HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/17/1998, 7 - CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE RECLASSIFICATION AND USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 51,707 SQUARE FOOT NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER AT 2238 BROAD STREET BETWEEN SANTA BARBARA AND ALPHONSO STREETS AND AN APPEAL OF THE PROJECT'S ENV council
j agenda Report °-
CITY OF SAN LUIS OB I SP O
0
FROM: Arnold Jonas,Community Development Director
Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville,Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Consideration of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Reclassification and Use Permit to
allow a 51,707 square foot neighborhood commercial center at 2238 Broad Street between Santa
Barbara and Alphonso Streets and an appeal of the project's environmental determination.(City File
Nos.: ER, GP/R,MS,A 32-96)
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
1. Deny the appeal of the environmental determination and find that the Environmental Initial Study
(ER 32-96) adequately addresses potential environmental impacts of the project and identifies
mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level in conjunction with recommended ac-
tions 2 and 3 including support for widening of Broad Street as recommended by Caltrans.
2. Conceptually approve a General Plan Map Amendment to change the land use designations from
Services and Manufacturing to Neighborhood-Commercial; from Government Facilities to
Neighborhood Commercial; and from Services and Manufacturing to Government Facilities, ef-
fective upon recordation of an approved Parcel Map. Direct staff to aggregate the resolution with
other proposed General Plan amendment actions for adoption by single motion at the end of this
meeting.
3. Introduce an ordinance to rezone the site from Public Facility to Neighborhood Commercial
(PF-->C-N); from Service-Commercial to Public Facility (C-S—>PF); and from Service-
Commercial to Neighborhood-Commercial (C-S—>C-N), effective upon recordation of an ap-
proved Parcel Map.
4. Adopt a resolution approving a use permit to allow a 10 percent shared parking reduction effec-
tive upon recordation of an approved Parcel Map,and take no action on the setback exceptions re-
ferring the matter to the ARC for resolution of appropriate setbacks as part of that review process.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission at this time,can not form a quorum to review this item. Therefore,there is
no Planning Commission recommendation for this project.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
On April 1, 1997 the City Council denied Albertsons Broad Street request for a General Plan
Amendment and Zone Reclassification which would have resulted in a 47,235 square foot Albertsons
grocery store and 11,651 square feet of retail uses within a neighborhood commercial center. The
Project No.32-96,Albertsons Broad Street
Page 2
denial was based on the following findings:
1. It is not desirable to have Neighborhood-Commercial uses occupy the entire site because of the
estimated volume of traffic these uses would add to a major intersection where long traffic delays
are already experienced.
2. The proposed project is not consistent with Land Use Element Policy 3.2.2.13 which states that
new or expanded neighborhood commercial centers should provide uses to serve nearby residents
and not the whole City,and should have safe and pleasant pedestrian access from the surrounding
service area.
In response to the Council's denial, the applicant has revised the project design reducing the size of
the grocery store and relocating support retail buildings toward Broad Street.
The revised application requests approval to demolish all industrial structures on the 7.5-acre site and
construct a 38,282 square foot grocery store, 13,425 square feet of retail shops, and parking for
roughly 300 cars. The project would incorporate the existing 9,000-square foot Mid State Bank
building and its parking area. To maximize efficient use of the site, street abandonments and a
boundary adjustment between the project site and the adjacent fire station site are proposed.
ALBERTSONS APPLICATION COMPARISON
Previous Application Current Application
Albertson Building 47,235 s.f. 38,282 s.f.
Shops A(restaurant) 3,008 s.f. 3,000 s.f.
Shops B (retail) 8,651 s.f. 7,425 s.f.
Shops C (retail) 0 s.f. 3,000 s.f.
Total Square Footage 58,894 s.f. 51,707 s.f.
Positive attributes of the project include environmental clean up of a contaminated site; infill devel-
opment providing convenience services to residents near the City's center; compatibility with adja-
cent uses to remain - the fire station and the bank; and an apparent commitment to quality in archi-
tectural design and choice of building materials.
Concerns about the project that have been raised by members of the public,ARC Commissioners,and
business competitors include traffic generation, auto-dependent site planning, a suburban design too
close to the center of town, removal of on-street parking on Alphonso Street, potential for an over-
supply of Neighborhood-Commercial zoning and associated uses and the need for an additional gro-
cery store in San Luis Obispo.
To accomplish this project as designed, the applicant must obtain several City approvals to be proc-
essed in four stages as follows:
7�
Project No. 32-96,Albertson Broad Street
Page 3
A. Council review and action on:
1. Mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact.
2. General plan map amendment to designate the entire project site for neighborhood commer-
cial uses.
3. Rezoning the entire site C-N consistent with the general plan map amendment.
4. Use permit for parking and setback exceptions.
These items are the primary subject of this report and are discussed below in detail.
B. Architectural Review Commission review and action on:
1. The project's architectural design and site planning.
The revised project received preliminary review by the ARC on December 1, 1997. The Commission
continued the item to a date uncertain with direction to the applicant to address a number of concerns
raised by the Commission(see Discussion section,ARC Review for details). The ARC felt uncomfort-
able addressing the project in too much detail until the Council acted on the General Plan Amend-
ment and Rezoning.
As recommended above, staff would like to refer any requested setback exceptions to the ARC in or-
der to integrate design and setback sobitions.
C. Follow-up Council review and action on:
1. A minor subdivision to adjust the perimeter boundaries of the site and re-subdivide internal
lots.As part of the subdivision,the Council must also determine:
a. Whether the proposed property exchange between the fire station site and the project
site is consistent with the general plan and desirable from a property management and
operational standpoint, and
b. Whether the proposed abandonment of Emily, South, and Rachel Streets is appropri-
ate(See attached Property Exchange/ Street Abandonment Plan and Sheets SD 4 and
SD 5 of full-size plans).
The internal lot configuration will correspond to building footprints to enable separate ownership.
Building footprints must first be determined through architectural review before lot lines can be es-
tablished. For this reason Council review of the subdivision will take place following ARC action.
However, any concerns regarding the property exchange and the proposed street abandonments
should be raised as soon as possible since both items affect the project's site planning. Both the
property exchange and the street abandonments are proposed to specifically accommodate the Broad
Street Plaza project.
Fire Department staff does not object to the proposed property exchange and resulting reconfigura-
7-3
Project No.32-96,Albertson Broad Street
Page 4
tion of the fire station site. Public Works staff supports the proposed street abandonments, subject to
reservation of certain easements,providing the project receives other necessary approvals.
D. Council follow-up action on:
1. Final passage of the rezoning ordinance; and
2. Acceptance of the Parcel Map with associated site improvements,dedications,easements,and
the property exchange agreement.
DISCUSSION
A. Background:
Site Description
The project would occupy about 7.5 acres on the east side of Broad Street between Santa Barbara and
Alphonso Streets. Southern Pacific Railroad adjoins the site to the east. Fire Station No. 1 is immedi-
ately to the north. To the south and west are offices,service-commercial uses,and houses. The site is
currently developed with warehouses, a trucking company and a branch of Mid State Bank.
Data Summary
Applicant:Albertsons
Property Owners: Mid State Bank
Representative: Courtney Architects
Current Zoning:Neighborhood-Commercial, Service-Commercial, and Public Facility
General Plan:Neighborhood-Commercial, Services and Manufacturing,and Government Facilities
Environmental Status: Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact was recommended by
the Community Development Director on November 4, 1997.
Project Action Deadline: Legislative actions are not subject to the Streamlining Act.
ARC Review
The Architectural Review Commission(ARC) reviewed this project on December 1, 1997 and contin-
ued the item giving the following direction to the applicant:
"While the ARC notes and appreciates the changes made in project plans since ARC's previous review
of the project:
1) Moving the retail shops to Broad Street;
2) Adding the bus stop;
3) Reducing the impact of light;and
4) Improving the pedestrian access.
�y
Project No. 32-96,Albertson Broad Street
Page 5
We feel these changes are minor relative to our overall concerns. Our initial concerns still apply which
include: project scale, size, massing,pedestrian access to residential neighborhoods,compatibility with
the architectural context of surroundingdevelopment, building heights and setbacks.
We have additional concerns which include:
I. Views of the large roof from residential neighborhoods across the railroad tracks.
2. Views of the entry to the City along the railroad corridor.
3. Bicycle path location in the parking lot
4. Widening of Broad Street(it is already too wide)
5. Integrity of Broad Street elevation-provide street frontage drawing showing Fire Station and Bank
6. Location of Building "A"relative to parking and pedestrian dropq ff."
The project will return to the ARC if City Council approves the general plan amendment and rezoning.
B. Evaluation:
♦ General Plan Amendment and Rezoning: Should the Neighborhood-Commercial zoning be
expanded to enable a shopping center at this location?
In the hierarchy of decisions to be made regarding this project, approval or denial of the general plan
amendment and rezoning request is foremost. The project site is currently zoned Neighborhood-
Commercial (C-N), Service-Commercial(C-S), and Public Facility(PF) consistent with correspond-
ing general plan land use designations. The site is split almost equally between Neighborhood-
Commercial and Service-Commercial zoning. The Public Facility designation applies to the fire sta-
tion property.
The existing area of C-N zoning is not large enough to accommodate the proposed neighborhood
commercial center.Therefore,the applicant proposes to rezone the entire project site C-N and amend
the General Plan Map to reflect a land use designation of Neighborhood-Commercial. To further fa-
cilitate development of the center,the applicant is proposing an adjustment to property boundaries -
with associated zoning changes- between the fire station site and surrounding property controlled by
the applicant.
The size of this neighborhood commercial center was questioned by several speakers at the Council's
April 1, 1997 hearing. For comparison purposes, existing shopping centers in the City have the fol-
lowing square footages:
Name of Center Size of Grocery Store Size of Support Retail Total Center
Foothill Plaza 19,000 s.f. (Lucky) 48,463 s.f. 67,463 s.f.
Laguna Village 33,840 s.f. (Albertsons) 67,924 s.f. 101,764 s.f.
Scolaris 30,000 s.f. 31,450 s.f. 61,450 s.f.
Food 4 Less 49,725 s.f. 44,800 s.f. 94,525 s.f.
Marigold Center 52,071 s.f. (Vons) 124,205 s.f. 176,276 s.f.
Albertsons(proposed)38,282 s.f. 13,425 s.L 51,707 s.f.
7�
Project No.32-96,Albertsons Broad Street
Page 6
The project seems consistent with most governing Land Use Element policies. Unless otherwise
noted, the proposed rezoning and site development are consistent with criteria specified in the fol-
lowing commercial& industrial development policies from the Land Use Element. Consistency with
Circulation Element policies aimed at encouraging more pedestrian,bicycling,and public transit trips
and fewer single-occupant vehicle trips is more difficult to achieve. The applicant has agreed to miti-
gation - bicycle facilities, shared-use parking, provision of a bus stop and shelter, and pedestrian
friendly site planning to the approval of the ARC-to better meet the Circulation Element policies.
Land Use Element Polices
3.0 Commercial Siting
3.0.1. Slope Commercial and industrial uses should be developed in appropriate areas where the
natural slope of the land is less than ten percent.
3.0.2. Access Commercial and industrial uses should have access from arterial and collector streets,
and should be designed and located to avoid increasing traffic on residential streets.
3.0.3.. Residential Area Expansion of commercial and industrial uses into residential areas is pro-
hibited.
3.2 Neighborhood Commercial
3.2.1 Purpose and Included Uses The City should have areas for Neighborhood Commercial uses to
meet the frequent shopping demands of people living nearby. Neighborhood Commercial uses in-
clude grocery stores, laundromats,and drug and hardware stores. Neighborhood Commercial centers
should be available within about one mile of all residences. These centers should not exceed about
eight acres, unless the neighborhood to be served includes a significant amount of high density resi-
dential development. Specialty stores may be located in Neighborhood Commercial centers as long
as they will not be a major citywide attraction or displace more general convenience uses.
3.2.2 New or Expanded Centers New or expanded Neighborhood Commercial centers should:
A. Be created within, or extended into,adjacent nonresidential areas;
B. Provide uses to serve nearby residents,not the whole City;
C. Have access from arterial streets, and not increase traffic on residential streets;
D. Have safe and pleasant pedestrian access from the surrounding service area, as well as good
internal circulation;
E. Provide landscaped areas with public seating;
F. Provide indoor or outdoor space for public use, designed to provide a focus for some neigt-
borhood activities.
Note 1: Item B: Market Area - Although the new grocery store would serve nearby residents, it
7-6
Project No.32-96,Albertson Broad Street
Page 7
will also likely draw customers from other areas of the City,as do all existing grocery stores. The
Council may wish to modify the language of this policy in the future to more realistically address
typical shopping patterns. One suggested revision is: "Provide convenience uses to primarily
serve nearby residents."
Note 2: Item D: Pedestrian Access - Safe and pleasant pedestrian access from the surrounding
neighborhood will be difficult for any project on this site because of the physical barriers of the
railroad, Santa Barbara Street, and Broad Street,a major arterial. Widening Broad Street in front
of the project is recommended as a mitigation measure for potential impacts resulting from this
project and other anticipated regional sources of traffic (See traffic discussion under Environ-
mental Review). Widening Broad Street will further deter pedestrians at the Broad, South, and
Santa Barbara Street intersection. Additional mitigation would require installation of a signal at
the intersection of Broad and Alphonso Streets which may facilitate pedestrian movement at this
location.
3.2-3 Expanding Centers The City should evaluate the need for and desirability of additions to ex-
isting neighborhood commercial centers only when specific development proposals are made, and not
in response to rezoning requests which do not incorporate a development plan.
3.5 Services and Manufacturing
3.5.1 Purpose The City should have sufficient land designated for Services and Manufacturing to
meet most demands of the City, and some demands of the region, for activities such as wholesaling,
building contractors, utility company yards, auto repair, printing, bakeries, and retail sales of large
items, bulk quantities, and items often stored outdoors (vehicles, building materials, plants). Areas
reserved for these uses may also accommodate convenience restaurants and other activities primarily
serving area workers.
Note 3: Replacing C-S zoning with C-N zoning in this area may be more compatible with nearby
residential neighborhoods.
3.5 3 General Retail and Neighborhood Commercial Uses New specialty stores,department stores,
or neighborhood commercial centers should not be developed in Service and Manufacturing areas....
Note 5: Without approval of the general plan amendment and rezoning request,the project would not
be consistent with this policy.
General Plan Amendment and Rezoning- Action options
1. Approve the amendment and rezoning as requested(CAO Recommendations 2 and 3).
2. Adopt a resolution denying the general plan amendment and rezoning, finding the proposals in-
consistent with adopted land use and/or circulation policies,problematic from a health and safety
standpoint, or otherwise specifying the reason(s) for denial. This action precludes the need for
7-7
Project No. 32-96,Albertson Broad Street
Page 8
action on any other project requests. A recommendation for denial does not require environ-
mental review.
♦ Environmental Review: Are potential impacts adequately analyzed and is mitigation suffi-
cient to reduce impact levels to less than significant?
The attached initial study of potential environmental impacts identifies several aspects of the project
which may have significant impacts. Recommended mitigation for all potentially significant impacts
are listed at the end of the initial study. Special studies conducted for this project (traffic, archaeo-
logical, geotechnical, and a hazardous materials site assessment) are incorporated into the environ-
mentala document by reference and are available at the Community Development Department.
On November 24, 1997 Rob Strong appealed the Community Development Director's decision to
prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project citing that the traffic study was technically
deficient (see Attachment 6, Appeal letter). Staff has reviewed the traffic study prepared by CCS
Planning and Engineering and determined that the subject traffic study addressed the concerns of both
the prior development proposal and the current revised project (see Attachment 7, Staff response
memo). CCS.,Planning and Engineering also responded to the concerns raised during the public
hearings on the first development proposal. Finally, the recommendations listed in the final traffic
report by the consultant and the City's transportation staff were supported by Caltrans District 5 staff.
In staffs opinion,the result is a set of mitigation measures and recommendations that are sound and
practical for the size and scope of the proposed development.
The single most positive impact of the project would be the clean up of hazardous and toxic materials
in the soil resulting from adjacency to the railroad and on-site industrial uses. The most potentially
negative impact of the project would be the increase in traffic and related impacts to air quality and
pedestrian and bicycle transportation. Please refer to the attached letter from the Sierra Club.
The revised project is anticipated to add less than 7,400 vehicle trips-a roughly 28 percent increase-
to the existing average daily vehicle trips along this section of Broad Street. In order to maintain the
current level of service at affected intersections in the near term, the traffic study recommends re-
striping - but not widening - Broad Street to replace a single through lane with a combination
through/left lane;a signal at Alphonso and Broad Streets; limited turning movements into and out of
the project driveway on Broad Street; and Keep Clear pavement marking at the intersection of
Roundhouse Avenue and Santa Barbara Street. In addition,the project requires the elimination of the
bike lane between Branch Street and South Street. The bike lane in conjunction with other restriping
would become a right turn lane.
Cumulative far-term traffic projections indicate a need for widening Broad Street(between South and
Alphonso Streets) to accommodate two northbound left-tum lanes, two northbound through lanes, a
northbound right-tum lane and two southbound lanes-a total of seven lanes of traffic,one more than
currently exists(Mitigation Option B).
*7
Project No.32-96,Albertsons Broad Street
Page 9
The question of whether or not to widen Broad Street in conjunction with this project is largely de-
pendent on Caltrans since this section of Broad Street is a State highway. The attached letter from Cal
Trans dated February 28, 1997 indicates that Caltrans will require the widening of Broad Street as
part of the Albertsons project. Although Public Works staff believes that traffic impacts can be miti-
gated without the need for widening Broad Street(Mitigation Option A in the traffic study), they are
deferring to Caltrans' approval authority and are therefore recommending widening (Mitigation Op-
tion B)as a condition of development approval (CAO Recanmendation 1).
Environmental Determination- Action options
1. Deny the appeal of the environmental determination and find that the Environmental Initial Study
(ER 32-96) adequately addresses potential environmental impacts of the project and identifies
mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level (CAO Recommendation 1).
2. Find that the Environmental Initial Study (ER 32-96) does not adequately addresses potential en-
vironmental impacts of the project and direct staff and the applicant to provide additional infor-
mation; include additional mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level;or initiate
preparation of an EIR.
♦ Use Permit: The applicant is requesting approval of a use permit to reduce the number of
required parking spaces and to reduce building setbacks.
Shared Parking-Zoning regulations provide for a 10%shared use reduction in the parking require-
ment when two or more uses share a common parking area subject to use permit approval. In this
case,nine uses would share a common parking area. A 10%reduction will be equivalent to about 26
spaces. The exact number of required spaces depends on the final architectural approval. Staff sup-.
ports the reduction and it is recommended as a mitigation measure for potential traffic and air quality
impacts.
Parking Reduction- Action options
1. Adopt a resolution approving a 10%parking reduction(CAO Recommendation 4).
2. Continue action with direction.
3. Deny the requested parking reduction based on appropriate findings.
Building and Yard Setbacks - The applicant is requesting exceptions to the setback standards as
follows(See Sheets SD 1 of the full size plans, and Use Permit Resolution Attachment 3):
1. Along the rear of the grocery store, the project site would share a property line with the fire sta-
tion. Building height at the property line is 26 feet,requiring a setback of 8 feet. Plans show no
setback.The Fire Department staff support a zero setback along this common boundary. Fire De-
partmcnt staff could use the rear wall for training exercises and would prefer to avoid a lot of ad-
ditional landscaping maintenance.
Project No.32-96,Albertson Broad Street
Page 10
2. Building height of Shops "A" at the property line is 26 feet, requiring a setback of 8 feet. Plans
show no setback. The irregular lot shape may wan-ant some degree of exception to enable effi-
cient use of the site, however staff questions the need for a single story building to be 26 feet in
height. Due to the uncertain nature of where the building will ultimately be located (see ARC
discussion, above), staff is recommending that the Council take no action on this use permit
thereby leaving the setback authority to the ARC. This will allow the ARC to determine the ap-
propriate setback based on building orientation and location in relation to Broad Street and the
Fire Station.
Setback Exceptions- Action options
1. Take no action on the setback exceptions referring the matter to the ARC for resolution of appro-
priate setbacks as part of the architectural review process(CAO Recommendation 4).
2. Continue action with direction.
3. Deny exceptions based on their inconsistency with zoning regulation standards.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Other department comments are incorporated into recommendations.
Attachments:
1. Resolution for approval of general plan amendment/Exhibit A
2. Ordinance of introduction for proposed rezoning/Exhibit A
3. Resolution for use permit approval
4. Resolution for denial of general plan amendment and rezoning
5. Vicinity map
6. Appeal letter of environmental determination
7. Staff response to appeal
8. Traffic mitigation options A and B
9. Trip distribution and generation
10. Letter from Caltrans
11. Initial study
Note: Project plans are available for public review at the Community Development Department.
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTIONNO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT MAP
TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION AT 2238 BROAD STREET
FROM SERVICES AND MANUFACTURING TO GOVERNMENT FACILITIES;
FROM SERVICES AND MANUFACTURING TO NEIGHBORHOOD-COMMERCIAL; AND
FROM GOVERNMENT FACILITIES TO NEIGHBORHOOD-COMMERCIAL.
(GP 32-96)
WIIEREAS, the Planning Commission was unable to conduct a public hearing on the project on
February 11, 1998, and therefore referred the matter to the City Council without a recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on March 17, 1998 and has considered
testimony of other interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed map amendment is consistent with the
policies of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the amendment have been evaluated in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, an appeal of the recommended Negative Declaration was filed with the City of San Luis
Obispo on November 24, 1997;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council denies the appeal of the recommended Negative Declaration and
finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration with the recommended mitigation therein
adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects
the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following findings:
1. A single land use designation of Neighborhood-Commercial for the entire project site enables
more functional and orderly development of the site.
2. Neighborhood-Commercial uses are desirable at this central infill site.
3. There remains sufficient land designated for Services and Manufacturing elsewhere within city
limits.
SECTION 3. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in the
documents which are on display in City Hall and which are available for public use.
SECTION 4. The General Plan Land Use Element reap shall be amended as shown on the attached
7!/
GP 32-96-Albertson
Page 2
Exhibit A effective upon recordation of a parcel map for minor subdivision PM SLO 96-122 (City file No. MS
32-96).
On motion of seconded by ,and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Crawf
APPROVED:
0?*
FROM SERVICES•
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
FROM -
•
GOVERNMENT
.FROM GOVERNMENT•
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
0 00
::::••:::::::.� � �iYUYY�W\ Ott\\�\.
((..pp ovvu
..•.. •.•.•t- �_
SOUTH
ore
EXHIBIT A
-_
: i� .0►.nLg..Gv.n
•o. • •ouuw.•
unuov� -
.. . OF SAN LUIS • • -
DEVELOPMENT LAND USE MAPASSOCIATES r7J
. 1 GPA REQUEST
ATTACHMENT 2
ORDINANCE NO. (1998 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP
TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM C-S to C-N; FROM C-S TO PF; AND
FROM PF TO C-N
AT 2238 BROAD STREET (R 32-96)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was unable to conduct a public hearing on the project on
February 11, 1998, and therefore referred the matter to the City Council without a recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on March 17, 1998 to consider
appropriate zoning for the site in accordance with the California Government Code and has considered
testimony of other interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation of staff.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed revisions are consistent with the General
Plan, the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and other applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS,the potential environmental impacts of the amendment have been evaluated in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, an appeal of the recommended Negative Declaration was filed with the City of San Luis
Obispo on November 24, 1997;
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council denies the appeal of the recommended Negative Declaration and
finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration with the recommended mitigation therein
adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects
the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following findings:
1. Zoning the entire project site Neighborhood-Commercial enables more functional and orderly
development of the site.
2. Neighborhood-Commercial uses are desirable at this central infill site.
3. Neighborhood-Commercial zoning will allow uses that are compatible with existing and
allowed land uses in the area.
4. The project's location and access arrangement do not significantly direct traffic to use local
or collector streets in residential zones.
5. The project does not create a shortage of C-S and M zoned land available for service-
commercial or industrial development within city limits.
J
R 32-96-Albertson
Page 2
6. The project will not interfere with the health and safety operations at the adjacent fire
station.
SECTION 3. The Council approves application No. R 32-96, thereby amending the Official
Zoning Map designation for the site from Service-Commercial (C-S) to Neighborhood Commercial (C-
N), from Service-Commercial (C-S) to Public Facility (PF); and from Public Facility (PF) to
Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N) as shown on and described by attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting
for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune,
a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect no sooner than
thirty (30) days after its final passage and upon recordation of a parcel map for minor subdivision PM SLO
96-122(City file No. MS 32-96).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its
meeting held on the I day of . 1998, on a motion of
seconded by , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
<';Awd�_9��
ty o 7 0
2
FROM C-S-S TO C-N
FROM C-S TO C-N
FROM C-S TO PF
•
FROM PF TO C-N
0 00
L H�M!ft '
:•
I
0 NO
to
a -
:
•.� '`
AVENUE
d��a
EXHIBIT A
EDAENGINEERING CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
, : DEVELOPMENT' ZONING MAP
ASSOCIATES REZONE REQUEST -
1320 NIPOUO STREE10 SAIF U S WISPO.-EA 934010 805 549-M
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A USE PERMIT FOR A SHARED PARKING
REDUCTION
AT 2238 BROAD STREET(A 32-96) .
WIEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on March 17, 1998 to consider
appropriate development standards for the site in accordance with the City's zoning regulations
and has considered testimony of other interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation
of staff;
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the use permit have been evaluated
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental
Guidelines;
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 with the recommended mitigation therein adequately addresses the potential
significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment
of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following findings:
1. A 10% parking reduction is consistent with the intent of the zoning regulations
which is to consolidate parking and minimize the area devoted exclusively to
parking when typical demands may be satisfied more efficiently by shared
facilities. In this case, approximately nine uses would share a common parking
area.
SECTION 3. The request for a use permit for a 10% shared use parking reduction is
hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to building permit issuance the applicant must record an agreement .
governing the shared parking to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
Upon motion of , seconded by , and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
7/7
A 32-96-Albertson
Page 2
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
fit;Erneeforgfsen
ATTACHMENT 4
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING A REQUEST FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING
FOR PROPERTY AT 2238 BROAD STREET
(GP/R/ER 32-96)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was unable to conduct a public hearing on the
project on February 11, 1998, and therefore referred the matter to the City Council without a
recommendation;and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 17, 1998 and has
considered testimony of interested persons and the project evaluation and recommendations of
staff;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findines. That this Council, after consideration of a request to amend the
General Plan Land Use Element Map and the official zoning map,thereby designating and zoning
the project site Neighborhood-Commercial(C-N),makes the following findings:
1. It is not desirable to have Neighborhood-Commercialuses occupy the entire site because of
the estimated volume of traffic these uses would add to a major intersection where long
traffic delays are already experienced.
2. The proposed project is not consistent with Land Use Element Policy 3.2.2.B which states
that new or expanded neighborhood commercial centers should provide uses to serve
nearby residents and not the whole City, and should have safe and pleasant pedestrian
access from the surrounding service area.
(Council may insert different or additional findings.)
SECTION 2. Denial. The request for approval of the general plan map amendment and
rezoning described above is hereby denied.
On motion of seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
7�9
GP/R 32=96-Albertsons
Page'2 '
the foregoing resolution was passed and.adopted this.—�__dayof. —____.. 199.7..
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED AS TO.FORM:
City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen
O
ATTACHMENT 5
LU
,nc euu
C^S I- nOI C
It.
T11�KISZ{$7��0
ED
/•i[d.LL WG Lf� µ
u wr ❑ r� Q �,�.., , .... I c-5
W...
Gy ,c wleae•L � ...e ,Je •.a wul
,a..
Q O 5 AVE
F'
:G PF -,
e ............
.......
G IN
--.,.�•.•z .tie %;;%.
=lu _
LU
N 4JAV E N U E=-
C) 0
O0
a O
fit
z
e �l
5 O w _ i .• •' `� !'��ar ',�• \ dao
GE
STREET
O ,. a w'� ,•' ' V '`�V
VICINITY MAP 2238 BROAD NORTH
GP/R, ARC, A, LLA, V, 32-96 ABAN 93-96
STRONG PLANNING SERVICES ROB STRONG, A.I.C.P
November 24, 1997
Mayor Settle and Councilmembers RECEIVED
City Council of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street, City Hall NOV 2 4 1997
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Subject: Albertson's Reapplication for Broad/South and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Santa Barbara Street, ER, GP/R,MS and ARC 32-96,
Broad Street Plaza
Dear Mayor Settle and CounciImembers:
In April, 1997, the City Council denied Albertson's original application for the same site and
essentially the same development. Some design refinements and reduction in supermarket size
are minor changes, but review of the file reveals that on November 3 and 4, 1997, the staff
accepted the reapplication for ER, GP/R, MS and ARC 32-96 by Albertson's.
When I was contacted last week by some of the opponents to the previous application, staff said
the reapplication was accepted and already scheduled for ARC, Planning Commission and City
Council hearings as early as December. I objected that this reapplication is clearly contrary to
Chapter 17.64 of the City Zoning Ordinance which precludes substantially the same application
for a minimum of one year from date of denial. Only the Planning Commission, or the City
Council on appeal can waive these reapplication provisions, intended to prevent this type of
premature reconsideration.
I also object to the staff concluding a mitigated negative declaration based upon a traffic study
which we showed was technically deficient and without addressing the planning policy issues we
raised regarding the original application. I therefore appeal both the premature reapplication and
the environmental determination for the renewed Albertson's applications.
If Albertson's is committed to this site and persists in filing for reconsideration after April 1,
1998, we request that the City Council, Planning Commission or Community Development
Department staff require that they submit their market analysis disclosing the projected sales and
economic impacts on existing convenience commercial centers as part of the environmental
impact evaluation. "Overbuilding" is one of the major problems in other communities and causes
physical and economic blight contrary to the purposes of local planning policies.
444 HIGUERA STREET,STE.201,SAN Luis OBISPO,CA 93401 0 PHONE.IFAx(805)542-9150
If Albertson's is not required to submit this economic market study to evaluate the need for and
potential significant impacts of this new commercial center, we would request that the City
cooperate with an independent qualified consultant we would hire for this purpose. We trust that
the reapplication will be deferred until after April 1, 1998, but would encourage this economic
evaluation and revised traffic study as a prerequisite to reapplication in the interim.
A copy of this letter is being sent to the ARC which is scheduled to consider "schematic
approval" for this reapplication on December 1, 1997. It is inappropriate to abuse the ARC
design review process prior to resolving the serious planning policy and impact issues associated
with this set of related reapplications. Please defer any ARC decision until the reapplication is
properly received after April 1, 1998.
Sincer y,
Rob Strong, A.I.C.P.
cc ARC
Arnold Jones
7 X23
City Of '
san Us oBispo ATTACHMENT 7
MEMORANDUM
Daze: February,26, 1998
To: Ron Wisenand,Development Review Manager
From: Al Cablay,Public Works Manager
SUBJECT: Traffic Study and Analysis for the revised Albertsons Site development
The subject traffic study that was conducted by the consulting firm of CCS Planning and Engineering,addressed the
concerns of both the prior development proposal and the current revised project. Most of the issues raised during the
first development proposal were addressed in the study as part of the analysis conducted for that project.
The consultant's representative, Mike Kennedy, Project Manager (CCS Planning and Engineering, INC.) also
responded to the concerns raised during the public hearings on the first development proposal.In addition he pointed
out to staff the discrepancies contained in a few of the opponents concerns in regard to their interpretation of the
traffic study.One of the points raised by a project opponent(Rob Strong,Planning Consultant)was the use of a"short
and long term" list of approved developments as a way to project the growth in traffic for the city. Mr. Strong
contends that a method that incorporates the General Plan's ultimate build our should be used instead.From both staff
and the consultant's perspective this approach is not appropriate given the uncertainty of development financing today.
This together with the realization that the city's process that allows--in its unique timing, is much more realistic and
indicative of how fast growth will really occur for this community.
Finally, the recommendations listed in the final report by the consultant and city transportation staffs development
conditions were supported by Caltrans District 5 staff. This was accomplished through a process that allowed for the
two staffs to review the consultant's analysis and the developer's plans,and work toward a mutually benefiting set of
recommendations. In city staffs opinion the result is a set of mitigations and recommendations that are sound and
practical for the size and scope of the proposed development.
attachment
cc Supervising Civil Engineer
Traffic Engineer
I:DevelopmentReview\RevisedAlbemonslrr
ATTACHMENT 8
cn
r c 5
rn
Linis
OSWOHIrw
C t til
I o rn
m _
N L' f9 O O
o a
rL s
•. _ Y II Q v u
rip
o O
m CO
. r O r_
O''
r + O
�,i
Ma ° I o > c
CD
_ a O
cl)
II
m
a I O
y. z. I
0 '
—a t ca J
�> - t
----- o (D
En
W
X.SdONS
ca
� a
J z
far Y. .• _ _..._..,... . Q_
cu
4 i .c . -9-junOS a W-
_._
�Z z.
CU y LIQ w z.
++ �. WaZ.
o
.:
° �W ^zv °=
:. > ( �z
. Cr)♦
CO N. Q Q a
cc
LU
�P� w� 1r
0.0
Y 5P
s
m LL ch ;
rn
133H=OSNOHdW
C: I
L .•• G1
cc
o
CL &
� U O u
!1 _ O w w N
` r I
LB > 0 0 0
CL
O
I y
— N
.. m
Cl)
cc
co
o! I I m
p0
_ � Z
s,
m
`•
V.SdOHs • 7 ca C ...
a (D IL N
Z
s
4r, .0 .IS�lunO$ -Y W-
- c0 �Z Z-
0cn U0 Ww w
2'
wo
r``r u,
O = Z.
w U2-
ob0d
.• 0 L V/ <.
°) Ue_
�s*70 C
5� N` > O O Q
a JlL
c = O 0 O� 1111
w -• ma
a� �R Hcy mU
0Y yr N
— ATTACHMENT 9
�l
A
N I
(n
d� c°
f0
ED 5�
O OQ
� yr
.n �.
,o, o
U)
o I Roundhouse CU
C'7 L
Nv 45% U)
<—> Co
South St.
Funston St. a�'
o I ocs
od
d
S�
I �e
--> Trip Distribution
Broad Street Plaza
Figure
3-3
Project Trip Distribution
JlL ccs
\VI PLANNING AND ENGINEERING cAproject\,996\95073\new\fig3-3.fn4
c o r • o • • A/
/ -0
i
i
2o-
M
II m of m `N N N m mr v^ m�
co o
W W Y W W W W Y W W W W W W W W W W W O Y W Y W W WLn
�
NQ - O M Mm nt Qe m Mnn Qn - NOlm00Nnm Nu'imm
II r I QN M - N1, to
UI
N
i! M M n O O N O N O O o Q O N 0 0 0 N O N O m m O O O m
n
e Q Q e M Q N h to N m N M M Q Q N N N 1 m m N N N m
7 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
n - m to No m O Q m Q m M M O
N m N N n N N m Q M II
N a O - e M - N70 MN Ln M M n N vMin w ^ N N •-
O
tl C N m N I;
� I
O O N O m O O O m O In o o O m O m O N N O O o N
m N Ill N M m m m e N N N - N Ow m W e N Q N - ^ M M N ^
m O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
aQ C
CL
mNm MNtoMMmnm - mn - oMUlomomu� Qrn - U+
V M m M M Q N N O - O N
Z m M ^ N - Q O M M - 'N h
H
a
aR 2R
M I m M M M N . N N N N N N
� a
(n II N n n UL
0O m m Q N M M M Q N m O N O N N O Q m M Nn - Q Q m M N m
to — wv — I;
a I- II
I QMQ o n - nn QmM n n nCO
LO0000 W M - nm I J
G mj M m M a Ln 0 Ln N e m n "70 0 N in m m � m OI N N - n T
; li F ¢j ovQ nio - ov) Com - o - - coei vi Ui uionui � nG v
Q
C :1 N
m
• �' '� •� e 0 0 M Q M 0 m O O1 M M tD O'n O O M m 01 n m 01
M q Q e M Q M O m O M M e n m e N UL m M M M Q m 0 �.•
a tp M M N M e N m M M O ^ M e N M N LO N t0 Q ^ O m - M N
v o IIH41
o I a
r V I� I n N N m Li m m m O O O N M m m M N M m O m e O n it LL
� C: �I G m; m N m m il'1 m M m N In O N N m m N m O Of m Lil m N O1 �
• '-
01 O m Q V1 M N n - O - - O O1
�• f- Q. Q m N cl Ql m - - Q M N LO N n 01 m iry
n .• Cn
G• Ii � (P
v ' ^
AD L
LLLL LL LL » LLLLLL Z) U. LL :) 77DLL LLLLLLLL V LLLLLLLL
coMco Vy v)
1000 co Qm MN NUI
0000UI V) to CO) E
l II y E
NI 0 N O Ul m N 000m O O n O m N O O O OInO n o O O I m
• O M O O m Q Q O O O O Q m M Q O N N m 0 0 0 C
i; CO; O m O n 000 O M O O N 0 Q. 0 0 - m 0 0 0 OL
M Q
N W O1 O C N O 10 e do QL m 0 0 0 II c
M m
C Q I^ LO - M M In 0 - Q m M W t`
t7 C C
V I a Q m
m 0 m 0
OU Of M
r Y m C ° tl T
m m c a° a s v c 7 m m a
s ¢ m E to ° E 'E EU ° u0 m c ua _
CD m �� LL mLL r 0 m' m mLLLL _ � 2 -- Z c - J pOj m �
N O m LL m C c m E U. U. m m C OIC m m O
EmLL uamasQEu°:u mmaao - cEq � E
- � N La ac
I ° .0 = 01= V E J - � 0 � = u � � 7 J 7 ? _ W E •E
c o m Z - o a E E _ m
m J a m m J c J m t o E J m c c J J m J OD v o m m v N Q F- u a
3 fo coLL co acoU 60. 0: io fo 2f OQ mU < c U ¢ ¢ 5 C maE 'D
L ° 7
n 0 C
m ° m U
� N Q m T H
E m W m u 'o o ?
Z C w � t z a m =
m m e U m E c c Y m m ° f a Y
° ma cU m m as c
am Cm1ampOOQm°II IIIiQ�m t uI O`m ,°.. = EJI3C =^m EFo- �mE
.0 U
Fc-
LLLLOCma a
-mm°o . mae
CL
2ocE
c as E o o o EN o mE o
co a >z 0 o f cya LL m ° a c ovE
m o
� aLLm Id
m 0 LL m "- 0c oT 4O v n az _ mc E
c ° 0000a aCm a u0 � Y m • o 013Y�m : J mm
C
W Lm WHm CO LL W W0 LLQSNd 090 '1 LL, EG
0 Q n OL N m to cc m O M o
2 m m d WFr
pr Ll
7-
02/28/97 07:55 1&805 -19 3077 CALTRANS u0e
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS.TRANSPOFI TAMN AND HOUSING AGENCY ATTACHMENT 10
DEPARTMENT OF-TRANSPORTATION
pp wrUGAA STREET -�
am U=CM3P9.G 95WI-M S
nxMiC N@ IS 'A+aam
February 28, 1997
File: SLO-227-R12.72
Broad Street Plaza
Traffic Mitigation
Mr_ Gerald W. Kenny
Supervising Civil Engineer
City of San Luis Obispo
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. Kenny:
Let me first apologize for the delayed response to your letter dated January 17,1997. Departmental
priorities prevented us from responding to your request sooner.
In a meeting between Caltrans and City staff on November 6 ,1996 to discuss possible mitigation
measures for the Broad Street Plaza project,two additional scenarios were suggested that were not
studied earlier. They included: '
Adding an additional northbound left turn lane and converting the existing right turn lane to a
shared thin and right turn lane at the Broad Street and South/Santa Barbara street intersection.
This proposal is analyzed in the"Existing Plus Approved-With Mitigation"section of the
Technical Appendix to the final report for the Broad Street-Plaza Traffic JmDact Analysis dated
November 26,1996.
The projected right turn movement(392 vehicles in the peak hour)indicates that the dedicated right
turn lane needs to remain in any modification to the intersection. The analysis shows that the
queues projected for the'northbound movements are likely to exceed the available storage between
the entrance to the development and the South Street intersection. That being the case, the District
cannot support this suggestion.
• Converting the existing number one thru lane to a shared left and thru lane(Mitigation option
A). This proposal is analyzed in the"Existing Plus Approved Plus Project-With Mitigation"
section of the Technical Appendix.
A modification of this We would require four phase sequential operation of the existing signal
system. Our experience with this type of operation suggests that this would only increase delays
and queue lengths. Additionally,this type of operation restricts the flexibility of the signal system
by requiring that each leg of the intersection be served separately.. Again the analysis provided
showed that the available storage would be exceeded in the northbound direction.
Mr. Kenny
February 27, 1997
Page 2
"Mitigation Option A"of the Final Report for this project depicts a raised island at the entrance on
Broad Street. Itis our understanding that the intent of the island to prevent left turns in and out of
the development. Our experience with a similar installation at the Brickyard Development has
proven ineffective in prohibiting these left turn movements. To insure the prohibition of these
critical movements, a raised median island as shown in"Mitigation Option B"should be provided .
Based on the analysis to date and because of the construction impacts associated with the
modification and/or construction of the signal systems during operation of the development, it is
the De artments recommendation that the im rovements iti ation B"
lace pnor to occu anc o e develo ment. This option includes a dual left turn lanes, two
ug anes and a dedicated right turn ane in the northbound direction along with a raised median
island.
The signalization of any intersection on the State highway system requires that a signal warrant be
met. A projected Annual Average Daily Traffic forecast will be required for the Alphonso Street
intersection to substantiate the need for this signal system. Please submit this data to Ms. Julie
Gonzalez of our Traffic Department.
I hope this clarifies the Department's position on the mitigation measures recommended for this
development. If you have any further questions, please contact me at(805)549-3632. It is our
intent to have a Caltrans representative present at the City Council meeting on March 18, 1997
Sincerely,
Abel Delgado
Associate Transportation Planner
7-3o
ATTACHMENT 1 i
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1 . Project Title: Albertsons Broad Street Plaza
Application Numbers: ARC 32-96, ER 32-96, GP/R 32-96, MS 32-96, ABAN 93-96
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: 2238 Broad Street between Santa Barbara and Alphonso Streets
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Scott Thayer, Albertons's Inc., 1180 West
Lambert Road, Brea, CA 92622-7500
Representative: Tom Courtney, Courtney Architects, 656 Santa Rosa Street, #3A,
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Property Owner: Mid State Bank Properties, 1026 Grande Ave., Arroyo Grande, CA
93420
6. General Plan Designation: Neighborhood-Commercial, Services and Manufacturing,
and Public Facility
7. Zoning: Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N), Service-Commercial (C-S), Service-
Commercial with Special Consideration (C-S-S), and Public Facility (PF)
8. Description of the Project:
Albertsons and Mid State Bank Properties are proposing to construct 51 ,707 square feet
of commercial space for a grocery store, restaurant, and shops and roughly 300 parking
spaces. The project would incorporate the existing 9,120 s.f. Mid State Bank branch
office and its parking. To accommodate this project, the applicants have applied for and
must receive approval from the City for:
► General Plan Amendment to change the land use designations from Services and
Manufacturing to Neighborhood Commercial and Government Facilities and from
Government Facilities to Neighborhood Commercial.
1
► Rezoning from C-S, C-S-S, and PF to C-N; and from C-S to PF.
► Abandonment of portions of South, Emily, and Rachel Streets.
► Resubdivision of five existing lots into four to accommodate new development.
► Architectural review of new buildings, parking area, and landscaping; setback
exceptions; and demolition of 7 existing buildings.
The applicant will also need to apply for and receive approval for the following items:
► Use permit for a 10% shared use parking reduction.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The project would occupy approximately 7.5 acres on the east side of Broad Street
between Santa Barbara and Alphonso Streets with access also available from Roundhouse
Avenue. Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way adjoins the site to the east. A newly
constructed municipal fire station is immediately to the north. To the south and west are
offices, service-commercial uses, and houses.
The site is currently developed with an exterminator, a freight and shipping company, and
Mid State Bank. Vegetation consists mainly of weedy grasses except for the ornamentals
on the Mid State Bank property. A palm, several pepper trees and eucalyptus trees are
along the eastern boundary of the site. A small wetland at the southeastern corner of the
site supports willows, sedges, cattails, and saltgrass.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval,
or participation agreement).
► Caltrans
► Air Pollution Control District
► Department of Fish and Game
► Army Corps of Engineers
► Regional Water Quality Control Board
2
�-3�
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 X Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing Energy and Mineral X Cultural Resources
Resources
X Geological Problems X Hazards Recreation
X Water Noise X Mandatory Findings of
Significance
X Air Quality Public Services x` !
4
X Transportation and X Utilities and Service
Circulation Systems
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the x
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATIVE
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
3
7-33
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 all potentially
significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standard
and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions o
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
November 5, 1997
S natur Date
Ronald Whisenand. Development Review Manager Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
Printed Name For
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 parentheses following each question.
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, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEOA 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
73�
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless mitigation Impact
ER 32-96 Albertson's Broad Street Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1 X
The project is proposing to expand the Neighborhood-Commercial designation to encompass the entire 7.5-acre
site, roughly half of which is currently zoned Service-Commercial. This raises a question of whether or no
remaining C-S zoned land is adequate to accommodate uses envisioned for that zoning by the General Plan an
zoning ordinance. An attached City of San Luis Obispo land use inventory, dated August 14, 1996, indicates tha
the Service-Commercial zone has more vacant floor area and more vacant land than any other zone. Furthermore
the site's proximity to the center of town and residential neighborhoods argues for a less industrial zoning. Base
on data from the land use inventory and the site's location and surroundings, the proposed rezoning seem
appropriate. It is also consistent with Land Use Element policies related to commercial siting (LUE Policies 3.0.1
3.0.2, 3.0.3) and with Land Use Element polices related to neighborhood commercial areas (LUE policies 3.2.1
3.2.2, 3.2.3).
To achieve consistency between proposed zoning and the General Plan land use designation, the City Council mus
approve a General Plan amendment.
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project?
Loss of a wetland area has the potential for adverse effects on wildlife, and in this case, may be contrary t
environmental polices adopted by the State Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Filling and culverting open stream channels, which this project proposes to do, requires approval of a Streambe
Alteration Agreement from the Dept. of Fish and Game. Because this project has the potential for adverse effect
on wildlife, it is subject to the a $1,250 Fish and Game fee which must be paid at the time the Notice of
Determination is filed with the County. Filling in the wetland as proposed will also require a Section 404 Permit
from the Army Corps of Engineers, prior to issuance of a permit for grading or building. Mitigation and alternative
designs are discussed under Section 7d below.
The air quality impacts resulting from additional traffic generated by this project conflict with environmental plan
and policies adopted by the Air Pollution Control District as explained in an attached letter from District staff. Se
discussion and recommended mitigation regarding air quality under Section 5 and regarding traffic and circulatio
under Section 6 b&e of this report.
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X
The proposed neighborhood commercial uses should be more compatible with existing land uses in the vicinity i
terms of environmental health and aesthetics than the existing industrial uses. Architectural review will address
land use compatibility from the standpoint of aesthetics.
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact X
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses)?
The property is not zoned for agriculture and not used for agriculture.
5
-3s
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant lmpa
ER 32-96 Albertson's Broad Street Issues Unless mitigation Impact
Incorporated
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
The project will not disrupt or divide any established community.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 1 X
population projections?
Sixty percent of the new retail space would be occupied byAlbertsons market, which will employ roughly 60 to E
number of new jobs estimated to be created by this project (roughly 125) would be less than .4 percent of exis
Most jobs are expected to be filled by local residents.
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or X
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped
area or major infrastructure?
This is an infill project. See discussion under 2a above.
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable X
housing? F7
None on site.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? 1,7 X
There are no known fault lines on site or in the immediate vicinity.
b) Seismic ground shaking? 1 X
The City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground shakir
during the life of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria esta
Building Code.
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 1,8 X
The site is shown on the Seismic Safety Element as underlain with Franciscan formation and recent, alluvium. Rece
potential for liquefaction. A geotechnical report has been prepared for this project by Converse Consultants (R,
which is hereby incorporated into this initial study. It contains recommendations for site work and building
accommodate this project given existing geologic conditions, underground utilities and storage tanks, and on-site so
Mitigation Measure:
6
7-36
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 32-96 Albertson's Broad Street Issues Unless mitigation Impact
Inwryorated
Site development shall follow the recommendations made in thegeotechnical report prepared for this project by C
(Report #95-42251-04) .
Monitoring:
Building permit issuance.
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X
Not applicable.
e) Landslides or mudflows? 1 X
The site is not located in area at risk for landslides.
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 1 X
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
See discussion under 3.c. above.
g,h) Subsidence or the land? Expansive soils? X
See discussion under3.c. above.
i) Unique geologic or physical features? X
There are no unique geologic or physical features on site.
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the 1 X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
All drainage from the site will either be connected directly to a storm drain in Broad Street or to the storm drain
in Alphonso Street. A minor amount of water may drain to Roundhouse Avenue but this amount is no
anticipated to be more than what currently drains to that street from existing development. Public Works Dept
staff have reviewed the project proposal and note that the storm drain inAlphonso will have to be extended into
the property to accommodate proposed culverting of an open drainage channel that runs between a storm drain
beneath the railroad tracks and a storm drain in Alphonso Street. A general construction activity storm water
permit will be required for all storm water discharges associated with construction activity. Building Division
staff note that storm drain runoff calculations will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. Land Use
Element Policy 6.4.7 encourages the use of porous paving, landscaping, or other design elements to reduc
surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge. Compliance with this policy can be monitored through th
architectural review process. See discussion below under Section 7d regarding the small wetland area.
7
7-31
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Imp;
Issues Unless mitigation Impact
ER 32-96 Albertson's Broad Street Incorporated
Mitigation:
The project shall utilize porous paving, landscaping, or other design elements where feasible to reduce surface
water runoff consistent with Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7.
Monitoring:
Architectural review and building permit issuance.
b) Exposure of people or property to water related X .
hazards such as flooding?
The property is not in a flood zone.
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of X
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
See discussion under 4a.
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X
body?
Culverting the drainage channel will eliminate surface water. See discussion under 4a and discussion a,..
recommended mitigation under 7d.
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of x
water movements?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 1 X
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
Surfacing most of the site with nonporous paving and buildings will reduce the site's capability of groundwate
recharge. Additional runoff will be directed into the storm drain system unless some of it is able to be retained
on site consistent with Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7. See discussion and recommended mitigation under
Section 4a and 7b of this report.
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X
See discussion and recommended mitigation under Section 9a. Removal of soil contamination will significant)
reduce the potential for adverse impacts to groundwater quality.
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X
8
7-38'
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 32-96 Albertson's Broad Street Issues Unless mitigation Impact
Incorporatcd
otherwise available for public water supplies?
See discussion under 4a and 4f. Well water use is not proposed as part of this project.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 1,3 X
existing or projected air quality violation?
Site development will impact air quality as a result of construction activity and traffic generated by use
established. Standard mitigation is recommended to reduce impacts resulting from construction activity an
future site development.
Short-term Impacts
During project construction, there will be increased levels of fugitive dust associated with construction an
grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy duty construction equipment. Ai
quality impacts may also result from soil remediation. Depending on the method used, soilremediation can have
adverse air quality impacts.
Mitigation Measures:
Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 7004 (b)), 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. Th
following measures shall constitute the project's dust management plan and shall remain in effect during al
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 on site or off site;
e. Watering material stockpiles;
f. Periodic washdowns, or mechanical street sweeping, of streets in the vicinity of the construction site; and
g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work.
Soil remediation activities shall be subject to review and approval of the Air Pollution Control District.
Monitoring:
9
739
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impa,
Issues Unless mitigation Impact
ER 32-96 Albertson's Broad Street Incorporated
Building permit issuance.
Long-Term Impacts
San Luis Obispo County is a nonattainment area for the State ozone and PM70 (fine particulate matter 10 micron
or less in diameter) air quality standards. State law requires that emissions ofnonattainment pollutants and their
precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The 1995 Clean Air Plan (CAP)
for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to meet that
requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditions
industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states
that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan.
Motor vehicles account for about 40% of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone formation, and are also
significant source of PM10. Thus, a major requirement in the CAP is the implementation of transportation contro
measures designed to reduce motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local residents. The APCD recommend
that site development include the following mitigation measures to encourage transportation alternatives to th
single occupant vehicle and make the project attractive to bicyclists and pedestrians.
Mitigation:
The project shall include:
- bicycle parking and shower and locker facilities for employee use
- shared-use parking reduction
- on-site food facilities to encourage employees to stay on site during the lunch hour
- extensive tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from automobiles
- provision of a bus stop and shelter
- pedestrian friendly site planning to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission
Monitoring:
Architectural review and building permit issuance.
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X
See discussion and recommended mitigation under Section 5a.
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or x
cause any change in climate?
10
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 32-96 Albertson's Broad Street Issues Unless Impact
Incorporated
Not applicable.
d) Create objectionable odors? X
See discussion under Section 5a.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 1,2 X
The traffic impacts of the Broad Street Plaza project were evaluated in a report published on November 26, 199
and prepared by CCS Engineering. The report evaluates the impacts of traffic increases on streets an
intersections in the area during the "near term" (within two years) and in the "far term" (within ten years).
The traffic report uses "Level of Services" (LOS) as the primary criterion to judge the significance of impacts of
near and far term development. LOS provides a measurement of congestion levels and traffic delays rangin
from LOS A which represents free flowing traffic to LOS F which represents extreme congestion. The City's
Circulation Element establishes LOS D as the maximum acceptable level of congestion.
The traffic report for the Broad Street Plaza project concludes that under near term conditions, level of service
on Broad Street and Santa Barbara Street and at key intersections would not exceed level of service standard
stipulated by the Circulation Element (LOS D). However, underfar term conditions, the level of service would
exceed City standards (refer to Table 3-5), with substandard conditions expected at the Broad-Santa Barbara
South Street intersection (LOS F) and at the Broad-Alphonso Street intersection (LOS E).
To address impacts the traffic report defines two mitigation packages:
Option A: includes the installation of a traffic signal at the Alphonso intersection, restriping of Broad Street to
convert one of the northbound through lanes to a shared left-through lane, and modifications to the shoppin
center's driveway on Broad Street to preclude left turns into the project (refer to Figure S-2).
This option is recommended by the City Public Works staff as an immediate response to near term traffic
impacts. The traffic signal at Alphonso Street is needed to enable safe and convenient vehicle access to and
from the project site. is necessary to limit access at the Broad Street driveway to right turns in and out because
of the driveway's proximity to the South Street intersection and the disruption in traffic flow that would b
caused by allowing motorists to make left.turns in or out of the driveway.
Option B: includes the installation of a signal at Alphonso Street, widening Broad Street to create an additional
northbound left-turn lane, and construction of a raised center median on Broad Street between South Street an
Alphonso Street (refer to Figure S-3). The report indicates these changes will be needed to accommodate traffic
growth during the long term. The Public Works staff recommend that the street widening be pursued as the
future need arises and that traffic impact fees paid by the Broad Street Plaza applicants (estimated to be about
$120,000) could support the cost of widening the street when needed in the future. Caltrans recommends
Option B over Option A.
It's important to note that the widening of Broad Street in the long term, as called for in Option B, is warranted
regardless of whether or not the Broad Street Plaza project is developed. Table 3-5 in the traffic report indicate
11
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impac
ER 32-96 Albertson's Broad Street Issues Unless mitigation Impact
Incorporated
that level of service would degrade to LOS F at the Broad-South Street intersection in the long term - whic
exceeds current Circulation Element standards. If traffic continues to increase as development within the urba
reserve continues, widening at the Broad -South Street intersection will be needed to maintain LOS standards o
current policy regarding LOS standards will need to be revised. The timing of widening will depend on the exten
and pace of growth and any traffic reduction impacts of changes in the utilization of alternative transportatio
modes.
Broad Street is designated State Route 227 (from South Street southward) and is under the management o
Caltrans. The design of the Broad Street Plaza, as shown on the most recently submitted plans, will
accommodate either option, should Caltrans require that the street widening occur as a prerequisite of granting
any encroachment permits to gain access to route 227. Buildings have been sufficiently set back from the stree
to include space for the wider roadway; no structures would be effected by eventual widening although remova
of some landscaping north of the project's Broad Street entrance driveway would be required.
Mitigation:
Implement Mitigation Option A or B at the discretion of City Council and Caltrans.
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp X
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment))?
See discussion under 6a.
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby X
uses?
See discussion under 6a.
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X
The project is designed with a 10% reduction in the number of required parking spaces. Zoning regulations alto
for this reduction where a parking area is shared by more than one use. Such a reduction is consistent with the
intent of City parking regulations which is to consolidate parking and minimize the area devoted exclusively to
parking (Section 17.16.060 A).
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X
Mitigation is recommended under discussion regarding air quality in Section 5a to enhance access for pedestrian
and bicyclists.
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
The project will provide a bus stop and bicycle facilities.
12
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless mitigation Impact
ER 32-96 Albertson's Broad Street Incorporated
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. X
compatibility with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land
Use Plan)?
No aspect of the project will interfere with air, waterborne or rail traffic.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their 1,4 X
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals or birds)?
The City's Informational Map Atlas indicates there are no sensitive plant or animal species on the site.
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X
There are no locally designated species on site.
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak X
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
There are no locally designated natural communities on site.
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? X
There is a small wetland area at the southeastern end of the project site which the project proposes to culverl
and pave for a parking area. It consists of a drainage channel approximately 20 feet wide and 150 to 200 fee
long, connecting a drain under the railroad with a storm drain inAlphonso Street. This area is not shown on the
creek map in the Open Space Element. It supports a range of riparian plants - sedges, cattails,saltgrass, and
willows, and is a wetland under Federal regulations. Project designers should consider retaining this as
landscape feature which could be bridged to connect parking areas. As small as it is the wetland provide
suitable habitat for birds, amphibians, and small mammals. Its removal without mitigation is potentially
significant when evaluated together with other similar impacts. If the wetland isculverted and filled, the project
must include mitigation satisfactory to the Dept. of Fish and Game and the Army Corps of Engineers. One
possible means of mitigation would be enhancement of off-site wetland areas. For instance, wetland plant
could be relocated to another suitable location identified by the City's Natural Resource Manager. It may also b
possible to create a small detention area at the far eastern corner of the property beyond the employee parkin
area which could serve as a seasonal wetland.
Mitigation:
Retain the wetland area at the southeastern end of the project or provide mitigation to the satisfaction of th
Department of Fish and game and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Monitoring:
Architectural review and Building permit issuance.
13
7'�`3
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impa,
ER 32-96 Albertson's Broad Street Issues Unless mitigation ImpactIncorporated
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X
See discussion under d above. Although wetlands provide valuable habitat, this wetland is probably too small t
support a significant animal population.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1 X
The Energy Element states that, "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventions
energy for space heating and cooling, water heating, and illumination by means of proper design and orientation
including the provision and protection of solar exposure." The City implements energy conservation goal
through enforcement of the California Energy Code which establishes energy conservation standards fo
residential and nonresidential construction. Buildings proposed as part of this project must meet those standards
The City also implements energy conservation goals through architectural review. Project designers are asked t
show how a project makes maximum use of passive means of reducing conventional energy demand, as oppose
to designing a particular image and relying on mechanical systems to maintain comfort. See recommende
mitigation under 8.b. below.
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 1 X
inefficient manner?
To avoid using non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner, the following standard mitigation i
recommended:
Mitigation:
Future site development shall incorporate the following as feasible:
• Skylights to maximize natural day lighting.
• Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
• Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
Monitoring: Architectural review and building permit issuance.
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
There are no known mineral resources on site.
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous 5 X
14
�y
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 32-96 Albertson's Broad Street Issues Unless mitigation Impact
Incorporated
substances (including, but not limited to: oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
An environmental site assessment was prepared by Converse Consultants Orange County in February 1996,
which is hereby incorporated by reference. The investigation revealed various subsurface structures and pipe
associated with Southern Pacific Railroad operations; hazardous concentrations of lead, asbestos, petroleurr
hydrocarbons (as crude oil, diesel and gasoline), and other metals and volatile organic compounds in selecte
soil samples.
The report recommends removal of underground structures and abandoned pipes; sampling additional areas t
better determine the extent of contamination; further monitoring of ground water wells; and removal of some
above surface structures. It also states that the area with concentrations of petroleum compounds that excee
regulatory limits should either be removed, treated in place, or a risk assessment performed to quantify the
potential impact the soil and/or vapors may have on the environment and/or human life.
Mitigation:
All recommendations of the environmental site assessment report prepared by Converse Consultants Orange
County in February 1996 shall be incorporated into the project description in order to ensure against the
accidental release of hazardous substances and potential health hazard.
Accurate delineation of site contamination and resolution of all contamination issues prior to construction mus
be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Monitoring:
Building permit issuance.
b) Possible interference with an emergency response X
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
See recommended mitigation under 11 a.
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health 5 X
hazard?
See discussion under 9a above.
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential 5 X
health hazards?
See discussion under 9a above.
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, 1,4 X
grass of trees?
The site is not in a high fire hazard area.
15
��&A/J
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless mitigation Impact
ER 32-96 Albertson's Broad Street Incorporated
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? 1 X
The proposed uses are not noise sensitive as designated by the Noise Element. They are not likely t
substantially increase noise exposure for adjoining uses, which include a bank, a fire station, and the railroad
none of which are noise sensitive uses.
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 1 X
Proposed on-site uses and adjoining uses are not designated as noise sensitive in the Noise Element.
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
This project has been reviewed by the Fire Department staff. Attached comments provide standards for
compliance with the Fire Code. Comments also address the need for an emergency preemption device in the
new traffic signal at the Alphonso and Broad Street intersection.
b) Police protection? X
This is an infill project which will not result in the need for new or altered police service.
c) Schools? X
Not applicable.
d) Maintenance of public facilities,.including roads? X
Caltrans has the maintenance responsibility for Highway 227.
e) Other governmental services? X
Not applicable.
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
This project has been reviewed by Southern California Gas Company. The attached letter, dated June 28, 1996
notes that the existing gas line will have to be relocated. Appropriate easement and quitclaim documents mus
be recorded and accurately reflected on project plans.
Mitigation:
Relocation of gas lines and easements for such shall be to the satisfaction of the Southern California Ga
16
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless mitigation Impact
ER 32-96 Albertson's Broad Street Incorporated
Company and the Public Works Director.
Monitoring:
Building permit issuance.
b) Communications systems? X
Public Works Department staff note that fiber optic lines are deficient in this area.
Mitigation:
Provide a 2" fiber optics conduit from the fire station to the corner of Alphonso to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
Monitoring:
Building permit issuance.
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution X
facilities?
This project has been reviewed by Utilities Department staff. Comments note that the project is subject to water
impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing
the water supply, treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to service it.
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
The Utilities Department staff have reviewed the project and commented that the proposed on-site sewer system
must be privately owned and commonly maintained under a recorded easement or that each parcel must have
separate connection to the public sewer main. Certain existing on-site sewer laterals must be abandoned. Th
developer must submit anticipated wastewater flows so that a determination can be made regarding the capacit
of the existing sewer system. If it is determined by the Utilities Engineer that the existing system does not have
an adequate capacity to handle added flows from this project, the developer must upgrade the public sewe
system accordingly. Comments also note that the project is subject to sewer impact fees which were adopte
to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the treatment and distributio
facilities that will be necessary to service it. A grease interceptor may also be required for food service
operations.
Mitigation:
The proposed on-site sewer system shall be privately owned and maintained under a recorded agreement, o
each parcel must have a separate connection to the public main.
Anticipated wastewater calculations shall be submitted for a determination by the Utilities Engineer of the
adequacy of the existing public main. If it is determined that the existing sewer system does not have the
17
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impar
ER 32-96 Albertson's Broad Street Issues Unless mitigation Impact
Incorporated
capacity to handle the additional flows, the developer shall upgrade the public sewer system accordingly, to t
satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer.
The existing sewer lateral serving the Emily Street buildings to be demolished shall be abandoned consistent wit
City standards.
Monitoring:
Building permit issuance.
e) Storm water drainage? X
See discussion under 4a regarding the possible culverting of the drainage swale and connection to the storm
water main in Alphonso Street.
f) Solid waste disposal? 6 X
Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californians
dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a three
to groundwater, air quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018.
The Act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50% (from
1989 levels) by 2000. To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project, consistent with the City'
Source Reduction and Recycling Element, recycling facilities must be accommodated on the project site and
solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials should be submitted with the buildin
permit application. The project should include facilities for both interior and exterior recycling to reduce the
unrecycled waste stream generated by the project consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element.
Mitigation:
Site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building materials, such a
concrete, sheetrock, wood, and metals, from the construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval b
the Community Development Director, prior to building permit issuance.
Future site development should incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling.
Monitoring:
Architectural review and building permit issuance.
g) Local or regional water supplies? 1 X
The City has adopted Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new development an
land use changes do not jeopardize adequate water service to current and new customers. Section 17.89.03
of the regulations states that a water allocation shall be required to: "obtain a connection to the City wate
system for a structure or facility not previously connected; change the use of land or buildings, whether or not
construction permit is also required; obtain a construction permit."
18
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant SignificantImpact
Issues Unless mitigation Impact
ER 32-96 Albertson's Broad Street Incorporated
The new use will increase future water demand. To receive an allocation, the owner of the new lot would nee
to provide water offsets through retrofitting the plumbing of existing structures to save at least as much wate
annually as the projected demand, or otherwise satisfy the requirements of the water allocation regulation
through an approved method.
Compliance with the provisions of the Water Allocation Regulations and the water impact fee program (discusse
under 12c) is adequate to mitigate the effects of increased water demand.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 1 X
This section of Broad Street is designated as a road of moderate scenic value, with peak and treeline views o
Cerro San Luis and Bishop's Peak as well as the Santa Lucia Hills. Scenic Roadway policies in the Circulatio
Element state that views of important scenic resources from major streets should be preserved and improved t
the maximum extent possible. Site development may partially obscure views of the Santa Lucia Mountains.
However the proposed ratio of building coverage to open area assures that views will not be wholly obscured.
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X
The project is subject to architectural review largely to ensure against negative aesthetic impacts.
c) Create light or glare? X
The ARC Guidelines state that exterior lighting should be subdued and not create glare for occupants o
neighbors. It notes that tall light fixtures that illuminate large areas should be avoided. Zoning regulations stat
that no lighting or illuminated device shall be operated so as to create glare which creates a hazard or nuisanc
on other property. This site is overlooked by the Bishop Street neighborhood. Lighting levels and the duration o
lighting should be reviewed as part of the architectural review process to ensure that glare and reflected light wil
not be a nuisance for surrounding properties.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? 9 X
An archaeological survey was completed for this project in July 1996 by Clay Singer. That survey is hereby
incorporated into this initial study by reference. The report concludes that redevelopment of the area is unlike)
to affect any known or suspected archaeological resources and no additional investigation is recommended prio
to construction. To avoid significant adverse impacts, the following mitigation is recommended.
Mitigation:
If significant archaeological materials are discovered during grading and construction, all construction activitie
that may damage those materials shall immediately cease. The project sponsor shall then propose specific
mitigation based on a qualified archaeologist's recommendations. The Director shall approve, approve wit
changes, or reject the mitigation proposal (if found incomplete, infeasible, or unlikely to reduce adverse impact
19
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Imp:
ER 32-96 Albertson's Broad Street Issues Unless mitigation Impact
Incorporated
to an acceptable level). If the proposal is approved, the project sponsor shall implement mitigation, to th
satisfaction of the Director. A copy of the archaeologist's recommendations and the Director's decision will b
forwarded to the Cultural Heritage Committee.
Monitoring:
Building permit issuance and inspection.
b) Disturb archaeological resources? X
See discussion and recommended mitigation under 14a.
c) Affect historical resources? X
See discussion and recommended mitigation under 14a.
_T
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which X
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
Not applicable.
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the L
potential impact area?
Not applicable.
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional X
parks or other recreational facilities?
Not applicable.
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
X
Not applicable.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the X
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, 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
20
7-SO
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless mitigation Impact
ER 32-96 Albertson's Broad Street Incorporated
history or prehistory?
The project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment by increasing traffic in the vicinity with
related impacts on air quality and pedestrian and bicycle circulation. However, recommended mitigation
measures will reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- X
term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
Short-term and long-term 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 incremental effects of wetland removal; additional barriers to pedestrian and bicycle circulation; air qualit
deterioration; and additional vehicle traffic are all impacts which are individually limited but considerable whe
viewed in conjunction with the effects of other past, current and future projects. Again, mitigation measure
have been incorporated to reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which X
could cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
The presence of various hazardous materials in the soils on site could cause substantial adverse effects o
human beings either directly or indirectly. See appropriate sections for mitigation measures requiring appropriat
site clean up.
17. EARLIER ANALYSES. - This analysis is an update of a previous analysis prepared for a larger scale Albertson's
shopping center. The previous analysis was circulated for comment, but never adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo.
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 San Luis Obispo City General Plan: Land Use, Circulation, Noise, Energy, Open Space, Seismic Safety, Water and
Wastewater Management Elements
2 Broad Street Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by CCS Planning and Engineering, July 1996
3 1995 Clean Air Plan
4 City of San Luis Obispo Informational Map Atlas
21
7-S/
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impar
Issues Unless mitigation Impact
ER 32-96 Albertson's Broad Street Incorporated
5 Site Characterization Summary Report (No. 95-42251-02) prepared by Converse Consultants Orange County,
February 1996
6 Source Reduction and Recycling Element
7 San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990
8 Geotechnical Report prepared by Converse Consultants Orange County
9 Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment prepared by Clay Singer, July 1996
22
7 s�