Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/16/1998, 2 - SATURN APPEAL (ARC,A,ER 176-97) r r counat °��- j apenaa nEpont CITY OF SAN LU I S O B I S P O D FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville,Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEALS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS TO APPROVE A REQUEST FOR A NEW/USED CAR DEALERSHIP AND SERVICE CENTER AT 2959 BROAD STREET(CITY FILE NO. ARC,A,ER 176-97) CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution, determining that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project and denying the appeals and upholding the actions of the Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission, based on findings. DISCUSSION Situation On March 2, 1998 the Architectural Review Commission granted final approval of the Saturn dealership and service center subject to 22 conditions of approval regarding noise, lighting, colors, landscaping, fencing and signage (see Exhibits 4 and 5, ARC staff report and letter of approval for details). Two persons appealed this decision to the City Council. On March 6, 1998 the Hearing Officer approved a use permit to allow the dealership in the Special Considerations Overlay zone subject to 19 conditions of.approval including the requirement for the applicant to return with a noise analysis which addresses noise impacts associated with the service center use prior to any request to modify the use permit to allow the service center use. Four persons appealed this decision to the Planning Commission. On May. 13, 1998 the Planning Commission heard the appeal and voted to approve the car dealership and service center use subject to 19 conditions of approval (see Exhibits 6 and 7, Planning Commission staff report and resolution of approval for details). The Planning Commission approved the service center use after reviewing the noise analysis submitted by the applicant before the use permit appeal was heard by the Planning Commission. Two persons appealed this decision to the City Council. Data Summary Address: 2959 Broad Street Applicaut/Appellants: Saturn of Santa Maria/Art Murphy,Julie Stowasser Property owner: Kimo Panky Zoning: Service Commercial, Special Considerations(C-S-S) General Plan: Services and Manufacturing Council Agenda Report—Saturn Appeal(ARC,A.ER 176-97) Page 2 Environmental status: Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended by the Development Review Manager on February 7, 1998&adopted by the Planning Commission on May 13, 1998. Site Description The 1.4 acre site is developed with a 9,000 s.f warehouse building and caretaker's quarters currently occupied by Pacific Industrial Electric (P.I.E.), a wholesale electrical supply business. Significant site vegetation includes landscape planters fronting Broad and Sweeney Streets and a grouping of eucalyptus trees along the westerly property line. A residential neighborhood is located in close proximity(see Exhibit 8,Vicinity map). Project Description The applicant is requesting approval of a new/used car dealership and service center. At present, the applicant proposes to utilize the southern half of the site. In the event the P.I.E. business were to move, Saturn would like the ability to occupy the entire site (see Exhibit 9, Site plan Phase 1 and 2). ARC Appeal Two appeals from neighbors were received on the ARC action (see Exhibit 3, Letters of appeal). The appeals focused on anticipated neighborhood impacts of traffic (including impacts to the Broad Street and Sweeney Lane intersection, the loading and unloading of dealership vehicles, the test driving of vehicles and the appellant's request that the project's existing driveway onto Sweeney Lane be closed), noise, and visual impacts associated with the development of the site as a car dealership and service center.In response to these concerns, the Use Permit conditions 3, 6, 8, and 9 were modified by the Planning Commission to require that all air compressors be housed in an acoustically designed enclosure, all air impact tools be used inside the building, a six foot high wooden fence be located along the northerly property line to visually screen the site from the adjoining residential uses, a notice be posted within the employee area noting the permitted test drive route and restricting the test driving of vehicles (for sale or under repair) within the Rockview neighborhood, and the unloading of vehicles occur on site and not within the travel lanes of Broad and Sweeney Streets. Planning Commission Appeal Two appeals were received on the Planning Commission action(see Exhibit 3,Letters of appeal). One appeal focused on the anticipated project impacts to the neighborhood quality of life, property values, vehicular and pedestrian safety within the neighborhood as well as at the Broad Street and Sweeney Lane intersection, and the service center's noise impact on the neighborhood. The other appeal focused on the inappropriateness of a car dealership and service center use at this site in C-S-S zone, a request for a traffic light at the Broad Street and Sweeney Lane intersection, and a request that the applicant close the existing project driveway on Sweeney Lane. Evaluation Staff has worked very closely with the appellants and the applicants to address project issues. As a result, the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission have approved the J'� Council Agenda Report—Saturn Appeal(ARC,A,ER 176-97) Page 3 project subject to some 40 conditions of approval addressing concerns raised during the public hearings as well as throughout the permit process. These conditions address potential project impacts of: 1. Noise. The conclusion that is drawn from the submitted noise analysis is that the service operation will not increase neighborhood levels that are in excess of those established by the City's General Plan Noise Element (60 decibels). Ambient noise levels at the western property line were tested at 55 decibels and increased to 57 decibels during the impact wrench tests. Although the 2 decibel increase was noticeable to staff, it was not significant and was within the maximum allowable noise levels established by the General Plan. Because noise levels do not exceed 60 decibels, no noise mitigation is required. Although not required,the applicant has agreed to house the air compressor in an acoustically designed enclosure and restrict the use of air impact tools to inside the building. Additionally, Use Permit condition 5 and ARC condition 6 prohibit the use of exterior loud speakers,telephone bells,music and similar devices. 2. Dust. In accordance with Air Pollution Control District regulations, during construction all graded surfaces will be required to be wetted, protected or contained in such as manner as to prevent dust or spill onto adjoining properties. 3. Traffic and Circulation. Use Permit conditions 8 and 10 include the establishment of a test drive route and the restriction of test driving vehicles in the Rockview neighborhood and making right turns from the site onto Sweeney Lane. 4. Drain e. Use Permit condition #12 and ARC condition 8 require a two or three-stage clarifier with covered drain be installed in conjunction with the automotive use to filter wash/rinse water.and runoff before it enters City systems. 5. Parking and Deliveries. Use Permit conditions 1,2, 9, and 13 and ARC condition 15, 16 and 17 include limiting hours and location of deliveries, requiring the unloading of vehicles to occur on site,and providing three additional on-site parking spaces (beyond what is normally required)to minimize on street parking impacts. 6. Light and Glare. Use Permit condition 14 and ARC condition 3 require that site lighting be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. After business hours,the lighting levels in display areas are to be reduced to 10 footcandles. 7. Visual sCTeening. Use Permit conditions 6, 16, 17, 18 and ARC condition 13 require visual screening of the site and mechanical equipment in the form of fencing and landscaping. Requests made in the appeals that have not been recommended by staff include: A. Deny the project. Automobile sales and auto repair are allowed uses in the C-S zone. The Special Considerations Overlay zone requires approval of an administrative use permit before �-3 Council Agenda Report—Saturn Appeal(ARC,A,ER 176-97) Page 4 any use may be established to assure compatibility of the use with its surroundings. As conditioned, staff believes the uses will be compatible with its surroundings which include service commercial and residential uses. B. Require a traffic light at Broad and Sweeney. City staff will continue to monitor traffic counts on Broad Street to identify when an additional traffic signal is needed on Broad Street It has been determined however that traffic generated from this project will not create the need and when the need is identified, the signal will be placed at an intersection closer to South Street C. Close the project's existing Sweeney Street driveway. Staff continues to recommend that the Sweeney driveway remain open as requested by the applicant. .Use of this driveway will allow vehicles to enter Broad Street from a public street which the City encourages. CONCURRENCES Comments received from other departments are included as conditions of approval. FISCAL EWPACTS None ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt a resolution upholding the appeal and denying the project based on specific findings. 2. Continue the matter with specific direction to staff and/or the applicant for additional information. Attachments: 1. Resolution denying the appeals 2. Resolution upholding the appeals 3. Letters of appeal 4. ARC staff report of 3/2/98 5. ARC letter approving project design 6. Planning Commission staff report of 5/13/98 7. Planning Commission resolution approving use permit 8. Vicinity map 9. Project plans,Phase 1 and 2 10.Noise Element map 11.Noise analysis 12. Initial Study RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING THE APPEALS AND UPHOLDING THE ACTIONS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMIVIISSION TO APPROVE A REQUEST FOR A NEW/USED CAR DEALERSHIP AND SERVICE CENTER AT 2959 BROAD STREET (CITY FILE NOS.ARC,A,ER 176-97) WHEREAS, the applicant submitted plans for architectural review, environmental review and use permit approval for a new/used car dealership and service center at the above address; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project design at its March 2, 1998 meeting and granted final approval of the project subject to 22 conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 1998, two neighbors appealed the Architectural Review Commission's action to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 1998, the Hearing Officer granted approval of the Use Permit subject to 18 conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on March 12 and 16, 1998, the applicant, the property owner's representative and two neighbors appealed the Hearing Officer's action to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS,on April 22 and May 13, 1998,the Planning Commission heard the appeals and on May 13, 1998 voted to uphold the Hearing Officer's decision to approve the car dealership and service center subject to 19 conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 1998, two neighbors appealed the Planning Commission's action to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 1998,the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider testimony of the appellants and other interested parties; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Hearing Officer and Planning Commission. BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project , and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures into the project: Resolution No. (1998 Series) Page 2 Mitigation Prior to issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall submit Measure: a listing of all proposed stationary noise sources, their generated noise levels and proposed mitigation measures to comply with city standards. Monitoring Compliance shall be reviewed and monitored during the Program: building permit plan check. Mitigation Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. Measure: 3307.2), all graded surfaces shall be wetted, protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon any adjoining property or street. The following .measures shall constitute the project's dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of project construction: a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete coverage of all active areas); b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph; c. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph; d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or off-site; e. Watering material stockpiles; f. Periodic wash-downs, or mechanical street sweeping, of streets in the vicinity of the site; and g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work Monitoring Compliance shall be monitored by the Community Program: Development Department during project construction. Mitigation Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner Measure: shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the County. The applicant shall provide the Community Development Department with a copy of the easement for documentation purposes. Monitoring Compliance shall be reviewed during the building permit plan Program: check process. Mihgation A two or three-stage clarifier with covered drain shall be Resolution No. (1998 Series) Page 3 Measure: installed in conjunction with the service center to filter wash/rinse water and runoff before it enters the City's sewer system. Monitoring Installation of the clarifier shall be reviewed and monitored Program: during the architectural review and building permit plan check. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the applicant's request, the Architectural Review Commission, Hearing Officer and Planning Commission actions, the appellant's statements, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed used/new car dealership and service center will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design to adequately address possible site impacts from project noise,traffic, circulation,lighting, construction, drainage and proximity to the airport. 2. The proposed used/new car dealership and service center is appropriate at this location on Broad Street and with the required mitigation measures will be compatible with surrounding land uses which are service commercial and multi-family residential. 3. The proposed use conforms with the general plan and meets zoning ordinance requirements with approval of this use permit to establish the use. 4. Mitigation measures provided in Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 176-97 adequately address environmental issues associated with a used/new car dealership and service center at this location. SECTION 3. Denial. The appeals of the Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission actions are hereby denied, and the actions of the Architectural Review Commission and the Planning Commission are upheld subject to the conditions of approval as described by attached Exhibit A. Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ji'7 Resolution No. (1998 Series) Page 4 the foregoing-resolution.was 3doptedthis day . 1998. Mayor_Allen:Settle ATTEST: Bonnie Gawf;.City Cletk APPROVED AS TO FORM:. G. rge C'f Attorney EXHIBIT A Planning Commission Conditions of Approval (Noise) 1. Car sales shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 pm. daily. All other uses including service, delivery, and site maintenance shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday. 2. A sign shall be posted at the loading area limiting the hours of delivery and notifying drivers that truck engines must be turned off when parked. The signs shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 3. All stationary and portable electric motor or engine powered air compressors shall be housed in an acoustically designed enclosure to minimize noise. All air impact tools shall be used inside the building, operated as far away from the open service bay doors as possible. 4. , 5. The use of exterior loud speakers, telephone bells, music and similar devices shall be prohibited. 6. A 6 foot high wooden fence shall be located alone the northerly property line to visually screen the site from the adjoining residential use. (Dust) 7. All graded surfaces shall be wetted, protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill onto any adjoining property or street. The following measures shall constitute the project's dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of project construction: a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete coverage of all active areas); . b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph; c. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph; d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or off-site; e. Watering material stockpiles; E Periodic wash-downs, or mechanical street sweeping of streets in the vicinity of the site; and g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work. (Traf ir-10rculation) 8. A sign shall be located at the Sweeney Street driveway requiring vehicles to tum left toward Broad Street A notice shall be posted within the employee area noting the permitted test drive route and prohibiting the test driving of vehicles (for sale or under repair) within the Rockview neighborhood. 9. Unloading of vehicles shall occur on site and not within the travel lanes of Broad and Sweeney Streets. Additionally, the transport carvers shall not utilize streets in the adjacent residential area(ie. Rockview) for circulation purposes. 10. Transport carriers shall be prohibited from loading/unloading in the on-street parking spaces on Sweeney Street. (Airport Impacts) 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the applicant and submitted to the County for approval and recordation. The applicant shall provide the Community Development Department with a copy of the easement for documentation purposes. Note: The process of granting an avigation easement takes approximately one month, therefore it is recommended that applicants pursue this requirement as soon as possible. (Drainage) 12. A two or three-stage clarifier with covered drain shall be installed in conjunction with the automotive use (both sales and service) to filter wash/rinse water and runoff before it enters City systems. (On-site Parking) 13. No on-site parking reductions shall be granted for shared or mixed use parking. Parking areas for employees and customers for each business shall be distinguished and clearly marked: Three additional on-site parking spaces (beyond what is normally required by the Zoning Regulations)to minimize on-street parking impacts. (Light/Glare) 14. Lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. Light standards shall not exceed 20 feet in height Lighting levels shall not exceed 50 footcandles directly under the poles at ground level. After business hours, the lighting levels in the display area shall be reduced to 10 footcandles. 15. Sign illumination shall not exceed 10 candlepower at a distance of 10 feet from the sign. Signs shall not be illuminated after 10 p.m. (Visual Screening) 16. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans which indicate the location of any mechanical equipment and the method used to screen this equipment. If installed on a rooftop, the equipment shall be screened by a parapet or other architectural compatible screening. 17. The landscape area located along the northerly property line (adjacent to residential development) and the northern and southern 100 feet of the westerly property line shall be planted with a mixture of 1 and 5 gallon shrubs and 15 gallen and 24" hew 5 and 15 gallon trees that at maturity will provide a minimum 20 foot tall landscape screen between the site and neighboring residential development. 18. Perimeter fencing design which visually screens storage areas from view off-site shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval. 19. 19. Sufficient space shall be provided in the trash enclosure area for recycling materials to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Architectural Review Commission Conditions of Approval 1. Obtain administrative use permit approval. The ARC would like to see the following neighborhood issues addressed:parking,deliveries,traffic,lighting and noise. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a:listing of all proposed stationary noise sources, their generated noise levels and proposed mitigation measures to comply with city standards. Additionally,noise generated from on site uses shall be directed away from neighboring residential uses. 3. Site lighting shall be submitted to City staff-for review and approval.Lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. Light standards shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Lighting levels shall not exceed 50 footcandles directly under the poles at ground level. After business hours,the lighting levels shall be reduced to 10 footcandles. 4. The project shall include bicycle parking as required by the Bicycle TransportationPlan. 5. The project shall include an outdoor employee rest area 6. The use of exterior loud speakers, telephone bells, music and similar devices shall be prohibited. 7. The trash enclosure shall be fully enclosed and large enough to accommodate recyclable materials. 8. The applicant shall install a two or three-stage clarifier with covered drain to filter runoffwater. 9. Street trees shall be planted per City standards(1 per 35 linear feet of street frontage). 10. Signage shall return to staff for approval.As required by the sign regulations,signs shall not be illuminated after 10:00 p.m. Sign illumination shall not exceed 10 candlepower at a distance of 10 feet from the sign. 11. A second monument sign has been approved for a second tenant. In the event only one tenant occupies the site,only one monument sign shall be permitted. 12. A landscape plan shall be submitted to staff for review and approval. The plan shall comply with the City's parking and driveway standards by providing additional landscape on the perimeter and movable parking lot planters. 13. The perimeter fencing design shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval. The type of material shall be approved as part of the administrative use permit process.If a solid 6' high masonry wall is required,the wall shall have a cap and be architecturally altered at least every fifty feet with a post or other architectural element 14. In order to provide the required parking for P.I.E., gates on the P.I.E. side of the building are required to remain open during business hours. 15. The applicant shall identify the proposed locations for on-site and off-site (Broad Street) loading/unloading of vehicles from transport carriers. The applicant shall include truck turning templates for the design vehicles. On-site areas where the carriers will travel shall be kept clear of stored vehicles and provide adequate driveway widths. 16. No unloading of vehicles shall occur within the travel lanes of Broad or Sweeney Streets. Additionally,the transport carriers shall not utilize streets in the adjacent residential area (ie. Rockview)for circulationpurposes. 17. Transport carriers shall be prohibited from loading/unloading in the on-street parking spaces on Sweeney Street 18. A van accessible parking stall with an.8 foot unloading zone is required for the parking facility serving the Saturn dealership side of the building. 19. Future conversion of P.I.E.building warehouse to service bays will require installation of a fire sprinkler system throughout the building. 20. The future service center building shall comply with all City development regulations including setback, building height and parking requirements in place at the time Community Development Department approvals are requested. 21. Final colors shall return to staff for review and approval. The proposed red roof shall not be permitted. 22. Palm trees along Broad Street shall be deleted and the applicant shall select trees from the City's approved list of street trees. �-/3 RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING THE APPEALS AND DENYING THE ACTIONS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A REQUEST FOR A NEWIUSED CAR DEALERSHIP AND SERVICE CENTER AT 2959 BROAD STREET(CITY FILE NOS.ARC,A,ER 176-97) WHEREAS, the applicant submitted plans for architectural review, environmental review and use permit approval for a new/used car dealership and service center at the above address; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project design at its March 2, 1998 meeting and granted final approval of the project subject to 22 conditions of approval;and WHEREAS, on March 11, 1998, two neighbors appealed the Architectural Review Commission's action to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 1998, the Hearing Officer granted approval of the Use Permit subject to 18 conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on March 12 and 16, 1998, the applicant, the property owner's representative and two neighbors appealed the Hearing Officer's action to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on April 22 and May 13, 1998, the Planning Commission heard the appeals and on May 13, 1998 voted to uphold the Hearing Officer's decision to approve the car dealership and service center subject to 19 conditions of approval;and WHEREAS, on May 26, 1998, two neighbors appealed the Planning Commission's action to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 1998, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider testimony of the appellants and other interested parties; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Hearing Officer and Planning Commission_ BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the applicant's request, the Architectural Review Commission, Hearing Officer and Planning Commission actions, the appellant's statements, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: "r7 Resolution No. (1998 Series) Page 2 1. The proposed used/new car dealership and service center will adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because mitigation measures have not been incorporated into the project design to adequately address possible site impacts from project noise,traffic, circulation,lighting, construction, drainage and proximity to the airport. 2. The proposed used/new car dealership and service center is not appropriate at this location on Broad Street and will not be compatible with surrounding land uses which are service commercial and multi-family residential. 3. The proposed use does not conform with the general plan which states that auto sales in areas of the City other than Auto Park Way should be minimized in order to reinforce the auto sales center and to maximize space for other uses in other locations. SECTION 3. Approval. The appeals of the Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission actions are hereby upheld, and the actions of the Architectural.Review Commission and the Planning Commission are denied. Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this . day of , 1998. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Bonnie Gawf, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Resolution.No. (1998 Series) Page 3 J Jo ens - Gi homey llrAll .CltYo san vu�s oB�spo APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of ARC 176-97 (2959 Broad St. ) rendered on 2 Marcia 1998 which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds for submitting.the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) ABC176-97 granted final approval for an auto dealership at 2959 Broad St. I am a. nearby homeowner concerned not only with the very existence of such a business, but also a weakness in some of the restrictions placed on it by the ARC. The enclosed pages amplify my concerns and my two recommendations: (1) that the Coyineil DENY the. application in toto, or (2) strengthen the indicated' restrictions. -The undersigned discussed the dedision being appealed with: Pe6 .y Mandeville, Associate- Planner on 11 March 1998 Name/Department (Date) Appellant: Arthur D. Mn by 2974 Rockview Place SIA CA 93401 Nameffitle Mailing Address (& Zip Code) (805) 543=6515 same as at Left Home Phone Work Phone Representative: a/a a/a Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code) For Official Use Only: Calendared for Date &Time Received: c: City Attomey City Administrative Officer Copy to tthe�following department(s): RECEIVED C itlbEU/LG�� SLO CITN' CU N C i L Origirtal in City Clerk's Office March 12, 1998 To: City Council, SLO Re: ARC 176-97 (2959 Broad Street) 1. Recommendation #1: that City Council overturn the decision and DENY the application. Discussion. Enclosure (1) is a hand map of the city block bounded by Broad Street , Sweeney Lane, Rockview Place asd Perkins Iane. I own and occupy a home in the small development known as Rockview Court, located in the southwest quadrant of this block. Other residential sites on this block are located on the northern boundary; these are rental units. Rockview Court is majority owner-occupied. In 1985, application # 74-85 was unanimously denied by the Planning commission (6-0); it called for an auto dealership on the same real estate as the current project. A telling statement in the analysis was that.. . . an auto dealership "is a use which is not a desirable neighbor for resi- dential uses." City Council, however, overturned that decision (3-2) in May, 1986. For reasons unknown, that earlier project never went forward. Rockview Court did not exist at that time. Now it does, which in my opinion strengthens further the argument for denial in toto of the current application. 2. Recommendation #2: failing recommendation #19 above, that City council require additional restrictions enumerated below. Discussion. Many use conditions appearing in the ARC report are identical to matters discussed at a March 6 environmental hearing (which I am also appealing) . With respect to matters specifically listed in the ARC report, I invite your attention to item 16: "No unloading of vehicles shall occur within the travel lanes of Broad or Sweeney Streets (sic). Additionally, the transport carriers shall not utilize streets in the adjacent residential area (ie, Rockview) for circulation purposes." During my ARC hearing comments, I expressed the concern about customer "test- driving" through the area -- not only around the immediate block but also the entire residential area south of Lawtence and West of Broad, involving Rockview, Sweeney, Perkins, Bluerock and Stoneridge. Another participant at the March 2 hearing mentioned an additicnal matter: maintenance-testing by service staff at the dealership. Both concerns were not explicitly addressed in the ARC report. However, I ask that additional language be inserted into item 16 in order to mitigate a neighborhood traffic problem easily foreseeable at this time. The additional language will be underlined it a complete revision of item 169 as follows: 16. No unloading of vehicles shall occur within the travel lanes of Broad or Sweeney Streets. Additionally, the transport carriers shall not utilize streets in the adjacent residential area (ie. Rockview, Sweeney, Perkins, Bluerock or Stoneridge) for circulation purposes. In addition, applicant shall - affirmatively post and enforce a policy that no employees/staff/management will use any of the neighborhood streets just enumerated for maintenance and/or service test-runs or for customer test-drives. The neighborhood traffic situation is concurrently addressed in more detail in the use-permit decision that is also being appealed. Thank you for your consideration. Very respectfully, Art Murphy �4 /414. . x976 JPacitv�Ew PG . (2) �9 N jl �C K,nJs CRT -YAA12) V c cr C TTA GES 4#cod STR )P i r W RpC l( C I BVI � co ,W AO4.4 SL}'I UQN �v j �� J% 1,..�-J I I� I Ip s SPR� tK �1C'9c.EitsH1P I I I I I� r 3 111i11 FI %U D � ' I I oSwEEAJFY LA#jE �I IIII S LS m t.AICIWUILF (3� a?�0 A.D. Murphy 2974 Rockview Place San Luis Obispo CA 9340jL 5 May 1998 To: Planning Commission, City of San Luis Obispo Subj: Supplemental appeal of use permit A 176-97 (2959 Broad Street) Under the date of March 12, 19989 I formally appealed a March 6 Hearing Officer's approval of a use permit for a Saturn auto dealership. On April 8 I attended the Planning Commission public meeting and spoke; the application was continued pending additional sound studies at the proposed business site. On April 24, I personally witnessed sound sampling at three locations within my Rockview Court premises; the study containing these results was delivered May 1 to the city. I am not an acoustic engineer, but I will state that I could barely hear any of the test-noise impulses. Nevertheless, most of the recommendations in my March 12 letter remain valid, from my perspective, as follows: Recommendation # 1: DENY the application. In the dozen years since a 3-2 City Council vote overruled a unanimous Planning Commission denial of an auto dealership at the site, there have been constructed -- by my count from public records -- .EIGHTY new housing units along Stoneridge, Bluerock and Rockview (south to Sweeney Iane), with a current total assessed value of $11.8 million. I do not have a comparable 1986 figure, but public documents of the time indicate that this area once contained many old single-family frame houses and/or vacant land. Given the current Stoneridge II development, which further marks this neighborhood as a new residential center, I feel that an auto dealership goes against the trend of development. Recommendation # 2: operating hours. This has been clarified, so I withdraw this item. Recommendation # 3: Traffic light at Broad & Sweeney. Traffic at this intersection is getting worse under current conditions. Something has got to get going some study of this situation, which can only get worse under the presumed success of Saturn. Saturn should not be a hostage to this, but some public agency has got to Ret the ball rolling on this. We have heard that an earlier study for a lipht at Lawrence & Broad was "almost" ripe for a light ; surely, since that time, what with Marigold Center opening and, closer, more Brickyard enterprises in operation, conditions of traffic density must have increased. Recommendation # 4: Close Sweeney Lane gate from the site (except for emergencies). Development and Public Works want Vo "discourage access from private driveways onto Broad.. .." I on the other hand want to force this on Saturn, which would then be doing exactly what Brickyard, Crossroads and other nearby operations already dol Recommendation # .2: to keep neighborhood free of test-driving & maintenance. This has been accomplished by staff recommendations, so I withdraw this item, after noting that, long after hearings, permits, commissions and restrictions have occurred, WE RESIDENT HOMEOWNERS are left with the dubious privilege of having to monitor compliant Recommendation # 6: Since an auko service facility may be approved at the next Planning Commission public meeting, this recommendation is perhaps moot. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (03) For urgent personal reasons, I cannot participate in the next public Planning Commission meeting. But the decisions whicb may be reached tPN awe certain to be a .t, appealed to the City Council. Some might think that such an appeal is a stalling process; I disagree most emphatically. After all, it 's been only TWO MONTHS since any nearby property ownet• first heard of this project, no matter how long it had been in conception among the private parties concerned. I will exercise all rights to get this matter to the City Council for ultimate resolution. Why? -- Because THAT'S WHAT WE PAY THEM FOR -- TO VOTE, IIP OR DOWN, YES OR NO, BUT VOTE. Also, I must take this all the way against the day that some other projected enterpris which might be objectionable point out that I 'dropped out' in the Saturn matter. I can be turned down by anyone, or I can get what I want; but neither outcome is possible unless I pursue the matter to its ultimate procedural conclusion. l Art Murphy President, Rockview Court H.O.A. 2 �'pL� r n[ Julie F. Stowasser 2980 Rockview Place San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 May 22, 1998 RE: 176-97 2959 Broad Street San Luis Obispo City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249 Dear City Council Members: As a home owning resident,and on behalf of the Rockview Court Homeowners Association,I ask that you deny the Use Permit for Saturn of Santa Maria at the Broad and Swwney Strut location A brief stmtmary of my concerns ate: Quality of Life lnvest»iew Valuc of Homeowners Safety for intersection of Sweeney and Broad General Safety for neighborhood children and residents Perking Noise My concerns and others,are more fully explained in previous letters and appearances bef ffe city staff and should be included in the files. Thank you in advance for taking the time to carefully read the files. Sincerely, A, is E. Storasser Home Owner Vice President RCHOA 01-,23 0 A'6 uJ Julie E. Stowasser �(� C Bu S o 0 2980 Rockview Place San Luis Obispo, California 93401 March 6, 1998 Py. 0""'L 3-2 To: Zoning Hearing Officer, RE: ER 176-97(Saturn Dealership) Thank you for taking the time to hear the concerns of the home-owning residents and M renting residents in the areas that will be impacted by the arrival of a Saturn Dealership. ,,,,, s �{ I have several concerns, such as safety from increased use and speeds,parking,noise, 9 Q�,t �o crime,property values and my investment,our quality of life,and so on. Cc-,.� pawiA-cam I would first like to clarify some information: .c's GwL Ther exists a full service dealership with Mazda about a half-mile north of Broad ai'nshe„u,,,.Street The layout of roads,and the make up of the neighborhood are significantly different there,that at the corner of Broad and Sweeney. Champ Massey's unused site was referred to as a"dealership"when making the case to allow Saturn in. Massey had a used car lot,only. As far as I know. There were no new car sales, no service, nothing more than used car sales. It is not accurate, in my opinion p�"`�' to refer to Massey's now extinct operation,as a"dealership." Massey,too, has a different traffic flow and configuration than does the proposed Saturn. Massey was accessible to southbound Broad Street traffic only, departing customers only had a right tum to maneuver,without cross traffic concerns. f About ten years ago,the Mazda dealership was proposed for the Broad and Sweeney location, it was deemed NOT COMPATIBLE with existing residential neighborhoods. The residents they are referring to are the IMMEDIATE NORTH, and 85 feet to the west. Eight-five feet to the west is less than one third the length of a football field Rockview f rN �r Place has since gained additional residents to it's neighborhood, specifically the L ax & Stoneridge development The first vote taken with respect to Mazda was six(6)to zero (0)to deny Mazda After some footwork,I presume, a new voted allowed them in at Swzew"dl three(3)to two(2). Still not a strong showing of support .10A1 "'1 I request that the original issues raised with Mazda be revisited,as it appears six of six professionals,at one time,had serious enough concerns they voted it down. At that time,a masonry wall was to be required at the north. I assume that was with good reason. ARC wanted a wall, but with the confusion of"phase one and phase two" language, it seems they gave in to putting slats in between the links of the existing chain link fence. No masonry wall was required at the west wall for the residents there, whose bedrooms all are on the second floor. I believe this should be reconsidered. r clnsc A -/ C�rVtyiev5 14Jv e ,. Please investigate how the Saturn dealership will affect alternative transportation, specifically our local bus route which has a stop at the corner of Broad and Sweeney. I request that Cal Trans be advised of the potential impact to State Highway 227, 1 would like to hear their views on the matter. I have some concerns about granting any use without specifics. At the ARC meeting of March 2, 1998 Saturn was requesting what appeared to amount to blanket approval of a full plan that was referred to as`phase one"and`phase two." This was utterly confusing,as phase one and phase two were also vague in description. It seemed to me, they were requesting a carte blanc permission to build and do business,with motions of deference to the city and it's residential and business users. Please refer to the attached Santa Maria Times article by John A Read. It is from January of 1998. I apologize for the copy quality. There is clear intent to build a full service dealership. Service bays were proposed for the southwest comer of the site, and to"mitigate the noise" Saturn stated it would be enclosed on all four sides. Please explain how one will not asphyxiate the employees. There must be an interchange of air to allow exhaust fumes,gas discharge from oils, solvents,cleaning supplies, gasoline,spills, etc. Please check into the increase in drainage to the homes on Sweeney,when Saturn paves the lot The overflow from the existing unpaved land is significant now, and has backed up at times. Please clarify that the existing P.I.E. building was referred to as 9,000 plus square feet, and while that is accurate,the land use is 7,080, as the remaining 2,000 square feet is on the second floor. Saturn wants to expand to another 6,000 first floor square feet. With respect to the"phases"I was listening carefully,and heard that P.I.E. will move by year's end Thus,there appears to be a definite time frame for rather rapid expansion from used car lot to full service dealership. What did the EIR from Mazda's application say? I disagree with the assessment of"Environmental Factors Potentially Affected"(Initial Study ER 176-97). In particular,I disagree with the check list omissions. For instance the"populations and housing"question only asks if an applicant would prohibit or dissuade future housing. There is no future housing to be gained due to current occupancy. It did not ask how the existing homes would be affected,and those are the concerns I have. Transportation and Circulation was ignored,while I think that is one of the most serious issues a Saturn dealership will raise. I outline them later in this letter. Noise is apparently a real issue that is believe to be something that can be mitigated away. I strongly disagree. I have the same safety and noise concerns from as yet not clarified construction plans at the site. Since the plans are very fluid at this time, I cannot speak to them specifically. What were the"Mandatory Findings of Significance?" Did I miss something? Please explain. The following is my letter to the ARC March 2. 1998, with some changes as indicated by bold face type My three MAIN concerns are SAFETY,PARKING,and NOISE SAFETY FIRST a) Broad Street and Sweeney would be the most frequently used intersection for the proposed dealership. Currently,there are no stop signs or signals to slow the north and south bound Broad Street traffic. Sweeney has a stop sign as-you approach Broad. Currently,I sometimes have to wait up to two minutes to make a left turn from Sweeny onto Broad My alternative is to make a right turn and double back, however,that often takes as long or longer. As it stands, in my humble opinion,that section of Broad's safety for pedestrians,automobiles,and children is already impacted by it's current level of residential and commercial automobile use. CORRECTION I use Sweeney for right turns onto Broad ONLY, precisely due to safety and time factors. I use Stoneridge for left turns,and THAT can take up to two minutes. I apologize for my mistake. a) The speed for Broad Street is posted at 40mph,frequently,however,as I've flowed with the traffic in the slow lane,I have reached 52 mph. Average high speed seems to be about 45 to 48,and I have never traveled less than 40mph. With the likely increased use,and with slowing for viewing of Saturn cars, I have concerns about cats rear ending others,as well as that last minute wide and fast right tum onto . Sweeney. Not only will many of those cars not be familiar with the area,there are children about, and it seems that many of the drivers of the parked cars are blissfully unaware of how fast cars tum the comer from Broad to Sweeney. I know. I've almost hit them. I can only imagine,with grave concern, what placing the entrance to the Service Department anywhere on Sweeney will do to the accident and injury rates. Safety with Respect to Employee/Drive Tests. While it might be easy to assure the homeowners that Saturn employees will be instructed to do their test drives for sound, drive ability, etc, on roads other than the residential roads of Rockview and Sweeney,I don't believe it will be followed. Who's going to catch them? And so what? Would the employee really think their doing so would cost the dealership it's location? A hardworking mechanic will want to save himself the ten minutes it takes to test-drive the car for sounds and such elsewhere,he or she would drive on Rockview anyway. I know I would. Mr.Cusack stated he believed his mechanics would find no value in driving our " residential streets due to the need to distinguish between "road noise"and"car noise." This is true when determining the source of a noise. but is not true when checking for noise caused by improperly secured parts,etc. This is precisely the time when a mechanic would want to use our roads. There would be the same assurance and same problem with sales agents and customers. I would find it difficult to tell a prospective sale,my bread and butter, not to drive on Sweeney and down Rockview,for example, while getting the feel of the car. In fact,that is exactly what I would suggest to the prospective buyer. Pulling out onto Broad in an unfamiliar automobile is risky and I sure would hate to tell my boss what happened to the car if somehow someone got hit,or caused an accident. So, it might sound reasonable and workable on paper,but I do not believe it will exist in fact. Off-loading and Safetv I understand that Saturn has two options for offloading cars delivered for sale: 1) Offload cars from the semi's on Broad as Valley Mazda does,or L— ftCG 1 Ue/J(S 2) Make Sweeney a commercial zone,and unload them there. 19 F"14 !' OF ! iIWIt Saturn has now proposed a third alternative,and that would be to offload vehicles 12'x' onsite. That would require a significant amount of unused space. The plan seems to -7 indicate that this would be difficult to do. Mr.Cusack states on one hand that there would be no new cars sold from the site,the newspaper article indicates otherwise. The communication around this subject is interestingly vague and confusing. Please ask for specific clarification of this issue, prior to granting approval. Again,my concerns would be the that use of Sweeney would be the significantly increased opportunity for accidents to residents and property caused by automobiles. Only now,there would be a parked semi to run into. May I wonder, where exactly,the cars currently parked on Sweeney will move to, if the street is zoned to prohibit them? With respect to offloading on Broad Street, I again refer you to my experience of living there since July of 1996. It's too fast. The intersection at Sweeney and Broad,and j-4 Staples and Broad, is too unstable now. Surely, we will see damages to people and property with the addition of a Saturn Dealership at the comer. Yearly Closure of Rockview Place Rockview Place empties lower on Broad past Orcutt. It's heavily traveled and provides relief to the use of Sweeney. Every year,it seems, the hillside slumps to the road causing it to be removed from use. It takes months before it's cleared, and then we have another round the next year. Currently, one very narrow lane remains. I suspect that by mid month it will be closed again. As it stands without the proposed Saturn Dealership,we already have traffic,parking,and speed problems associated with Sweeney and Rockview. While there is an outlet at Stoneridge, it's use is less impacted when Rockview is open to the south,noticeably heavier when Rockview is blocked It is not reasonable, in my opinion,to suggest Perkins be used as an entrance or outlet to Rockview as it is poorly maintained section of road, is basically a one lane alley,is all residential and has several attended and unattended children at play even during school time. I have concerns such that I never use Perkins,and instruct my visitors to avoid it as well. NOISE Ready for noise? I am concerned about safety,parking,and the other things the latter portion of my letter will address,but noise is the one that really impacts me on a very personal,daily level. I moved to Rockview Place to get away from the noisier neighborhoods I've lived in. I purchased my first home here on Rockview, which is quite an investment for me. I'm a hard working single parent. I am enjoying fairly quiet days,and except for an errant dog or two, really nice evenings. Most of us these days work hours other than the basic nine- to-five,I work at home 1.5 days a week,on weekends,and some evenings. When I'm not working,I want to be relaxing. I'm amental health therapist. I need my quiet Without my sleep,I am irritabld, cranky,can't think straight, and can't make money. I cannot stress how the impact of a dealership would affect me. I would have to move. And, honestly,I don't think I can afford to move anywhere else that would be as safe a neighborhood,or as quiet for my sanity. The increased use from a dealership would increase the noise. Period I don't know how the noise can be mitigated away. Please consider,this is a primarily residential area,and I believe there are other businesses that would be good for the city and good for the residents. I strongly urge you to consider the needs of the existing homeowners and require Saturn to find a more suitable location,as perhaps Los Osos Valley Road could be,the Von's shopping center,or even the unused"Champ Massey"car lot (I believe it was a used car lot, without service bays and the like,not a"dealership.") PARKING a) From Sweeney to Rock-view Place, residential and business parking is common. There are also the visitors to the residents and business who use those spaces. Today, between 12:30pm and 1:30 pm I saw no less than 15 and no more than 18 cars parked parallel along both sides of Sweeney. It appeared by my calculation, that there were about 6 additional spaces for cars to squeeze into if need be. With the addition of 16 Saturn employees and their customers,where will the residents park? Still the same concerns if Sweeney is zoned commercial. Saturn indicated it's employees and it's customers will use the site for parking. WHERE? Saturn indicates that it's customers will park on-site. Few customers will be willing to park on-site even at a dealership that claims to use"low pressure"sales techniques. Customers avoid parking on dealership lots to avoid feeling trapped (they cannot just walk away)and to avoid actually being trapped by blocking do to cars,standing customers,etc. In my humble opinion,the majority of the customers Saturn will draw will park offsite. I might also add that Rock-view Place is used as off street parking for the residents on it's borders. Currently,my son has difficulty parking in front of our own home at any time of the day or night This should give you an idea that as far as parking goes, we are already impacted heavily. b) Rockview Place is much narrower a street than is Sweeney. Off street parking is utilized on both sides of the street. As it is,traveling motorists must take extreme care when passing,and at times, one driver must pull over to allow for the other to pass. This is not only a parking issue, it's a safety issue. In closing, Saturn raised grave concerns for me with respect to safety, parking,and noise—for example. If I was Saturn,I would want the exposure of Broad. But as a resident concerned for her community,I think another location would benefit us all. Speaking to Saturn's concerns about loss of potential revenue if not located at Broad,I say no way. Saturn is a good product. Build it anywhere(else)and they will come. Thank you for listening. My additional concerns are: Li tin . I live in a two story with views to the west toward the proposed Saturn. Currently,there are no lights. I like it that way. I do not think that looking at lights shining down,will be of any significant difference to the fact that they are lights. It will be intrusive and unsightly for my enjoyment of my home, in my opinion. JJ9 Twenty foot light standards at 50 candles during business hours and 10 during off hours was proposed (approved?)on March 2, 1998. The land between Broad and Rockview slopes downward significantly. I am concerned that the lights will be at bedroom height for the Rockview Court Homeowners. Can this be investigated, please? Crime: I know from experience,that from time to time, cars get stolen from new and used lots. Cars get vandalized Alarms are sounded. The police come. 99 times out of a hundred,this will happen when I am safely in my bed I have concerns for the crime itself and the noise the crimes will produce. I believe I heard mention that the western lights can be turned off at night. I believe this will invite crime and vagrancy as the lot is"open'whereas currently it is chain linked and locked at night. Hours of Operation: Most dealerships are open from 8:00am to 8:00 or 9:00pm. Daily. Most service departments are open from 7:00am to 5:00pm usually Monday through Friday,but sometimes Saturday also. This means the use will begin before 7:00am and will end possibly later than 9:00pm. Traffic,noise,and safety will be of issue for most of my day,and well into the evening. I truly fear the impact on the right to quiet enjoyment of the current residents. Loss of Equity As I mentioned this is my home. I am not a renter. I believe that my investment in my future retirement, and the investment I have made to also benefit my son,will be lost if Saturn is granted a dealership. I will not get it back I cannot afford to sell at this time,nor am I in a any position to rent my home,and find a rental for myself in a quieter, safer neighbor hood Loss of Resale Value: This is my home. Please see"Loss of Equity." Floo din : We have problems with drainage on the existing unpaved lot. Unpaved If paved, as most car lots are,the problems can only get worse. The current drainage is at the front of homeowners Rockview Court and whose entrances are on Sweeney. Odors and Hazardous Materials and Wastes: Exhaust, spilled oils,radiator fluids, gasoline, cleaning products, etc. Many of these require separate permits. Noise From Loudspeakers: Almost all car lots use a public address system of some sort. They can be heard a block away. Even if Saturn uses "personal pagers"we will still have noise from other publicity events,wind in banners on a windy day,and so on. It is near impossible to think of all the possible impacts from noise and the other concerns. But, if my imagination can come up with these in a matter of hogs...what will a business, always trying to expand the ways it promotes itself come up with? C9-30 It seems an unnecessary burden to ask the homeowners and residents of the Rock-view Community to think of every possible concern or objection to the placement of a dealership at Broad and Sweeney, in advance, when new and ever changing sources of noise and other concerns will always evolve. Existing Auto dealers on Broad; it is riot true, in my opinion, that Saturn falls within an existing neighborhood of automobile dealerships. Cep M-assey was a T Tsed Car Tot Qnl!',and,T.believe it's currently abandoned. Valley Mazda is a full-service dealership in a primarily commercial area with lots of businesses behind it I am sure those businesses appreciate the advertising exposure,and possible increase in foot traffic from the employees a-rid visitors to Valley Mazda I wouldn't complain if I was a business, but I am a homeowner. I want to be comfortable in my own home. Additionally, Valley Mazda has several entrances and exits as%yell as a variety of road behind it for their mechanics to test drive, and for the potential buyers to test drive, without compromising anyone's safety or right to quiet enjoyment of weir own homes. There are several stop signs,and dips in the road to assist in the safety behind Valley Mazda Therefore,Valley Mazda's presence and expansion seems very consistent with the current neighborhood,and benefits that stretch of Broad Street. My CommuniZ I am t.1he`Tice Aresidnnt of 0—1?nr.lr;linair�`,?.,rt un,r,p(� e WY V Y W/YV1� V�• VY1V ,��YW s Association, and do also speak on their behalf. I believe that my concerns are likely shared by many of the residents of the Swc eney,Roc kview, Siuneridge,and Perkin areas. We are a residential community already in high use. We are not at all comparable to the business community behind Valley Mazda. L*+my opinion, an automobile dealership in diametrically opposed to the needs of the existing residential community. I also believe it will be detrimental to the safety, and th .erefore, ease of use for the other existing businesses at Staples, etc. e 11--an-Ir you once again for 1i.�Mp"ints IQt�II�I�I111paI►►SIICityISAn OBISPO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by.Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of 4� 17&-9 7 (2' 5-q rendered on which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds for submitting.the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) - The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with: Nam partrnent (Date) Appellant Ju/; r.o . So,c /570/ 51-0cti Name/Title Mailing Address I& Zip Code) Prr„1`46.yt kocLzv;AV Lloe7 ' 4'219'k o vncrs S r �_ Home Phone Work Phone Representative: Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code) For Official Use Only: 1s Calendared for 7 '�� Date&Time Received: c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Copy to the followin department(s): ' RECEIVED MAR 1 � 1998 SLO C1T`l CLERK. Original in City CierWs Office City of San Luis Obispo Appeal to the City Council RE: ARC 176-97 (2959 Broad Street) Dear City Council Members, I ask that you please review the written and orally expressed concerns of the homeowners of the Rockview Neighborhood,the business owner on Sweeney, and the business owner on Broad Street. These were submitted and taped at the ARC Hearing March 2, 1998. A) This site was rejected by the 1985 Planning Commission as unsuitable for automobile sales and service. At that time,the west end of the block(Rockview Court Homes) was not developed, and the Stoneridge Homes were also nonexistent. Now they are, and contain single family homes, primarily owner occupied This is not a business neighborhood West of Broad, on Sweeney, exists one business,Rockview holds only one other business for a total of two out of how many existing stuctures? This is a residential neighborhood, with primarily owner occupied,single family homes. Other homes are multi-family duplexes and four-plexes. This is not a business/multi- family neighbor as it has been incorrectly referred to. B) I am concerned at the ARC's lack of inquiry regarding plans and details for the site. Architectural approval has been given for a site that has yet to have finalized drawings. The Saturn team presented initial plans for a USED car lot with a"couple" of service bays. Location of bays undetermined Their Santa Maria Times article of January 1, 1998 clearly speaks to a full service automobile dealership on a scant 1.4 acres. Full service dealerships consist of new and used car sales, service bays, detail bays, and so on. C) These plans were referred to as being Phase I and Phase 11,but did not exist as such in any application submitted to the ARC. To add insult,these"phases"were not, and have not, yet, been clearly defined The Saturn plan available to residents was received at your office date stamped January 16, 1998,and clearly and specifically stated a Used Car Lot alone. No service bays were requested,although drawings indicated"location of future vehicle service center building." The ARC approved a new and used lot, with and unknown number of service bays. D) Off-loading of vehicles was denied for on street parking zones and travel lanes of Sweeney, as well as the travel lanes of Broad. No specifications for where off loading would best serve automobile and pedestrian traffic. In my opinion,off loading should be done ON SITE with all vehicles(delivery, employee,and customer)traffic entering on north Broad and exiting on south Broad. Sweeney should be completely closed to through traffic, and accessible for emergency only. This should be clarified in a crystal clear fashion. .Z-33 E) I completely disagree with the ARC's determination that noise can be mitigated. The existing building is made of corrugated metal. This will not mitigate noise. The doors open to the single family homes at Rockview Court, and cannot expect to be closed for noise control Compressors,vacuums, wrenches, engine revving,and so on is extremely loud noise for residents to endure. F) I completely disagree with the ARC's"findings"that traffic is not of concern as it has been"mitigated" City staff wrote that they had concerns for the traffic as raised by the residents,but"these concerns have been addressed." I cannot more strongly disagree. I do not believe these issues have been addressed, in fact, I believe that ARC approval compounded the existing traffic,noise,and other concerns of homeowners and residents. G) City Staff originally recommended a"solid masonry wall"to the north, obliquely dismissing the needs of residents for same to the west. City Staff did not request this north wall until such time as the yet stabilized architectural drawings are completed Mr. Cusack(Saturn) indicated he was quite surprised at the `weak"effort made by City Staff regarding the wall and the needs of the residents. He stated he expected a "high" solid,masonry wall. H) It is often the custom these days,to conduct a complete environmental impact report (EIR). I believe the City was remiss to not conduct or have an EIR conducted If they had done so,perhaps they would be aware that this is a residential neighborhood, and not the business neighborhood that Mazda occupies. They might also be aware of the significant traffic issues at Broad and Sweeney,are not in existence at the Mazda dealership—and that Mazda is surrounded primarily by other businesses with a home or two scattered about. They might also be aware that Champ Massey sold used cars, and used cars alone, and would not characterize his use as that of a "dealership"when making the case that Saturn is an appropriate use for the site. etc, etc. Please take the time to review all of the written comments and concerns submitted by the homeowners,residents, and two businesses, as I do not wish to be redundant here. As you know, few residents are involved in the democratic processes that exist,and people such as myself tend to speak for the silent majority. This Saturn dealership would be a great addition to the City of San Luis Obispo, but is best located along"auto row"or another more suitable site. Locating Saturn at Sweeney and Broad is a bad idea for the city. The City thought so 13 years ago, and they were right. Respectfully Submitted, Ju fie Stowasser o?-JAI Exhibit 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rrEM#2 BY: Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: March 2, 1998 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manage FILE NUMBER: ARC 176-97 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2959 Broad Street SUBJECT: Architectural review of a used-car dealership. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Grant final approval,with design details to return to staff. BACKGROUND Situation Saturn of Santa Maria is interested in locating a car dealership in San Luis Obispo. They propose to begin with a used car dealership/service center and expand their services in the future to include the sale of new cars if the business does well. Data&MMM Project Address: 2959 Broad Street Applicants: Saturn of Santa Maria Property Owners: Thomas McNamara Zoning: Service-Commercial,Special Considerations(C-S-S) General Plan: Services and Manufacturing Environmental Status: Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact was recommended by the Development Review Manager on February 7, 1998. Project Action Deadline: March 16, 1998 Site Description The 1.4-acre site is developed with a 9,000 s.f. warehouse building and caretaker's quarters currently occupied by Pacific Industrial Electric(P.I.E.), a wholesale electrical supply business. Significant site vegetation includes landscape planters fronting Broad and Sweeney Streets and a grouping of eucalyptus trees along the westerly property line. Residential neighborhoods are located in close proximity(see vicinity map for details). Project Description The applicant is proposing to utilize the southern half of the site and existing building as a used car dealership. The existing P.I.E. business would remain on the northern half of the property. Proposed improvements include grading and paving the parking lot, relocating the existing fencing, painting the building and providing signage. Future improvements could include a new service center building and/or expansion of the Satum business to occupy the entire site. ARC approval would be needed for a new service center building or significant architectural facade modifications. ARC 176-97, Saturn of Santa Maria Page 2 EVALUATION Site Planning The layout proposed is typical for car dealerships- cars on display toward the front of the lot and the sales office and service buildings toward the side and rear. Details regarding the location of vehicles to be displayed and required parking (approximately 18 spaces)need to be submitted for review and approval. Future Building Plans Plans show a building footprint for possible future expansion. The applicant would like to establish this as an approved building envelope as part of this project. The proposed future service center seems logically located relative to the sales office, however the location should be conditioned to comply with development standards in place at the time Community Development Department approvals are requested. Color and Materials The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing metal P.I.E building, relocating fencing, adding stairs and a ramp and patching and painting any cracked plaster. Additionally, the applicant proposes to paint the building a cream color and the roof red. Staff does not support the red roof given the site's visibility from residential neighborhoods. The Commission may want to give the applicant direction regarding building,roof and trim colors. Landscapip The landscaping plan shows general areas to be planted. Additional landscape areas are needed in order to comply with the City's Parking and Driveway standards. Namely, landscape planters within the parking area and a minimum 5 foot wide landscape strip on the property fronting Sweeney Street. Staff recommends that this information be submitted with a detailed landscape plan for staff review and approval. Staff recommends that the existing eucalyptus trees along the western property lime be retained and that if the applicant wishes to remove them, the request should be made at the time a structure is requested at that location. Signs Sign regulations allow a maximum of two signs per tenant. Five signs are proposed - two monument signs (one for P.I.E. and one for Saturn)and three wall signs on the face of the Saturn sales office building. Staff recommends the following: Saturn monument sign: Approve 24 s.f. sign per sign regulations P.I.E. monument sign: Approve exception to allow separate monument sign for god tenant Saturn roof sign facing Sweeney: Deny, roof signs not allowed per sign regulations Saturn wall sign facing Broad. Approve Saturn logo sign facing Sweeney: Approve exception to allow 3 signs where 2 are allowed x-3,6 ARC 176-97, Saturn of Santa Maria Page 3 Lighting The site plan shows five new light standards on the southern portion of the site. No details of the lighting has been provided. Twenty-foot tall light standards were approved for the Toyota and Mazda dealerships. Staff recommends that the Commission approve 20 foot tall standards for this dealership too. Staff also recommends that the lighting levels be limited to 50 footcandles during business hours and 10 footcandles during non-business hours. For comparison purposes, light standards with 80 footcandles have been found at the car dealerships on Los Osos Valley Road. Environmental NeighborhoodIwacts An initial study has been prepared for this project and will be reviewed by the Hearing Officer on March 6, 1998 in conjunction with the Administrative Use Permit request. Mitigation measures are recommended to avoid significant adverse impacts associated with project noise, lighting, runoff,construction and the site's proximity to San Luis Obispo airport. City staff has been contacted by neighboring property owners who have concerns regarding parking, operating hours, lighting, noise, traffic, odors and screening from neighboring residences. Citystaff has similar concerns. These concerns have been addressed as conditions of approval and include requirements to direct noise away from residential uses, construct a solid masonry wall along the northerly property line, limit the intensity and time of outdoor lighting, prohibit outdoor speakers, and prohibit truck traffic circulation within the adjoining neighborhood. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The Public Works Department has concerns about the loading and unloading of vehicles within travel lanes on Broad Street. The applicant will be required to address this as a condition of approval. ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the project. Action denying the application should include the basis for denial. 2. Grant schematic approval of the project, with direction on items to return to the Commission with review of final plans. 3. Continue review of the project. Direction should be given to the applicant regarding desired information or needed revisions to plans. RECOMMENDATION Grant final approval of the project and sign exceptions to allow a separate monument sign for a second tenant and to allow Saturn to have a total of three signs with the following conditions: 1. Obtain administrative use permit approval. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a listing of all proposed stationary noise sources, their generated noise levels and proposed mitigation measures to ARC 176-97, Saturn of Santa Maria Page 4 comply with city standards. Additionally,noise generated from on site uses shall be directed away from neighboring residential uses. 3. Site lighting shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval. Lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. Light standards shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Lighting levels shall not exceed 50 footcandles directly under the poles at ground level. After business hours, the lighting levels shall be reduced to 10 footcandles. 4. The project shall include bicycle parking as required by the Bicycle TransportationPlan. 5. The project shall include an outdoor employee rest area. 6. The use of exterior loud speakers, telephone bells, music and similar devices shall be prolu`bited. 7. The trash enclosure shall be fully enclosed and large enough to accommodate recyclable materials. 8. The applicant shall install a two or three-stage clarifier with covered drain to filter runoff water. 9. Street trees shall be planted per City standards(1 per 35 linear feet of street frontage). 10. Signage shall return to staff for approval. As required by the sign regulations, signs shall not be illuminated after 10:00 p.m. Sign illumination shall not exceed 10 candlepower at a distance of 10 feet from the sign. 11. A second monument sign has been approved for a second tenant. In the event only one tenant occupies the site, only one monument sign shall be permitted. 12. A landscape plan shall be submitted to staff for review and approval. The plan shall comply with the City's parking and driveway standards including parking lot planters and landscaping on site on the Sweeney Street frontage. 13. The perimeter fencing design shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval. The fence proposed along the northerly property line (abutting residential development),shall be a solid six-foot high masonry wall. The wall shall have a cap and be architecturally altered at least every fifty feet with a post or other architectural element. 14. In order to provide the required parking for P.I.E., gates on the P.I.E. side of the building are required to remain open during business hours. 15. The applicant shall identify the proposed locations for on-site and off-site (Broad Street) loading/unloading of vehicles from transport carriers. The applicant shall include truck turning templates for the design vehicles. On-site areas where the carriers will travel shall be kept clear of stored vehicles and provide adequate driveway widths. 16. No unloading of vehicles shall occur within the travel lanes of Broad or Sweeney Streets. Additionally,the transport carriers shall not utilize streets in the adjacent residential area Oe. :70 ARC 176-97, Saturn of Santa Maria Page 5 Rockview)for circulation purposes. 17. Transport carriers shall be prohibited from loadinglunloading in the on-street parking spaces on Sweeney Street unless on-street parking adjacent to the site is removed and replaced with a limited time commercial loading zone. 18. A van accessible parking stall with an 8 foot unloading zone is required for the parking facility serving the Saturn dealership side of the building. 19. Future conversion of P.I.E. building warehouse to service bays will require installation of a fire sprinkler system throughout the building. 20. The future service center building shall comply with all City development regulations including setback, building height and parking requirements in place at the time Community Development Department approvals are requested. 21. Final colors shall return to staff for review and approval. The proposed red roof shall not be permitted. Attachments: Vicinity map with residential uses noted Letter from Rockview resident 4,� copt' . Exhibit 5 ��►���oh������iii���I►IIIIIIIIIIIIn�1p°►����� III City Of SAn luis OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 March 10, 1998 REVISION Saturn of Santa Maria, Inc. 1207 E. Main Street Santa Maria, CA 93454 Dear Applicant: SUBJECT: ARC 176-97: 2959 Broad Street Architectural review of a car dealership. Dear Applicant: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of March 2, 1998, granted final approval of the project and sign exceptions to allow a separate monument sign for a second tenant and to allow Saturn to have a total of three signs with the following conditions: 1. Obtain administrative use permit approval. The ARC would like to see the following neighborhood issues addressed: parking, deliveries,traffic, lighting and noise. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a listing of all proposed stationary noise sources, their generated noise levels and proposed mitigation measures to comply with city standards. Additionally,noise generated from on site uses shall be directed away from neighboring residential uses. 3. Site lighting shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval. Lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. Light standards shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Lighting levels shall not exceed 50 footcandles directly under the poles at ground level. After business hours, the lighting levels shall be reduced to 10 footcandles. 4. The project shall include bicycle parking as required by the Bicycle Transportation Plan. 5. The project shall include an outdoor employee rest area. 6. The use of exterior loud speakers, telephone bells, music and similar devices shall be prohibited. V� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Cr� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. �(/ ARC 176-97 Page 2 7. The trash enclosure shall be fully enclosed and large enough to accommodate recyclable materials. 8. The applicant shall install a two or three-stage clarifier with covered drain to filter runoff water. 9. Street trees shall be planted per City standards (I per 35 linear feet of street frontage). 10. Signage shall return to staff for approval. As required by the sign regulations, signs shall not be illuminated after 10:00 p.m. Sign illumination shall not exceed 10 candlepower at a distance of 10 feet from the sign. 11. A second monument sign has been approved for a second tenant. In the event only one tenant occupies the site,only one monument sign shall be permitted. 12. A landscape plan shall be submitted to staff for review and approval. The plan shall comply with the City's parking and driveway standards by providing additional landscape on the perimeter and movable parking lot planters. 13. The perimeter fencing design shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval. The type of material shall be approved as part of the administrative use permit process. If a solid 6' high masonry wall is required, the wall shall have a cap and be architecturally altered at least every fifty feet with a post or other architectural element. 14. In order to provide the required parking for P.I.E., gates on the P.I.E. side of the building are required to remain open during business hours. 15. The applicant shall identify the proposed locations for on-site and off-site (Broad Street) loading/unloading of vehicles from transport carriers. The applicant shall include truck turning templates for the design vehicles. On-site areas where the carriers will travel shall be kept clear of stored vehicles and provide adequate driveway widths. 16. No unloading of vehicles shall occur within the travel lanes of Broad or Sweeney Streets. Additionally, the transport carriers shall not utilize streets in the adjacent residential area(ie. Rockview) for circulation purposes. 17. Transport carriers shall be prohibited from loading/unloading in the on-street parking spaces on Sweeney Street. 18. A van accessible parking stall with an 8 foot unloading zone is required for the parking facility serving the Saturn dealership side of the building. ARC 176-97 Page 3 19. Future conversion of P.I.E. building warehouse to service bays will require installation of a fire sprinkler system throughout the building. 20. The future service center building shall comply with all City development regulations including setback, building height and parking requirements in place at the time Community Development Department approvals are requested. 21. Final colors shall return to staff for review and approval. The proposed red roof shall not be permitted 22. Palm trees along Broad Street shall be deleted and the applicant shall select n ees from the City's approved list of street trees. While the City's water allocation regulations are in effect, the Architectural Review Commission's approval expires after three years if construction has not started, unless the Commission designated a different time period. On request, the Community Development Director may grant a single one-year extension. The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten days of the action. The appeal period will expire on Thursday, March 12, 1998 at 5:00 p.m. An appeal may be filed with the City Clerk by any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission. If you have questions, please contact Peggy Mandeville at(805)781-7175. Sincerely, ;Ro d Whis;enand Development Review Manager RW:mk cc: Charles Croster Thomas McNamara Exhibit 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rrEM#2 BY: Peggy Mandeville,Associate Planner f6 MEETING DATE:May 13, 1998 FROM:Ron Whisenand,Development Review Manager FILE NUMBER:A/ER 176-97 PROJECT ADDRESS:2959 Broad Street SUBJECT: Continued public hearing on an appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision allowing a car dealership in the C-S-S zone. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Uphold the Hearing Officer's decision to approve the use permit and environmental determination for a car dealership and service center, based on findings, and subject to conditions of approval outlined in the staff recommendationat the end of this report BACKGROUND On March 6, 1998 the Hearing Officer approved a use permit to allow a Saturn automobile dealership at 2959 Broad Street Because of potential noise issues, the service center use also requested by the applicant, was not approved. The use permit approval requires that any future service use be approved through a modification to this use permit and the request be accompanied by an acoustical study which addresses noise impacts on nearby properties. Four appeals of the Hearing Officer's decision were received by the Community Development Department during the 10-day appeal period. Two were filed from the neighborhood and two from the applicant The appeal was heard by the Planning Commission on April 8, 1998. At that hearing,the Planning Commission continued their review of the project to a date uncertain to allow the applicant to conduct a more thorough noise study including soundstnoise heard at the neighboring residences to determine the actual level of noise generated by this proposed business. On April 24, 1998, City staff and one appellant(Art Murphy)observed the noise consultant as he measured noise generated by an impact wrench and air compressor used on the site in the approximate location where such uses are proposed. On May 3, 1998, the noise consultant submitted an updated noise analysis and recommended mitigation measures. Data Surnmary Project Address:2959 Broad Street Applicants: Saturn of Santa Maria Property Owners: Kimo Panky Zoning: Service-Commercial,Special Considerations(C-S-S) J41 A/ER 176-97,2959 Broad Street Page 2 General Plan: Services and Manufacturing Environmental Status: Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact was recommended by the Development Review Manager on February 7, 1998. Site Description The 1.4-acre site is developed with a 9,000 s.f. warehouse building and caretaker's quarters currently occupied by Pacific Industrial Electric (P.I.E.), a wholesale electrical supply business. Significant site vegetation includes landscape planters fronting Broad and Sweeney Streets and a grouping of eucalyptus trees along the westerly property line. A residential neighborhood is located in close proximity(see vicinity map for details). Project Description At present,the applicant proposes to utilize the southern half of the site and portions of the existing building as a used car dealership. The existing P.I.E.business would remain on the northern half of the property. Proposed improvements include grading and paving the parking lot, relocating the existing fencing,painting the building,and providing signage. Future improvements could include a new service center building and/or expansion of the Saturn business to occupy the entire site. Approval of a use permit is required because of the Special Considerations overlay zone. EVALUATION Noise On April 24, 1998, City staff observed the noise consultant as he measured noise generated by an impact wrench and air compressor used on the site in the approximate location where such uses are proposed. Although at close range the machines were noisy, the sound dissipated quickly the farther away one got from the noise source. Sound from the equipment could be heard at the property line,however along with the sound of vehicles traveling down Broad Street,the sound did not stand out or appear objectionable. Sound from the equipment could barely be heard in the rear yards of the Rockview Court homes. Several other "neighborhood sounds" such as sirens, an electric weed wacker,and rock music were much more noticeable. David Lord, the acoustics and noise consultant for the project applicant has submitted his report on the noise impacts associated with the project The report addresses: 1) ambient noise levels in the neighborhood, 2) anticipated noise impacts from a established auto service facility (Saturn in Santa Maria),and 3) on-site noise level tests with key service equipment. The conclusion that is drawn from the noise analysis is that the service operation will not increase neighborhood levels that are in excess of those limits established by the City's General Plan Noise Element (60 decibels). Ambient noise levels at the western property line were tested at 55 decibels and increased to 57 during the impact wrench tests. Although the 2 decibel increase was noticeable to staff, it was not significant and was within the maximum allowable noise levels established by the General Plan. a-�y A/ER 176-97,2959 Broad Street Page 3 At staff s request, the noise consultant sampled noise readings at the Rockview Court residential development. Backyard noise readings (at five feet in height) during the equipment test were measured between 45 and 49 decibels and increased only slightly(approximately %decibel) over ambient readings in the same locations. Second floor readings (not protected by the existing masonry wall located at the property line abutting Alpha Sprinklers) ranged between 48 and 55.7 decibels with an ambient reading of 47.5 decibels. Again, these levels are well within the allowable noise levels for residential land uses. Due to the noise levels being within an acceptable range, no noise mitigation or attenuation measures are proposed by the noise consultant. Although not required to mitigate noise impacts, the applicant has offered to house the air compressor in an acoustically designed enclosure and restrict the use or air impact tools to inside the building. City staff contacted the Police Department to inquire about complaints filed regarding noise generated from car dealerships. Only one complaint was on file. The complaint was filed against an auto dealer on Los Osos Valley Road that used exterior loud speakers for paging employees. Although Saturn does not propose to use such a system,City staff recommends that the project be conditions to prohibit the use of exterior loud speakers,telephone bells,music or similar devices. Hours of Operation Staff continues to support the following hours of operation: Auto sales 7:30 am.to 8:00 p.m.daily Service/Delivery 7:30 am.to 7:00 p.m.Monday-Friday 8:00'a.m.to 5:00 p.m.Saturday At this time, staff does not support any service activity on Sunday. If the applicant wishes to pursue Sunday service in the future, staff would recommend that the applicant wait until the business has been fully operational for one year before requesting an amendment to the use permit. Traffic and Circulation City staff will continue to monitor traffic counts on Broad Street to identify when an additional traffic signal is needed on Broad Street. It has been determined however that traffic generated from this project will not create the need. City staff continues to recommend that the Sweeney driveway remain open as requested by the applicant. Use of this driveway will allow vehicles to enter Broad Street from a public street which the City encourages. Staff is recommending four conditions of approval (Conditions 1, 8, 9, 10) to address traffic and circulation concerns raised by the appellants. These conditions include limiting hours and location A/ER 176-97,2959 Broad Street Page 4 of deliveries,establishing a test drive route,restricting the test-driving of vehicles in the Rockview neighborhood,and restricting right tarns from the site onto Sweeney Street. Masonry Wall In light of the fact that the noise analysis did not identify any significant impacts from the proposed use, City staff is no longer requiring a masonry wall to be constructed along the northerly property line. To reduce visual impacts however, staff is requiring the placement of a wooden fence along this property line. In addition,the planting of trees and shrubs along both the northern and westem property line have been required to provide a minimum 20 foot tall landscape screen between the site and neighboring residential development. Automobile Dealership Use Automobile sales and auto repair are both approved uses in the C-S zone. Because the site is within the Special Considerations Overlay zone, an administrative use permit approval is required before any use can be established. The use permit requirement is intended to assure compatibility of the use with its surroundings,conformance with the General Plan and resolution of area problems such as noise exposure, flood hazard, airport hazard, and slope stability. Staff believes that with the conditions recommended in this staff report,the use will be compatible with its surroundings. General Plan Land Use Element Policy 3.5.7 states,"Auto sales in areas of the City other than Auto Park Way should be minimized,in order to reinforce the auto sales center and to maximize space for other uses in other locations." Staff believes that establishing an auto sales use at this location conforms with the General Plan policy which states that auto sales in other areas "should be minimized". At present there are two other dealerships(Mazda and Volvo)within the vicinity on Broad Street. Additionally,there are several established dealerships located on Monterey Street north of downtown. ALTERNATIVES The Commission may approve, approve with conditions, deny, or continue action on this application. A denial should be based on specific findings. A continuance should be accompanied by direction to the applicant or staff. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Comments received from other departments are included as conditions of approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Uphold the Hearing Officer's decision to approve Use Permit 176-97 and Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 176-97 to allow the development of a used/new car dealership and service center J46 A/ER 176-97,2959 Broad Street Page 5 with a maximum of four(4)service bays in the Special Considerations Overlay zone based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions of approval: Findinjzs 1. The proposed used/new car dealership and service center will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design to adequately address possible site impacts from project noise,traffic, circulation, lighting,construction, drainage and proximity to the airport. 2. The proposed used/new car dealership and service center is appropriate at this location on Broad Street and with the required mitigation measures will be compatible with surrounding land uses which are service commercial and multi-family residential. 3. The proposed use conforms with the general plan and meets zoning ordinance requirements with approval of this use permit to establish the use. 4. Mitigation measures provided in Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 176-97 adequately address environmental issues associated with a used/new car dealership and service center at this location. Conditions (Noise) 1. Car sales shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 am. to 8:00 p.m. daily. All other uses including service, delivery, and site maintenance shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 am. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 am.to 5 p.m. Saturday. 2. A sign shall be posted at the loading area limiting the hours of delivery and notifying drivers that trick engines must be turned off when parked. The signs shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 3. All stationary and portable electric motor or engine powered air compressors shall be housed in an acoustically designed enclosure to minimize noise. All air impact tools shall be used inside the building, operated as far away from the open service bay doors as possible. big 4. A/ER 176-97,2959 Broad Street Page 6 5. The use of exterior loud speakers,telephone bells,music and similar devices shall be prohibited. 6. A wooden fence shall be located along the northerly property line to visually screen the site from the adioining residential use. .E. bugdiag (preseffdy-theFerare aet-bugd agep ^a t—he a w :d +n the w&U Ta the + r r + abutting S-13AH-1-e`a S91id Eaasemy wall-ef similafselind ,, e. ..;high e l s...m City ..tm-1,_a (Dust) 7. All graded surfaces shall be wetted,protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill onto any adjoining property or street. The following measures shall constitute the project's dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of project construction: a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas(at least twice daily with complete coverage of all active areas); b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph; c. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph; d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or off-site; e. Watering material stockpiles; f. Periodic wash-downs, or mechanical street sweeping of streets in the vicinity of the site; and g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work. (Traffic/Circulation) 8. A sign shall be located at the Sweeney Street driveway requiring vehicles to turn left toward Broad Street. A notice shall be posted within the employee area noting the permitted test drive route and restricting the test driving of vehicles(for sale or under repair)within the Rockview neighborhood. 9. No unloading of vehicles shall occur within the travel lanes of Broad and Sweeney Streets. Additionally,the transport carriers shall not utilize streets in the adjacent residential area(ie. Rockview) for circulation purposes. 10. Transport carriers shall be prohibited from loading/unloading in the on-street parking spaces on Sweeney Street. A/ER 176-97,2959 Broad Street Page 7 (Airport impacts) 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the applicant and submitted to the County for approval and recordation. The applicant shall provide the Community Development Department with a copy of the easement for documentation purposes. Note: The process of granting an avigation easement takes approximately one month therefore it is recommended that applicants pursue this requirement as soon as possible. (Drainage) 12. A two or three-stage clarifier with covered drain shall be installed in conjunction with the automotive use(both sales and service)to filter wash/rinse water and runoff before it enters City systems. (On-site parking) 13. No on-site parking reductions shall be granted for shared or mixed use parking. Parking areas for employees and customers for each business shall be distinguished and clearly marked. Three additional on-site parking spaces(beyond what is normally required by the Zoning Regulations)to mmm=on-street parking impacts. (Light/Glare) 14. Lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. Light standards shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Lighting levels shall not exceed 50 footcandles directly under the poles at ground level. After business hours,the lighting levels in the display area shall be reduced to 10 footcandles. 15. Sign illumination shall not exceed 10 candlepower at a distance of 10 feet from the sign. Signs shall not be illuminated after 10 p.m. (Visual screening) 16. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall submit plans which indicate the location of any mechanical equipment and the method used to screen this equipment. If installed on a rooftop,the equipment shall be screened by a parapet or other architectural compatible screening. 17. The landscape area located along the northerly property line(adjacent to residential development)and the northern and southern 100 feet of the westerly property line shall be planted with a mixture of 1 and 5 gallon shrubs and 5 and 15 gallon trees that at maturity will provide a minimum 20 foot tall landscape screen between the site and neighboring residential development. A/ER 176-97,2959 Broad Street Page 8 18. Perimeter fencing design which visually screens storage areas from view off-site shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval. 19. Amy fiaum senS iete AWRI-kaieasshfill_ e edifi.afieB efthis. e ..._.:t and shall .hal be 266 ea . 4th site speei fie t atie•. ad de g a lis fi fig ,.foeise , e -Ace;AffiffiA-e-al y te address noise mrasts en s r r r and .+ Attached: Vicinity map Updated noise analysis dated May 1, 1998 Noise Element map Letter dated 5/5/98 submitted by Art Murphy Initial study Project site plans,Phase 1 and 2 Note: Draft Planning Commission minutes of April 8, 1998 contained in this Planning Commission packet include the previous Planning Commission hearing minutes on the Saturn use permit appeal. a-so Exhibit 7 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.5222-98 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct a public hearing in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 13, 1998 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application A and ER 176-97, Saturn of Santa Maria, Inc., applicant/appellant and Charles Croster, A.D. Murphy, Joe DeLucia and Julie Stowasser, appellants. ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REVIEWED: A and ER 176-97: Review of an appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision to allow a car dealership with a service center in the C-S-S zone. DESCRIPTION: On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall. GENERAL LOCATION: 2959 Broad Street GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT: Service Commercial with a Special Considerations Overlay PRESENT ZONING: C-S-S WHEREAS, said Commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and studies made by itself, and in behalf of testimonies offered at said hearing has established existence of the following circumstances: �s� Resolution No. 5222-98 A 176-97 Page 2 1. The proposed used/new car dealership and service center will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design to adequately addreis possible site impacts from project noise, traffic, circulation, lighting, construction, drainage and proximity to the airport. 2. The proposed used/new car dealership and service center is appropriate at this location on Broad Street and with the required mitigation measures will be compatible with surrounding land uses which are service commercial and multi-family residential. 3. The proposed use conforms with the general plan and meets zoning ordinance requirements with approval of this use permit to establish the use. 4. Mitigation measures provided in Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 176-97 adequately address environmental issues associated with a used/new car dealership and service center at this location. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hearing Officer's decision denying the appeal of Administrative Use Permit and Environmental Review A and ER 176-97 be approved and subject to the following conditions: (Noise) 1. Car sales shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 am. to 8:00 p.m. daily. All other uses including service, delivery, and site maintenance shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.Monday through Friday and 8:00 am. to 5 p.m. Saturday. 2. A sign shall be posted at the loading area limiting the hours of delivery and notifying drivers that truck engines must be turned off when parked. The signs shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 3. All station= and portable electric motor or engine powered air compressors shall be housed in an acoustically designed enclosure to minimize noise All air impact tools shall be used inside the building, operated as far away from the open service bay doors as possible. resser- equipment sh.,,, h i,.emed- d operated •th eaGI a building 4. Dr-:..r- to the issumse of .. buil iRg pefmit the appli.ant shall ....hmitnais;p _-,__i_ list.•, inel Ming a o f all p��r� st t sed their- . d lev i a a , -SIX Resolution No. 5222-98 A 176-97 Page 3 staffs: 5. The use of exterior loud speakers, telephone bells, music and similar devices shall be prohibited. 6. A 6 foot high wooden fence shall be located along the northerly property line to visually screen the site from the adjoining_residential use. p i R 1. ilii' 19 / se*lam am Aet buila.�nb��z�a�n n..d thet Amtgide orun is used CAF 4 d ki 1 \ the ll ale" the northerly efty abutting mside..h:ni vcoxaso mxa-Pmxc::a�oax:J�c:o •,•a: a:vns 7rPMP 7 � deVOI@PR;M- -t 1` 11 L.e solid masemy •.rill l li r skailor sema n i.' Trpliei.�,ri}1•, City standards to the appFeval of the GeFamunity DevelOPFBOFA D46 (fit) 7. All graded surfaces shall be wetted,protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill onto any adjoining property or street. The following measures shall constitute the project's dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of project construction: a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete coverage of all active areas); b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed IS mph; c. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph; d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or off-site; e. Watering material stockpiles; f. Periodic wash-downs, or mechanical street sweeping of streets in the vicinity of the. site; and g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work. (Traffic/Circulation) 8. A sign shall be located at the Sweeney Street driveway requiring vehicles to turn left toward Broad Street. A notice shall be posted within the employee area noting the permitted test drive route and prohibiting the test driving of vehicles (for sale or under repair)within the Rockview neighborhood. 9. Unloading of vehicles shall occur on site and not within the travel lanes of Broad and Sweeney Streets. Additionally, the transport carriers shall not utilize streets in the adjacent residential area(ie. Rockview) for circulation purposes. s� Resolution No. 5222-98 A 176-97 Page 4 10. Transport carriers shall be prohibited from loading/unloading in the on-street parking spaces on Sweeney Street. (Airport Impacts) 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the applicant and submitted to the County for approval and recordation. The applicant shall provide the Community Development Department with a copy of the easement for documentation purposes. Note: The process of granting an avigation easement takes gpproximately one month, therefore it is recommended that applicants pursue this requirement as soon as possible. (Drainage) 12. A two or three-stage clarifier with covered drain shall be installed in conjunction with the automotive use (both sales and service) to filter wash/rinse water and runoff before it enters City systems. (On-site Parking) 13. No on-site parking reductions shall be granted for shared or mixed use parking. Parking areas for employees and customers for each business shall be distinguished and clearly marked. Three additional on-site parking spaces (beyond what is normally required by the Zoning Regulations)to minimize on-street parking impacts. (Light/Glare) 14. Lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. Light standards shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Lighting levels shall not exceed 50 footcandles directly under the poles at ground level. After business hours, the lighting levels in the display area shall be reduced to 10 footcandles. 15. Sign illumination shall not exceed 10 candlepower at a distance of 10 feet from the sign. Signs shall not be illuminated after 10 p.m. (Visual Screening) 16. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans which indicate the location of any mechanical equipment and the method used to screen this equipment. If installed on a rooftop, the equipment shall be screened by a parapet or other architectural compatible screening. Resolution No. 5222-98 A 176-97 Page 5 17. The landscape area located along the northerly property line (adjacent to residential development) and the northern and southern 100 feet of the westerly property line shall be planted with a mixture of 1 and 5 gallon shrubs and 15 gal1ve and :14" box 5 and 15 gallon trees that at maturity will provide a minimum 20 foot tall landscape screen between the site and neighboring residential development. 18. Perimeter fencing design which visually screens storage areas from view off-site shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval. 19. AFiy future f '1't' shall require medif:nat:en of thisel ffmit a.. siball Wea a ith 't nr o:fie lesatiell f' nrn and design a- listing ea mles' an aseua.t' 1 study t addFess eine imnrn r ntn on nearby r-o.parF:en nna mit:vatie ':ate pr 19. Sufficient space shall be provided in the trash enclosure area for recycling materials to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The foregoing resolution was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo upon separate roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ashbaugh,Jeffrey, Marx, Ready,Whittlesey NOES: None REFRAIN: Commissioner Senn ABSENT: Commissioners Ewan a Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary Planning Commission MK\PC\5222-98 I 1 � .; �0 �NMI �, r VICINITY . : Exhibit 9 r \ _Q ¢Q N �Q F W O WS D o� Y m L = Y W~6J ? 6 N W 7¢ O QM —i- —oo o— 1331i1S(NOUS 2a�� gW r 7¢Vw z NO 3 m Fm7x F R z w akNa¢ NQQ O9'6fZ 3.l0 bZ Lf C7 zz 1 1 ¢5 1 1 Q a a _ WCC 0w QI I � 1 1 -------------- 7 o a F t 1 -- --- E L w W Q Y I E O (J O G Z Q 6 y O C z x a5 w oz D 1 1C a ¢u Q o N 1 a Y �8 } Z Oa O I I w mi zJ Q w z E m aw am J D a 1 E 3w �.. c 0 i U zy oz a e I > z m J2 w 1 .Fez -tress .�-•� N UU N 1 . 2 =.Q.. m = W w d z 1 ¢ i WW Z O 1 0 S z Y w z F- J '. 3 'or y i z .. � 18 > �6 Wz ,� W O =¢ r In rc Lu O 2 w' �W / 2 W wjQ Q Im O W W w Jm 0 ¢ Ow p z F $ rA or cz Wm C7 / w/Z1 p w0 �' 1 X b W Q W ¢ we2 rr a E I C CIO R a " c I $ E W f a s Q E CC s¢ Z 1 .r4 1; Q ww z Go ;� a z 'v o rP. W.-. H w W i -j W L 00 UQ U m 1 _z o 1 I O W 3 A C C13 w a w cc 2 W ¢m ¢� ; C, R w R a o _ ' Z ---------------------------------------- N a ¢a W fa Q G W Q �� U oai N W U 133111S O OH9 Z c =¢Zw U� Q�6U co NQ< -09'= 3_l0 BZ LC S als :i:ii i'?'iiE�iti7<�'•y:'iii'ii!'i'?:i3?i:iiE"ii'!iii'�i:i�i�i � LL i a w ® Q W F I I 2 4 c. MO 7 C p �� UV w N j cc e Q , W 0 LL I w W LL r. oO U i -- aN� QJo z = ui m W _ J a x U� W Q ---------------- wLU = E W Q) 2 =cc PL4 CO _ U a W ee I o a e R z R Fw Q) W Z; , rA m LL; O o u O> IR ♦ o ' o AS'612� M.55 AZ ZEN Z i r ���� , �� • Exhibit 10 Noise Fdement FIGURE 5 "- © , BUILD-OUT NOISE CONTOURS Southern Section of San Luis Obispo �j JM SITE OO ,port area noise contours,see Figure 6. Sites in the xdhe=comer of this map may be subject to both road and =aft noise. Sites subject to both noise sources need \ pecific studies of noise expose M 19 q Exhibit 11 David Lord, ALArch.,Ph.D. 299 Albert Drive Acoustics and Noise Consulting San Leis Obispo,CA 93405 (805)5494046 May 1, 1998 Noise Analysis and Mitigation Recommendations Proposed Saturn Used Vehicle Facility 2959 Broad Street RECEIVED City of San Luis Obispo, California MAY 1 1998 for: Chanes Ciotser, AIA CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P.O. Box 12528 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-2528 Description and Noise Criteria: The dimensions and layout used in this noise analysis are taken from the plans and sections supplied by the architect. The noise issue is the sound generated by operations on site, including a potential stationary noise source of a compressor-driven air impact wrench used for tire changes, pressure cleaning equipment and automobiles being started, driven and parked. Potentially affected nearby residential areas are to the south, west and north of the proposed facility. With regard to land use,potential noise conflict and noise mitigation measures, the noise level standards contained in the Noise Element of the General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo, 1996, are used to evaluate the site. The maximum acceptable noise exposure is judged from the property lime of the receiving land use. Maximum acceptable transportation noise source is listed (page 2,Figure 1)as: Residential Outdoor Activity Area: CNEL or LDN =60 dBA noise mudysis,page I ExistingNoise Levels on Site Existing.. Exisnoise levels at the property line were measured on March 29 -30, and again on April 22- 24, 1998 . Individual on-site noise measurements were made in the middle of the day and also during morning and evening commute hours and during the 10 pm- 7 am evening hours. Measurements were made over a total running time period of eight hours, using a Type I, Integrating,Recording,Precision Sound Level Meter, accurate to 1 dBA. The sound level meter was calibrated before and after all measurements. Five points,A,B, C,D, E were selected along the west and north side at the property be (see Figure 1). The average noise level,L,q was measured and recorded. The day-night noise level, LDN was then calculated for each location(see Table 1;see also appendix for definition of 1,qand LDN)• It is important to keep in mind that L,q is based on time-averaged instantaneous measurements of sound, and that LDN is a calculated value based on multiple measurements through the day and night.LDN is the single value that determines acceptability in the Noise Element of the General Plan. Instantaneous noise peaks and valleys of a short time period have very little influence on the overall daily LDN value. LDN values are shown in Figure 1, along with estimated noise contour lines that run through the site. Broad Street is a significant noise source only on the east side of the existing structure. The structure acts as a significant noise barrier, reducing ambient noise levels on the west and partially on the south and north side of the property,protecting or buffering the residential properties from the noise of Broad Street. Broad Street (State Route 227) is a$ve-lane thoroughfare—four traffic lanes and a center tuming lane--with a 40 mp.h.posted speed limit,and with a mixture of light and heavy vehicular traffic. Current average traffic flow is 27,500 vehicles daily. noise analysis,page 2 ROCKI+MW DRIVE 0 1 n 1 8. CO3 ,.�50 50 IIIIIIe 11111 III Ie1 y . `,,,"',`'',,♦�I — IIt It Otf ltt lilt It lttf!! tl♦�� 1 i 1 51 dB 5 dBA 1 1 1 6dBA ; 60 r a 1 A 1 3 dB ` lU4l�! .l l.e.ef.lee. ♦ 1 ": W fiIIn!leelluflefl ,O`� i� compressor 1 LA' V i im ct wrench .70 tilt tf1„pleIII M nnu m 1 1 _ BA _ ©7 dBA IueonD srREEl' Figure 1. Location of noise measurements,with estimated LDx noise contour lines. noise analysis,page 3 Saturn Facility in Santa Maria The Saturn automobile sales and maintenance operation on Main Street in the city of Santa Maria was monitored for noise contribution to the nearby residential neighborhood lying to the north. The Saturn operation in Santa Maria is approximately twice the size and volume of the proposed facility on Broad Street in San Luis Obispo. Noise levels on site were measured on the morning of 22 April. The major background noise source is nearby U.S. Highway,'101 to the west. The major on-site contribution to noise is the use of air impact wrenches for changing tires. On the busiest day, the Santa Maria Saturn dealership maintain approximately 20 cars,requiring the use of the air impact wrench A gasoline driven compressor for pressure spray wash is used in Santa Maria, but this device will not be used in San Luis Obispo. Use of electric air compressors and air impact wrenches made no measurable or perceptible noise contribution to the residences toward the north, as the bay rollup doors on the north side were closed. With the door open,the following instantaneous noise levels were measured at the property line to the north Background sound level 56 dBA Air Impact Wrench at 100 feet i 58 dBA Air Impact Wrench at 200 feet 57 dBA If these levels are time averaged over an entire day, they are not expected to contribute significantly to the LnN at the property line to the north. Future Noise On Proposed Broad Street Saturn Site On March 29 and again on April 22 and 24,the use of a pneumatic impact wrench and an air compressor was tested for additional noise contribution to sound levels at the property line to the noise analysis,page 4 �-G3 west, about 266 feet distant from the proposed service bay area(see Figure 1). These are the actual tools that will be used in the proposed Saturn Used Vehicle Facility. The impact wrench operation was simulated just inside the entrance to the structure on the west side,marked"X" in Figure 1. Noise level measurements were made at the property line before, during and after the use of the pneumatic impact wrench. Typical noise levels before and after the impact wrench were about L,, 55 dBA at the property line. During the use of the impact wrench, the noise levels rose to about 57 dBA. The rise in sound level of 2 dBA is considered to be subjectively imperceptible, although measurable by a precision sound level meter at the property line. The impact wrench will be used infrequently and intermittently through the day, it is estimated that approximately six sets of tires will be changed per day. This gives a total of 240 uses of the air impact wrench in removing and replacing lug nuts, each use about 3 seconds. 3 sec x 240 hignuts = 720 seconds. (720 seconds)/(60 see/min) 12 minutes total time Intermittent use of the impact wrench will total about twelve minutes per day. This will not contnbute significantly to the overall average sound level or LDN portrait of the site. Noise levels at the property line to the southwest, 56 dBA, are well below the threshold LDN 60 dBA level prescribed in the Noise Element of the General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo. Therefore, additional noise from the site up to an additional 4 dBA would be acceptable on that side of the site. Exterior noise levels at the property line to the north are slightly above the threshold LDN 60 dBA. The origin of this noise comes from Broad Street, not from the proposed auto facility. The proposed service bays and Saturn vehicle activities are oriented to the south and west, and should noise analyse,page S 0,4-1w not have a noise impact toward the north ofthe site. The existing P.I.E. storage area, delivery area,entry and customer parking are located on the north side and this activity is not expected to change. Noise levels from activities on the proposed auto facility will also come from the driving and parking of vehicles on the site. Most of this future activity will be on the south side of the site. It is estimated that 100 or fewer automobiles will be driven and parked on site each business day. Considered individually, with an average engine operation while on site of four minutes, the total accumulated time is projected to be equivalent to 6.6 hours of single automobile on-site engine running and idling. This additional noise is still just a small fraction of the nearby 27,500 vehicles per day running at 40 mph past the site on Broad Street. Residences to the north are closer to the proposed facility, but most new noise-producing activities will be on the south side, and should have no measurable additional noise impact to the north. There is no indication of a need for a noise barrier on the north side of the site. The sound levels of the foreseeable activities on-site may individually and collectively have an instantaneous,measurable noise impact, but will have minimal effect on the daylong average noise level(Lnx) at the boundaries of the site. The residential areas to the south are separated from the site by a street, Sweeney Lane,to the south. Residences to the west are separated by commercial property to the west. A grouted masonry noise wall presently separates the residential from the commercial property to the west. There is no indication of a need for additional sound barrier to the west. Future Noise From Broad Street The current average daily traffic flow on Broad Street is 27,500 vehicles. The future "buildout" traffic flow figure given by CalTrans is 35,000 vehicles per day. This increase in traffic flow will have the effect of raising the LDN at the west side of the site (points "D" and "E" on Figure 1)by one decibel noise analysis,page 6 Noise from Average Daily Traffic Figures David Lora Acoustics ConsePofng 299 Abert Dr. San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 Proposed Saturn Facility, Broad Street(S.R. 227) North of Orcutt, San Luis Obispo, CA Calculation of added noise sources Pnoise ((10ti16ri "(Pnois Present noise level (LDN) 55 dBA intensity= 3.16E-11 WIr-M Present traffic flow, 1998 27,500 ADT (Average Daily Traffic) Future traffic flow, 2005 35,000 ADT 1.0 Anoise=dBA additional n( Future noise level (L.cN) 56.0 dBA 10'LOG10(D11JD71) Pnise+Anise Recommended Future Noise Mitigation All stationary and portable noise-producing maintenance and operating activities at the proposed Saturn facility shall be controlled mi the following way: 1. All stationary and portable electric motor or engine-powered air compressors shall be housed in an acoustically designed enclosure to minimize noise. 2. All air impact tools shall be used inside the Saturn Vehicle Facility building, operated as far away from the open service-bay doors as possible. 3. The use of loudspeakers for paging shall be prohibited. 4. Operating hours, including deliveries, shall be limited to the hours from 7 am to 7 pm, Monday through Saturday. noise analysis,page 7 co-f-6/ Additional instantaneous measurements of noise from an air compressor and air impact wrench were made at the nearby residences to the west of the proposed facility . on April 24, 1998 from 10 am to 12 noon :Measurements were taken outside 2944 Rockview, 2980 Rockview and 2976 Rockview. The results of those measurements are shown in the next pages. sound mete 51 .4 dBA background MASONRY WAl..l, EXIST]N cOMOM i uM ound ee 45.5 dBA Ln�T 2944 Rockview Figure 2. Section showing noise measurements at 2944 Rozkview. Background noise levels before and after air impact wrench operation, not to scale (see text). noise analysis,page 8 sound mete 52.8 dBA pa wre h MASONRY WALL FMSTING CONDO M 0 46 dBA UNrr ound e 2944 Rockview Figure 3. Section showing noise measurements at 2944 Rockview,with impact wrench operation located about 266 feet to the east. Not to scale (see text). noise analysis,page 9 sound meter 47.5 dBA background SIING CONDOM 0 45 dBA UNrr ound e p 2980 ,Rockview Figure 4. Section showing noise measurements at 2980 Rockview,background noise before and after impact wrench measurements. Not to scale(see text). noise analysis,page 10 sound meter 552.2 dBA i pac wrens I MSIIN COMOl UM 0 49 d BA .r ound e UN : p w 2980 Rockview Figure 5. Section showing noise measurements at 2980 Rockview, with impact wrench operation located about 290 feet to the east. Not to scale(see text). noise analysis,page 11 .2-7100 sound meter 48 dBA it copresKr EXISTING CONnoMMUM ound a 45 d BA UNrr 2980 Rockview Figure 6. Section showing noise measurements at 2980 Rockview, with air compressor operation located about 290 feet to the east. Not to scale(see text). noise analysis,page 12 J-7/ sound meter 52 d BA background MASONRYWALL 1, EMSTING C NDOMNIUM 0 ound e47 dBA UNIT 2976 RockView Figure 7. Section showing noise measurements at 2976 Rockview,background noise levels. Not to scale (see text). noise analysis,page 13 J-7oZ, sound meter 55.7 d BA im act rench MASONRY WALT, EXISTING CONDOMINIUM ound 8.5 dBA UNIT 2976 Rockview Figure 8. Section showing noise measurements at 2976 Rockview, air impact wrench operation located 266 feet to the east. Not to scale (see text). noise analysis,page 14 �-l3 sound meter 53.5 dBA air om esso MASONRYWAIL 7 CONDOl I M 0 48.5 dBA UNIT ound e 2976 Rockview Figure 9. Section showing noise measurements at 2976 Rockview,air compressor operation located 266 feet to the east. Not to scale (see tela). noise analysis,page 15 C� north boundary fence sound a 58• dBA e Figure 10. Section showing instantaneous noise measurement at north boundary fence, air compressor located about 100 feet to the South. Background noise before and after measurement was 57.0 dBA Not to scale (see text). noise analysis,page 16 q/ �'lJ Appendix: dBA: A-weighted sound level. The ear does not respond equally to all frequencies, but is less sensitive at low and high frequencies than it is at medium or speech range frequencies. Thus,to obtain a single number representing the sound level of a noise containing a wide range of . frequencies in a manner representative of the ear's response, it is necessary to reduce the effects of the low and high frequencies with respect to the medium frequencies. The resultant sound level is said to be A-weighted, and the units are dBA. The A-weighted sound level is also called the noise level. C.N.E.L. Community noise equivalent level is a scale that takes account of all the A-weighted sound level at a point. Weighting factors place greater importance upon noise events occurring during the evening hours(7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) and even greater importance upon noise events at night (10 p.m.to 7 a m). LDN Day-night sound level. Equivalent sound level computed from A-weighted sound levels measured over a 24-hour period, with a 10 dBA penalty for sound contributions between 10 p.m. and 7 am. L.q The energy average sound level. Averaging time, commonly 1 hour, is indicated. Precision of Sound Level Meters. The American National Standards Institute(ANSI) specifies several types of sound level meters according to their precision. Types 1,2, and 3 are referred to as "precision," °general-purpose,"'and it meters,respectively. Most measurements carefully taken with a type 1 sound;level meter will have an error not exceeding 1 dB. The corresponding error for a type 2 sound level meter is about 2 dB. The sound level meter used for measurements shown in this report is a Larson-Davis Laboratories Model 820. This meter meets all requirements of ANSI sl.4,IEC 651 for Type 1 accuracy and includes the following features: 110 dB dynamic range for error free measurements. Measures FAST, SLOW,Unweighted PEAK, Weighted PEAK, Impulse, Lw, LDOD,LOSHA, Dose, Time Weighted Average, SEL,Lmax,Lmin, LDN. Time history sampling periods from 32 samples per second up to one sample every 255 seconds. Calibration of the meter is made before and after all field measurements with both an internal and external calibrator. Laboratory calibration of the meter is performed biannually and can be traced to the U.S.NIST standard. noise analysis,page 17 / Subjective Loudness Changes. In addition to precision measurement of sound level changes, there is a subjective characteristic which describes how most people respond to sound: A change in sound level of 3 dBA is barely perceptible by most listeners. A change in level of 6 dBA is perceptible. A change of 10 dBA is perceived by most people as being twice (or hao as loud. noise analysis,page 18 x'77 Threshold ofpain ....----...----....................................................................................-...._......._. +120 +110 +100 100 +90 impa nch at 10' compressor at 10' +80 80 l +70 50 mph m +60 .._...._............................ ......................................._....................----s. .........................................--...--- ....... ...................... +50 u D +40 lr Re gerator 40 +30 Bi si ging +20 20 +10 Phons Pss' st'" 0 Threshold of hearing 0 -10 I 20 50 100 200 500 1000 5000 10,000 20,000 Frequency - Hz Figure 11. Graph showing human response to environmental noises; common sound sources shown along with impact wrench at 10 feet and air compressor at 10 feet distance. A-weighted equal loudness curves show why certain sounds seem louder than others. noise analysis,page 19 Exhibit 12 ►�Ill��iil Ilillii���i�li�I��;�jj�� �,�I.lilllll� � i� fl city of sAn luis OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ER 176-97 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Saturn of Santa Maria 1. Project Title: Saturn New/Used Vehicle Facility (Dealership and Service Center) 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: Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner (805) 781-7175 4. Project Location: 2959 Broad Street 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Saturn of Santa Maria 1207 E. Main Street, Santa Maria, CA 93456 6. General Plan Designation: .. Services & Manufacturing 7. Zoning: C-S-S, Service Commercial, Special Considerations !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. 8. Description of the Project: The site is currently occupied by the P.I.E. business. The site is improved with a two-story 7,080 s.f. building, caretakers quarters, loading dock and. outdoor storage. Access to the site is currently provided from Broad Street and Sweeney Lane. The applicant proposes to relocate the P.I.E. business to the northerly portion of the site and locate the Saturn used vehicle facility on the southerly portion of the site. Initially, the two businesses will operate out of the existing building. Project plans include the addition of a 6,500 s.f. building in the future. This initial study will address this expansion. The Saturn business will include the display, sale and storage of new and used vehicles for sale and a vehicle service center. Proposed services include detailing, tune ups, oil changes, etc. No body work is proposed at this location. 9. Project Entitlements Requested: The applicant has applied for an administrative use permit (pursuant to requirements of the Special Considerations Zone) and environmental and architectural review of project plans. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The site is located along the west side of Broad Street (State Highway 227) between Perkins Lane and Sweeney Lane. Residential uses exist on the property to the immediate north and approximately 85 feet to the west. A variety of service commercial uses exist to the south, east and immediate west. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None. z 40 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources Resources Geological Problems Hazards Recreation X Water Noise X Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quali Public tY c Services Transportation and Utilities and Service Circulation Systems �<- i: ` . DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on a 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 a 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 mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are impose upon the proposed project. 3 February 20, 1998 Signature Date Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager for Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir. Printed Name EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except 'No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A'No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A 'No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 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, puisuant to thetiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 4 p Issues and Supporting Informati- "-jources sources Potent,`. Potentialh Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 176-97 Issues Unless Impact mitigation Page 5 Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 2,4 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? 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)? The project site is zoned C-S-S, Service Commercial/Special Considerations, as are the adjacent sites to th the south and immediate west. The proposed uses are allowed in the C-S zone with administrative use permit approval. The use permit requirement is intended to assure compatibility of the use with it surroundings. The Special Considerations Overlay was designated on properties in this neighborhood i response to concerns regarding drainage, access, and the adjacency of residential and commercial uses. General Plan policy LU 3.5.7.13 states that"auto sales in areas of the City other than Auto Park Way should be minimized, in order to reinforce the auto sales center and to maximize space for other uses in othe locations". The applicant has been made aware of the City's desire, however since they are not required to locate in the Auto Park Way area, they have chosen this site as the most suitable location for their business Other automobile dealerships (Mazda, Mitsubishi and Champ Masi) have been established on Broad Street within one half mile of this site. Additionally, this site has previous approvals which would have allowed the Mazda dealership to locate here. The proposed vehicle service center will be constructed on the property in close proximity to existing residential uses. The building will need to be one-hour construction because of its location directly on the property line. With this type of construction, there will not be any openings facing the residential uses t the west. The relocated loading platform and alternative service bays within the existing P.I.E. building hav the potential to create noise which could impact neighboring residences. The City's Noise Element require that all new or modified noise sources comply with established noise level standards. Noise mitigation shat be required for any sources exceeding City established noise levels. Possible mitigation include locatin activity areas on the site so project features such as building shield neighboring noise sensitive uses an designing the structures which contain the noise generating uses to confine the noise within the structure. Recommended Mitigation: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a listing of all proposed stationary noise sources, their generated noise levels and proposed mitigation measures to comply with city standards. 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? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X The project is the development of a commercial use in a commercial zone and does not directly affect the supply of City-wide housing. The intensity of the proposed commercial use will not generate high number 5 �-83 L Issues and Supporting Informat. oources Sources Potent,. _ Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 176-97 Issues Unless Impact mitigation Page 6 Incorporated of employees (a maximum of 16 employees are proposed). Therefore, the use will not significantly increase population levels or create a demand for new housing. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? 7 X b) Seismic ground shaking? 5 X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 5 X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 7 X e) Landslides or mudflows? 7 X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 7 conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? X g) Subsidence of the land? 7 X h) Expansive soils? 7 X I) Unique geologic or physical features? 7 X The soil on the property is Los Osos clay loam. The Seismic Safety Element identifies this area as being in the "R", Recent Alluvium zone which has a high liquefaction risk. The City of San Luis Obispo is in a seismically active region. Strong ground shaking is expected during the life of structures. No known faults pass under or close to the site. The site is not subject to landslide, seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazards. It does not contain unique geologic features. The project site is generally flat and is already developed with commercial uses. Proposed construction an improvements will have a minimal impact on existing grades and not significantly impact subsurface geology. Through the required building permit process, the building design will be reviewed in terms of its complianclE with building code requirements. No further mitigation is necessary. 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards 6 such as flooding? 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? 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 The project site is generally flat and is already partially developed with commercial uses. The site is no located within the 100-year floodplain or near any surface water features. Through the review of the architectural review application, changes to drainage patterns can be adequately evaluated and addressed 6 Issues and Supporting Informal.... Sources Sources Pots..._.., Potentiali% Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 176-97 issues Unless Impact mitigation Page 7 Incorporated No further mitigation is necessary. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance 1 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 The project will not have a significant impact on air quality based on established APCD significant thresholds. However, project construction has the potential to create nuisance issues with nearby residents. Recommended Mitigation: Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 3307.2), all graded surfaces shall be wetted, protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon any adjoining property or street The following measures shall constitute the project's dust management plan and shall remain in effect durin all phases of project construction: a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete coverage of all actio areas); b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph; c. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph; d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or off-site; e. Watering material stockpiles; f. Periodic wash-downs;or mechanical street sweeping, of streets in the vicinity of the site; and g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp X curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility X with San Luis Obispo Co. The proposed project will not result in a significant increase in the amount of vehicle trips generated by use at the site. The site is within the Airport Land Use Commission Planning Area 6 and the proposed use is compatible with the Airport Land Use Plan. The Airport Land Use Plan notes thatavigation easements should be requested for development within this planning area. Recommended Mitigation: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the County. Theapplicant shall 7 p/ 'OJ Issues and Supporting Informat.-.,_jurces Sources Potenua . Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 176 97 Issues Unless Impact mitigation Page 8 Incorporated provide the Community Development Department with a copy of the easement for documentation purposes. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, 7 X animals or birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? X d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X The City's Informational Map Atlas indicates there are no sensitive plant or animal species on the site. N significant vegetation will be removed to accommodate development. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 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? The proposed project's type and scale does not depend on the use of large amounts of energy. There are n known mineral resources that will be adversely impacted by the proposed project. 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, 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 health hazards? X e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees? 2 X There will be no auto body repair or welding occurring at the site, only detailing and servicing. Therefore there is no danger to nearby residents from chemicals or other health hazards. The site is not located in high fire hazard zone. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result.in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? X b) Exposure of people to 'unacceptable' noise levels as X defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 3 Element? The automobile sales lot will not be installing an outdoor speaker system, but instead will rely on beepers t communicate with sales associates. There may be a compressor or similar noisy equipment used in the vehicle service center. See Section 1 Land Use and Planning above for further project description an possible mitigation in response to possible noise impacts. Recommended Mitigation: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a listing of .all proposed stationary nois sources, their generated noise levels and proposed mitigation measures to comply with citystandards. 8ci,lp -eIv Issues and Supporting Informat.- �ources Sources Potem,_.. Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 176-97 Issues Unless Impact mitigation Page 9 Incorporated 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 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? X d) Sewer or septic tanks? X e) Storm water drainage? X f) Solid waste disposal? I X g) Local or regional water supplies? I I I A X If a car washing service is provided it will increase the water demand at the site over past water use levels. Therefore, the project will be subject to retrofitting and water impact fees. No further mitigation is necessary. The detail booth raises the concern of oil residues and cleaning products entering into the City's storm drai system. To avoid this, there should be some type of intercept to keep these substances from entering the storm drain and being clarified prior to entering the sewer system. The following mitigation measure i recommended: Recommended Mitigation: A two or three-stage clarifier with covered drain shall be installed in conjunction with the service center t filter wash/rinse water and runoff before it enters the City's sewer system. 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 The aesthetic concerns associated with site development will be addressed with the Architectural Review Commission's review of plans. Proposed light standards shall be designed with light fixtures that direct light downward and prevent light trespass onto adjacent properties similar to what has been provided at the Scolaris shopping center on Johnson Avenue. No further mitigation is required. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X c) Affect historical resources? X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: 9 9 Issues and Supporting Informatt- sources sources Potenua,., PotentialIN Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 176 97 Issues Unless Impact mitigation Page 10 Incorporated a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? X b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the X habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Without mitigation, the project would have the potential to have adverse impacts for all the issue area 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 X limited, but 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 future projects) The project scale is small and results in relatively minor changes to the physical development of the site. It scale keeps it below many of the thresholds for determining a significant project-related impact exists Since the site has been developed commercially for some time, the anticipated cumulative impacts would b very minimal. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, X either directly or indirectly? 10 Cp 00 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3 (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Not applicable. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scop of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and stat 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. County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, August 1995. 2. City of SLO Zoning Regulations, February, 1997 3. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element and Guidebook, May 1996. 4. City of SLO General Plan Digest, December 1996. 5. City of SLO Seismic Safety Element, July 1975. 6. Flood Insurance Rate Map dated July 7, 1981. 7. City of SLO Informational Atlas 19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM 1. Mitigation Measure: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a listing of all proposed. stationary noise sources, their generated noise levels and proposed mitigation measures to comply with city Standards. Monitoring Program: Compliance shall be reviewed and monitored during the building permit plan check. 2. Mitigation Measure: Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 3307.2), all graded surfaces shall be wetted, protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill.upon any adjoining property or street. The following measures shall constitute the project's dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of project construction: a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete coverage of all active areas); b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph; c. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph; d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or off-site; e. Watering material stockpiles; 11 f. Periodic wash-downs, or mechanical street sweeping, of streets in the vicinity of the site; and g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work. Monitoring Program: Compliance shall be monitored by the Community Development Department during project construction. 3. Mitigation Measure: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the County. The applicant shall provide the Community Development Department with a copy of the easement for documentation purposes. Monitoring Program: Compliance shall be reviewed during the building permit plan check process. 4. Mitigation Measure: A two or three-stage clarifier with covered drain shall be installed in conjunction with the service center to filter wash/rinse water and runoff before it enters the City's sewer system. Monitoring Program: Installation of the clarifier shall be reviewed and monitored during the architectural review and building permit plan check. The above mitigation measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. 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. I hereby agree to the mitigation measures and monitoring program outlined above. Applicant Date 12 �-90 _ - _. . . ,�-9/