATION OF A PARKING IN LIEU
FEE ZONE IN THE DOWNTOWN AND INTRODUCTION OF
MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS; OTHERIER 22-02
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, introduce an ordinance to print adopting a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (ER 22-02) and amending Chapter 4.30, Section
4.30.010, Section 4.30.150, Section 4.30.20 and Section 17.16.60 of the City of San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code creating the Parking In Lieu Fee Zone.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
As part of the goal setting session of the City's 2001-03 budget, the Council asked staff to
explore an expansion of the City's Central Commercial (C-C) Zoning District as an "Other
Council Objective." The specific narrative on the objective calls for expansion of the C-C zone
and its accompanying ability to pay parking in lieu fees, northeast to the railroad tracks and
southwest to the Marsh and Higuera Street intersection. This community objective was included
in the workscope for the update of the Commercial Zoning Regulations, which the firm of
Crawford, Multari, and Clark are drafting and is working its way through the planning process.
On April 9, 2002 the Council held a study session to discuss the issues of CC expansion and
gave staff direction on establishment of an area based zonal system for eligibility to pay parking
in lieu fees that is separate from C-C zoning. This report and its recommendation for conversion
of the In Lieu program to a boundary based program, along with expansion of the boundary area
is a response to that Council direction.
Council Agenda Report 1'-reation Of A Parking In Lieu Fee 2..,
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Seaarating Parking In Lieu Fees from Zoning
The City's current in lieu parking program offers the ability to pay fees "in lieu" of providing
required parking in the Central Commercial (C-C) zoning district only. The purpose of this
parking program is to recognize the historical pattern of development in a traditional downtown
setting, where buildings are constructed side by side at.the back of sidewalk and where parking
lots are not a dominant part of the landscape. Our downtown however, also contains Office (0)
and Public Facility (PF) zoned land. Zoning uses in these districts, which include various
cultural facilities and offices, are integral parts of our pedestrian.oriented downtown. Currently,
expansion of some of these cultural facilities is _being inhibited by their .inability to provide
adequate on-site parking. If the in lieu parking program is to address our downtown as a whole,
then there will be benefits to decoupling the program from C-C zoning and basing it on the
boundary of the downtown rather than an individual zoning district.
The Planning Commission and City Council have already identified the potential benefit of
allowing other zones besides the C-C zone within the Downtown area the ability to pay parking
in lieu fees. From an architectural perspective, it would allow for a more compact urban design
with ground level streetscapes being used for retail and office functions as opposed to parking
spaces. There are corresponding economic benefits as well from creating more commercial space
in the downtown area. Potentially increased private lease revenues and available floor area would
be the primary fiscal change from the proposed change. It also would provide the opportunity
for publicfacilities such as the Art Center and Children's Museum to expand their buildings for
cultural enhancements to the community. Without this parking option, expansion would be
impossible for these facilities at their current locations.
The proposed change to this program includes converting the Parking In Lieu Fee program from
a land use zonal based system (i.e. one that is directly tied to the City's C-C Zone) to an "area
based" system that includes other land uses. This area-based system (called the Parking in Lieu
Fee Zone) was determined based upon existing and potential futuredevelopment that staff
considers closely related to the Downtown Core. Zoning districts that will be included in this
new area besides Central Commercial (C-C), include Office (0) and Public Facility (PF). Uses
in these zoning districts include various public uses, cultural facilities, and offices that are
hampered by their inability to provide adequate parking on-site. The proposed program'w_ ill
require amendments to the existing Municipal Code related to the City's current in lieu fee
program.
In establishing the most appropriate boundary for arevised'parking in lieu fee program, staff
toured the entire downtown in order to determine where the "character" of the area would
support the establishment of an in lieu.area. The boundary of-the proposed area-generally-runs = .
from Pacific Street to the southeast, Santa-Rosa to-the northeast, Palm to the northwest-, and
Beach to the southwest(see map, Attachment 1). In addition, staff has identified several possible
expansion areas that could be added at a later date; as our downtown continues to evolve and
change. One logical expansion area would include any new areas that are zoned C-C as part of
the upcoming Commercial Zoning update.
t - Z
Council Agenda Report_ __eation Of A Parking In Lieu Fee 2,
Page 3
In Lieu Parking Boundary Expansion Issues
In the real world, parking demand and supply numbers are dynamic. While the City has
developed parking standard requirements, development factors such as: property value, potential
worth, construction cost and potential lease costs all dictate what amount of land will be
allocated for parking and/or building usage. Many of these factors currently inhibit the ability for
expansion of some of the cultural and public facilities in the Downtown Core because of their
inability to provide adequate on-site parking. To investigate the potential changes that could
occur if the current parking in lieu fee program was directed toward a geographical area rather
than a particular zoning district, staff created development scenarios for Office (0) zone
properties that would be included in the currently proposed modified boundary.
Because the O zone only allows for a maximum of 60% lot coverage, the three models reveal
that the probability of any property in the O zone paying 100% of its parking requirements using
in lieu fees is low. When faced with the ability to satisfy some of their parking requirements
within the 40% non-coverage area, most property owners will use those areas for parking (as
well as landscaping) instead of paying the current$11,000 per space requirement for in lieu fees.
The draft parking in lieu fee boundary area includes approximately 280,938 square feet of office-
zoned area. Applying the 40/60 split for lot coverage, the non-buildable on-site area would allow
for approximately 401 parking spaces. Analyzing these models to determine how many potential
public parking stalls might be required as a result of the changes to the proposed in lieu fee
program boundary reveals a range of 370-720 additional spaces that might need to be supplied
for the long-term buildout of these areas. As stated before, it is important to note that the actual
public parking spaces that may be necessary will vary dramatically due to factors that cannot be
easily forecast. These factors include property space lease values, property costs, alternative
transportation and access availability, etc. that may effect a property owner's decision to convert
open area to building square footage via the parking in lieu fee system.
Similarly, there are approximately 268,000 square feet of Public Facility (PF) zoned property
that would be included in the new in lieu parking area. Performing rough parking calculations as
done for the Office zone above would yield very similar future demands, somewhere between
400-800 spaces, depending on what building intensity is ultimately constructed on these
properties. Again, these numbers are a forecast of ultimate potential buildout of these properties,
which may not occur for many years.
Additional Parking Deficiency or Status Quo?
Obviously,a question that must be asked regarding the in lieu boundary issue is: Wilf the parking
in lieu payment by these types of uses (in addition to the current C-C zone) exacerbate the
current parking situation in Downtown and lead to acceleration in demand for.more parking
supply?The short answer to this question is both yes...and no.
-3
03
Council Agenda Report eation Of A Parking In Lieu Fee Z.
Page 4
Undoubtedly, including these new areas in an in lieu parking fee program will increase the
ultimate demand for new public parking spaces. As mentioned above, to what level this
additional demand must be satisfied through the actual construction of additional parking spaces
will vary tremendously on such factors as: building intensity, parking demand reduction (PDR),
trip reduction incentive programs (TRIP), transit ridership and bicycle/pedestrian levels. Both
public and private PDR and TRIP programs will reduce or defer the need for actual parking
space creation. The City remains committed to promoting these types of programs to reduce the
need for additional parking and more effectively manage our limited parking resources.
Two major parking studies have been conducted for the downtown area. In 1977, Wilbur Smith
and Associates conducted the first comprehensive review and forecast of downtown parking
supply and future needs. In 1998, this effort was updated by the draft Parking Downtown and
Access Plan (PDAP), which forecasts future parking demand based upon historical building
trends in the downtown area. The draft PDAP, which included a rather modest assumption of
parking demand reduction due to PDR activities, forecasts a need of approximately 250 new
parking spaces every five years.
Both the 1977 Wilbur Smith study and the draft PDAP included partial parking demand needs
for the Office and Public Facility zones that are included in this in lieu boundary change.
Therefore, the draft PDAP forecasts of the need for an additional 250 spaces every five years is
probably close to what actual demand of the O zone and PF-zone inclusion in the in lieu parking
program will actually create. The actual.impact of this program will-be that some of the future
parking projects, such as the North Area Regional Facility (NARF) east of Santa Rosa, or the
Palm/Nipomo structure may need to be accelerated to keep pace with local property
redevelopment. While it is difficult to exactly forecast what effect this program will have on the
public parking program, staff believes that most of the additional demand can be accommodated
through promotion of effective PDR and TRIP programs, and the.continued review and
programming of parking facilities as area demand dictates.
Currently, development projects under C-C zoning are allowed a reduction in parking space
requirements as part of the existing code requirements (generally 40-50% less than standard
parking requirements). Staff is recommending that parking space requirements for-O and PF
zoned properties that become eligible to participate in the in-lieu fee program continue to be
required to meet existing parking space requirements for these zones.:The reduction in parking
space requirements for C-C is intended to promote commercial redevelopment:in downtown and
also marginally adjust for the fact that each project will_not have dedicated parking for
employees or patrons. Because uses in the O and PF_lzone tend to have employees who are more
long term parkers, staff believes that allowing_a similar reduction f i.required.parking spaces for.
these uses is inappropriate because actual parking:demand for:these developments will remain
similar regardless of their participation in the in lieu program or not. Rather, staff believes that
projects in the O and PF zones that wish to seek a reduction of parking space code requirements
should be reviewed on a project-by-project basis.Wh6fi a project demonstrates that a long term
parking demand reduction program or alternative transportation program and monitoring system
are part of the project proposal, staff will be willing to recommendreductions in parking
requirements and the actual cost of participating-in the in-lieu fee program would-be reduced. It
is anticipated that employing this strategy will slowly:create privatized::PDR and TRIP reduction
l
Council Agenda Report- _.eation Of A Parking In Lieu Fee 2,.,
Page 5
programs that will lead to long term reductions in actual parking demand and not rely solely on
public PDR programs, that have been controversial in the past and not overly supported by
downtown businesses.
Code Amendments
Conversion of the parking in lieu fee program from the C-C zone based program to the proposed
boundary based program requires code revisions to the existing City Municipal Code.
Attachment 2 contains a legislative update to the existing Code sections that need to be modified
to implement the new program.
Environmental Review
The creation of an in lieu parking boundary for the downtown as well as the needed changes to
the City's Municipal Code, are considered a "project" pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). As such, environmental review will be required. Staff has prepared an
Initial Study and Environmental Analysis (see Attachment 4) dated April 11, 2002. The
environmental analysis did not identify any potentially significant environmental impacts that
would occur as a result of the formation of a downtown based parking in lieu fee zone. On June
26, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed these issues and by a vote of 6-0, recommended
that Council approval of the negative declaration.
CONCURRENCES
On June 26th,2002,the Planning Commission considered the issue of converting the Parking In
lieu Fee program to a boundary based system. A copy of draft minutes is included as Attachment
5 of this report. On a vote of 6-0 (Cooper absent)the following three recommendations were
approved:
1. Recommend City Council approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact for creation of the Parking In Lieu Fee Zone program.
2. Recommend to the City Council that payment of Parking In Lieu Fees be changed
from a "zoning based" (Central-Commercial zoning district only) to a "boundary
based" program and adopt the proposed Parking In Lieu Fee Zone Map as areas
where parking in lieu fees may be collected in lieu of project specific parking
installation.
3. Recommend City Council approval of ordinance changes for establishing the Parking
In Lieu Fee Zone.
FISCAL IMPACT
It is difficult to determine what, if any, effect the proposed change in the Parking In Lieu fee
program would have on the City General Fund or the Parking Enterprise Fund. For quite some
time the City has not used General Fund monies to provide parking in the Downtown area.
Council Agenda Report _,reation Of A Parking In Lieu Fee 21
Page 6
Instead, the Parking Enterprise Fund has been able to fund public parking projects and programs
through parking rates, fines and in lieu fees. It is logical to conclude that additional long-term
expenditures (not currently envisioned) of Parking Fund monies may be required if
redevelopment of properties in the expanded boundary area outpace historical redevelopment
trends of the C-C area. Staff does not believe that this will occur. Rather, as properties in these
newly included areas redevelop and opt to participate in the in lieu fee program, Parking
Enterprise fund monies will be collected through the program and there is a high likelihood that
many of the businesses will opt to create their own trip reduction programs to lessen the cost of
the in lieu fee program. Because a large portion of the areas were included in the parking needs
forecasts of both the 1977 Wilbur Smith study and the draft PDAP, it is envisioned that inclusion
of these areas in the in lieu program will not lead to a significant acceleration of parking
structure creation.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council has discretion and flexibility in the review and approval of this issue. However,
staff would caution that major changes to the boundary area might cause the need for additional
levels of review and delay the ultimate approval of the issue. Some alternatives the Council may
want to consider:
1. No change to current program—Continue to allow Parking In Lieu Fees only for the C-C
zone. The Council may deem that.the extension,of the in lieu boundary is too much for
current parking programs and that the current in lieu program is adequate in addressing
downtown objectives. While this, status quo alternative will not affect current program
levels, staff does not recommend this alternative because it does not meet the objectives
established by the Planning Commission and Council in the goal of expanding the
parking in lieu fee area and promotion of the public facilities or cultural areas of
downtown.
2. Defer modifications to the parking in lieu:fee program until a.later time. Again, staff does
not recommend substantial deferral of this issue because the objectives established by the
Planning Commission and Council for the,goal of expanding the parking in lieu fee area
and promotion of the public facilities or cultural areas of downtown would be delayed or
not met.
3. Modify the proposed narking in lieu fee boundary to include more, or less areas of the
downtown. The Council may wish to modify the proposed areas to be included in the
parking in lieu fee area. However, substantial modification to the proposed area will
cause additional levels of review prior to approval and might require increased levels of
environmental determination.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 —Ordinance (2002 series)
Attachment 2—Legislative Draft
n�Lo
U7 V
Council Agenda Report- __,eation Of A Parking In Lieu Fee
Page 7
Attachment 3 —Office Zone Parking/Development Spreadsheet
Attachment 4—Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Attachment 5 —excerpt—June 2e draft Planning Commission Minutes
[ACouncil Agenda Reports\2002 agenda reportsVn Lieu Boundary Council Final Report and Ordinance Change.doc
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE NO. (2002 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING CHAPTER 4.30, SECTION 4.30.010, SECTION 4.30.150, SECTION
4.30.20 AND SECTION 17.16.60 OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MUNICIPAL CODE CREATING THE PARKING IN LIEU FEE ZONE.
WHEREAS,the City requires that all new development provide adequate parking to meet
newly created demand; and
WHEREAS, the City currently has a parking in lieu fee program established for eligible
properties in the downtown with C-C zoning designation; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that other properties in the downtown with
zoning designations other than C-C may benefit by participation in a parking in lieu fee program
thereby promoting the economic well being of the downtown area and supporting policies of the
City General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission.
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
amendment, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby
adopts said Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. The Title of Chapter 4.30 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Chapter 4.30 PARKING IN-LIEU FEES
SECTION 2. Section 4.30.010 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
4.30.150 Purpose.
This chapter establishes fees in lieu of providing parking spaces within the Parking In
Lieu Fee Zone as established by Council through resolution, as provided in the zoning
regulations (Sections 17.16.060 of this code). Fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall
become part of the parking fund and shall be used solely for the development or maintenance of
parking that satisfies the demand requirements of-new development projects within the Parking
In Lieu Fee Zone.
oZ —O
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. (2002 Series)
Page 2 of 3
SECTION 3. Section 4:30.150 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal code is hereby added
to read as follows:
4.30.150 Parking In Lieu Fee Zone.
Properties located within the area enclosed by a bold solid line on the parking in lieu fee
zone map may pay parking in lieu fees as established by Council, in lieu of providing required
parking spaces as outlined in Section 17.16.060, and 17.42.020 of this code.
(Insert Zone Map Here)
SECTION 4. Section 17.16.60, Subsection F of the San Luis Obispo Municipal code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
17.16.60 Parking space requirements.
F. Requirements by Type of Use. Except as otherwise provided in these regulations, for
every structure erected or enlarged and for any land or structure devoted to a new use requiring
more spaces according to the schedule set out in this subsection, therq..shall be provided the
indicated minimum number of off-street parking spaces located on the site of the use.
The right to occupy and use any premises shall be contingent on preserving the required
parking. In no case may required parking spaces for a use be rented or leased to off-site uses or
used for other purposes.
Parking in addition to these requirements may be required as a condition of use permit
approval.
Properties located within the Parking In Lieu Fee Zone, as established under Chapter 4.30
of this Code, may participate in a parking in lieu fee program, as established by the council, for
all, or part, of the vehicle parking space requirements outlined in this chapter.
SECTION 5. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together.
with the names of the Council members voting for and against it, shall be published at least five
days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in
this City. This ordinance will 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 a meeting held on the day of 2002, upon motion
of , seconded by and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
� -q
Al utio"h TENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. (2002 Series)
Page 3 of 3
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
rge C' Attorney
' 1 -ID
,sem` :.�•.,•, ,, ,. ♦ �,. .�� •, :� ♦♦•♦, ::��
+` ���� - • ♦;;�1,t+ ♦�► ::,;.� moi♦ � � ♦�
Attachment 2
Chapter 430
PARKING IN-LIEU FEES FOR THE CENTRAL GOMAIERGIA16 Z
Sections:
4.30.10 Purpose.
4.30.15 Parking In Lieu Fee Zone.
430.020 Calculating feed
430.030 Change or cessation of use.
4.30.040 Ownership change-Dividing or merging properties.
430.010 Purpose.
This chapter establishes fees in lieu of providing parking spaces within the Parking In Lieu
Fee Zone as established by Council through resolution eek , as
provided in the zoning regulations (Sections 17.16.060 eaa 1020 of this code). Fees
collected pursuant to this chapter shall become part of the parking fund and shall be used solely
for the development or maintenance of parking that satisfies the demand requirements of new
development projects within the Parking In Lieu Pee Zone. .
(Ord. 1101 § 3 (part), 1987)
4.30.150 Parkina.In.Lieu Fee Zone.
A. Properties located within the area enclosed by a bold solid line on the parking in lieu fee zone
map may pay parking in lieu fees as established by Council, in lieu of providing required parking
spaces as outlined-in Section 17.16.060, and 17.42.020 of this code. .
Insert Zone Map
430.20 Calculating feesd
A. Amount of Fees. The amount of the fee for new construction additions to existing
buildings and changes in occupancy shall be established by resolution of the city council.
B. The number of spaces required by the change in occupancy shall be the difference
between the number required by the new use and the number required by the previous
occupancy.
C. The demolition or removal of all or a portion of an existing building and its replacement
with another structure of equal or less than the floor area of the originalbuilding shall not be
considered new construction for purposes of this chapter. However, all floor area in an amount
beyond that contained in the original building shall be considered an addition and fees shall be
calculated accordingly. Changes in occupancy which require additional parking spaces and
which occur in new construction or an addition within two years of final inspection of that new
construction or addition shall be treated as new construction or addition for purposes of this
chapter.
-/2
ATTACHMENT 2
17.16.60 Parking space requirements.
F. Requirements by Type of Use.. Except as otherwise provided in these regulations, for
every structure erected or enlarged and for any land or structure devoted to a new use requiring
more spaces according to the schedule set out in this subsection, there shall be provided the
indicated minimum number of off-street parking spaces located on the site of the use.
The right to occupy and use any premises shall be contingent on preserving the required
parking. In no case may required parking spaces for a use be rented or leased to off-site uses or
used for other purposes.
Parking in addition to these requirements may be required as a condition of use permit
approval.
Properties located within the Parking In Lieu Fee Zone, as established under Chapter 4.30
of this Code, may participate in a parking in lieu fee program, as established by the council, for
all,or part, of the vehicle parking space requirements outlined in this chapter.
- 'l3
ATTACHMENT 3
Attachment 3
Office Zone ParkingMevelopment Spreadsheet
Baseline Model—Area Shared
2 Story Even though zone allows 60%max
Office coverage,most of property taken up
Surface Parking(653)&Landscaping (195,774) by Parking and Landscaping(65%),
Total Land Area Office (35%) Parking Req'd: 653
280,938 Office Sq.Ft. : 195,774(95,890 X 2)
Figure Al
Current development potential of Office(0)zoned property that may be included in the upcoming Parking In-
Lieu Boundary Change
2 Story Mod. Baseline—Integrated
Parking & Office
Zone allows 60%max coverage,
(371 SPACES) (231,600 SQ.FT.) Parking is integrated with structure
S.P.(401)&L (60% Coverage) separate garage,and open area
Total Land Area Parking Req'd:772
280,938 Office Sq.FL:231,600(115,800 X 2)
Figure A2
Current development potential of Office(0)zoned property(with integrated structured parking)that may be
included in the upcoming Parking In-Lieu Boundary Change
2 Story In Lieu Fee—Off Site Parking
Office Zone allows 60%max coverage for
(337,126 SQ.FT.) Office,Parking is located off-site(out
S. P.(401)&L (60%Coverage) of area)
Total Land Area Parking Req'd: 1124
280,938 Office Sq.Ft.:337,126
Figure A3
Development potential of Office(0)zoned property with parking in-lieu fee program and public parking
provided by City outside of the O zones.
i��
Attachment 4
J
(�IIIIIIIIIIII) III
Cl of 511'1 luis oBispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 22-02
1. Project Title: Downtown In-Lieu.Parking Fee Boundary
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:
Tyler Corey, Planning Technician (805) 781-7169
4. Project Location: The proposed in-lieu parking boundary generally runs from Pacific Street to
the southeast, Santa Rosa to the northeast, Palm to the northwest, and Beach to the southwest
(Attachment 1).
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA.93401
Tim Bochum as representative for the City
6. General Plan Designation: General Plan land use designations within the proposed Downtown
Parking In-Lieu Fee Boundary consist of General Retail, Office and Public.
7. Zoning: Zoning within the proposed Downtown Parking In-Lieu Fee Boundary consist of
Central Commercial (C-C), Office (0) and Public Facilities (PF).
8. Description of the Project:
The City's current in-lieu parking program offers the ability to pay fees "in-lieu" of providing
required parking in the Central Commercial (C-C) zoning district only. In addition to the C-C
zone, the downtown contains Office (0) and Public Facility (PF) zoning. Uses in these zoning
districts, which include various cultural facilities, offices and housing are inhibited by their
inability to provide adequate parking on-site. The purpose of this parking program is to expand
these in-lieu benefits to other zones in the downtown area by making it boundary based, rather
than an individual zoning district. The in-lieu parking program will promote development in a
neo-traditional downtown setting, where buildings are constructed side by side at,the back of
�� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled inall of its services,programs and activities. f
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
Attachment 4
sidewalk and where parking lots are not a dominate feature. The program will require
amendments to Chapter 4.30 of the Municipal Code related to the City's in-lieu fee program.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Surrounding land uses include commercial, office and
residential uses in an urban setting.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
Downtown In-Lieu Parking Fee Boundary
Environmental Review
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
��� CITY OF SAN LUIS Ostspo 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
I— /�p
Attachment 4
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 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
The project requires review by one or more State agencies such as Cal Trans or the California Department
of Fish and Game and is to be sent to the State Clearinghouse for routing.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 2
OC-T /
Attachment 4
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 although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
April 11,2002
ignat a Date
Ron Whisenand, Deputy Community Development Director Community Development Director
Printed Name for
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL:CHECKLIST 2001
Attachment 4
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.
CRY OF SAN Luis OBIsPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECIUJsT 200
� Ila
I— ��
CX �t
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supportit,, .:..ormation Sources Sources Pot Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#22-02 Downtown In-Lieu Parkin Fee Bounda Issues unless Impact
9 rY Mitigation
Incorporated
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
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 buildings X
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?
Conclusion: No impacts to aesthetics would occur with the formation of the Downtown In-Lieu Parking Fee Boundary. The
boundary may in fact protect and improve the visual character of the downtown area by promoting neo-traditional
development and encourage a pedestrian oriented environment.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
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 Farmland, X
to non-agricultural use?
Conclusion: No impacts to agricultural resources would_occur with the formation of the Downtown In-Lieu Parking Fee
Boundary.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 1,3 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 substantialpollutant X
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X
pollutant for which the project region is hon-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment;area for the State ozone and PM10(fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in
diameter)air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced
by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The 1998 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was
developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District(APCD)to meet that requirement.The CAP is a comprehensive
planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor
vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan.
Motor vehicles account for about 40% of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone formation, and are also a significant
source of PMIo.Thus, a major requirement in the CAP is the implementation of transportation control measures designed to
reduce motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local residents.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENvutoNMENTAL CHECKusT 2001
r- V
a�8
- Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supportin, .aformation Sources Sources Pott. ::y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#22-02 Downtown In-Lieu Parking Fee Boundary l5stte5 unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Conclusion: No impact. Theoretically, the formation of the Downtown In-Lieu Parking Fee Boundary encourages a more
compact urban form and pedestrian oriented environment (and therefore, potentially fewer vehicle trips) the in-lieu parking
boundary could further the air quality goals of the Air Pollution Control District.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 1,2 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.Heritage 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 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 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.
Conclusion: Less than significant. The'area that will be affected by the Downtown Parking In-Lieu Fee Boundary is a
developed urban area. Sites that contain valuable habitat such as a creek and/or mature trees will be subject to an analysis of
potential effects on biological resources on a case by case basis as the properties within the boundary develop or redevelop.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,4,5 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?
Conclusion: No impact. The formation of a Downtown In-Lieu Parking Boundary will not impact cultural resources. New
development projects that may occur as a result of the ability to pay "in-lieu"parking fees will still have to comply with the
City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines and the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1,6 7{
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
CRY OF SAN Luis Carpo 7 INrIAL STunY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
1 ' ZI
7_ dt
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting ormation Sources Sources Potc _ Potentially Las Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#22-02 Downtown In-Lieu Parking Fee Boundary Issas Impact
Mittigatiigati on
Incorporated
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
State?
Conclusion: No impact. Development projects will continue to be evaluated in terms of energy conservation. The in-lieu
parking program encourages future development on already developed urban sites, rather than on outlying undeveloped sites,
and thereby support compact urban form rather than sprawl. The in-lieu parking fee boundary would encourage more
efficient use of non-renewable resources. New development within the parking boundary would still be subject to a finding of
consistency with City policies related to conservation and to compliance with minimum Building Code standards for energy
conservation.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 1,6 X
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?
H. 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? F7
Conclusion: No impact. The parking district boundary itself would not directly affect geology and soils. All new
construction and remodeling must demonstrate compliance with minimum building code standards related to foundation
design and construction,and vertical and lateral structural loading.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the r('ect:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 1,6 X
though the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous
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 X
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 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
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
Ali/ Crry OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 8 - INmAL STUDY ENvrRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 �7
- Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supportir,;, .aformation Sources Sources Pot, .,y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#22-02 Downtown In-Lieu Parkin Fee Bounda Issues unless Impact
9 rY Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
Conclusion: No impact. The formation of the Downtown In-Lieu Parking Fee Boundary would not directly impact the
potential for hazardous conditions.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1,2 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(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 X
capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or,
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
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) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
Conclusion: No impact. The formation of the Downtown In-Lieu Parking Fee Boundary would not directly impact
hydrology and water quality.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy,or regulation of 1,2 X
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
community conservationplans? '
Conclusion: No impact. The formation of the Downtown In-Lieu Parking Fee Boundary would not directly impact land use
and planning. In addition,General Plan poficies support continued preservation of the downtown core. -
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise 1,6 X"
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in _ X
CnY OF SAN Luis OinsPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2001
1- 23
O —
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting ..ormation Sources Sources POW. -_ ; Potentially Less Than No
Significant significant Significant Impact
ER#22-02 Downtown In-Lieu Parkin Fee Bounda Issues tiles: Impact
9 N Mitigation
Incorporated
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X
vibration or groundbome 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?
Conclusion: Less than significant. No direct impacts related to noise are anticipated. However, the in-lieu parking boundary
could encourage zones other than Central Commercial(C-C)to expand and develop closer to one another,noise as a potential
nuisance may become more of an issue to be carefully considered in project design and development. It should be noted that
the ability to pay "in-lieu" parking fees would not alter the development standards established for the zones within the
boundary.For instance,the Office(0) zone would still need to comply with a maximum lot coverage of 60% and height limit
of 25-feet.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly I 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?
Conclusion: No impact. The in-lieu parking boundary would encourage redevelopment of the downtown urban area by
allowing various zoning districts to pay "in-lieu" parking fees instead of providing on-site parking. As a result, this should
reduce some of the pressure to extend roads and infrastructure for the purpose of developing outlying areas.
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
erforrnance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 6 X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? ' X
f) Other public facilities? X
Conclusion: Less than significant. The in-lieu parking boundary itself will not affect the demand for public services. Future
development projects that may occur as a result of offering the ability to pay fees "in-lieu" of providing required parking on-
site will continue to be evaluated in terms of their potential impacts on public services.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or 1 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 havean adverse-
physical
dverse-h sical effect on the environment? -
Conclusion: No impact. The formation of the Downtown In-Lieu Parking Fee Boundary will not impact recreational
facilities and programs.
15. TRANSPORTATIONfRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial ifi relation to the. 1 X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? - - T7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
r - 24
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supportin, .formation Sources Sources POLI Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#22-02 Downtown In-Lieu Parkin Fee Bounda Issues Unless Impact
9 rY Mitigation
Incorporated
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 chane in air trafficpatterns?
Conclusion: Less than significant.The establishment of the in-lieu parking boundary could motivate redevelopment of some
sites with associated increases in traffic on surrounding streets. In addition, both on-site and street parking in the downtown
area could be impacted in the short-term, as there may be delays in the construction of new parking structures to
accommodate the in-lieu parking program. The in-lieu fund itself is used to construct appropriately located parking facilities.
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 1,6 X
Regional.Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X
treatment,wasterwater treatment,or storm 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 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?
Conclusion: No impact.The City's Municipal Code(Chapter 2.44)requires that development projects be evaluated for their
potential impacts on the City's facilities and resources. Projects may not be approved if resource deficiencies are identified,
unless the project includes correction for deficiencies.
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 ma'or periods of California history or prehistory?
The Downtown In-Lieu Parking Boundary itself will not degrade the quality of the environment. Specific development
projects associated with the in-lieu fee program will continue to be evaluated on a case by case basis for potential adverse
impacts.
b Does the prctiect have impacts that are individually limited,but X
CRY OF SAN Luis OsisPo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
1 - 26
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supportir,;, .,formation Sources Sources Pote. Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #22-02 Downtown In-Lieu Parkin Fee Boundary Issues unless Impact
9 ry Mitigation
Incorporated
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
futureprojects)
No cumulative impacts are expected to occur from the Downtown In-Lieu Parking Fee Bound
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or
indirectly? 1 7
No adverse effects on human being are anticipated with the formation of the Downtown In-Lieu Parking Fee Boundary. Any
potential indirect impacts will be evaluated with applications forspecific development projects.
18.EARLIER ANALYSES.Not Applicable
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.
No earlier analysis was used.
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.
No earlier-analysis was used.
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.
No earlier analysis was used.
19. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
2. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Ordinance,February 18,2000
3. 1998 Clean Air Plan, SLO APCD
4. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,October 1995
5. Cityof San Luis Obispo Historical Preservation Program Guidelines
6. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Attachment:
Map of the proposed Downtown In-Lieu Parking Fee Boundary
CITY OF SAN Luis OsisP0 12 INIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2001
-2(I
Pill
Sun
MAR
I VAV
PAP mp IWO OAP 'A
VA
VIA
'Flom
[A
N
DRAFT Attachment 5
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 26, 2002
CALL TO ORDR/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. on
Wednesday, June 26, 2002, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Stephen Peterson, Jim Aiken, James Caruso, Michael
Boswell, Vice Chair Orval Osborne, and Chairwoman Alice Loh.
Absent: Commissioner Allan Cooper.
Staff: Associate Planner Pam Ricci, Planning Technician Tyler Corey, Economic
Development Manager Shelly Stanwyck, Deputy Director of Public Works
Tim Bochum, Deputy Community Development Director Ronald
Whisenand, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, and Recording Secretary
Irene Pierce.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE MINUTES:
The Minutes of April 10th, 2002 were accepted as amended. The Minutes of May 22,
2002 were accepted as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, expressed her displeasure with mixed-use
development projects proposed in the community.
There were no further comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 999 Monterey Street. ABAN 192-01; Request to abandon the Court Street right-of-
way to accommodate the proposed Copeland's mixed use project; C-C-H-PD zone;
Tom Copeland, applicant.
Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the abandonment request and noted the
recommendation to the City Council to approve the abandonment, based on findings,
and subject to conditions.
Draft Planning Commission M,....ces
ATTACHMENT �
June 26,2002
Page 10
Chairwoman Loh asked if there are steps going up to the open space in the back.
Mr. Mitchell responded yes, and explained there is a retaining wall at the back so there
are steps to get to the open space for maintenance.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Art Murphy, 2974 Rockview Place, noted that he has lived in the neighborhood for 10
years and expressed his support for the project. He felt that it was a fine addition to the
area and would encourage more developments like this project.
Commr. Caruso asked the applicant why he changed his mind regarding the creation of
condominiums versus apartments.
Mr. Mitchell explained that it had to do with liability insurance requirements.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Caruso moved to approve the proiect as recommended by staff, and as
amended during the staff presentation, with the.addition of the condition 15. Commr.
Aiken seconded the motion.
AYES: Commrs. Caruso, Aiken, Peterson, Boswell, Osborne, and Loh.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commr. Cooper.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion carried 6-0.
4. Downtown. O and ER 22-02; Request to create an in-lieu parking boundary for the
downtown, and environmental review;City of San Luis Obispo Parking Division,
applicant.
Deputy Director Ronald Whisenand presented the staff report recommending the
Commission recommend to the City Council 1) approval of the Negative Declaration.of
Environmental Impact for creation of the Parking In Lieu Fee Zone Program; 2) that
payment of Parking. In Lieu Fees be changed- from a "zoning based"- (Central-
Commercial zoning district only) to a "boundary based".program and adopt the
proposed Parking In Lieu Fee Zone Map as areas`where parking in lieu fees may be
collected in lieu of project specific parking installation; and 3) approval of ordinance
changes for establishing the Parking In Lieu Fee Zone. He presented a .map and
pointed out the general boundaries of the district and gave a description of the proposed
zones.
Deputy Public Works Director Tim Bochum explained that he performed two different
parking analyses; one was for the office calculation and one was for the public facilities.
474
Draft Planning Commission M,...,tes
ATTACHMENT 5
June 26,2002
Page 11
Commr. Peterson complimented the staff on their report. He asked why the C-C up-
zone along Monterey corridor is not included.
Deputy Director Whisenand explained that this is a phased program and felt it would be
easier to make the first attempt with the boundary proposed but expansions would be
possible in the future with the adoption of new planning programs.
Deputy Public Works Director Bochum explained they don't know if the proposal to
convert these zones from C-R to C-C was going to be controversial, so they decided to
detach the two and address one at a subsequent hearing.
Commr. Peterson noted that as the properties in the Monterey Street corridor
redevelop, they have been putting their parking on-site. He expressed a concern that
they do not have the design character that the Commission would like to see there.
Deputy Director Whisenand responded that staff shares the Commission's concerns
and commented that over time, they may see a conversion happen.
Vice-Chair Osborne noted this would allow the payment of in-lieu fees instead of
parking on their site, but does not identify where the parking is. He asked if the parking
needs to be within this boundary.
Deputy Public Works Director Bochum explained there are no current limitations on
where parking can be constructed in the downtown.
Deputy Director Whisenand explained that the parking that is being provided to meet
the C-C needs are outside the present boundaries of the C-C district.
Vice-Chair Osborne questioned if the Council determines the amount of the in-lieu fee.
Deputy Public Works Director Bochum replied yes.
Vice-Chair Osborne noted that the in-lieu fee is currently $11,000 per space compared
to the Marsh Street Parking garage expansion, which is $40,000 per space.
Deputy Public Works Director Bochum explained the parking-in-lieu fees they currently
charge do not fully cover the total cost of providing structured parking in the downtown.
Commr. Caruso commented that. Pacific Street is an interesting street because it has
office uses as well as a residential component. He questioned how the continued office
and customers parking would impact the neighborhoods.
Deputy Director Whisenand explained one of the reasons they are limiting the
southeasterly movement of the boundary is to specifically address potential concems of
neighbored impacts.
Commr. Caruso suggested keeping the boundary where it is; mid-block between Marsh
and Pismo Streets.
� -30
ATTACHMENT 5
Draft Planning Commission Mh., Les
June 26, 2002
Page 12
Deputy Public Works Director Bochum stated that the Council has committed itself to
considering a parking district in the Buchon/Pismo area, which is contingent on the
Marsh Street garage occupying and relieving some of the parking pressures in this
area.
Commr. Caruso complimented the staff on the thorough analysis of this report.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Betty Campbell, 125 Trescasas Lane, Nipomo, noted that she owns property in San
Luis Obispo and asked if they had considered including her parcels in the zone. If not,
could they be added at a later date?
Deputy Director Whisenand explained the location of the areas that were surveyed, and
noted that it is a fluid boundary; as situations change, he felt there could be some
considerations.
Ms. Campbell asked what the downside would be for being included in the zone.
Deputy Director Whisenand explained that if a new use was considered on the property
and there wasn't adequate parking on-site, then they would have the ability to pay the
City a per parking space fee that would satisfy the parking requirements.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Aiken moved to approve the request, per staff's recommendation. Seconded
by Commr. Caruso.
Commr. Aiken asked for a clarification on what the equity is on the cost of the in-lieu fee
and the cost of the new parking garage.
Deputy Public Works Director Bochum replied that the Council has established a policy
of collecting a minimum of 40% of the cost of providing a new parking space.
Commr. Aiken noted that, from the standpoint of whoever is developing the office and
whoever is paying the in-lieu, they get no benefit from it other than they don't have to
provide parking on-site.
Deputy Public Works Director Bochum explained they displace their parking that would
be required on-site or they would make a choice of how much.they want to supply on-
site and how much they want to pay for in-lieu fee.
Commr. Peterson expressed his support of the motion and commented that staff did not
include one parcel that was questionable as to whether it should be in the C-C zone.
He presented a map and proposed areas that could be added in the C-C zone and
parking in-lieu fee district.
1 - 31
s
Draft Planning Commission h,.,,utes ATTACHMENT 5
June 26, 2002
Page 13
Commr. Boswell complimented the staff on their report and expressed his support of the
motion. He commented that an important principle is they are moving away from the
zoning to the boundary based. He asked if the in-lieu fee could be used for parking
demand management.
Commr. Caruso commented that he would support a portion of the map that was
presented by Commissioner Peterson, but expressed a concern with the southerly
direction of the expansion of the district.
AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Caruso, Peterson, Boswell, Osborne, and Loh.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commr. Cooper.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion carried 6-0.
Chairwoman Loh asked if the Planning Department and Public Works would consider
the possibility of expanding the area in the future.
Deputy Director Whisenand replied yes.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
5. Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast:
July 10th : Utilities Department changes to the water reserves and water for infill;
Discussion on parking and access issues;
July 24th : Potential hearing for Text Amendment on the Bed & Breakfast in the R-2
zones; Condo subdivision map; Use Permit on Hill Street and a proposal to have a use
go into this building.
August 7th : Special meeting to discuss the commercial zoning update..
August 14th: Copeland's Project for the_ final EIR, Use Permit.Review and any other
entitlements that come through this Planning Commission.
Commr. Caruso questioned what happened to the Sierra Vista Project.
Deputy Director Whisenand replied he has it on his list as coming back July 24th, but it is
questionable.
Commr. Peterson questioned if the Copeland's Project is coming the first meeting in
August.
Deputy Director Whisenand replied yes.
l -3a.
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
{-�Z
Lloyd Marcum D.D.S. Inc.
Scott Marcum D.D.S., Inc.
Practice Umited to Endodontics
1129 Pacific Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3301
(805)541-8731 Fax(805) 541-8047
Tuesday, August 13, 2002
San Luis Obispo City Council
C/O County clerk
City Hall 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Parking in Lieu Fee Zone
Dear Sirs,
Please read the following letter at the City Council meeting August 20th 2002.
Please voice my opinion against creating a Parking in Lieu Fee program.
Businesses in San Luis Obispo have for many years had to follow city ordinance
to provide proper parking for their businesses. To allow less than proper parking
only puts additional parking pressure on adjacent areas and businesses. Please
follow the existing ordinances and not create a larger parking problem than we
already have. Thank you for considering my views.
Sincerel Yours,
Lloyd Marcums DDS, Inc.
Practice Limited to Endodontics
Eol
UNCIL ❑ CDD DIP O FIN DIRO 0 FIRE CHIJ
CrATTORNEY D PW DIR
G'CLERK/ORIQ O POLICE
O 9EP HEADS D REC MR
LML DIR
RECEIVED ❑ HR DIR
AUG 16 2002
SLO CITY CLERK
/'33
��♦ �� � :���_„� ��'♦��► ��,�� . ice._;': '� ' �� ♦� � , �
,�� '� ��♦fir ���® ♦ . �;' f ,������`���♦
RON BARBIERI.D.D.S. RED FILE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MEETING AGENDA
August 13, 2002 � P42*a REM #�
San Luis Obispo City Council
C/o City Clerk
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Parking in Lieu Fee Zone
Please read the following letter at the City Council meeting on August 20, 2002 regarding
amending the municipal code creating the Parking in Lieu Fee Zone.
I'm strongly against creating a Parking in Lieu Fee Program. I believe it to be
shortsighted by allowing businesses to get by with less than the required parking spaces
and paying fees for a parking structure. This puts additional demand on the limited
parking available at areas adjacent to the newly created zone.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ron Barbieri, D.D.S.
RECEIVED
XO
CAUNCIL O CDD DIA AUG 14 2007
O FIN DIR
FC
CAO O FIRE CHIEF SLO CITY CLERK
TTORNEY b PW DIR
LERWORLG ❑ POLICE CHF
(3Pft EADS CI pEC DIR
Q( E3 UYIL DIR
O HFA®If
1 131 Pacific Street San Luis Obispo.CA 93401 ♦ 805/543-5321
/-35
• . s ♦ '�
��, ♦� �,.• ,�, �♦��j 4♦ ���� ♦,��.. �� .ani. �� _.���►
® ISI ♦� I♦ �. . , ,
-- RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
Y ITEM # �
EA HANDS-ON MUSEUM
1010 Nipomo Street• San Luis Obispo, California 93401 805.544-KIDS
To: San Luis Obispo City Council
From: Kathleen Wolff, Executive Director
San Luis Obispo Children's Museum
Date: August 28, 2002
Subject: Parking District Proposal
Regretfully I am unable to attend the "continued" hearing on the Parking District issue slated
for Tues. Sept. 3, 2002. Consequently I am submitting this letter on behalf of the San Luis
Obispo Children's Museum, in support of establishing an area based zonal system for eligibility
to pay parking in lieu fees that is separate from the C-C-zoning.
It is my understanding that City staff has recommended a "boundary based program, along with
expansion of the boundary area in response to Council direction. "
If approved, this action would provide an opportunityfor public facilities such as the San Luis
Children's Museum to expand our building for cultural enhancements to the community. As
stated in the City's report, "without this parking option, expansion would be impossible"for our
facility.
On behalf of the San Luis Obispo Children's Museum, I urge you to act favorably on this
recommended change.
Sincerely,
'6kCOUNCIL
�
AO
fathleen F. Wolff CAO
Executive Director bATTORNEY anti iN
SLO Children's Museum CLERK/0Rs0 Q, FbI..1cE ChF
0 "EA0 r' r I RECEIVED
XF1 I
T`�o" ... AUG 2 8 2Qd7
SLO CITY CLERK
Inspiring wonder and imagination since.1990
RED FILE
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council MEETING AGENDA
DATE)3•b .ITEM #1--If-1
From: Dave Romero:
Subject: Expansion of In Lieu Fee Zone - Item 1 - 9/03/02
The expansion of the in-lieu fee area is a positive step in meeting City goals of a compact
and efficient downtown and will move toward a quality of downtown envisioned in the
Downtown Concept Plan.
Expansion of the in-lieu area increases and accelerates the need for additional parking
structures at the edges of downtown. Just to keep even with the increased demand, the
City will need to build a new 250- space structure every 5 years. Despite extensive
efforts this past year, experience with Parking Demand Reduction measures have not
been successful, and as prudent managers we must rely on proven measures that will
create more parking spaces in structures.
The City is now concentrating on the Copeland and the NARF Parking Structures,
however we must start planning NOW for future structures in the SW area of the City.
Logical choices are at Nipomo/Palm and Marsh/Pacific (Wells Fargo). I urge the Council
to direct staff to move ahead with preliminary planning for these two structures,to enable
the City to avoid falling behind the need for parking in downtown.
One last comment: The need for additional parking will be ongoing in our City (if we are
fortunate enough to continue to prosper),therefore we must guard the integrity of the
parking fund and expend funds ONLY on parking related needs.
RECEIVED
SEP 0 3 2002
SLO CITY CLERK
�149Eq'L C',p itS ^�:
F
U CDD DIR
❑ FIN DIR
❑ FIRE CHIEF
❑ PW DIR
IG ❑ POLICE CHF
DS ❑ REC DIR
O UTIL DIR
`�
0 HR DIR