Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutER 26-99C1t/ Of An WIS OBISPO - PLANNING APPLICATIONDepartment of Community Develo me Development 990 Palm Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 • • Print clearly in ball-point or type only in the unshaded area. The back of this form has information about processing(r application 7ation 0 Applicant QOn P your application . PP 1'al' Z 1�.,i, ,Z. a h Day Phone Applicant's Address lQD 5an La rya Ya n n w-93-4-0 1 Representative (if any) / S KJA (k Representative's Address b�,�}Q�Q Q�� 3 p 3 Day Phone_-- Property Owner (If other than applicant) -t-0 l Owner's Address Day Phone Please indicate if all correspondence is to be sent to ❑ the applicant .B'{he representative ❑ the property owner. ❑ What do you want to do? What is your final goal? �r-�o�5�i9f Project Address AM f) n. Name of tract, development or business Legal Description: Lot_ I I Block Tract r7 Assessor's Parcel Number Present Zone APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE: I have reviewed this com- PROPERTY OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT: I have read this pleted application and the attached material. The information pro- completed application and consent to its filing. vided is accurate. I understand the city might not approve what I'm applyin f or t et c nditions of approval. Sign d 7 '/./s�f j/ G1 ��1 rli / Date Signed CtIEGK REVIEW APPLJCATION�sate D ? tezonin /P a^ U1 a Permit Variance Application received by /%ic.&i 1 (�r�a, Date 2 �� 74-87 W "I " ^(C) 1 5 f14 �tl \.l �t ( 01, I/6�fnsc ��.�a S ��i; ti., City of San Luis Obispo Department of Communi Development 990 Palm Street Planning Application San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7172 Project Address 3427 ROBERTO Parcel # 053-063-019 Legal Description CY SLO TR 575 LT 19 Zoning 1 M Zoning 2 Property Owner TEMPLETON MARGARET J In Care Of Owner Address 140 TWIN RIDGE DR SLO CA 93405-1000 Applicant Name LEON AND DAVID MAKSOUDIAN Day Phone( ) Address 1960 SANTA BARBARA ST SLO CA 93401 Representative KRIS WALTERS AND TIM RONDA Day Phone ( ) Address 641 HIGUERA ST 303 SLO CA 93401 Send correspondence to applicant X representative owner other (see file) Planning Services Summary Application # Type of Application Received Fee ARC 26-99 ARC review of a new auto service structure 02/03/99 $732 ER 26-99 Initial study of environmental impact for a new 02/03/99 $669 5000 square foot building for an automotive service business. Total fees $1,401 Received By MICHAEL CODRON Fee Paid by Representative (1,401) Assigned planner First Hearing SPECIAL INFORMATION Property adjacent to creek 0?i0.. ! . 12--39PM 101#5466 AO PLAN APPL FEES1401>0 INITIAL STUDY ER 26-99 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Maksoudian Auto Service Building 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: John Shoals, Associate Planner (805) 781-7166 4. Project Location: 3427 Roberto Court 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Leon and David Maksoudian 1960 Santa Barbara Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Services and Manufacturing 7. Zoning: Manufacturing OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. �� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. 8. Description of the Project: The project is the development of a 0.54-acre (23,646 square feet) site with a 6,000 square foot automotive service and repair building, parking, landscaping and various other site improvements. Primary access to the site would be a driveway from Roberto Court. No other access is proposed for the project. The 0.54-acre irregular shaped lot is located at the end of a cul-de-sac and is presently vacant. The site's topography is relatively flat with a 2 to 5% slope. On -site vegetation consists of annual grasses and forbs. Riparian vegetation is present in the perennial creek that runs along the site's northwesterly boundary. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The site is designated "Service and Manufacturing" in the General Plan Land Use Element and zoned Manufacturing (M). The site is bordered by a perennial creek to the north, Roberto Court to the south and two existing industrial buildings to the west and east. The project site is located in an area with existing and planned manufacturing uses, and is generally bounded by Orcutt Road, Broad Street, the South Pacific Railroad and Industrial Way. The site is surrounded by properties zoned Manufacturing (M) or M-PD (Manufacturing with a Planned Development overlay). The area to the north (beyond the creek) is vacant and zoned M-PD. In 1993, the City Council approved the Parkside Research Center --a research center for high technology oriented businesses —for this area. The areas to the south, east and west are zoned "M" and developed with service - commercial and industrial -type buildings. Use in the immediate area include: the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District facility (on the adjoining lot), an industrial building with three tenants (Creative Wood Work, Wighton's Refrigeration, Alasco Rubber & Plastic Corporation) and several warehouses for wholesale businesses. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Environmental and architectural review 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): Any work in the creek will require approval by the California Department of Fish and Game and the United States Army Corp of Engineers. No such work is proposed at this time. 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. Land Use and Planning X Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing X Energy and Mineral X Cultural Resources Resources X Geological Problems X Hazards Recreation X Water Noise X Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality Public Services j A Transportation and Utilities and Service f Circulation Systems There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish 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. X 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. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: 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, ther will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheets have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be X prepared. I find that the proposed project May have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at leas one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable lega standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis a described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, they WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided o Imitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed) I upon the proposed Droiect. SiiKature Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager for Printed Name EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: March 26, 1999 Date Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A"No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site aswell as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. Issues and Supporting Informa-L—i Sources Sources Potei, y Potentially Less Than No Maksoudian Automobile Service Building Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 26-99 Issues Unless Impact mitigation Page 5 Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1 X b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? X c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? 1,2 X d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land X uses? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or X minority community)? General Plan Land Use Element (LUE): The site is designated Services and Manufacturing on the General Plan Land Use map. According to the General Plan, automotive repair shops are appropriate uses in Services and Manufacturing areas. The proposed use is consistent with this policy of the General Plan. Zoning Regulations: The project site is zoned Manufacturing. City Zoning Regulations allow automotive repair and related services in the Manufacturing zone. Land Use Compatibility: No land use compatibility impacts are expected to occur because the project is the construction of an automotive repair building in an existing industrial park, and the proposed use will be consistent with the existing commercial - service and manufacturing uses in the immediate area. Final building design will be reviewed by the City's Architectural Review Commission to assure consistency with the surrounding buildings. Airport Land Use Plan: The project site is located within Area 6 of the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). According to the ALUP, the project is considered to be a compatible use in the airport land use zone. It is the practice of the Airport Land Use Commission to require all discretionary projects in Area 6 to grant an avigation easement to assure that these uses continue to be compatible with existing and future airport operations. The following mitigation will assure that the project does not conflict with the Airport Land Use Plan. Mitigation Measure: 1. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the County. Conclusion: No Impact 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? X b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area X or major infrastructure? Issues and Supporting Informat,,...i Sources Sources Potei _.y Potentially Less Than No Maksoudian Automobile Service Building Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER 26-99 mitigation Page 6 Incorporated c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? I I I I I X No impacts to population and housing are expected to occur as the project is an infill project which will not generate significant jobs that require additional housing. As such, the project will not exceed local population projections, induce substantial growth or displace existing housing. Conclusion: No im 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? 3 X b) Seismic ground shaking? 4 X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 4 X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 4 X e) Landslides or mudflows? 4 X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? Seismic Hazards X 4 X 4 X X San Luis Obispo County, including the City of San Luis Obispo, is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which extends along the coastline from central California into 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. Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones 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 the Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limits line, near Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study (source 16), the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about a 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", which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. To minimize this potential impact, the Uniform Building Codes and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. Liquefaction and Landslide The site also lies in an area identified by the Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan as being in the "R", Recent Alluvium, zone which has a high liquefaction/settlement risk and a negligible landslide risk. The Seismic and Safety Element (SSE) indicates that the site is suitable for development with appropriate hazard mitigation. The SSE requires a detailed study be conducted to evaluate the potential safety hazards due to liquefaction and to develop appropriate mitigation. Issues and Supporting Informat,. i Sources Sources Potet. y Potentially Less Than No Maksoudian Automobile Service Building Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER 26-99 mitigation Page 7 Incorporated Soils According to the Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, the soil underlying the site is classified as Cropley Clay (127) with 0 to 2 percent slopes. Permeability of this soil type is slow and the available water is high. Surface runoff is slow with a slight hazard of water erosion. It also has high shrink -swell potential. The Soil Survey states that this type of soil is suitable for development, but that foundations and footings should be designed to compensate for high shrink -swell potential and low strength. The following mitigation measure is recommended to insure that there are no short- or long-term problems due to the soil underlying the proposed development. Mitigation Measure: The applicant shall submit a details soils engineering report as part of the grading and building permit applications. The soils report shall consider special grading and construction techniques necessary to address the potential hazards associated with the underlying sub -strata. The report shall identify the soil profile on site and provide site preparation recommendations to ensure against unstable soil conditions. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report and the City's Grading Regulations. LConclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 5 X c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved X oxygen or turbidity? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? I X e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? X f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception X of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? X Drainage With the exception of the on -site creek and a small area adjacent to the creek, a majority of the vacant site drains towards the street. The site was graded as part of the original industrial subdivision (Tract 575). The project will potentially impact drainage by increasing the amount impervious surface materials and the possibly the flow of petroleum contaminants into the storm water system. Because the site is vacant and unpaved, the project will significantly increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site. This increase in paved surfaces will incrementally change the property's absorption rates and surface runoff. Compliance with the City's grading and drainage requirements will assure that the project's impacts to drainage patterns and surface runoff is mitigated to a level of insignificance. In addition, the General Plan Issues and Supporting Informai,_..i Sources Sources Potei._y Potentially Less Than No Maksoudian Automobile Service Building Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER 26-99 mitigation Page 8 Incorporated encourages the use of porous paving, landscaping, or other design elements to reduce surface water runoff and aid in the ability for surface drainage to percolate effectively into the soil (Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7). Using a central catch basin (in the parking lot) and drain pipes, storm water will be conveyed to the street into an existing storm water drainage system. Runoff from the parking lot will most likely contain some contamination from oil leaks from vehicles, which will eventually drain into the creek through the storm drain system. Without proper disposal and filtering, normal automotive repair and service operations could discharge petroleum -based contaminants into the storm drainage system. The discharge any pollutants (e.g. herbicides, pesticides, janitorial cleaning products, and toxic substances such as motor oil, gasoline, and anti -freeze) or heated water (e.g. from steam cleaning sidewalks) into a storm water system or directly into surface waters is illegal and subject to enforcement action by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The following measure is recommended to mitigate potential drainage contamination impacts to a level of insignificance. Mitigation Measure: 1. Oil/sand separators or other industrial waste pretreatment facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City's Industrial Waste Coordinator. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal. Flooding According to the Flood Emergency Management Agency (F.E.M.A.) Flood Insurance Rate Maps, a portion of the site is located within the Zone "B" of the 500-year flood zone. The 500-year flood zone area generally stays within the confines of the creek channel itself. City Flood Prevention Regulations requires that all projects in the "B" zones be reviewed by City Engineering to verify that the finished first floor level of the building is above the 100- year flooding elevations. Compliance with City regulations will assure that potential flooding impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance. Conclusion: Drainage: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance 6 X with APCD Environmental Guidelines)? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? X d) Create objectionable odors? X Short-term Impacts: During project construction, there will be 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. No further mitigation is necessary. Long-term Impacts: San Luis Obispo County is a non -attainment area for the State ozone and PM,o (fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter) air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non -attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The 1995 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 Issues and Supporting Informal,. i Sources Sources Pote,. y Potentially Less Than No Maksoudian Automobile Service Building Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER 26-99 mitigation Page 9 Incorporated industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan. According to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (source 6), 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. The CEQA screening criteria indicates that a 72,000 square foot light industrial building or a 110,000 square foot manufacturing building would generate about 10 pounds of these pollutants. The project size is below thresholds contained in the APCD's "CEQA Air Quality Handbook" for generating significant amounts of emissions. Therefore, the project will not result in a significant impact on long-term air quality. However, the project will 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. Conclusion: Less than Significant 1 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the ar000sal result in: I a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 7 X b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X X X X X g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan) X Traffic and Circulation Existinq Conditions: Access to the project site is provided from Roberto Court by way of Via Esteban and Sacramento Drive. Roberto Court and Via Esteban are local commercial streets which serve non-residential uses and direct traffic to commercial collectors. The City's General Plan Circulation Element designates Sacramento Drive as a Commercial Collector with a maximum desired traffic volume of 10,000 daily vehicle trips and a desired maximum speed of 25 miles per hour. Sacramento Drive runs from Industrial Way to just south of a perennial creek. According to the Circulation Element, Sacramento Drive is planned to be extended from its existing terminus (at the creek) to Orcutt Road at Duncan Lane. This would provide a direct route between Orcutt Road and Industrial Way. According to the City Engineer, Sacramento Drive, Via Esteban, and Roberto Court are operating within the adopted level of service for each roadway. Project Trip Generation: Project plans show a 6,000-square foot building with the potential to accommodate four tenants specializing in automotive services. Given the building's prospective tenants, the project could be described as an automobile car center. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (sixth edition), an automotive care center generates approximately 15.86 average daily trips (ADT) per 1,000 sq.ft. of gross floor area, and an average of 4.01 p.m. peak hour trips (PPHT) per 1,000 sq.ft. of gross floor area. Based on the trip generation estimates, the project would generate approximately 95 ADT and about 24 PPHT. The project will contribute to a slight increase in traffic on Roberto Court. However, the City's Public Works Department concludes that surrounding area streets can adequately accommodate the project's anticipated Issues and Supporting InformaL,...,i Sources Sources Potei. .y Potentially Less Than No Maksoudian Automobile Service Building Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 26-99 Issues Unless Impact mitigation Page 10 Incorporated vehicle trips without creating a significant change in the current Level of Service (LOS) for Robert Court or other roadways in the immediate area. Cumulative Traffic Impacts: Cumulative impacts are addressed by the payment of traffic impact fees established by the Circulation Element and later codified by ordinance. Parking: Automobile Parking: City standards require auto repair and related services to provide one car space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area. Since the proposed building is approximately 6,000 square feet, it has a parking requirement of 12 parking spaces for automobiles. Project plans show 11 car parking spaces. To meet its parking requirement, the project is providing five additional parking spaces to reduce the required number of car spaces from 12 to 11 spaces. With this parking reduction, the project complies with the City's parking standards. If a parking reduction is not approved, the final project will need to be designed to meet its parking requirement. Bicycle and Motorcycle Parking: City Code also requires that the project provide one motorcycle space and one bicycle parking space. Project plans show one motorcycle space and seven bicycle spaces (one exterior space and six interior spaces) which meets the bicycle and motorcycle parking requirements. Conclusion: Less than Significant 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, 8 X animals or birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? 8 X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? 8 X d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? 8 X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 8 X Endangered, Threatened or Rare Species The City's Informational Map Atlas indicates there are no sensitive plant or animal species on the site. Creek Preservation and Restoration The site's most important natural feature is the existing creek, which is a tributary to Acacia Creek. The existing creek corridor is identified in Open Space Element as a perennial creek with degraded riparian corridor, but able to be restored/repaired." The proposed project will not significantly impact the creek or riparian habitat because the building and parking lot will be setback 20 feet from the top of bank and the edge of riparian corridor, which was verified by the City's Natural Resources Manager. The proposed project complies with the City's creek setback requirements and is considered to be consistent with the City's goals and policies on creek preservation and maintenance. Conclusion: Less than Significant 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 9 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 9 X c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region X and the residents of the State? Issues and Supporting Informai,. i Sources Sources Potei. y Potentially Less Than No Maksoudian Automobile Service Building Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 26-99 Issues Unless Impact mitigation Page 11 Incorporated Energy 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. Buildings proposed as part of this project 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. To avoid using non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner, the following standard mitigation is recommended: Mitigation Measure: 1. Future site development shall incorporate the following as feasible: a) Skylights to maximize natural day lighting. b) Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation. c) Energy -efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use. Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, 10 X chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential X health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees? I X Hazardous Substances There are two potential hazard impacts associated with the project. The first is hazardous soils from past operations as a result of past hazardous materials use, handling or storage on or near the property. The second is the potential for the release of hazardous substances (i.e., oil) into the environment as part of proposed automotive operations. Hazardous Soils: In September of 1998, Earth Systems Consultants conducted a Phase I environmental site assessment to evaluate areas of potential environmental concern as a result of past use of hazardous materials on the site and surrounding properties. Using the State of California Division of Oil and Gas (DOG) Wildcat map W3-3 for San Luis Obispo County, ESC was able to determine that no oil or gas wells have been drilled on or near the property. The ESC report found that there are 14 sites within a one -mile radius of the property as having experienced a release of hazardous materials and wastes. However, based on their distance and directions from the project site, they are unlikely to present a significant environmental concern to the property. Issues and Supporting Informai—i Sources Sources Potei__ y Potentially Less Than No Maksoudian Automobile Service Building Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER 26-99 mitigation Page 12 Incorporated Automotive Repair Services: The new building will be occupied by automotive repair and service type businesses. These types of uses typically use hazardous chemicals in their daily operations. The primary concern is that if hazardous substances (i.e., oil, gas, coolant) are not proper handled and disposed there is a potential for them to be released into the environment. Installation of oil/sand separator and/or other industrial waste pretreatment facilities will assure that this potential impact is mitigated to a level of insignificance (see mitigation measure under drainage impacts). Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? 11 X b) Exposure of people to "unacceptable" noise levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 11 X Element? No noise impacts are expected to occur with implementation of the project because it is an infill project in an established manufacturing area, and there no noise -sensitive land uses (i.e., residential) are in the immediate area. Conclusion: No Impact 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X e) Other governmental services? X According to the City's Fire Department, the public distribution mains are adequate to serve the proposed land use with the additional protection of automatic fire sprinklers which are required as part of the project. Conclusion: No Impact 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? X b) Communications systems? X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? 12 X d) Sewer or septic tanks? X e) Storm water drainage? X f) Solid waste disposal? 13 X g) Local or regional water supplies? X Water Treatment & Distribution Facilities This project has been reviewed by Utilities Department staff. Comments note that the project 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 service it. Water Supplies 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 Issues and Supporting Informal`.., Sources Sources Potei.Ly Potentially Less Than No Maksoudian Automobile Service Building Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 26-99 Issues Unless Impact mitigation Page 13 Incorporated 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." The project will increase future water demand. To receive an allocation, the property owner will need to provide water offsets through retrofitting the plumbing of existing structures to save at least as much water annually as the projected demand, or otherwise satisfy the requirements of the water allocation regulations through an approved method. Compliance with the provisions of the Water Allocation Regulations and the water impact fee program is adequate to mitigate the effects of increased water demand. Solid Waste 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. To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project, consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element, recycling facilities must be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials should be submitted with the building permit application. The project should include facilities for both interior and exterior recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Mitigation Measure: 1. The new building shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on -site recycling. In addition, site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building materials such as concrete, drywall, wood and metals from the construction site. The plans must be submitted for approval by the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance. Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X c) Create light or glare? X No aesthetic impacts are expected to occur with development of the project because it is not located along a scenic highway or vista. The aesthetic concerns associated with site development will be addressed with the Architectural Review Commission's review of plans. No further mitigation is required. Conclusion: No Impact 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b) Disturb archaeological resources? 14 X c) Affect historical resources? 15 X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X Archaeological Resources: According to the City's map of archeological sensitive areas, which is based on information from the Central Coast Historical Resource Information Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara and previous archaeological studies, the site is not within an archeological sensitive area. Given that the site is less than one Issues and Supporting Informai._..i Sources Sources Potei._y Potentially Less Than No Maksoudian Automobile Service Building Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER 26-99 mitigation Page 14 Incorporated acre in size and is not within 200 feet of a major creek, it is not considered "archaeologically sensitive" and additional study to determine the presence of archaeological of historical resources is not required. Conclusion: No Impact 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? X b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X The project does not involve the development of housing, no Impacts to Parks and Recreation are expected to occur. Conclusion: No Impact 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, X threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Without mitigation, the project would have the potential to have adverse impacts for all the issue areas checked in the table on page 3. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental X goals? In this case, short- and long-term environmental goals are the same. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection X with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) The impacts identified in this initial study are specific to this project and would not be categorized as cumulatively significant. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, X either directly or indirectly? With incorporation of mitigation measures, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on humans. 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one o 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. None available b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scop of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and stat Issues and Supporting Informa,,,,....i Sources Sources Pote, y Potentially Less Than No Maksoudian Automobile Service Building Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER 26-99 mitigation Page 15 Incorporated whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent t which they address site -specific conditions of the project. Not applicable. Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 . City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, February 1997. 2. City of SLO Land Use Element, April 1997. 3. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990. 4. City of San Luis Obispo Seismic Safety Element, July 1975. 5. Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community Panel 060310 0005 C) dated July 7, 1981. 6. APCD's "CEQA Air Quality Handbook", August 1995. 7. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 6`h Edition, Volume 2. 8. City of SLO Informational Map Atlas. 9. City of SLO Energy Conservation Element, April 1981. 10. Phase I Environmental Assessment by Earth Systems Consultants, September 1998. 1 1 . City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, May 1996. 12. City of SLO Water Allocation Regulations, June 1995. 13. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element, Brown, Vence & Associates, July 1994. 14. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, October 1995. 15. City of San Luis Obispo Historical preservation Program Guidelines, February 1987. 19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM 1. Mitigation Measure: The applicant shall submit a details soils engineering report as part of the grading and building permit applications. The soils report shall consider special grading and construction techniques necessary to address the potential hazards associated with the underlying sub -strata. The report shall identify the soil profile on site and provide site preparation recommendations to ensure against unstable soil conditions. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report and the City's Grading Regulations. Monitoring Program: The Community Development Department staff will review plans in conjunction with the soils engineering report through the building permit plan check process. 2. Mitigation Measure: Oil/sand separators or other industrial waste pretreatment facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City's Industrial Waste Coordinator. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for building permit primarily by the Community Development Department staff. Issues and Supporting Informa,—, Sources Sources Potei y Potentially Less Than No Maksoudian Automobile Service Building Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 26-99 Issues Unless Impact mitigation Page 16 Incorporated 3. Mitigation Measure: Future site development shall incorporate the following as feasible: a) Skylights to maximize natural day lighting. b) Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation. c) Energy -efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans submitted for a building permit by the Community Development Department staff. 4. I Mitigation Measure: The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the County. 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. Mitigation Measure: The new building shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on -site recycling. In addition, site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building materials such as concrete, drywall, wood and metals from the construction site. The plans must be submitted for approval by the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance. 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 SMIS�UOBISPO March 30, 1999 Leon and David Maksoudian 1960 Santa Barbara Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: ER 26-99 3427 Roberto Court Dear Messrs. Maksoudian: On March 26, 1999, 1 reviewed your project's potential effect on the environment. I found that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because of the mitigation measures either incorporated into the project or developed during our environmental analysis of your project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be prepared. A copy of the initial study, which was the basis for my determination, is attached for your review. State law requires that the applicant agree to project mitigation measures prior to your project being scheduled for action by a City decision -making body. I have enclosed an Applicant Acceptance of Mitigation Measures agreement for your review and signature. The agreement lists the recommended mitigation measures as well as provides a signature block to indicate your acceptance. It is recommended that you sign and return the attached agreement as soon as possible in order to avoid project processing delays. A Notice of our intention to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared and a public hearing on the environmental document and the project will be scheduled before a decision making body. The decision making body may reverse my decision to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration or may add or delete mitigation measures based on their review of the project and public comment received at the public hearing. /O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. v Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. ER 26-99 Page 2 As part of the environmental review process, it has been determined that this project is subject to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code which establishes a Fish and Game filing fee for the processing of environmental documents subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. The fees are intended to defray the costs incurred by the California Department of Fish and Game in managing and protecting fish and wildlife trust resources. Because it has been determined that your project is subject to Fish and Game fees, you will need to pay an additional fee of $1250 prior to the project going before the hearing body. Please make your check for $1250 payable to the County of San Luis Obispo Clerk -Recorder. The fees are paid to the State of California by the County of San Luis Obispo at the time the Notice of Determination if filed. Return the check to the City of SLO along with the signed mitigation agreement. If you have any questions, please contact my office at 781-7171 as soon as possible. Sincerely, 'Rona d Whise and Development Review Manager Enclosures: Initial Study Mitigation Agreement Return Envelope cc: Kris Walters and Tim Ronda 641 Higuera Street, Suite 303 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Margaret Templeton 140 Twin Ridge Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Applicant Acceptance of Mitigation Measures Project: 26-99 3427 Roberto Court This agreement is entered into by nd between the City of San L is Obispo and Leon and David Maksoudian on the T& day of 1999. The following measures are included in the project to mitigate potenti I adverse environmental impacts. Please sign the original and return it to the Community Development Department. MITIGATION MEASURES: The applicant shall submit a details soils engineering report as part of the grading and building permit applications. The soils report shall consider special grading and construction techniques necessary to address the potential hazards associated with the underlying sub- strata. The report shall identify the soil profile on site and provide site preparation recommendations to ensure against unstable soil conditions. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report and the City's Grading Regulations. 2. Oil/sand separators or other industrial waste pretreatment facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City's Industrial Waste Coordinator. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal. 3. Future site development shall incorporate the following as feasible: a) Skylights to maximize natural day lighting. b) Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation. c) Energy -efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use. 4. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the County. 5. The new building shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on -site recycling. In addition, site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building materials such as concrete, drywall, wood and metals from the construction site. The plans must be submitted for approval by the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance. If the Community Development Director or hearing body determines that the above mitigation measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures. Please note that section 15070 (b) (1) of the California Administrative Code requires the applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review. This project will not be scheduled for public review and hearing until this signed original is returned to the Community Development De f6artment. I Arnold B. Jonas Community Development Director Leon Maksoudian David Maksoudian date date Notice of Determination To: Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 X County Clerk County of San Luis Obispo 1144 Monterey Street, Suite A San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 FROM: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Project Title Maksoudian Auto Service Building - ARC and ER 26-99 State Clearinghouse Number Lead Agency Area Code/Telephone/Ext. (If Submitted to Clearinghouse) Contact Person John Shoals, Associate Planner (805) 781-7166 Project Location (include county): 3427 Roberto Court, San Luis Obispo (San Luis Obispo) STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 87379 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT nd repair building, DFG 753.5a (6.91) Lead Agency: r,. i, v Date: „r COU1 ` /State Agency of Filing' �- roject on ` } Jfr ,, . 7 r ent - Document N o. Proje Title: Project Applicant Name: ` Phone Number: Project Applicant Address: Project Applicant (check appropriate box): Local Public Agency ❑ School District ❑ Other ons of CEQA. QA. Special District ❑ CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: State Agency ❑ Private Entity ( ) Environmental Impact Report )$850.00 $ Negative Declaration Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) $$$250.00 $ - 850.00 $ Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs ivailable to the County Administrative Fee $850.00 $ ( ) Project that is exempt from fees $25.00 $ % TOTAL RECEIVED $ CA 93401 Signature and title of person receiving payment: LEED FIRST COPY -PROJECT APPLICANT SECOND COPY-DFG/FASB THIRD COPY -LEAD AGENCY FOURTH COPY-COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING natu (Public Ag cy) Date Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Date received for filing at OPR,. WR 2 4 1999 JULIE L. R13DIE)NkL®, Gnu%Tt c1ERls gy S. L. FILLER DEPUTY CLERK