HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/01/2004, PH3 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR PROP lJ �
council ^�Dm -
j accnaa REpont �1�N 4�3
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct
Prepared By: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1231 LAUREL LANE (GP/R/ER 121-03).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Draft Resolution "A", conceptually approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact (ER 121-03) and amendment to the City's Land Use Element Map and
Zoning Map designations from Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) to High Density Residential
(R-4), which directs staff to return the project to the Council at the July 6, 2004; regular meeting,
to formally adopt a resolution and ordinance for the project.
DISCUSSION
Data Summary
Address: 1231 Laurel Land
Applicant: Paul Nagy
Representative: Steven D. Pults, A.I.A., & Associates
Zoning: C-N (Neighborhood Commercial)
General Plan: Neighborhood Commercial
Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended by the Deputy
Director on April 21, 2004 (ER 121-03).
Situation
The City has received an application for a General Plan amendment and Rezoning (GP/R) on a
16,545 square-foot parcel at the northeasterly corner of Laurel Lane and Southwood Street.
Specifically, the applicant would like to amend the property's land use and zoning designations
from Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) to High-Density Residential (R-4) to allow for the
construction of seven 2-bedroom dwelling units with on-site parking.
Planning Commission Action
On April 28, 2004, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the City
Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration with a modified mitigation measure and
amend the General Plan Land Use and zoning designations from Neighborhood Commercial (C-
N) to High Density Residential (R-4), based on findings (Attachment 4). Discussion was brief
and focused on the difficulty of the site to be developed as a functional commercial center on its
own and project consistency with the development pattern established in the neighborhood. The
Council Agenda Report–GP/R/ER 121-03
June 1,2004
Page 2
Commission found the project consistent with the General Plan because there is an existing
commercial center approximately 150-feet from the project site and additional neighborhood
commercial centers (Broad/Orcutt intersection) are located less than 1-mile from the site. The
Planning Commission staff report and draft hearing minutes are attached (Attachments 5 & 6).
General Plan Consistency
There are several General Plan policies that support the change in land use designation for the
property. Land Use Element Policy 3.2.1 states, "The City should have areas for Neighborhood
Commercial uses to meet the frequent shopping demands of people living nearby. Neighborhood
Commercial uses include grocery stores, laundromats, and drug' and hardware stores.
Neighborhood Commercial centers should be available within about one mile of all residences."
The modification of this site from a commercial to a residential designation would not adversely
impact the overall supply of neighborhood shopping opportunities for those living in the nearby
vicinity (Attachment 3). There is an existing commercial center located less than 150-feet away
from the subject site that includes a market, pharmacy, barber shop, laundromat, liquor store and
a restaurant. The existing neighborhood commercial center appears to provide enough shopping
to serve the neighborhood. In addition, there is an adjacent C-N zoned parcel under common
ownership that could be redeveloped. Also, other commercial centers (Broad/Orcutt intersection)
are located less than a mile from the site.
Neighborhood shopping demands are not expected to dramatically increase even though the City
is promoting alternative transportation and reduced vehicle miles traveled. Both the center and
adjacent C-N zoned parcel are considered underutilized and could be redeveloped in the future to
accommodate an increase in shopping demands. In addition, expanding the existing center to
include the subject site and adjacent lot to the east is complicated by the fact that there are
multiple landowners, physical constraints and low demand for additional C-N uses in the area
(see Attachment 5, page 3,paragraph 3). Due to its small size (16,545 square feet), development
standards established for the C-N zoning district and estimated parking requirements for typical
C-N uses, it would be difficult to develop the site as a functional commercial center on its own.
The General Plan amendment, rezoning, and planned residential development are consistent with
Land Use Element policies regarding the conservation and expansion of affordable housing and
high-density residential development. The project would be consistent with Housing Element
goals, polices and programs on housing affordability and production (Goals 2.1, 6.1, Policies
2.2.4, 6.2.1, Programs 6.3.7, 6.3.9) (Attachment 7). The proposed amendment would also
increase the City's inventory of R-4 zoned land and increase residential opportunities in the City.
Conclusion
The General Plan amendment and rezoning is appropriate at this location based on existing site
and neighborhood conditions and surrounding multi-family zoning. The project site is only
16,545 square feet and is separated from the existing commercial center by elevation changes and
J-6rk
Council Agenda Report—GP/R/ER 121-03
June 1,2004
Page 3
a residential use, all of which contribute to the difficulty of developing the property as a
functional commercial center on its own. Conversely, a seven-to-nine unit high-density
residential project would:
1. Allow for continued convenient access to neighborhood centers.
2. Blend with the residential development pattern in the neighborhood.
3. Provide more potential clientele for the existing neighborhood shopping center.
4. Have site access from a residential collector street.
5. Result in fewer vehicle trips than a commercial use.
General Plan Amendment Schedule
State Planning and Zoning Law and City Ordinance require that elements of the General Plan not
be amended more than four times during any calendar year. Currently, the City has four separate
applications pending to amend the General Plan. More amendments will need to be considered
before the end of the year. Coordination is necessary to "batch" these requests together for
Council action. Therefore, staff is proposing the "approve in concept" process to combine these
current requests as one amendment. All four amendment requests will return to Council for final
action at the July 6, 2004, regular meeting, with formal resolutions and ordinances for the various
proposals.
CONCURRENCES
The Airport Land Use Commission reviewed this application on April 21, 2004. The
Commission found the proposal consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Amending the General Plan for this
location will not significantly alter revenues since the new designation will not result in a
significant loss of property within the C-N zoning district. The loss of 16,545 square feet of C-N
zoned land will not result in the loss of significant revenues to the City. The addition of 7-9 high
density residential units will not, individually or cumulatively, significantly affect the City's
fiscal stability.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny the General Plan amendment and rezoning based on findings of inconsistency with
the General Plan or other policy documents.
2. Continue action, if additional information is needed. Direction should be given to staff.
�-3
Council Agenda Report—GP/R/ER 121-03
June 1,2004
Page 4
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Land use and zoning map
3. 1-mile service radius map
4. Planning Commission Resolution 5392-04
5. Planning Commission staff report
6. Draft Planning Commission minutes
7. General Plan Goals 2.1 & 6.1,Policies 2.2.4 & 6.2.1 and Programs 6.3.7 & 6.3.9
8. Initial Study of Environmental Impact
9. Letter from Karen Saunders submitted by Jack Mckeen on April 28, 2004
10. Draft Resolution "A" as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff
11. Alternative Draft Resolution `B" to deny the proposed project
GAtcorey\CC\GPR 121-03 Nagy\GPR 121-03 rpt.doc
3-4
III IIIII
1
V
VAWA
• `�� II
/
r►•�' '� , - ob,
' P �
ve WV
• gV J�i wee~ � /�"�?•
�7 ,
cs� z,
'�'%�to �A '��iiuuuC.♦ `i•♦o\ `✓ J�.1t`J:
\\"�=111=� V 1 \P ♦♦ t\\`� \ ..
Iii♦ • // , O\�J ,\�' O Pt p``♦" -
.�\\�i�\\\ ��S \ ♦♦` i\\ \`\ ♦ �\•♦\\♦�,{..vim`_` ����t
\t ♦ .�p ♦O i, \\\\ .,'♦d J,."` ` �� . `'Ir0''\fit
ON
/ �.\�`\�.,\\ �O ♦\iP'' •.•. _ .moi ..!ii \•.,t
.__ RF
0-;• \, ',)��
qfa
■'�1""•IIIL'!_1111!9111 IIII.1 d
'1111ii• n 1 ,?? �i•p�I d/�% /��\�•�:\�
•�Inc-IIInZ nI`illll r 1"1 1 ��_ i� ♦♦•vO .♦.• %.O\ \\�.i O•a!• `—
� � - •/,1 \-_moi ' •••• ii ,i\', �p�:�,•ii1•�' 1�`;1I�.
=��=i='•11' .■' II -IIII u I � • �•\ ♦ .. ♦ ♦•
� Ili � Ir L �� • I ri�.� •1♦ V • . ♦♦ .•�?.
`III _-,11 �� ` - =t1 . ♦,• •dJ•• .�:J. • •• I/ ♦♦1
•� ■ 't�IL'IIII 111111'111111111/ IIIIIIblllllllllll!16 ,y •"_�f°•`�;a �o•i��.�I�:�: �� •�` '<.
i,., •' - 17r911111 I _1:• • \%'• •� ♦ ii .I•• t
' �,) 1 �. .♦':1,P` AIS r���,I p ,�,
.r♦ Ou nnm nu_IUJ . Illh_ ;b\\\���� �� , .,�.�����i, �J�
,.. ,T m i 11/11110 ,0,;.�,` Iir -`�. . ,•;.,.
���__ J Iw.,\i:►"i.'. 11111�IIIIIIIIIOIIIIII, ♦��" `` Amt '� � /!�Q�/. '
NS
Iry
� �r 11111 Illi�lllllll'�'llllll •• ���' ♦/�� 14 �11111�x'11,/ li�llllllllllll
�.tlllll III u1I111G ix.
�I„ .� „•. ul• ul . .
11.1111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� � -�I�■ � / P\`�.`��`. i�� l�• t \\11/♦ 1
all
va
� ,1�.rlllr�rllrrrrrrrr . �_ /�•,••,• rJ• �•• k i•♦
. u ��. �=ice `•`"•,•``,\•41!�n� ��•�•%
— 1 \ 1 �♦♦.,•um° SII``,•� . \
Iii,_ �unlnunnll■i� `: i.., .— ',��
•LP:Ir
. II � ,: ,..Irllllrr/01111111,- . ...,.`
;:� 111 1�,,—, ��iiir•�f -�� ` `` . ,,��, �sl/!�
–^ ■ mum- �� ,1-1111111\•�.�r•...�Illllli'i��•i.lrrrl�/, ♦♦%��/J
1
Attachment 4
RESOLUTION NO. 5392-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT
MAP AND ZONING MAP FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C-
N) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-4),AND MITIGAGED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1231
LAUREL LANE (GP/R/ER 121-03)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
April 28, 2004, for the purpose of considering GP/R/ER 121-03, a request to amend the City's
Land Use Element Map and Zoning Map designations from Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) to
High Density Residential (R-4); and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings in support of the General Plan amendment and rezoning of the site:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning is consistent with General Plan Land
Use Element Policy 3.2.1 because there is an existing commercial center approximately 150-
feet from the project site and additional neighborhood commercial centers (Broad/Orcutt
intersection) are located less than 1-mile from the site.
2. The property is not conducive to commercial development on its own due to the site's small
size (16,545 square feet), double street frontage, and significant difference in topographic
elevation that disconnects it from the existing commercial center.
3. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development
Department on April 21, 2004. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the
3 -g
Attachmmnt 4
Planning Commission Resolution #5392-04
GP/R 121-03
Page 2
project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project.
Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend
adoption of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council approval of application GP/R/ER 121-03, as shown on attached Exhibit A with
incorporation of the following mitigation measure into the project:
1. The Construction of future residential uses shall be accompanied by an acoustical analysis
(noise study) to ensure that interior spaces and exterior private use areas comply with
standards contained in the City's General Plan Noise Element.
On motion by Commissioner Loh, seconded by Commr. Boswell, and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commrs. Loh, Aiken, Osborne, Christianson, Miller, Vice-Chair Boswell, and
Chairperson Caruso.
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 280' day of April 2004.
onal isenand, ecretary
Planning Commission
� � 1
r . .
�. Attachment 5
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM#1
BY: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner(781-7169) DATE: April 28, 2004
pam fti�c� Fav
FROM: Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Director of Community Development FK
FILE NUMBER: GP/R 121-03
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1231 Laurel Lane
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment and Rezone for property located at the corner of Laurel
Lane and Southwood Drive; C-N zone.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached Planning Commission resolution which recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve a resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative 'Declaration (ER 121-03) and
amending the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use designation of
the site from Neighborhood Commercial to High-Density Residential.
2. Adopt an ordinance changing the zoning on the subject property from Neighborhood-
Commercial (C-N) to High-Density Residential (R-4).
BACKGROUND
Situation
The City has received an application for a General Plan amendment and Rezoning (GP/R) on a
16,545 square-foot parcel at the northeasterly comer of Laurel Lane and Southwood Street.
Specifically, the applicant would like to amend the property's land use and zoning designations
from Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) to High-Density Residential (R-4) to allow for the
construction of seven 2-bedroom dwelling units with on-site parking.
On November 5, 2003,the Planning Commission continued this item to allow staff, the applicant
and adjacent property owners to explore a Planned Development (PD) overlay and other potential
opportunities to develop a transit-oriented development (TOD) for the C-N zoned properties on
the northeast side of Laurel Lane. Since this meeting, staff has conducted additional research and
analysis, and met with the affected parties and the Community Development Director to discuss
how the project could proceed. Although initial feedback was encouraging, the adjacent property
owners were not ready to move forward with an application due to estate timing issues.
Therefore, the applicant has decided to move forward unilaterally with his original proposal.
The Planning Commission reviews general plan/zoning amendments and environmental
documents and makes a recommendation to the City Council, which takes a final action on such
requests.
GP/R 121-03 (Nagy) * Attachment 5
1231 Laurel Lane
Page 2
Data Summary
Address: 1231 Laurel Lane
Applicant: Paul Nagy
Representative: Steven D. Pults, A.I.A., & Associates
Zoning: C-N (Neighborhood Commercial)
General Plan: Neighborhood Commercial
Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended by the Deputy
Director on April 21, 2004 (ER 121-03). Final action on the initial study will be taken by the
City Council.
Site Description
The rectangular-shaped site consists of approximately 16,545 square feet on the northeast comer
of Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive. The property is vacant and the area surrounding the site is
predominantly residential in character with some commercial and community-serving uses in the
immediate vicinity. Surrounding uses include single-family residences, apartments,
condominiums, a senior-care facility, the Laurel Lane Shopping Center, a City fire station,
Sinsheimer Park, Sinsheimer Elementary School, YMCA facilities, and social services. Zoning
surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1).
Project Description
The project is a proposal to amend the property's land use and zoning designations from
Neighborhood Commercial (C-N)to High-Density Residential (R-4)to allow for the construction
of seven 2-6edroom units with on-site parking. If the Planning Commission and City Council
approve the request to amend the General Plan and Zoning designation, the applicant will need to
submit an application for Architectural Review in accordance with Municipal Code Section
2.48.050 for development of the proposed dwelling units.
EVALUATION
General Plan Consistency
The site is designated as "Neighborhood Commercial" on the General Plan Land Use Element
(LUE) map and the site is currently vacant. LUE policy 3.2.1 states, "The City should have areas
for Neighborhood Commercial uses to meet the frequent shopping demands of people living
nearby. Neighborhood Commercial uses include grocery stores, laundromats, and drug and
hardware stores. Neighborhood Commercial centers should be available within about one mile
of all residences."
The modification of this site from a commercial to a residential designation would not adversely
impact the overall supply of neighborhood shopping opportunities for those living in the nearby
vicinity (Attachment 3). As mentioned previously, there is an existing commercial center located
less than 150-feet away from the subject site. This center includes a market, pharmacy, barber
r
GP/R 121-03 (Nagy) Attachment 5
1231 Laurel Lane
Page 3
shop, laundromat, liquor store anda "• ,
restaurant. In addition, other commercial " -,�R d :
centers (Broad/Orcutt intersection) are
located less than a mile from the site. C-K`
r �.v
Since the area is fully developed with few
remaining vacant lots, neighborhood-
shopping demands are not expected to S �` ;4• ���, =,� ."` �" ''
dramatically increase. Both the center and
adjacent C-N zoned parcel are considered :
underutilized and could be redeveloped in u V?
the future to accommodate an increase in
shopping demands. In addition, expanding uth
the existing center to include the subject
site and adjacent lot to the east is
ri .'-`• 1231 Laurel(Proposed C-N to R-4)
complicated by the fact that there are
multiple landowners and physical
constraints. Due to its small size (16,545
square feet) and double street frontage, the
site could not be developed as a functional commercial site on its own.
According to the applicant's representative, Tim Woodle, this site has been reviewed several
times in the past for commercial development. Based on economic feasibility layouts, previous
property owners have not pursued development. After discussions .with local commercial
realtors and the owners of the Laurel Lane Shopping Center, Mr. Woodle has concluded that the
demand for additional C-N uses in this neighborhood is low (Attachment 5). In addition, the
shopping center owners have stated that the long-term economic viability of the center remains
uncertain. In recent years, the center has endured two bankruptcies and narrowly averted a third
for the market.
The GP/R and proposed 7-unit residential development is consistent with Land Use Element
policies regarding the conservation and expansion of affordable housing and high-density
residential development. The project would also be consistent with Housing Element goals and
polices on affordability and production. The proposed GP/R would increase the City's inventory
of R-4 zoned land and increase residential opportunities in the city. -
The site seems well-suited for the development of residential uses for the following reasons:
1) Adequate supply of edsting neighborhood commercial land in vicinity — As shown in
Attachment 3, the Laurel Land Shopping Center is immediately adjacent to the site and newer
commercial development is located within a mile of the site along Broad Street. Since the
surrounding area is mostly built out and the site has not been developed with neighborhood
commercial uses in the past, there does not seem to be a compelling reason to keep the site
reserved for commercial uses.
3- [�
GP/R 121-03 (Nagy) Attachment rJ
1231 Laurel Lane
Page 4
2) Compatibility with surrounding development — Most of the surrounding sites are
developed with housing; therefore, the addition of residential units at the site should be
compatible with nearby uses. If there is not a need for more neighborhood commercial
development, then needed housing seems like a logical choice.
Development Potential
This application to rezone the property would double the residential density value for the site.
Under the current C-N (12 du/net acre) zoning, the site contains a residential density of 4.56 units
and could be developed with a mixed-use project. In addition, the site could be exclusively
developed with residential dwelling units with the approval of an Administrative Use Permit.
With the rezone to R=4 (24 du/net acre) the site's density would increase to 9.12 units. The
applicant's current proposal is to develop the site with seven 2-bedroom units. At this point, site
development plans are very conceptual. If the GP/R is ultimately approved by the City Council,
then detailed residential development plans would be submitted for review by the Architectural
Review Commission.
Traffic &Circulation
Laurel Lane and Southwood Street provide access to the project site. The City's General Plan
Circulation Element designates Laurel Lane as an Arterial between Orcutt Road and Johnson
Avenue. Arterial Streets provide circulation between major activity centers and residential areas.
They have a desired level of service (LOS) of"D" and a desired maximum speed of 40 miles per
hour (mph). Currently, Laurel Lane has a LOS of"A". Southwood is designated as a Residential
Collector. Residential collectors collect traffic from residential areas and channel it to arterials.
They have a desired maximum speed of 35 mph, a desired traffic volume of 3,000 average daily
trips (ADT) and two travel lanes. Currently, Southwood has an ADT of approximately 1,800.
According to the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation Manual (sixth edition),
apartments generate approximately 6.6 ADT per dwelling unit, and .65 p.m. peak hour trips
(PPHT) per dwelling unit. Small commercial centers generate approximately 16.70 ADT per
1000 square feet of gross floor area and 4.97 peak hour trips GFA. If the site were developed
with commercial uses, it could potentially generate 418 ADT and 124 PPHT. If the site were
developed with seven residential units, it would generate approximately 46 ADT and 5 PPHT.
Based on this information, the proposed GP/R would allow a future project that generates
significantly fewer vehicle trips than a neighborhood commercial use.
Conclusion
The GP/R from Neighborhood Commercial to High-Density Residential seems appropriate at this
location based on existing site and neighborhood conditions. The project site is only 16,545
square feet, has a double street frontage, is separated from the existing commercial center by
elevation changes and a residential use, all of which contribute to the difficulty of developing the
property as a functional commercial center on its own. Conversely, a seven-to-nine unit high-
density residential project would:
3 -� 3
GP/R 121-03 (Nagy) Attachment 5
1231 Laurel Lane
Page 5
➢ Allow for continued convenient access to neighborhood centers.
➢ Blend with the residential development pattern in the neighborhood.
➢ Provide more potential clientele for the existing neighborhood shopping center.
➢ Have site access from a residential collector street.
➢ Result in fewer vehicle trips than a commercial use.
While staff is recommending approval of this request, it should be noted that future requests for
General Plan amendments and rezones for the remaining C-N zoned properties in the vicinity
may not be considered consistent with General Plan Policy 3.2.1 or supported. If similar
rezoning requests were pursued for those sites, then the particular conditions and issues at that
time would need to be taken into account.
CONCURRENCES
The Airport Land Use Commission reviewed this GP/R on April 21, 2004. The Commission
found the proposal consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Commission may recommend approval of the project with modified findings and/or
conditions.
2. The Commission may approve a resolution recommending that the City Council deny the
proposed GP/R, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan as specified by
the Planning Commission.
3. The Commission may continue review of the project, if more information is needed.
Direction should be given to staff and the applicants.
ATTACIIMENTS
1. "Ok"Mar
2.
3. 4MM op
4. Letter from the project applicant dated 8/28/03
5. Letter from the project representative dated 2/2/04
6. Letter from Andrew Carter dated 11/3/03
7.
8.
Attachment 5
Pad Nagy Construction
6050 York Mountain Road
Templeton, CA 93465
(805) 235-4131
[L ic_ 04383451
August 28,2003
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
Good Morning,
I am applying to re-zone the property I am purchasing-at the corner of Laurel Lane and
Southwood Drive(1231 Laurel). The property is currently zoned C N.
New City zoning regulations severely limit the types of commercial business that can go into the
C-N zone. With the close proximity of the Laurel shopping center(one lot away),I feel there is
no need for more commercial of this type. Commercial rentals will not do well on this property.
I have hired Steven Pults and Associates to do a feasibility study and preliminary design work for
a project there. They agree that commercial rental space under current zone regulations will not
do well on this property.
If I am allowed to rezone to R4,this property can become more useful and supply much needed
affordable housing to the City of San Luis Obispo.
We have R4 zoning across the street and R3 zoning to the south. I am currently discussing the
possibility of a zone change to my neighbors, and I will submit their input to you.
Thankyou,
Paul N
PC, Attachment 4
P� Attachment 5
February 2, 2004
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Paul Nagy FEB 1 7 2004
6050 York Mountain Road
Templeton, CA 93465
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Dear Paul, - —
I am writing regarding your property located at Laurel and Southwood within the city of
San Luis Obispo. We have completed a fair amount of research and analysis regarding the
subject property. Based on that research, we are prepared to make recommendations
regarding best use(s) for the property.
We have looked at this piece of property many times in the past. I was involved in
design of this site as early as 1985 when I interned with Greg Wilhelm, another local
architect. Our office has also done feasibility layouts for two previous owners.
Obviously, none of those owners chose to move forward with a project. Since you have
purchased the property, we again have reviewed previous schemes, and have taken a
"fresh" look at the property. I believe the reason that none of the three prior owners
chose to move forward relates to the current zoning, and adjacent development,
specifically the Laurel Lane Center. The current zoning is CN Neighborhood Commercial,
which allows a fairly limited number of uses. The Laurel Lane Center is also zoned CN.
Based on my discussions with the City, local commercial realtors, as well as the owners
of the Laurel Lane Center, it is my opinion that there is no market demand for additional
CN uses in that neighborhood. The Laurel Lane Center has struggled to remain viable, and
the addition of competing uses will further reduce its viability. There appears to be very
low demand for CN allowed uses in the area.
The other predominant use in the area is multi-family residential. As we both know,
housing demand is currently very high. The need exists for additional housing within the
community. State and community goals also are consistent in recognizing the need for
additional housing. This is an infill site, which, in my opinion is an ideal location for high
density residential. I feel that the most appropriate approach is a rezone to R4 residential
to allow an appropriately designed high-density residential project.
If you need any additional information, don't hesitate to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Tim Mark Woodle, AIA
Principal
Architedure,Planning&Grapbics
Cp
san4axObu�'po,�jorm 9ufte 3401
8051541-5604 PG Attachment 5
U.'S OBISPO
From: <ANCARTER@aol.com>
To: <mdraze@slocity.org>
Date: 10/31/03 10:26PM
Subject: 11/5 PC Meeting--Rezoning of Laurel &Southwood Property
J.-I Y N-VILOPMENT
Mike, 2
Please pass this on to the Planning Commission. Thanks. Attachment 5
Andrew Carter
Dear Planning Commission:
I am writing in support of the proposal to rezone the property at the comer
of Laurel and Southwood from commercial to high density residential. This
proposal fits the recommendation of the Housing Task Force which says that we
should seek to develop additional housing downtown, near Cal Poly,and along
major transportation routes. Laurel is a four-lane major transportation corridor.
This comer is served by both the#1 and#3 bus routes. The property is
also near important community amenities like the SLO Fresh shopping center,
Sinsheimer School,the City Swim Center,the YMCA, and Sinsheimer and Johnson
Parks. There is already high density residential next door on Southwood and across
the street. Incidentally, I live near by on Woodside Drive and I am not
concerned about the increased density near my house. My only hope is that, if you
approve this rezoning,the resulting project will be better designed than the
one nearby behind the fire house on Augusta.
Andrew Carter
PG Attachment 6
Attachment 6
Draft
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 28 2004
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, April 28, 2004, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Andrea Miller, Orval Osborne, Michael Boswell, Alice Loh,
Jim Aiken, and Chairperson James Caruso
Absent: None
Staff: Associate Planner Tyler Corey, Deputy Community Development
Directors Michael Draze and Ronald Whisenand, Utilities Director John
Moss, Principal Transportation Planner Peggy Mandeville, Community
Development Director John Mandeville, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo,
and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce
ACCEPTANCE OF THE.AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Don Hedrick, 3661 Sacramento Drive, questioned if the Planning Commission was
going to receive public testimony on the project at 3592 Broad Street.
It was noted that the project will be continued to the May 12, 2004 meeting, and
comments will be received at that time.
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, paid a tribute to Mr. Alex Madonna.
There were no further comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. 1231 Laurel Lane. GP/R/ER 121-03; Request to change the General Plan
designation and rezone property from Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) zone to
High Density Residential (R-4) zone, including Environmental Review; Paul Nagy,
applicant. (Tyler Corey)
Deputy Director Ronald Whisenand presented the staff report requesting the
Commission recommend that the City Council approve a resolution adopting a Mitigated
3, 12
Draft Planning Comm issionlCfinutes
Attachment 6
April 28, 2003
Page 2
Negative Declaration of environmental impact, and amending the General Plan Land
Use Element map designation from Neighborhood-Commercial to High-Density
Residential, and adopt an ordinance changing the zoning on the property from C-N to
R-4.
Tim Woodle, applicant's representative, gave a description of the project and addressed
the density issue.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Jack Mackee, 13050 Richard Street, (adjacent property owner) voiced his opinion that
the property is not large enough for commercial shopping. He noted a letter had been
sent to the Planning Department from his sister, Karen Sonders, which he referred to
and agreed with her comments.
Rosemary Karen, 1743 Southwood Drive, noted there are only two acres of C-N zoned
property that is not developed in this area, and suggested the Commission look
carefully at C-N zones..
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Loh moved the staff recommendation. Seconded by Vice-Chair Boswell.
AYES: Commrs. Loh, Boswell, Aiken, Miller, Loh. Christianson, Osborne & Caruso
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 7:0 vote.
Planner Corey noted there is a mitigation measure on noise that should be modified.
Commr. Aiken moved that the noise mitigation measure be modified in the motion.
Seconded by Commr. Christianson.
AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Christian, Miller, Osborne, Loh, Boswell, & Caruso.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 7:0 vote.
3 449
_J Attachment 7
Housing Element Goals, Policies & Programs
Goals
Goal 2.1 Affordability. Accommodate affordable housing production that helps
meet the City's Quantified Objectives.
Goal 6.1 Housing Production. Plan for new housing to meet the full range of
community housing needs.
Policies
2.2.4 Encourage housing production for all financial strata of the City's population,
in the proportions shown in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, for the
2001 —2009 planning period. These proportions are: very low income, 34 %;
low income, 19 %; moderate income, 20 %; above moderate income, 27 %.
6.2.1 Consistent with the growth management portion of its Land Use Element and the
availability of adequate resources, the City will plan to accommodate up to 2,909
exempt and non-exempt dwelling units between January 2001 and July 2009. Cal
Poly University intends to provide up to 1,178 housing units on State land during
the planning period.
Programs
6.3.7 Consider amendments to the General Plan to rezone commercial,
manufacturing or public facility zoned areas for residential use, to promote
higher-density, infill or mixed-use housing where land development patterns
are no longer valid and where impact to Low Density Residential areas is
minimal. For example, areas to be considered for possible rezoning include,
but are not limited to the following sites (shown in Figure 1):
a) Little Italy district and portions of Broad Street corridor
b) Mid-Higuera corridor, between Fontana Avenue and Prado Road
c) 791/861 Orcutt Road
d)West side of Ferrini Road, between Cerro Romauldo and Felton Way
e) 3730 South Higuera Street
f) 1642 Johnson Avenue and 1499 San Luis Drive (rezone vacant and
underutilized school district
6.3.9 Balance City efforts to encourage residential development by focusing as
much on infill development and densification within City Limits as on
annexation of new residential land.
Attachment 8
��i�lfllialilin811' ' I IIIIIIIIIIIII •
►���IIIP,�IIh IIIA Wis OBISPOc, O san
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 121-03
1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment and Rezone GP/R 121-03
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, Associate Planner(805) 781-7169
4. Project Location: 1231 Laurel Lane
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Paul Nagy
6050 York Mountain Road
Templeton, California 93465
6. General Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial
7. Zoning: C-N(Neighborhood Commercial)
S. Description of the Project:
General Plan Amendment and Rezone to change the property's designation from Neighborhood
Commercial to High-Density Residential to accommodate a future residential development
project.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site consists of approximately 0.38 acres
(16,545 square feet) located on the northeast corner of Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive. The
site is vacant with a less than 5% slope. Vegetation is limited to seasonal grasses. No rare or
endangered species were observed on the site as it has been disturbed by past human activities.
The project area is predominantly residential in character with some commercial and community-
serving uses in the immediate area. Surrounding uses include single-family residences,
apartments, condominiums, a senior-care facility, the Laurel Lane Shopping Center, a City fire
station, Sinsheimer Park, Sinsheimer Elementary School, YMCA facilities, and social services.
OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. c '
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
/ N
Attachment 8
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
The applicant is requesting a General Plan (Land Use Map) amendment and rezone. Future
applications to be reviewed by the City include: architectural review of a seven to nine unit
multi-family residential project.
It. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Airport Land Use Commission
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004
Attachment 8
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 X Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing
Resources
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence.before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004
30%
1 aj
® Attachment 8
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation-
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, X
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,_nothin further is required.
April 21,2004,
SignatureF8ftkaia A•44d
Date
�r
Ronald Whisenand,Deputy Director of Community Development For:-John Mandeville,
Printed Name Community Development Director
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIspo 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004
Attachment 8
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 takeaccountof the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more'Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made; an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of
Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the'discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
�i CrrY OF SAN LUIS Omsao 5 INITIAL STUDY.ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004
Attachment 8
Issues, Discussion and Supp�)t, .nformation Sources Sources L,. .(y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 121-03 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited 1,11 X
to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings
within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 1,11 X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,which would 1,12 X
adverse!y affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) Laurel Lane is considered a road of moderate scenic value as designated within the General Plan Circulation
Element. The scenic value of the roadway is recognized by the views of local hillsides.
The General Plan Amendment/rezoning (GPA/R) will allow for the development of a high-density residential project with
buildings up to 35 feet in height. The current C-N zoning allows buildings with the same 35-foot maximum height limit.
Therefore,the zone change will not significantly impact the proposed scale of development which could impact views. Future
site development will require review by the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC), which will address/mitigate the
project's impacts to views and other potential aesthetic issues like light/glare to a less than significant level.
Conclusion:Less than significant impact.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of 14 X
Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a 10 X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to 12 X
their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
Evaluation
a) b) c)The site is a small parcel that is surrounded by developed properties and public streets. The Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency designates this property as Urban Land. There is no Williamson Act
contract in effect on the project site. No impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources are anticipated with
development of the project site.
Conclusion:No impact.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 12,15, X
existing or projected air quality violation? 16
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 12,15, X
quality plan? 16
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 12 X
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 12 X
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 12,15, X
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an 16
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKuST 2004
J — CJS
Attachment 8
Issues, Discussion and Supp .nformation Sources Sources .ty potentially Less matt No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 121-03 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco rated
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Evaluation
a) b)c) e) San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State PMIo(fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in
diameter)air quality standard. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced
by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was
developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District(APCD) to meet that requirement.The CAP is a comprehensive
planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor
vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.19.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan.
Short-term Impacts: Future development of the site could result in increased levels of fugitive dust associated with
construction and grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy-duty construction equipment.
Compliance with the dust management practices contained in Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 7004 (b)) will
adequately mitigate short-term impacts. Those measures are:
(A) A demolition permit must be approved prior to commencement of any demolition activities at the property. The
demolition permit shall list detailed methods of handling potentially hazardous materials such as asbestos. If
asbestos is present,a demolition plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Air Pollution Control District prior
to approval of a City Demolition Permit. The demolition plan shall contain adequate measures for the removal
and disposal of any hazardous materials such as asbestos.
(B) Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible
emissions from crossing the property line;
(C) Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the
property line;
(D) Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when
material is not being added to or removed from the pile;
(E) Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road;and
(F) Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped
vacuum device within twenty-four(24)hours.
Long-term Impacts: According to the Air Pollution Control District's(APCD)"CEQA Air Quality Handbook,"land uses that
cause the generation of 10 or more pounds per day(PPD)of reactive organic gases,oxides or nitrogen,sulfur dioxide,or fine
particulate matter have the potential to affect air quality significantly. A 50-unit apartment complex generates over 10 pounds
of these pollutants.
Assuming the site is developed with a 9-unit apartment complex, future development would be of a size that is well below
APCD's air quality significance thresholds. Therefore, the project and resulting development will not generate a significant
impact on long-term air quality impacts. It should also be noted that City Code requires any future project to incorporate
features such as required bicycle parking that will achieve the long-term goals of typical air quality mitigation measures to
reduce motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local residents.
d) No objectionable odors will emanate from the project.
Conclusion:Less than significant impact.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 12 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?
CITY OF SAN Luis OBIspo 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2004
3 - yl
Attachment 8
Issues, Discussion and Super,, .nformation Sources Sources _-te. ny Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #121-03 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco rated
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or 12 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 12 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 12 X
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation 5,12 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 12 X
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.)
through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or
other means?
Evaluation:
a), b) According the Natural Diversity Database of the California Department of Fish and Game, there are no species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on or near the project site, nor is riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified.
c) No tree removals are proposed,as no trees exist on the site.
d) The property is completely surrounded by urban development and the proposed GPA/R will not interfere with the
movement of any wildlife species or migratory wildlife corridor.
e) The proposed project will not conflict with any local policy protecting biological resources nor any adopted habitat
conservation plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan.
f) The site is not near any natural waterway and will therefore have no adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands.
Conclusion:No impact.
S.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the reject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 10,21, X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 22
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 21,22 X
archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 11,21 X
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of 23 X
formal cemeteries?
Evaluation
a), b)Based on review of the City's Historic Site Map and Land Use Information System,the project is not located on or near
a known sensitive archaeological site or historic resource.
c) There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project site.
CRY OF SAN LUIS OBIsPo H INRULL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLisT 2004
3 -A
At;techrr.ent 8
Issues, Discussion and SupF,J, .nformation Sources sources C,. .ty Potentially Cess Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 121-03 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) The project site is outside of the areas designated on the City's Burial Sensitivity Map as potential burial sites.
Conclusion: No impact.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the raiect:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 6 X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient 6,12 X
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 6 X
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
State?
Evaluation
a) b)The GPA/R will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or promote the use of non-renewable resources in
an efficient [Wanner. Future development on the site must comply with the policies contained in the General Plan Energy
Element. The Energy Element states that, "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventional energy
for space heating and cooling, water heating, and illumination by means of proper design and orientation, including the
provision and protection of solar exposure." The City implements energy conservation goals through enforcement of the
California Energy Code, which establishes energy conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction.
Future development of this site must meet those standards. The City also implements energy conservation goals through
Architectural Review. Project designers are asked to show how a project makes maximum use of passive means of reducing
conventional energy demand, as opposed to designing a particular image and relying on mechanical systems to maintain
comfort.
c)No known mineral resources exist within the project vicinity.
Conclusion: No impact.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOE S. Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the 25 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? 25 X
III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? 13 X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? 10 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 13 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 13 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 13 X
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life
or ro ?
Evaluation
a) c) San Luis Obispo County, including San Luis Obispo is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which
extends along the coastline from central California to Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, and
fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced northwest trending
ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004
3 �2ci
- Attachment 8
Issues, Discussion and Supl.-r., .nformation Sources Sources .,O,.. .dy Potentially Isss Than I No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 121-03 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act,the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special
studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to
constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County,the special Studies
Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults.The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near
Los Osos Valley Road.According to a recently conducted geology study(source 25),the closest(napped active fault is the
Los Osos Fault,which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because
portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time(the last 10,000 years),portions of the Los
Osos fault are considered"active". Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas,located about 30 miles to the
northeast,the Nacimiento,located approximately 12 miles to the northeast,and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone,located
approximately 12 miles to the west.
Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of"High Seismic
Hazards," specifically Seismic Zone 4,which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected
to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. New structures must be designed in compliance with seismic
design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. To minimize this potential impact, the
Uniform Building Code and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an
earthquake.
b) The site is basically flat and development of the site with residential,rather than commercial uses would not have any
greater impact on soil erosion or loss of topsoil.The Uniform Building Code contains standards requirements that address soil
erosion and loss of topsoil associated with future site development.
c),d) The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction,which is true
for most of the City, and the site contains highly expansive soils as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(2001). Recommendations included in a soils report are sufficient to mitigate potential hazards from building in these areas.
In general, the presence of expansive soils requires additional base for roadways and flat work and deeper footings for
building foundations.
Conclusion:Less than significant impact.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the r('ect:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 28 X
through the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 28 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 28 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 28 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 12 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 27 X
two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the 4,12 X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
Plan?
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004
3 -�
Attach me 8
Issues, Discussion and Supp information Sources Sources 41,...Ily Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 121-03 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, 4 X
or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed
with wildlands?
Evaluation
a) The project does not involve the routine use,transport,or disposal of hazardous materials.
b),d) The project site was originally constructed with a service station in 1962. The service station was demolished in 1978.
On July 25, 2003, the City reviewed the documentation and site investigation information for the former service station with
the help of the previous property owner,UNOCAL Corporation, and issued a letter of`clean closure"for the parcel. There is
no known contamination on the project site.
c) The project is about t/4 mile from an existing school site (Sinsheimer Elementary School), however, the project will not
involve hazardous emissions or include handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances or waste.
e) The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code§ 65962.5.
f) The site is located in Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) Zone 6 — Other land within the airport planning area. The subject
property is also located within an Airport Safety Area where aircraft operations are at 500 to 1,000 feet above ground level.
The ALUP requires general plan amendments and rezones to be consistent with ALUP Safety Policies when located within an
Airport Safety Area. On April 21, 2004, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) found the project consistent with the
ALUP and safety policies established for the Airport Safety Area.
g) The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshall and will not conflict with any emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
h) The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the site as having a low potential for impacts from wildland fires.
Conclusion:Less than significant impact.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the reject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 12 X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 12,19 X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(e.g.The production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 12,19 X
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters
(including,but not limited to,wetlands,riparian areas,ponds,
springs,creeks,streams,rivets,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays,
ocean,etc.)?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 26 X
a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
`M Cm OF SAN Luis OstsPO I 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004
3 - 31
Attachment 8
Issues, Discussion and Sup ,., information Sources Sources e,._..tly Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#121-03 Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 26 X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into 12 X
ground or surface waters?
i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, 12 X
temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity?
Evaluation
a), b) The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Future site development will
be served by the City's sewer and water systems and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources.
c), d)h) I) Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City's
Waterways Management Plan. This plan was recently adopted for the purpose of insuring water quality and proper drainage
within the City's watershed. The Waterways Management Plan requires that site development be designed so that post-
development site drainage does not exceed pre-development run-off. This can be achieved through a combination of
detention and use of pervious surfaces to increase water absorption on-site. Compliance with the requirements of the plan are
sufficient to mitigate any potentially significant impacts of the project in the area of water quality and hydrology. Future
development plans will be evaluated by the Public Works Department and must be designed in a manner that is consistent
with the requirements of the Waterways Management Plan.
e) f), g) The project is located out of the 500-year flood zone per the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map. Therefore,future structures developed on the property would not impede or redirect flood flows or occur within a
100-year flood hazard area.
Conclusion:No impact.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 1,8 X
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? 1,10 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 1,12 X
community conservationplans?
Evaluation
a) The proposed GPA/R does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The GPA/R would
change the land use designation of the site from Neighborhood Commercial to High-Density Residential to accommodate a
future residential project. The potential impacts of the rezone on the Citywide supply of Neighborhood Commercial
properties would be evaluated by the Planning Commission and City Council with their review of the project.
b) c) The GPA/R will not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plans.
Conclusion: No impact.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise 3,18 X
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
i� CrrY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 12 INITIAL STUDY ENv1RONMENTAL CNEctwsT 2004
3 -3�-
Attachment 8
Issues, Discussion and Supl y information Sources sources X11..Wy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#121-03 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne 3,18 X
vibration or groundbome noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 27 X
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Evaluation
a) According to the Noise Contour Map in the Noise Element, the project site is located within an area susceptible to 60-65
decibles (dB) Ldn due to transportation noise generated from Laurel Lane. Maximum noise exposure for residential uses is
45 dB for indoor spaces and 60 dB for outdoor activity areas. Development of the site with a residential project could
expose people to unacceptable noise levels,if not properly mitigated. The following mitigation will ensure that noise impacts
are identified and reduced to a less than significant level.
Conclusion:Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure:
1. The construction of future residential uses shall be accompanied by an acoustical analysis (noise study) to ensure that
interior spaces and exterior private use areas comply with standards contained in the City's General Plan Noise Element.
b) The construction of a future residential development project will temporarily increase ambient noise levels. This type of
noise is regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance,which regulates times of construction and maximum noise levels that may be
generated. If noise levels exceed the Noise Ordinance thresholds,the property owner would be subject to possible citations.
c)The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundbome noise levels or vibration.
d)The project site is located within Zone 6 of the ALUP,but is not directly in a flight path where occupants would be subject
to excessive noise levels generated from airport operations.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 12
(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 12 X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Evaluation
a) According to 2003 California Department of Finance (CDF) estimates, there was an average of 2.3 persons per occupied
household in the City of San Luis Obispo. Under the existing land use and zoning designation of Neighborhood Commercial,
the site could accommodate 4.5 dwelling units and 10 people. If the property was designated High-Density Residential, the
site could accommodate 9 dwelling units and 20 people. Based on these assumptions, the GPA/R will allow for a slight
increase in population and housing. While a slight increase in population can be expected, the anticipated increase is within
the General Plan's projection and will not induce substantial growth into the area or result in population exceeding local and
regional growth projections.The project site is vacant undeveloped land bordered by urban development, which represents an
infill development opportunity. This type of development is encouraged because it can take advantage of existing facilities
for water,sewer,storm drainage,transportation and parks.
b) The project would not displace existing housing since the site is vacant undeveloped land. The proposed GPA/R would
increase the City's inventory of R-4 zoned land, and increase residential opportunities for residents. Development of the
property with apartments or condominiums could be a beneficial impact on affordable housing. The City's Inclusionary
✓ir CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004
3 -33
Attachment 8
Issues, Discussion and Supp r y information Sources Sources ..a..guy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
ER# 121-03 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Housing Requirement requires that any future project with five or more lots or dwellings to either construct affordable units or
pay an in-lieu fee.
Conclusion:Less than significant impact.
13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 12 X
b) Police protection? 12 X
c) Schools? 12 X
d) Parks? 12 X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 12 X
f) Other public facilities? 12 X
Evaluation
a), b), d), e), f) As an infill site, adequate public services are available to the property. Whether the site is developed with
commercial or residential uses will not significantly alter the levels of public service available to the site. Future development
must comply with all applicable City Codes and State regulations.
c) The project could result in an increase in school-aged children if the site is developed with a residential project rather a
commercial project. According to the State of California Department of Finance estimates, San Luis Obispo had an average
household size of 2.3 persons in 2003. If nine dwelling units were constructed and occupied, the project could ultimately
generate 20 people. According to 2000 census figures, approximately 13.8% of the city's population is aged seventeen or
younger. Therefore, we would expect to find 20 X 13.88% = 2.7 (rounded to 3) school-age children living in this
development. It should be noted that the number of school-aged children might be slightly higher because multi-family
housing units tend to-attract young families. School districts in this state are separate governing bodies with authority to
collect fees to finance school construction and parcel acquisition. Section 65995 of the Government Code prohibits the City
from denying a development or collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district itself, to mitigate effects of
inadequate school facilities. Any effect that the additional 3 children will have on school facilities will be mitigated in whole
or in part by the districts per square-foot fees,charged at the time of building permit issuance for each home.
Conclusion: Less than Significant.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Evaluation
a) Future site development will add to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However, given the size of the
parcel and associated residential density (nine dwelling traits), no significant recreational impacts are expected to occur. Park
Land In-Lieu fees would be collected to insure adequate provision of park facilities for the new residents of the project, per
existing City policy, if a tentative map were pursued resulting in the creation of additional parcels. The City also collects a
Dwelling Unit Construction tax that goes to a Park Improvement Fund with building permits for multi-family projects where
further subdivision of parcels is not necessarily proposed. Collection of these fees help offset the impacts of new projects on
the City's recreational facilities. The project site is located near existing recreational facilities such as Sinsheimer Park and
Sinsheimer Elementary School.
CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004
3 -34
Attachment 8
Issues, Discussion and Supp�ir,y information Sources Sources .e.—lily Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 121-03 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b)No site specific development plan is proposed at this time. However, given the size of the parcel, future site development
is not likely to include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
Conclusion:Less than significant impact.
15. TRANSPORTATIONnRAFFIC. Would the ro'ect:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 2,12 X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 2,12 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 12 X
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 12 X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 9 X
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 2,12 X
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land 27 X
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise,
or a chanize in air trafficpatterns?
Evaluation
a) b) c) d) e) Laurel Lane and Southwood Street provide access to the project site. The City's General Plan Circulation
Element designates Laurel Lane as an Arterial between Orcutt Road and Johnson Avenue. Arterial Streets provide circulation
between major activity centers and residential areas. They have a desired level of service (LOS) of "D" and a desired
maximum speed of 40 miles per hour (mph). Southwood is designated as a Residential Collector. Residential Collectors
collect traffic from residential areas and channel it to arterials. They have a desired maximum speed of 35 mph, a desired
traffic volume of 3,000 average daily trips and two travel lanes.
According to the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (sixth edition), apartments generate
approximately 6.6 average daily trips (ADT)per dwelling unit,and .65 p.m. peak hour trips(PPHT)per dwelling unit. Small
commercial centers generate approximately 16.70 average daily trips per 1000 square feet of gross floor area(GFA)and 4.97
peak hour trips GFA. If the site were developed with commercial uses,it could potentially generate 418 ADT and 124 PPHT.
If the site were developed with nine residential units, it would generate approximately 60 ADT and 6 PPHT. Based on this
information, the proposed GPA/R would allow a future project that generates fewer vehicle trips than a neighborhood
commercial use. It can also be concluded that a residential development would require fewer parking spaces, which could
reduce the potential for future parking conflicts in the neighborhood.
f) Future site development will require review by the ARC for compliance with City's policies and standards
supportingtrequiring alternative transportation,such as,bus turnouts and bicycle parking.
g)The project site is located within Zone 6 of the ALUP,but is not directly in a flight path where occupants would be subject
to excessive noise levels or hazards associated with airport operations.
Conclusion:Less than significant impact.
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 12 X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 12 X
treatment,wastewater treatment,water quality_control,or storm
�� CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 15 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2004
Attachment 8
Issues, Discussion and Supp ny information Sources Sources a"Aly Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 121-03 Issues Unless impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
drainage facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 12 X
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, 12 X
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 24 X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations 24 X
related to solid waste?
Evaluation
a),b) The GPA/R will allow for the development of a project with slightly higher water demands. However,the incremental
change is not considered to be significant. This project has been reviewed by the City's Utilities Engineer and no
resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified. Future site development is subject to water impact fees which were
adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water supply, treatment and
distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it.
c) The City has adopted Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new development and land use
changes do not jeopardize adequate water service to current and new customers. Section 17.89.030 of the regulations states
that a water allocation shall be required to: "obtain a connection to the city water system for a structure or facility not
previously connected; change the use of land or buildings, whether or not a construction permit is also required; obtain a
construction permit." Compliance with the City standards and State requirements will assure that impacts to water supplies
are less than significant.
d) The City wastewater treatment plant and existing sewers in the vicinity have sufficient capacity to serve the project site.
The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. The on-
site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Impact fees
are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Facility. The fees are
set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of each new residential unit in the project.
e) f) Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californians dispose of
roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air
quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and
county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. The GPA/R will allow
for the development of a project with slightly higher solid waste generation. However, this incremental change is not
expected to create significant impacts to solid waste disposal. Future site development will be required to comply with the
City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehisto ?
As discussed in the biological section of this study, there are no species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
Crry OF SAN LUIS OBtspo 16 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CKECKLisT 2004
3 -3 �
Attachment 8
Issues, Discussion and Supl, rty information Sources Sources Xh..dny Potentiauy Las Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 121-03 Issues unless impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and
Wildlife Service on or near the project site, nor is riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified. With
regard to historical resources, the project is not located on or near a known sensitive archaeological site or historic resource.
There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project site, and the project site is outside of
the areas designated on the City's Burial Sensitivity Map as potential burial sites.
b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but X
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
futureprojects)
The impacts identified in this initial study are specific to this project and would not be categorized as cumulatively significant.
c)Does the project have environmental effects,which will cause X
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or
indirectly?
With the incorporation of a mitigation measure,the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on humans.
18.EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
N/A
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
N/A
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation 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.
N/A
19. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,August 1994
2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,November 1994
3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996
4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000
5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation Element,July 1973
6. City of SLO General Plan Energy Conservation Element,April 1981
7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,July 1996
8. City of SLO General Plan EIR 1994 for Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements
9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
10. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database
11. Site Visit
12. Staff Knowled e
13. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County
14. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/
15. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District,2001
16. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Air Pollution Control District,2003
17. Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation Manual,6 Edition,on file in the Community Development
Department
mai CRY OF SAN LUIS OBIsPo 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004
Aftachmpnt
Issues, Discussion and SupI,arty information Sources Sottrces l _y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 121-03 lssues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco rated
18. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook,May 1996
19. 2002 City of San Luis Obispo Water Resources Report
20. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development
Department
21. City of San Luis Obispo,Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community
Development Department
22. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma
23. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma
24. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element,on file in the Utilities Department
25. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990
26. Flood Insurance Rate Ma (Community Panel 0603100005 C)dated July 7, 1981
27. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan
28. 2001 Uniform Building Code
Attachment:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Land Use and Zoning Map
3. Clean Closure letter from the City and-spot soil density tests
REQUIRED MMGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM
I. Mitigation Measure: Noise
The construction of future residential uses shall be accompanied by an acoustical analysis(noise study)to ensure that interior
spaces and exterior private use areas comply with standards contained in the City's General Plan Noise Element.
➢ Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for architectural review
and building permit primarily by the Community Development Department staff.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBIsPo 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLisT 2004
3 -37
y
� j
1, F
'�V ,•.'r. ' '�'!� . �� 4� '. . \ `�� +: /-'"fir!/r. '�
,yam - �,�: � ,�;, ,c b ,� `!1 �.., •, ,,y.
�•C• 3�.� `� _ s.Y<{ I ,Ji I + 1. 1 \ �� — �i�1 'r
�.�` !� �•. . ,�.°. fit. _:+� c-� _ C,p�!r�py y�5��u ',���„' -+1`' �C 1� ,..gl=rte` ' '� l',:_
of
ip
gl
"Ito I
46
bk
or
-414Y
tA
Ir
• r �, a -awry k,.��.a,_i �l_ `,•. l_,5 `l
It
41.
JL
,
r 5 ��'^� • .�� J I ,-p�-) {� I��� ..•Y'i�~.re , � •����iv -•G�/ ! 'f.,4T� , A; •h;
Ar
44 1
rt. . 41. itt- lk
�- baa �T � •_^ r
; h
4
Attachment 8
�►IIaNillai�1118�1I������� �IIIIIIIIIIIII �
IIIII IIIII C, of SM 1UIS OBISPO
FIRE DEPARTMENT
2160 Santa Barbara Avenue•San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-5240.805/781-7380
"Courtesy & Service"
July 25, 2003
Mr. Paul Nagy
6050 York Mountain Road
Templeton, CA. 93465
Re: 1231 Laurel Lane(Previously Addressed as 1214 Southwood Drive) , San
Luis Obispo, CA. Former UNOCAL Service Station.
Dear Mr. Nagy-
Thank you for the opportunity to review the documentation and site investigation for the
former service station located at the address mentioned above. Site addressing formerly
identified the.site as located on Southwood Drive, but the City reassigned the street
address to Laurel Lane and current records reflect that change.. After a review of the
information and further investigation with the help of UNOCAL Corporation we are
issuing this letter of clean closure for the parcel located at 1231 Laurel Lane(previously
addressed as 1214 Southwood Drive), San Luis Obispo, CA. Provided that all of the
information is current and correct and that no contamination exists at the site we have no
further requirements.
If contamination is discovered during the course of grading or site improvements, soil
samples must be collected and.analyzed. If lab results exceed State.action levels for
Lead,Petroleum Hydrocarbons, or related compounds further requirements such as
excavation and verification samples would be required. Also, if there are impacts to
groundwater then monitoring wells may be required by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. Should you have any questions regarding this correspondence please
contact me at (805) 7814 383.
Sincerely,
o • a
D. Kerry Bo
Hazardous Materials Coordinator
cc: Mr. Corey Walsh, RWQCB
OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
L Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
37 41
^� Attachment 8
Central Coast Lab_.oiories SOIL MECHANICS
396 BUCKUY ROAD , 544-3776 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401
I
FOR: K.E. Curtis DATE: October 19, 1 J
P.O. Box 4977 LABORATORY NO. ;CI` s9DE-�
Thousand Oaks, CA 91359
PROJECT: Tank Backfill - Laurel Ln & Southwood, SLO, CA
SUBJECT: Spot Soil Density Tests taken in Tank Backfill
The tests were performed by T. Cox & M. Shorba of Central Coast Laboratories
on August 30 & 31 , 1978, and September 1 & 2, 1978.
I - Compaction and Density of Soil : ASTM Designation D1557
Material Maximum Dry Density Optimum
No. Sample Location Lbs./cu. ft. Moisture, %
1 Composite Tests 1-3 131 .6 8.5
2 Composite Tests 4-11 130.0 9.2
II - Field Density Tests :
Depth below Field
Existing Density Field Relativ(
Test Material Grade (Dry) Moisture Compactic
No. Test Location No. Inches/ Lbs/cu..ft % %
Tests taken August 31 , 1978
1 SE Sector 1 72-80 125.1 9.9 95.0
2 N Center Sector 1 72-80 126.2 9.1 95.8
3 SW Sector 1 60-68 126.8 8.5 96.3
Tests taken September 1 , 1978
4 NW Sector 2 60-68 123.8 8.2 95.2
5 S Center Sector 2 56-64 124.2 9.5 95.5
6 NE Sector 2 56-64 124.7 10.8 95.9
7 E Sector 2 48-56 123.4 11 .5 95.0
8 W Sector 2 48-56 120.2 12.1 92.4
Tests taken September 2, 1978
8A Retest of Test #8 125.3 12,5 96.4
Central Coas! laboratoi,,,s Attachment $
PROJECT: DATE:
LABORATORY NO.
II - Field Density Tests :
Depth below Field
Existing Density Fi.eld Relativ
Test Material Grade (Dry) Moisture Compacti
No. Test Location No. Inches/ Lbs/cu..ft % %
9 Center Sector 2 24-32, 130.4 9.7 99.0
10 SE Sector 2 0- 8 123.7 9.2 95.1
11 NW Sector 2 0- 8 126.0 10.3 96.9
Site inspection August 30, 19789 indicated excavation and clearing would be com-
pleted by end of day. Water intrusion into bottom of excavation. Subcontractor
informed to pump -out prior to backfilling. On August 31 ; 1978, backfill had been
placed in the bottom of the excavation. Soil was in an extremely saturated condi-
tion and. the subcontractor was informed that the saturated soils would have to be
removed. This was accomplished. Our tests now indicate that the minimum 95% com-
paction has been met.
The scope of this test program is as authorized. by Mr. Ken Curtis.
PAS:jak CENTRAL COAST LABORATORIES
(atrLickAlan' Smith, uality Control Director
Attachment 9
Karen Saunders
720 Glenandale Terrace, Glendale, CA 91206 818/244-1376
December 29, 2003
Tyler Corey
Associate Planner
City of San Luis Obispo
900 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: C-N Zoned Laurel Lane Properties
Dear Tyler,
Thank you for sending me a copy of your letter to Paul Nagy about the C-N zoned Laurel
Lane Properties. Our meeting on November 19, 2003, was encouraging and I appreciated
meeting with you and Michael Codron, Paul Nagy and his architect. The fact that you wish
to work with us to find the best use of the land for the city of San Luis and the neighborhood
adjoining it is reassuring. I was pleased when you said it would be possible to be more
flexible in the Planned Development Overlay for the property.
Therefore I was a bit surprised in your letter to Paul Nagy that you stated that if the shopping
center was redeveloped there could be no net loss in commercial floor area. I think, given
the history of commercial neighborhood zoning on that side of the city, that is unrealistic. In
the past years the size of the C-N zoning on Laurel Lane has shrunk as developers have
petitioned to re-zone their property until it has been compressed into 1231, 1241, and 1257
Laurel Lane...meaning we need to absorb the burden of the C-N zoning for the area. In
light of the problems encountered by the Laurel Lane Shopping Center-- including two
bankruptcies and narrowly averting a third one at.the market, a pharmacy which was finally
abandoned because it could not financially support itself, and the artificially low rent charged
to tenants to deter more bankruptcies -- keeping the same amount of commercial floor area
would be unrealistic and is not viable. Past history shows that other grocery stores in the
area (Southwood Drive/Johnson Avenue and on South Broad) have closed because they
could not do enough business to support themselves. In the past month we have had our
insurance carrier tell us they no longer wish to insure liquor stores.
I realize in an ideal world, the idea of a pleasant neighborhood market and shopping center
seem to be a wonderful idea at this location. In bitter reality, it has been very difficult to
keep the stores that are there viable.
Currently, we are not ready to submit an application to re-zone our property. We are in the
`- Attachment 9
process of researching the best use of the property and settling my mother's estate. Knowing
that we have some flexibility of what can be done to best develop the property would be the
biggest assist we could have at this time.
Very Truly Yours, �v
6
Karen Saunders
Successor, Trustee Rose Polin McKeen Trust
�D
CC. Paul Nagy
6050 York Mountain Road
Templeton, CA 93465
Oasis Associates, Inc.
Attn: Carol Florence
3427 Miguelito Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Steven D. Pults, AIA&Associates
Attn: Tim Woodle, Principal
3450 Broad Street, Suite 106
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Michael Codron, Associate Planner
City of San Luis Obispo
900 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Stephen Hall
756 Santa Rosa Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attachment 10
Resolution "A"
RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT AND REZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 1231 LAUREL LANE (GP/R/ER 121-03)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
April 28, 2004, and recommended approval of Application GP/R/ER 121-03, a request to amend
the City's Land Use Element Map and Zoning Map designations from Neighborhood
Commercial (C-N) to High Density Residential (R-4); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 1,
2004, for the purpose of considering Application GP/R/ER 121-03; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the recommendation
of the Planning Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following
findings:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning is consistent with General Plan
Land Use Element Policy 3.2.1 because there is an existing commercial center
approximately 150-feet from the project site and additional neighborhood commercial
centers (Broad/Orcutt intersection) are located less than 1-mile from the site.
2. The property is not conducive to commercial development on its own due to the site's
small size (16,545 square feet) and separation from the existing commercial center by
elevation changes and a residential use.
3. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development
Department on April 21, 2004. The City Council finds and determines that the project's
Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant
J� TtP
Attachment 10
Resolution No. (2004 Series)
Page 2
environmental impacts of the proposed project.
Section 2. Action. The Council does hereby approve the proposed General Plan
amendment and Rezone in concept, and directs staff to return the project to Council on July 6,
2004, with a resolution approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and
amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element Map, and an ordinance changing the zoning
of the subject property.
On motion of , seconded by , and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2004.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Diane Reynolds, Acting City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jon well, City Attorney
3-�'1
' Attachment 11
Resolution `B"
RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT AND REZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 1231 LAUREL LANE (GP/R/ER 121-03)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
April 28, 2004, and recommended approval of Application GP/R/ER 121-03, a request to amend
the City's Land Use Element Map and Zoning Map designations from Neighborhood
Commercial (C-N) to High Density Residential (R-4); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 1,
2004, for the purpose of considering Application GP/R/ER 121-03; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the recommendation
of the Planning Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following
findings:
[Council specifies findings]
Section 2. Denial. The General Plan amendment and Rezone proposed at 1231 Laurel
Lane (GP/R/ER 121-03) is hereby denied.
On motion of , seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
3 - 4
Attachment 11
Resolution No. (2004 Series)
Page 2
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2004.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Diane Reynolds, Acting City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney