The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/02/1996, 3 - REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY AT 3030 BROAD STREET (THE BRICKYARD) FROM SERVICE-COMMERCIAL (C-S) TO SERVICE-COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (C-S-PD) TO ALLOW LARGE OFFICE USES AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS USES. FILE NO.: PD 129-95 A] council U.I�wD� 7.7. acEnba REpout CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 0 FROM: Arnold JonlCommunity Development Director Prepared By: Whitney Me vaine, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Request to rezone property at 3030 Broad Street (The Brickyard) from Service- Commercial (C-S) to Service-Commercial Planned Development (C-S-PD) to allow large office uses and other miscellaneous uses. File No.: PD 129-95 CAO RECOMMENDATION Introduce an ordinance to print approving a negative declaration and rezoning the parcel from Service- Commercial (C-S) to Service-Commercial Planned Development (C-S-PD), based on findings and subject to conditions as noted in the attached draft ordinance. DISCUSSION DataSummary Project Address: 3030 Broad Street Applicant/Property Owners: 3030 Inc. Contact: Dr. Art Segal Representatives: Charlie Senn, Patterson Realty; Steve Pults, Architect Zoning: Service-Commercial (C-S) General Plan: Services and Manufacturing Environmental Status: The Director made a determination to issue a negative declaration. Project Action Deadline: Legislative actions are not subject to deadline. Rezoning Request The applicant wishes to expand the range of uses allowed to occupy newly constructed commercial buildings at the Brickyard. The applicant's statement in support of the PD application is attached. It lists requested uses, including large office uses, some uses that would otherwise not be allowed in the C-S zone, and preapproval for land uses allowed in the C-S zone subject to use permit approval. Relevant General Plan and Zoning Provisions The Land Use Element (LUE) allows for the establishment of large offices in Service-Commercial (C-S) and Manufacturing (M) zones (LUE policies 3.3.2 E and 3.5.2 F). Zoning regulations also allow large offices and other uses to be established in the C-S and M zones as part of a Planned Development rezoning, subject to certain prohibitions and consistency with the General Plan (Chapters 17.50 and 17.62, and footnote 10 at the end of Table 9 - Uses Allowed by Zone). Council Agenda Report- PD 129-95 Page 2 Site Description and Surrounding Development The three and a quarter acre project site will ultimately be developed with three commercial buildings. The site is on the eastern side of Broad Street between Orcutt Road and Mutsuhito Avenue. Surrounding uses include commercial-industrial businesses across Broad Street, a gas station to the south, Aggson's Paint and Glass to the north, and Villa Rosa residential condominiums to the east. Planning Commission Review and Recommendation On February 28, 1996, the Planning Commission recommended that Council adopt the attached ordinance allowing certain large office uses at the Brickyard, limiting the location of those uses to the second story of the center building, and allowing certain other uses, such as barbers, travel agencies, and day care without requiring further use permit approval. The Planning Commission did not support all of the applicant's requests. The rationale for recommending approval of some requested uses and not others is outlined in the attached Planning Commission staff report. Most of the discussion focused on impacts of the commercial development on nearby residential areas. Staff have since met with project representatives to specifically address adjacent neighbors' concerns regarding noisy truck deliveries in the middle of the night, increased traffic through residential streets, and glare and intrusive lighting from fixtures installed at the Brickyard. Signs have been erected to alert truck drivers to Municipal Code standards for delivery hours. Signs have also been erected to inform drivers that Garibaldi Drive through Villa Rosa is a private drive. The lighting issue has not been as easy to resolve. The lighting contractor is recommending: 1. Replacement of all exterior decorative fixture metal halide bulbs with mercury vapor bulbs (not the yellow kind), thus reducing the lighting levels by approximately half. 2. Re-circuiting the exterior lights to allow all decorative pole lights to be shut off by 10:00 p.m. All wall lights and the pole lights at the rear of the property line would stay on all night. Staff concurs with the lighting contractor's recommendation, providing this solution is satisfactory to the Villa Rosa homeowners. Required Finding To approve a planned development rezoning allowing large professional office buildings which can include multiple tenants but with no single tenant space less than 2,500 sq. ft.. in the C-S or M zones, the Planning Commission and City Council must find that the proposal meets each of the following criteria: 1. The project will be compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the area. 2. The project's location or access arrangement does not significantly direct traffic to use local or collector streets in residential zones. �—Z Council Agenda Report- PD 129-95 Page 3 3. The project will provide adequate mitigation to address potential impacts related to noise, light and glare, and loss of privacy, among others, imposed by commercial activities on nearby residential areas, by using methods such as setbacks, landscaping, berming and fencing. 4. The project does not preclude industrial or service-commercial uses in areas especially suited for such uses when compared with offices. 5. The project does not create a shortage of C-S and M zoned land available for service- commercial or industrial development. The first three findings were addressed as part of architectural review of the construction project. Regarding light and glare, condition 8 of the ARC approval (ARC 48-94)states: All wall-mounted light fixtures should provide down lighting only, and not expose adjacent residents to glare or visible light sources. Parking lot lighting shall be limited in height and not visible to adjacent residents. The Commission modified finding #3 and added condition #6 to the ordinance to address concerns expressed by Villa Rosa residents and to ensure that increased commercial activity at the Brickyard will be compatible with nearby residential areas. Regarding findings 4 and 5, the rezoning is not proposing to restrict uses otherwise allowed or conditionally allowed on this C-S zoned site. Furthermore, the applicant, at the January 10 Planning Commission meeting, agreed to limit office uses to the second floor of the center building, and that limitation is included as part of the ordinance. Environmental Impact The proposed PD zoning allows less intensive uses than those already allowed in the C-S zone. Ordinance condition#6 includes provisions to ensure the project will adequately address compatibility with nearby residential uses in terms of traffic, circulation, noise and lighting. Therefore, the Director determined that the rezoning would not have any significant adverse impact on the environment and the Planning Commission concurred with his recommendation for a negative declaration. CONCURRENCES No other City departments have concerns with the proposed rezoning. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impacts are anticipated as a result of this rezoning request. � 33 Council Agenda Report- PD 129-95 Page 4 ALTERNATIVES The Council may: 1. Continue review with direction to the applicant and staff; or 2. Adopt a resolution denying the rezoning. Attachments draft ordinance approving the rezoning draft resolution for denial 2/28/96 and 1/10/96 minutes Planning Commission staff report initial study L:\CC\129-95.WPD �T Draft ordinance for approval PD 129-95 ORDINANCE NO. (1996 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM C-S to C-S-PD AT 3030 BROAD STREET (PD 129-95) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings to consider appropriate zoning for the site in accordance with the California Government Code and Municipal Code Chapter 17.62.; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECMON 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed rezoning, and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration. SECTION 2. Findings, 1. The Project will be compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the area 2. The project's location and access arrangement do not significantly direct traffic to use local or collector streets in residential zones. 3. As provided in condition 6, the project provides adequate mitigation to address potential impacts related to noise, light and glare, traffic and truck delivery, and loss of privacy, among others, imposed by increased commercial activities within the project on nearby residential areas, by using methods such as setbacks, landscaping, berming, fencing, signs, light shields, etc. 4. The project does not preclude industrial or service-commercial uses in areas especially suited for such uses when compared with offices. 5. The project does not create a shortage of C-S and M zoned land available for service- commercial or industrial development. 6. The Architectural Review Commission approved a final development plan (ARC 48-94) on February 21, 1995. 1 3-S Draft ordinance for approval PD 129-95 7. Uses allowed or conditionally allowed at this site in conjunction with the PD rezoning are not likely to require significant public visitation or need for access to downtown government services. SECTION 3. RezoningApproval- The Council approves application No. PD 129-95, they amending the Official Zoning Map designation for the site from Service-Commercial (C- S) to Service-Commercial Planned Development(C-S-PD), as shown on and described by attached Exhibit A. SECTION 4. Conditions_ 1• Except as otherwise noted in these conditions of approval, all zoning regulations for the C-S zone shall apply. 2. The following uses not otherwise allowed in the C-S zone are hereby allowed at this site, on the second floor of the center building only, subject to a minimum floor area of 2,500 sly feet per tenant, and proof of adequate parking, to be submitted with a business tax certificate application: Insurance services -local Insurance services - regional offices Employment agencies - not government operated Accountants' offices Investment brokers' offices Counselors' offices Appraisers Executive Suites (a facility which provides multiple, small businesses with an office location and shared support services such as a receptionist, computer access, telephone answering, voice mail, faxing, copying, secretarial services, a meeting room, and janitorial services) 3. The following uses not otherwise allowed in the C-S zone are hereby allowed subject to Planning Commission use permit approval: Government agency offices and social services offices on the second floor of the center building only-providing their location at this site is consistent with General Plan policies related to the appropriate location of government and social services offices and that little or no public visitation is required by any such agency. The only government and social services offices which may be considered are limited to those described by Land Use Element policies 5.1.8- "unrelated offices" - and 5.1.10 - "other government functions". Offices shall have a minimum area of 2,500 square feet. 2 .3--G Draft ordinance for approval PD 129-95 4. The following uses, which otherwise require use permit approval or would otherwise not be allowed, are hereby allowed subject to proof of adequate parking, to be submitted with a business tax certificate application: Barbers, hair stylists, manicurists, tanning centers Ticketitravel agencies Day care center Secretarial and related services (court reporting, answering)* stenography, typing, telephone Utility company engineering and administrative offices* Florists * on the second floor of the center building only 5• The following types of office and retail uses are hereby prohibited: Banks Savings and loans Credit unions Financial institutions Real estate offices and realtors Medical clinics Doctors' offices Lawyers' offices Retail sales and rental -specialties (shoes, clothing, books, music, videos, toys, stationary, gifts, etc.) 6. Ile PrOjeCt shall Provide adequate mitigation prior to final inspection of buildings B and C at the Brickyard, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, to address Potential impacts related to noise, light and glare, traffic and truck delivery, and loss of Privacy, among others, imposed by increased commercial activities within the project on nearby residential areas, by using methods such as setbacks, landscaping, berming, fencing, signs, light shields, etc. SECTION 5. Publication A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least 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 at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of , 1996, on motion of , 3 3-7 Draft ordinance for approval PD 129=95 seconded by _---- - and:on the following roll call vote: Ayes; .Noes: Absent- Mayor.Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk — -- - APPROVED: Y J .-J ensen wmI, ord\UM5:pd 4 2-F EN ST. Vat -2-PD 1 \ I G S eV PFfr IUORt '• , o R-1 Ga J R 4 SP - c- -s a+ -1-PD R �� - PF -u `JG� - C/0S 40-SP Cos- R-2-PD R- El M R3 - \ PF PF 'JOS-40-S >a a � R-2 .S-S l M-PD G c-N " " R-3-PD R-2 _3-P R- G o o -3- M I \ ° \ R-140 M IC-S- PD M-- R-3-P \ C-S o C R-3 R-2-PD SITE M-PD R a + R-2 � i s+ '. C/OS-40 ° R-2-S R-2 0 - = V " < L I L$ C-S-PD ''� G EXHIBIT A M-S , I � � C-S-S • �� S 1pg fL{i =- ZONE CHANGE REQUEST CS-PD C-S-PD s, THE BRICKYARD �+�c1'Imu`ir�GdlOC[Lt � Ppb 3030 Broad Street e� �w•saw San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -S C-S -SP SP c. Draft resolution for denial PD 129-95 RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A CHANGE TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE PROPERTY AT 3030 BROAD STREET AND CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM C-S to C-S-PD (PD 129-95) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Fns, The Council, after consideration of the rezoning request PD 129-95 and staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: (Council must insert appropriate findings. A reversal of any of the recommended findings for approval would be sufficient.) SECTION 2. Denial. The request for approval of the rezoning PD 129-95 is hereby denied. 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 1996. ATTEST: Mayor Allen Settle City Clerk APPROVED: -------------- City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen L UMSOTD129-95.D CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1996 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The regular meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 28, 1996 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Janet Kourakis, Gilbert Hoffman, Charles Senn, Brett Cross, Mary Whittlesey, Paul Ready, and Barry Karleskint. Absent: None. Staff Present: Associate Planners Whitney McIlvaine and Glen Matteson, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Clemens,Public Works Director Mike McCluskey, and Development Review Manager Ron Whisenand. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: The Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 10, 1996 and January 24, 1996 were accepted as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: No public comments were made. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 3030 Broad Street: (PD 129-95): Zoning change from Service Commercial to Service Commercial/Planned Development to allow large offices; C-S Zone; 3030 Inc., applicant. Commissioner Senn refrained from participating on this item due to a possible conflict of interest. Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 2 Associate Planner McIlvaine presented the staff report which recommended that the City Council adopt the draft ordinance approving a PD rezoning based on findings and subject to conditions and modification as noted in the ordinance. Commissioner Kourakis asked staff to discuss the situation of the truck traffic going through the residential area on Girabaldi St. Associate Planner McIlvaine stated Girabaldi is a private street and the homeowners have traffic alternatives available to them. The project architect has come up with some signage design which specifically says that deliveries are prohibited between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The signage would be posted at the end of Mutsuhito and at the loading docks. There has been notice sent out to Staples'management regarding truck deliveries. The residents of Villa Rosa were mostly concerned about auto traffic going through their project. Commissioner Kourakis stated she is concerned about traffic that goes through the private street. She asked if would be possible to do something on-site to discourage vehicles from using the private street. She stated there are several units here that are housing-assisted units. The City has to be very careful about loading them with other costs that they innocently have to bear for somebody else. Associate Planner McIlvaine stated she has spoken to other residents and it is hard to really gauge the magnitude of traffic through the site that would be attributable specifically to this project. Commissioner Hoffman asked staff if the signage could be more specific to prohibit trucks parking all night with the engines running. Associate Planner McIlvaine stated she has contacted the police department and requested them to patrol the area to enforce the section of the municipal code that prohibits deliveries. Commissioner Cross asked Staff,referring to Page 3, if they contacted similar businesses to find out how much public visitation they receive. Associate Planner McIlvaine stated she was able to contact an employment agency. An employment agency can generate 20 visits per day. There was some discussion at the January meeting regarding the fact that appraisers probably don't have to be located close to downtown offices and might be an appropriate use in this location. This particular use was changed to the allowed category. Insurance office visitations are similar to employment agencies. Commissioner Cross asked staff if appraisers should be located close to the downtown government services. Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 3 Associate Planner McIlvaine stated it is a question of magnitude. The Commission could determine that appraisers do require significant downtown office contact and should be located close to downtown. Commissioner Whittlesey stated she is concerned about the homeowners' situation and the solutions and agreements that will be made. Associate Planner McIlvaine stated the Commission could condition this regarding any of the issues, providing there is a strong enough relationship between uses proposed and impacts on the adjacent residents. She met with the property manager for 3030 Broad St. and some of the residents of Villa Rosa on February 13, 1996 to look at the lighting situation and she met with the lighting contractor for the project. It was determined that it would be a good idea to shield some of the wall lights. They talked at length about the brightness of globe fixtures in the parking lot. One of the solutions would be to circuit lighting on the site so that at least half of it goes out after a certain time. Commissioner Whittlesey stated in the long run, she wants to feel that the homeowners are satisfied with the mitigation measures. Commissioner Cross asked staff if some of these impacts were looked at when the previous project was approved. Associate Planner McIlvaine stated they were, but no one knew the lights would be as bright as they are now. They do pose a problem for people as evidenced by the complaints that were received. Chairman Karleskint stated he still has a problem with this being a PD, based on his understanding of the regulations. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Steve Pults, project architect, stated they are pretty close to agreement with staff in terms of the recommendations for approval. Mr. Pults stated they are in agreement with the first two items of the staff report on page 4. Mr. Pults stated the third item, which is the government uses, Page 4, Item#3, they agree with the Staffs analysis. They would like to have the use permit requirement reduced to one requiring Director's approval in lieu of Planning Commission approval. The intent of this request is to try to streamline the process. Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Pults stated, for flexibility purposes, they would like to strike the statement about the second floor of building B,#3,Page 4, and not be restricted to the second floor. There are some government uses that could be approved out there that may be first floor uses. Mr. Pults stated, regarding Item#4, they would like retail sales of music and videos to be allowed. This use currently exists at the Cross Roads. Mr. Pults stated they are in agreement with Items#5 and 46. Mr. Pults stated he would like to address the first two items of#7. They would like to get the use permit requirement dropped for restaurants. They are not interested in leasing to a large restaurant or sit-down type restaurant and would be willing to limit the square footage to a maximum of 4,000 sq. ft. for restaurants. They would also like to remove the use permit requirement for retail sales of specialized foods. Mr. Pults stated they have met with representatives from the Villa Rosa Homeowners' Association and with the management of Staples. Staples' deliveries are not made by Staples'trucks. They are doing everything they can to notify the drivers when they can make their deliveries. The traffic issue through Villa Rosa relates to cars and not delivery trucks. He stated the traffic design of the center was dictated by Public Works. He stated he is not sure what they can do to keep traffic out of Villa Rosa. The streets through Villa Rosa are private, which opens up a lot of options in terns of speed bumps, gates, or signage. Mr. Pults stated, regarding the lighting issue,they have been on-site to see which lights were affecting the units. In general, it was the lights on the back of the Staples building. They have shielded the lights temporarily to see what the effect would be. Making the shields permanent is not a problem. The pole light which is visible from Villa Rosa will be shielded. The shields are designed to direct the light or block the light out in certain directions. The owner has already directed them to go ahead and have all the lights recircuited for night. The lighting for this project was designed for a standard that was given by Staples. Commissioner Cross asked Mr. Pults if he has done any parking calculations for restaurants. He stated there might be a concern with being under parked. Mr. Pults stated not specifically,because it varies with what kind of restaurant that would be allowed. Commissioner Kourakis asked Mr.Pults if signage could be added to direct people out to Mitsuhito and prohibit truck parking. She has concerns regarding traffic. Mr. Pults stated they would put anything on the signs that the Commission wants. Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 5 Commissioner Kourakis asked if there will be any lighting on the backs of buildings B and C. Mr. Pults stated there will be a couple of wall lights on the back of building C and they will be shielded. Commissioner Kourakis asked if Mr. Pults' client would be willing to help with the costs to limit traffic through Villa Rosa. Mr. Pults stated that would be a possibility. Commissioner Whittlesey asked Mr. Pults if the exit could be made into a left-turn only. Mr. Pults stated that is a Public Works decision. Al McVay, managing agent for the owner of the project, 979 Osos, stated two of the early arriving trucks are more in-house Staples trucks, so there is a permanent solution to the early arriving trucks. A lot of the problems with the trucking arrivals is more of an informational problem. Staples wasn't aware of the ordinance prohibiting deliveries and the noise. They are aware of the ordinance now and are willing to comply. They have submitted a signage program and are very flexible and open to new ideas for signage. Patrick Monroe, president of the Villa Rosa Homeowners' Association, 765 Mutsuhito Ave., stated they are not in any way trying to inhibit business. It is their feeling that when the property owners of the leased property went about attracting leases,there was very little concern given to the adjacent property, and in so doing, a number of things have occurred that could have been avoided. As a result, they now have the problems which they are attempting to address. Mr. Monroe stated this morning three trucks arrived at 4:30 a.m. and parked with the engines running on Victoria. One of the trucks, in order to wait his turn to be unloaded, parked in front of their mail boxes. They in support of some sort of permanent understanding of how they will go about leasing this property. There is not the same type of relationship between Cross Roads and this property. They have experienced people coming off Broad and exiting through Mutsuhito in order to avoid the traffic. The lighting on the building has been temporarily corrected and works very well and they are very grateful. He doesn't know how well the truck drivers will read the signage. It is true that some of the trucking is not from Staples trucks. This does present a problem. They are concerned about some of usages that would increase the traffic flow in and through the Villa Rosa property. There have been three incidences of near accidents with children and cars. They have 14 kids in 24 buildings. This is a concern. This is not a problem with preventing business. They would like to coexist with business in a reasonable manner. Commissioner Kourakis asked Mr. Monroe if he has any ideas for traffic calming devices for Villa Rosa. Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 6 Mr. Monroe stated they have talked about speed bumps and the possibility of some form of gate that would inhibit access during certain hour. They have no concrete suggestions and are now in discussions. Commissioner Kourakis asked Mr. Monroe if a left-tum only sign would help. Mr. Monroe answered yes, but it would have to be enforced in some way in order to make it work. Commissioner Whittlesey asked Mr. Monroe to comment on the uses suggested. Mr. Monroe stated the question of the second floor is a concern. There would be lights on building C, but that seems to have been addressed by Mr. Pults. They are also concerned about the amount of traffic that would be generated by certain types of uses. The public comment session was closed. Commissioner Hoffman asked staff why uses would be limited to the second floor. Associate Planner McIlvaine stated at the last meeting there was some concern or desire to limit the overall square footage in the center that might be available for office uses. There were two suggestions made. One was setting a square footage limit on office uses throughout the center. The second was limiting office uses to the second floor of building B for the reason that it was designed specifically for office-type uses. Commissioner Cross stated he can't make the finding on#4 without the office space being limited to the second floor. Commissioner Ready asked,with respect to the two items on Page 5, restaurants and specialty foods, if there is no change made to the current use permit requirement, will it just require Director's approval? Associate Planner McIlvaine answered yes. Chairman Karleskint stated there is a concern that all these conditions are in place but are not being effective. Associate Planner McIlvaine stated one of the conditions states that the lighting for this commercial project will not cause glare or otherwise be a nuisance to the adjacent residents. It is a general condition. We have a situation that obviously has not achieved that condition and we are working to solve it. Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 1996 Page 7 Commissioner Whittlesey asked if the City is somehow a partner in this lighting issue due to ARC review. The lighting is a problem and it needs to be fixed. Associate Planner McIlvaine stated it may be possible to add some language to the finding #3 to clarify the Commission's position on some of these problems that have been identified with a time frame. Associate Planner McIlvaine stated a change could me made to Page 6, Finding#3. She suggested, "The project will provide adequate mitigation consistent with previous approvals, prior to inspection of the remaining buildings under construction at the Brickyard to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director." Commissioner Ready asked staff if the conditions will have to be modified. Associate Planner McIlvaine suggested Condition#6 be worded, "As conditioned, the project shall provide adequate mitigation prior to final inspection of buildings B and C at the Brickyard to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director to address potential impacts related to noise, light, glare, traffic, truck deliveries, and loss of privacy, among others, imposed by increased commercial activities within the project upon nearby residential areas by using methods such as setbacks, landscaping, berming, fencing, or et cetera." Chairman Karleskint stated he is concerned with the tri-polar concept and is not comfortable handling it at the Commission level. Commissioner Cross stated this is a much larger project than Cross Roads. Parking at the Cross Roads is a real problem. Commissioner Kourakis asked if Staffs concern with the music and video uses is parking. Associate Planner McIlvaine replied yes. She also noted that the City has General Plan Policies that specifically limit areas for specialty retail sales. Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to recommend that the City Council adopt the attached Draft Ordinance as amended by staff regarding Finding#3 and the added Condition#6. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ready. AYES: Commissioners Hoffman, Ready, Kourakis, Cross, Whittlesey, and Chairman Karleskint NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Senn The motion carried. 3-/7 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY,JANUARY 10, 1996 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The regular meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 10, 1996 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Janet Kourakis, Gilbert Hoffman, Charles Senn, Brett Cross, Paul Ready, and Chairman Bary Karleskint. Absent: Commissioner Mary Whittlesey. Staff Present: Associate Planner Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner Judith Lautner, Development Review Manager Ronald Whisenand, and Assistant City Attorney Cindy Clemens. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. The Planning Commission agreed to hear Items#2, #4, and#5 out of order. ACCEPTANCE OF THE MINUTES: The Minutes of July 26, 1995 and December 13, 1995 were accepted as presented. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 3030 Broad Stree 129=95 a ER 129-95: Review of rezoning from C-S to C-S-PD to allow large offices a Cher aneous uses at the "Brickyard" and evaluation of the environmental impacts of the request; 3030 Inc., applicants. Commissioner Senn stepped down from this item due to a conflict of interest. Associate Planner McIlvaine presented the staff report. Commissioner Cross stated in the last report there was a discussion with regards to availability of C-S zoned land and the impacts. He stated he didn't see these in this report. Planning Commission Meeting January 10, 1996 Page 2 Associate Planner McIlvaine stated in previous cases staff has looked at remaining vacant land in the C-S Zone. This PD rezoning doesn't change the underlying Commercial Service zoning. This PD rezoning wouldn't preclude uses that are allowed in the C-S zone. Commissioner Kourakis referred to the tri-polar concept and asked if the buildings on lower Higuera are still restricted to government offices. Associate Planner McIlvaine answered yes. Commissioner Cross asked how conditions#4 and#5, Page 67 are addressed in the staff report. Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated they are addressed on Page 5. Commissioner Karleskint wondered about the appropriateness of using a PD for this application. He questioned some aspects of the PD ordinance as it applied to this rezoning effort. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Steve Pults, project architect, 1401 Higuera, stated the intent of this proposal, and the center in general, is to try and get as much flexibility as possible with uses. He stated itis their intent to put offices on the second floor. Mr. Pults stated they are asking for a wide range of uses. He doesn't feel they're asking for anything that is not provided for and allowed by the General Plan. This center has been designed in such a way that it can be divided up many ways. More parking has been put in than is generally put in a center in the C-S zone. He stated they are pretty much in agreement with staff recommendations. In referring to the staff report, Mr. Pults stated two items they wanted to discuss were appraisers and executive suites. He stated he would like the flexibility to pursue executive suites. He stated they agree with staff with regard to government uses. In referring to #4, he stated they would like to have video rentals. Video rentals are allowed across the street. He doesn't agree with the first two items of 47. Mr. Pults offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Kourakis asked Mr. Pults if he had anything in mind with regard to governmental and social services offices. Mr. Pults stated no, not at this time. Charles Senn, 2840 El Cerrito, San Luis Obispo, stated on the site there is a building with two stories on half of the building. That area is geared to have offices only. The reason for the request that there not be the necessity for the use permit for restaurants or for retail sales of groceries, liquor, etcetera, is that they don't have any intention of putting in any sit-down restaurants in this project. Mr. Senn stated he would be amenable to limiting total square footage for restaurants. He stated they are in discussion with a couple of convenience restaurants. They are not look for a sit-down restaurant. Regarding the executive suites, they brought this before the Commission because it is something that has never been tried in this City. San Luis Obispo is a city that has many people who are self-employed and have one- and two-person businesses. .The �7 Planning Commission Meeting January 10, 1996 Page 3 executive suites will be geared for this type of business. This project is geared for making the individual person the priority. Commissioner Hoffman asked staff what the parking requirement would be for the executive suite use. Associate Planner McIlvaine stated the decision would be left to the Director. In this case, he would most likely find it like professional office uses, one space per 300 sq. ft. Commissioner Cross asked if the applicant would be amenable to specifying the second floor of Building B as the only area for offices. Mr. Senn stated yes, but with the flexibility to come back and ask for a Use Permit for something else. The might be someone who will need an upstairs and downstairs. The project is not designed to have offices in the downstairs of the complex. Commissioner Kourakis asked to respond to the concern for the tri-polar concept in terms of limiting government offices to three specific places. Mr. Senn stated the tri-polar concept is great in theory, but sometimes it isn't practical. Mr. Senn cited the specific example of the highway patrol near the airport. The reason CHP locate out there is they couldn't find a location in the City and the County welcomed them. Mr. Senn also cited the example of the government military recruiting offices on Foothill Blvd. and the Workman's Compensation Office in Grover Beach. Mr. Senn stated he is not looking to have any governmental office that is.going to draw anything away from the tri-polar concept. Patrick Monroe, 765 Mutsuhito Ave., president of the Homeowners' Association, stated he has not had the opportunity to read the staff report. Mr.Monroe used the overhead map to show the Commission where his unit is located. He stated the complex treats the area as though it were some part of Compton in Los Angeles. They have exceptionally bright lights on all night. The business "Staples" is quiet, but their deliveries are between 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., seven days a week. Large trucks pull in there, leaving their engines on all night. They have had to call Staples about this. Mr. Monroe stated because of the access from Broad St., through Mutsuhito, and out Orcutt, there have been two incidents with children and cars coming through the complex. Mr. Munroe attended a homeowners' meeting the previous night and stated they are having great difficulty in recommending approval. They feel staffs recommendations should be stiffened and some consideration should be given to the homes in that area. -He feels something should be done about deliveries, access through their property, and the increase of traffic. He stated when looking at the list of proposed businesses, he probably wouldn't have bought his property. The total ambiance of the area is changing to a point where it's becoming intolerable. Mr. Munroe Planning Commission Meeting January 10, 1996 Page 4 asked that this request be denied. Mr. Senn stated he is not involved in the active management of this property and this is the first he's heard of these problems. He stated he would make it a point to put the management people in contact with the homeowners' association to try to find a solution. They will tryto come up with a plan to limit the hours of delivery so it would not interfere with residents. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Commissioner Cross asked staff to discuss the deliveries. Associate Planner McIlvaine stated deliveries were not addressed in the conditions of approval for the first site because there was a specific requirement in the Municipal Code regarding deliveries not occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. She stated she has received calls regarding the deliveries and the lights. Commissioner Cross asked if additional consideration has been given to traffic. Associate Planner McIlvaine stated one of the stipulations on types of office uses allowed by PD rezoning says they must be offices with no substantial public visitation. That would limit traffic to a reasonable degree for those types of uses. Commissioner Kourakis asked staff if the problem of 18-wheelers parking with the engines on is governed by the Municipal Code. Associate Planner McIlvaine stated yes, this is an active enforcement case. Chairman Karleskint suggested the homeowners' association submit in writing an outline of their concerns. Commissioner Kourakis asked staff about the lighting. Associate Planner McIlvaine stated there is an architectural review condition relative to lighting not causing glare light services not being visible from the adjacent residential area. FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS: Charles Senn suggested that this matter be continued. He stated there are problems that exist which he wasn't aware of. It would be for everyone's benefit if the property management and the 3 -2� Planning Commission Meeting January 10, 1996 Page 5 homeowners' association met to address the issues. Mr. Monroe stated a meeting would help to solve the problems in conjunction with working with staff. He stated there are only 24 units built of the 85 planned. They need to protect future homeowners_ The public comment session was closed. FURTHER COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Commissioner Hoffman stated he would support making executive suites an allowed use in the second story portion of the building. Commissioner Ready asked staff why appraisers were not an allowed use. Associate Planner McIlvaine stated appraisers do have cause to be downtown at the City and County offices quite often. It seemed that might be the kind of office use that might be more appropriately located closer to the Court House or the Civic Center. Commissioner Hoffman stated appraisers don't have a lot of public contact at their offices. Commissioner Cross suggested staff contact some specific offices to see how much public contact they do have. Commissioner Hoffman suggested staff contact other executive suite offices to get a better idea of the parking situation. Chairman Karleskint stated he would have problems with a video rental business because it would generate a lot of in and out traffic. CommissionerCross stated that uses recommended to be either allowed and/or allowed by use permitmust be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. They should be evaluated on that basis, along with other General Plan conformance issues. Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to continue this item to a date uncertain to allow time for staff and the applicant to address the concerns that have been raised. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kourakis. AYES: Commissioners Hoffman,Kourakis, Cross, Ready, and Chairman Karleskint. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Commissioner Senn. 3 -Zz Planning Commission Meeting January 10, 1996 Page 6 ABSENT: Commissioner Whittlesey 5. 3285 South Higuera Street: A 50-94: Appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision to relocate a business within sixty days, in conjunction with the revocation of a use permit; C-S-S Zone, Town & Country Fencing, applicant. Associate Planner Ricci presented the staff report. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Gary Schmidt, Town and Country Fencing, distributed copies of his formal statement to the Commission and staff. Mr. Schmidt indicated that he has found a new location for his business, but that he needed additional time to relocate. Commissioner Senn asked Mr. Schmidt when he would be able to move. Mr. Schmidt responded that he needed until the end of March. Commissioner Cross asked Mr. Schmidt if he has attempted to work with the homeowners to solve any of the problems. Mr. Schmidt answered no. Mr. Schmidt stated that the City has sent professionals out to inspect his operations and he has not received notification that he is generating toxic fumes. He also noted that the fire department did not notify him of any fire hazards. Commissioner Kourakis questioned Mr. Schmidt about storing materials in the storm drain easement at the rear of the site. Mr. Schmidt stated this had not created any flooding on his property. Tom Zender, 3267 Via Ensenada, Homeowners' Association Board Member explained his concerns with the fencing business creating a present fire hazard at the site, mentioning smells of welding flux and other chemicals in the air. He noted concerns the noise and profane language of the workers and the appearance of the site, which he believed has lowered property values. Mr. Zender was concerned with granting Mr. Schmidt further time extensions to relocate and wanted some guarantee for the Homeowners' Association that relocation would occur in a timely manner. Carolyn McCartney stated she lives right behind the fence company and has been dealing with 3�3 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT r,„x 2 BY: Whitney Mcllvaine, Associate Planner\ti MEETING DATE: February 28, 1996 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manage FILE NUMBER: PD 129-95 PROJECT ADDRESS: 3030 Broad Street (The Brickyard) SUBJECT: A request for a Planned Development (PD) rezoning to allow large offices and additional uses not otherwise allowed in the Service-Commercial zone to locate at the Brickyard. The applicant is also requesting preapproval for uses allowed in the C-S zone subject to use permit approval. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Recommend that City Council adopt the attached draft ordinance approving a PD rezoning based on findings and subject to conditions and modification as noted in the ordinance. BACKGROUND Situation The applicant wishes to expand the range of uses allowed to occupy newly constructed commercial buildings at the Brickyard. The Land Use Element (LUE) allows for the establishment of large offices in Service-Commercial (C-S) and Manufacturing (M) zones (LUE policies 3.3.2 E and 3.5.2 F). Zoning regulations also allow large offices and other uses to be established in the C-S and M zones as part of a Planned Development rezoning, subject to certain prohibitions and consistency with the General Plan (Chapters 17.50 and 17.62, and footnote 10 at the end of Table 9 - Uses Allowed by Zone). Previous Review This item was continued from the December 13, 1995 meeting because of a busy agenda. It was again continued from January 10, 1996 to allow the applicant to meet with residents of Villa Rosa who had concerns with truck deliveries, traffic, and lighting. At the January meeting, a majority of Commissioners supported adding Appraisers and Executive Suites as allowed uses and to limit the total area available for office uses. The staff recommendation is revised to reflect this direction. Data Summaa Project Address: 3030 Broad Street Applicant/Property Owners: 3030 Inc. Contact: Dr. Art Segal Representative: Steve Pults, Pults and Associates Zoning: Service-Commercial (C-S) PD 129-95 Page 2 Data Summary cont'd: General Plan: Services and Manufacturing Environmental Status: The Director made a determination to issue a negative declaration. Project Action Deadline: Legislative actions are not subject to deadline. Site Description The three and a quarter acre project site will ultimately be developed with three commercial buildings. The site is on the eastern side of Broad Street between Orcutt Road and Mutsuhito Avenue. Surrounding uses include commercial-industrial businesses across Broad Street, a gas station to the south, Aggson's Paint and Glass to the north, and Villa Rosa residential condominiums to the east. Project Description The applicant's statement in support of the PD application is attached. It lists all requested uses, including large office uses, some uses that would otherwise not be allowed in the C-S zone, and preapproval for land uses allowed in the C-S zone subject to use permit approval. EVALUATION Compatibility with Villa Rosa Staff met with residents of Villa Rosa, employees of Thoma Electric, the project manager, and the project architect to discuss problems with traffic through the residential development, early morning / late night truck deliveries, and the invasive brightness of site lighting at the Brickyard. Although these issues are not directly related to the application request, staff and the applicant have worked with the president of the Villa Rosa homeowners association to identify solutions. Trak: Garibaldi Avenue, the road through Villa Rosa connecting to Orcutt Road and Mutsuhito and Lawrence Avenues, is a private road. The homeowners association may want to consider signing the road and/or installing barriers to outside traffic. Any barriers are subject to approval of the Fire Department to be sure that emergency vehicles can gain access to the site. Truck Deliveries: The project manager, Al McVay of Vintage Properties, has contacted Staples management staff and informed them of City ordinances restricting delivery times and noise levels. Planning staff alerted the Police Department to this ongoing problem. The project architect is arranging for signs to be posted informing truck drivers of delivery hours. Lighting: Shields have been installed on the wall lights at the rear of the Staples building and can be installed on the pole lights along the rear property line if necessary. Parking lot lights will be 3--n PD 129-95 Page 3 circuited prior to occupancy of the remaining buildings so that roughly half the lights are turned out after 10:00 pm. As soon as he can get one from the manufacturer, the lighting contractor plans to install a test shield inside one of the globe fixtures to see if that adequately dims the brightness of the globe lights. If not, staff will ask that the ballasts inside these fixtures be changed to reduce the overall foot-candles prior to occupancy of the remaining buildings. Uses Requested with PD Rezoning Staff is recommending that some of the uses requested be allowed as part of the PD rezoning and that others not be allowed, based on an evaluation of consistency with the General Plan and zoning regulations, as described below. Basis of Recommendation 1. Where the applicant wishes to accommodate tenants needing office space with a minimum area of 2,500 square feet, and where such uses are consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element policies 3.3.2 E and 3.5.2 F, because they are not likely to require significant public visitation or need access to downtown government services, staff is recommending such uses be allowed on the second story of building B as part of the PD rezoning. These uses include: Insurance services - local Insurance services - regional offices Employment agencies —not government operated Accountants' offices Investment brokers' offices Counselors' offices Appraisers Executive Suites (a facility which provides multiple, small businesses with an office location and shared support services such as a receptionist, computer access, telephone answering, voice mail, faxing, copying, secretarial services, a meeting room, and janitorial services) 2. Where requested uses are not consistent with the General Plan because they do require substantial public visitation and/or do need access to downtown government services, and/or are prohibited under footnote 10` at the end of Table 9 - Uses allowed by zone - in the zoning regulations, staff is recommending denial. These uses include: Banks Savings and loans Credit unions 1 Footnote 10 also prohibits medical offices and clinic and lawyers'offices. The applicant is not requesting that these uses be allowed. PD 129-95 Page 4 Financial institutions Real estate offices and realtors 3. Appropriate locations for government and social services offices are specifically described in the Land Use Element (LUE policies 5.1 - 5.1.12). To ensure consistency with these General Plan policies and in order to better evaluate the public visitation requirements of a particular government or social services agency office, staff recommends this use be allowed on the second story of building B subject to Planning Commission use permit approval and a finding of consistency with the General Plan. Only those government and social services office uses described in Land Use Element policies 5.1.8 - "unrelated offices" - and 5.1.10 - "other government functions" - may be considered possibly eligible to locate at the Brickyard. 4. Where requested uses conflict with General Plan polices regarding location of specialty retail stores (LUE policies 3.1.5 and 3.5.3), staff is recommending denial. These include: Retail sales and rental - specialties (shoes, clothing, books, music, videos, toys, stationary, gifts, etc.) Where requested uses are currently allowed in the C-S subject to use permit approval, and are not anticipated to significantly impact available parking or be otherwise incompatible with other uses allowed at this location, staff is recommending allowing these uses without a use permit requirement, subject to proof of adequate parking, to be submitted with a business tax certificate application. These include: Barbers, hair stylists, manicurists, and tanning centers Ticket/travel agencies Day care center Secretarial and related services (court reporting, stenography, typing, telephone answering)* Utility company engineering and administrative offices* * Allowed only on the second story of building B. 6. Where uses not normally allowed in the C-S zone, but also not prohibited by General Plan polices, and not anticipated to significantly impact available parking or be otherwise incompatible with other uses allowed at this location, staff is recommending allowing such uses without a use permit requirement, subject to proof of adequate parking, to be submitted with a business tax certificate application. The only use is this category is: Florists Where requested uses are currently allowed in the C-S with use permit approval, but require significantly more parking than is provided at the Brickyard, or typically generate a high volume 3 a� PD 129-95 Page 5 of traffic, or pose compatibility questions, staff is recommending no change to the use permit requirement. These include: Restaurants, sandwich shops, take-out food Parkingrequirement: 1 space per 200 sq. ft. for take-out food with no more than 200 sq. ft.. for seating. restaurants with more than 200 sq. ft.. of seating require 1 space per 60 sq. ft.. of customer use area and 1 space per 100 sq. ft. of food prep area. Retail sales - groceries, liquor, and specialized foods (bakery, meats, dairy items, etc.) Parking mQuirement: 1 space per 200 sq. ft.. of floor area. Organizations - offices and meeting rooms* Parking_reQuirement: 1 space per 300 sq. ft.. of office area and 1 space per 4 fixed seats or per each 40 sq. ft.. of seating area. Retail sales - general merchandise (drug, hardware, discount, department and variety) Parking requirement: 1 per 300 square feet and typically generates a high volume of traffic. Veterinarians Concern: Compatibility with other uses on site. Antennas (commercial broadcasting) Concern: Aesthetics, potential radio interference with other communications facilities. * Allowed with a use permit only on the second story of building B. Parking: The equivalent of 154 vehicle parking spaces are provided for the 57,606 square feet of commercial space at the Brickyard. Staples requires 41 spaces based on a ratio of 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area. Dividing the remaining 111 spaces into the remaining 37,454 square feet of floor area yields a ratio of 1 space per 337 square feet of gross leasable floor area. Most office uses require 1 space per 300 square feet of floor area. Restaurants, meeting rooms, and specialty retail stores require more parking per square foot than office uses. Required Findings: To approve a planned development rezoning allowing large professional office buildings which can include multiple tenants but with no single tenant space less than 2,500 sq. ft.. in the C-S or M zones, the Planning Commission and City Council must find that the proposal meets each of the following criteria: 1. The project will be compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the area. 2. The project's location or access arrangement does not significantly direct traffic to use local �3-zY PD 129-95 Page 6 or collector streets in residential zones. 3. The project will provide adequate mitigation to address potential impacts related to noise, light and glare, and loss of privacy, among others, imposed by commercial activities on nearby residential areas, by using methods such as setbacks, landscaping, berming and fencing. 4. The project does not preclude industrial or service-commercial uses in areas especially suited for such uses when compared with offices. 5. The project does not create a shortage of C-S and M zoned land available for service- commercial or industrial development. The first three findings were addressed as part of architectural review of the construction,project. Regarding findings 4 and 5, the rezoning is not proposing to restrict uses otherwise allowed or conditionally allowed on this C-S zoned site. Furthermore, the applicant, at the January 10 Planning Commission meeting, agreed to limit office uses to the second floor of the center building. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS No other departments have concerns with the request. ALTERNATIVES The Commission may: 1. Recommend that City Council adopt the attached ordinance approving the PD rezoning, as drafted or with revisions. 2. Continue action with direction. 3. Deny the rezoning based on appropriate findings. Attached: vicinity map site plan - draft ordinance applicant's statement letter from Donald Walter regarding location of gov't offices relevant sections of the zoning regulations and Land Use Element initial study 3-may - � Lww 'ems �°�6�wfV•/e•s►��JC �-/A v♦ 3109 77/ 29/7 _` 2 /7°7 7°7 / M o C J J •'�' 'F c+'i r 70/3 w. Yo ••w+?. i s 7NT •• 70/7 = •' 3`+ 7��r2 +�eJ''iv :1�n M Y � C O � J•' J ��C Ja O : • •� �u '303/ �.. ._ 309J t 7073' - 1♦'4�w '- 7017 M . i+wK 1.6 i ri`I �0S1 3-R -PD . . \ I • J wy mow ♦ lw.'w\ y C"S' or S �{ m <'°� ��yn`Wit`♦O 12+n��O w IN a ~ P 1O O 1. �.♦�j,1 V c � �J i v /i_ X55'4.� ✓s°,w 0� S C ^ O 0'. ;t J• a ��•�/t�.r^b wtL et•iun[ LL O y y _ R-/-J err \� �0•�g, •'�•Fs� 'r >�+.�0 U7A s4L11i• ?[ 66d..�� O a ,p 6 %=c,:`l+J` J N'G A'7^ `I.HT. Cys y. a � ♦.<� s ol •! •C �. b 1Va:� C .eO :' ,'\••`ewy w<r a w1 w ;, r n y T�,= •. 6 VICINITY MAP PD 129-95 NORTH 3030 BROAD 3 3a •i ° I - I I I i 1. c a Hal p �-j lf�if] m �= — ' Cn. is # �� • c` lta21F v 'e 5 .�4 f i N 4 V Z 0 J m i n i i i w.-Fm Z � E ' o co I WIN a B c� C ® Z 6 m IL W Nt HD. IA,&Associates BRICKYARD ZONE: CHANGE REQUEST LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Existing: Tract 2066, Lots 88 &89. OBJECTIVE: Revise zoning to CS-PD in order to obtain greater flexibility in leasing for large office users. SCHEDULE: Construction in progress. Proposed Completion Dates: Building A: November 1, 1995 Buildings B & C: January 1, 1996 PROJECT DESCRIPTION BUILDING A...................................................................20,626.50 SF BUILDING B LEASABLE FIRST FLOOR..............................................11,292.50 S F SECONDFLOOR.............................................5,464.50 SF SUB TOTAL.................................................16,757.00 SF NON-LEASABLE FIRST FLOOR....................................................764.50 SF SECOND FLOOR.................................................162.50 SF SUB TOTAL.......................................................927.00 SF TOTAL BLDG B.....................................................17,684.00 SF BUILDING C LEASABLE............................................................19,169.00 SF NON-LEASABLE.........................................................127.00 SF TOTAL BLDG C......................................................19,296.00 SF TOTAL LEASABLE..............................................................56,552.50 SF TOTAL NON-LEASABLE.......................................................1,054.00 SF TOTAL PROJECT BLDGS..............................57,606.50 SF PARKING: STAPLES Qtr 1500 SF....................................................................41 .00 TOTAL PROVIDED.................................................152.00 N10TDRCYCLF-S..................................................................................8.0 0 BICYCLE UNCOVERED.................................................................................±11.0 0 COVERED(LOCKERS).......................................................................9.0 0 SITE AREAS: LANDSCAPE.......................................................................15,312.00 SF PAVING&WALKS.............................................................75,575.50 SF BUILDING FOOTPRINTS....................................................51.979.50 SF TOTAL SITE................................................. 142,867.00 SF Architecture. Planning ei Graphics 1401 Higuera Street San Luis Obapo,CA 93401 (805)541-5604 Fax(805)541-4371 3 -32- -STATEl01ENT IN SUPPORT-OF RD APPLICATION Cy *ay 6 TO: City of San Luis Obispo RE: PD129-95 Section 1750 provides that Planned Development Zoning is intended to encourage.....effective use of sites. Effective use certainly means uses needed by residents of the area and the community as a whole and the Section provides this can be accomplished by providing variation from normal standards so long as the variations conform with the General Plan. The requested uses conform with the general plan because: 1. The Brickyard will provide goods and services to assist area residents from leaving the area to obtain identical goods and services elsewhere. 2. The Brickyard enables the city to better be the hub for county and state government, and .....professional, medical and social services. 3. The Brickyard will enable the neighborhood residents within one mile to have adequate retail and services. 4. The city should retain regional offices of state and federal agencies and provide large offices over 2500 square feet without substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown government services. There is a need for and shortage of several area stores and/or services which are needed in the southern portion of the city. Therefore it is requested that the noted uses be approved with the PD application. The requested uses are shown on the attached extract from the zoning code. It is understood that other CS uses will continue to be allowed. 1. A BRANCH BANK and/or SAVINGS AND LOAN office. The only one available is Mid-State on Broad Street. 2. CREDIT UNION and/or FINANCE COMPANY. They exist on California, Foothill and Laguna, but not this area of the city. 3. FLORISTS. None exist in this area of the city. 4. LOCAL INSURANCE SERVICES (such as State Farm, Farmers, etc.) None exist in this area of the city. 5. REAL ESTATE SALES AND BROKERAGE. None exist in this area of the city. 6. RESTAURANTS, SANDWICH SHOPS, TAKE-OUT FOOD, so long as parking is provided per code for the entire project. 7. Retail SALES and RENTAL of MUSIC and RECORDS, VIDEO TAPES, and housewares. 8. TICKET AND TRAVEL AGENCIES. 3- 33 In addition-#e t#�e=ab.eve-retail_celated �ses,_fhe dollowin ofF — --- g-. ce��e�ses=are�lsa _— requested: 1. EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES. 2. GOVERNMENTAL OFFICES so long as they do not have reasonable contact with the public. (Such as the Cal Trans offices, French Business Park at 265 South Street). 3. BANK and SAVINGS AND LOAN offices having little or no contact with the public. (Such as accounting, internal auditing, check processing, etc.). 4. GOVERNMENT AGENCY OFFICES and meeting rooms with minimal public contact. 5. INSURANCE SERVICE - local. 6. INSURANCE SERVICE - regional office. 7. OFFICES for ACCOUNTANTS, INVESTMENT BROKERS, REALTORS, APPRAISERS and SIMILAR PROFESSIONS. It is understood that professions such as attorneys, doctors, and medical clinics would be prohibited. 8. SECRETARIAL and related services. 9. UTILITY COMPANY ENGINEERING and ADMINISTRATION offices. 10.EXECUTIVE OFFICES, i.e., offices provided for individual or self-employed such as manufacturer's representatives, graphic designers, accountants, and other small firms who would benefit from shared telephone systems, receptionists, conference room, fax machine, copy machine, computer system, coffee service. These are common in many areas and are provided for the individual and/or employee who are often out of the office and need telephone service, message service and related benefits. A copy of a brochure for a similar facility is included. It is felt that the above uses will help the success of The Brickyard project, fill needs for the residents of the southerly part of the city and provide a facility for some local businesses currently unable to find adequate facilities. Respectfully submitted, 3030, Inc. By: Steven Pults The applicant had also requested the following uses be allowed by right,rather than subject to use permit approval: Antennas(commercial broadcasting) Barbers Daycare Organizations(offices and meeting rooms) Retail sales-general merchandise(drug,hardware,discount,department,and variety) Vetcrnarians 3 3� Memorandum To: Planning Staff, Re: Executive Suite Concept at The Brickyard: The Executive Suite concept is designed to provide necessary services to the individual, or extremely small (24 person) businesses. Executive Suites allow flexibility and start-up capabilities for new businesses, one person businesses, out-of-town companies who require a local presence, and access to services which an individual might otherwise not be able to afford. The facility can provide some or all of the following services: • A private office • Telephone services • Telephone answering services • Voice mail services • Copy machine • Receptionist • Fax machine and services • On-site secretarial services • Conference room availability • Computer modem lines • Office errands and receipts for deliveries • On-site office supplies • Mail handling services (Fed-Ex, UPS, etc.) • Optional furniture leasing • Other services as necessary Most tenants lease on a month to month basis. Some may stay only for a month or two, and others for substantially longer periods of time depending on their needs. There are no facilities of this type in the City of San Luis Obispo. A facility of this type has been considered on several occasions over the past few years, but until now, an appropriate location has not been available for two primary reasons: 1. A facility which is large enough has not been available. There must be 20 plus offices to effectively absorb the related costs for the receptionist and other on-site expenses. 2. A facility with suitable parking has not previously been available. Most occupants of the Executive Suite would be of the "in-and-out" nature, and easy, accessible parking is a priority. Enclosed for your review are extracts from three similar projects. Two are located in Santa Barbara, and one in Emeryville. Respectfully su 7 itte Steven Pults 3-3s MAUER CRUS. UINMUMP11 [Pal W, A GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR TELEPHONE 805/543-5854 P.O. BOX 809 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93406 December 13, 1995 Planning Commission Members City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: December 13 Planning Commission Hearing Item #3, 3030 Broad Street Dear Members of the Planning Commission : The request of applicant 3030 Inc. to expand potential office uses in their new buildings at the Brickyard parallels a number of similar requests and tenant-specific use permits reviewed by the City over the last ten years. We would like to raise the concern we have consistently raised in this regard . We fear that such an expansion of possible uses may , perhaps inadvertently , dilute and render ineffective the planning principles underlying the City ' s tri-polar arrangement of governmental offices. A finding of consistency with LUE policies 5. 1-5. 1 . 12 regarding appropriate locations for governmental and social services offices will have the effect of putting the Brickyard into an interpretive "gray zone" wherein the representatives of leasing agents regarding public access becomes the basis for allowing governmental type offices to locate outside the identified tri- polar centers. As these offices are typically large, long term tenants, the pressure to push and manipulate the public access definition will exist indefinitely . We ask that the Planning Commission study this issue carefully and consider conditioning the project, if the rezoning is approved, to specifically exclude governmental and social services offices. This may the only way to assure that the longstanding tri-polar concept remains strong and that the City ' s treatment of office landlords is fair to those of us who live with very restrictive potential tenant lists in order to accommodate tri-polar governmental offices within our facility . Thank you for your attention . Sincerely , Aald S. CONST. CO. , INC. Walter President 3 -3(0 10AMB HE NWHIMN DO Wo TELEPHONE 805/543-5854 GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR P. 0. BOX 809 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93406 RECEIVED January 9. 1996 AN 9 1996 Planninq Commission Members CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO City of S a n Luis Obispo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE : January 10 Planning Commission Hearing - PD 129-95, 3030 Broad Street Dear Members of the Planning Commission : The request of applicant 3030 Inc. to expand potential office uses in their new buildings at the Brickyard parallels a number of similar requests and tenant-specific use permits reviewed by the City over the last ten years . We would like to raise the concern we have consistently raised in this regard . We fear that such an expansion of possible uses may , perhaps inadvertently , dilute and render ineffective the planning principles underlying the City ' s tri-polar arrangement of qovernmental offices. A finding of consistency with LUE policies 5 . 1 - 5. 1 . 12 regarding appropriate locations for governmental and social services offices will have the effect of putting the Brickyard into an interpretive "aray zone" wherein the statements of leasing agents regarding the frequency of public visitation becomes the basis for allowing governmental offices to locate outside the identified tri-polar centers . As these offices are typically larqe, long-term tenants, the pressure to push and manipulate the public visitation definition will exist indefinitely . The viability of the tri-polar concept is already challenged by the effects of continued government downsizing . As budget cuts eliminate the satellite offices of several agencies, vacancy rates climb in the use-restricted tri-polar zone, increasing pressure to maximize non-governmental tenant occupancy . This trend is not likely to reverse itself in the foreseeable future. If government office leases are permitted outside the tri-polar zone now, an effectively permanent dissolution of the tri-polar concept will have taken place, perhaps abetted unintentionally by the City . (Please refer to the attached list of affected agencies. ) In the past, planned development applications to permit governmental office use have been either permitted or denied on the basis of Planning Commission discretion regarding the anticipated demand for public visitation . But as the ability to hold to the well-founded plan of tri-polarity begins to slip 3-37 away , we believe the City should strengthen its resolve and insist that governmental offices locate within the tri-polar zone unless there is an overriding benefit in support of other General Plan goals. We ask that the Planning Commission study this issue carefully and consider conditioning the project, if the rezoning is approved , to specifically exclude governmental and social services offices. This may be the only way to assure that the long-standing tri-polar concept remains strong and that the City ' s treatment of office landlords is fair to those of us who live with very restrictive potential tenant lists in order to accommodate tri-polar governmental offices within our facilities. Thank you for your consideration . Sincerely , WALTER BROS. CONST. CO. INC . J"41114 Carolyn Johnstone Property Manager Attachment 3-3f� RECENT AND NEAR TERM GOVERNMENTAL OFFICE CLOSURES IN SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 . DMV-Driver Safety. Shut down 11/1/95 , 3220 S . Higuera Suite #307 (9-year tenant) 2. Bureau of Automotive Safety . Shut down 11/28/95, 3320 S. Higuera, Suites 101A. 1018, 101D ( 4-year tenant ) 3. State Department of Parks and Recreation - Pismo Dunes Recreational Area. Cut back 6/30/95 ( 11-year tenant) 4. Cal Trans. Cut back 8/1/95, 3220 S . Higuera, Suite 300 5. Department of Water Resources, State Water Project. (Scheduled departure 12/96, 51000 sq . ft . ) 6. The following agencies have announced intentions to scale back services and office space in the near future. Employment Development Department Internal Revenue Service 3-3y (See also Performance Standards, Chapter 17.18.) (Ord. Chapter 17.50 1085 - 1 Ex. A(part), 1987; Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code- 9203.13(B)) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) ZONE Sections: 17.50.010 Purpose and application. 17.50.020 Allowed toes. 17.50.030 Property development standards. 17.50.010 Purpose and application. The planned development zone is intended to encourage imaginative development and effective use of sites. It does this by allowing more variation in project design than normal standards would allow. Such variation from normal standards should provide benefits to the project occupants or to the community as a whole which could not be provided under conventional regulations. PD rezoning must occur simultaneously with approval of a specific project. In the C-C zone, the PD zone may be applied to any parcel. In all other zones, the PD zone may be applied to any parcel or contiguous parcels of at least one acre. (Ord. 1129 - I (part), 1988; Ord. 941 - I (part), 1982: prior code - 9203.14(A)) 17.50.020 Allowed uses. Any use or combination of uses which conform with the general plan may be established in the PD zone. (Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code -9203.14(B)) 17.50.030 Property development standards. A. Residential densities may exceed those allowed in the underlying zone by not more than 25%. (In order to approve a development which exceeds the density otherwise allowed, the Planning Commission and Council must make certain findings as required by Section 17.62.040B.) B. Under an approved development plan, lot size and configuration, yards, height, coverage and parking may be specified for the project without conformance to the standards of the underlying zone. C. For procedures and performance criteria, see Chapter 17.62.(Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code - 9203.14(C)) st; 3-W/o C. That the variance will not adversely affect the health, Chapter 17.62 safety or general welfare of persons residing or working on PLANNED DEVELOPMENT .he site or in the vicinity. (Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code -9204.3(D)) Sections: 17.60.050 Expiration. 17.62.010 Preliminary development plan. 17.62.020 Actions of the Planning Commission. If the entitlement authorized by variance is not established 17.62.030 Actions of the Council. within one year of the date of approval or such longer time as 17.62.040 Required findings. may be stipulated as a condition of approval, the variance shall 17.62.050 Requirement for development plan. expire. Upon written request received prior to expiration, the 17.62.060 Final development plan. Director may grant renewals of variance approval for 17.62.070 Phasing. successive periods of not more than one year each. Approvals 17.62.080 Amendment of final development plan. of such renewals shall be in writing and for a specific period. 17.62.090 Revocation of PD zoning. Renewals may be approved with new or modified conditions upon a finding that the circumstances under which the variance 17.62.010 Preliminary development plan. was originally approved have substantially changed. Renewal of a variance shall not require public notice or hearing, unless Application for planned development shall be made to the the renewal is subject to new or modified conditions. In order Ct.nmunity Development Department and shall consist of a ' to approve a renewal, the Director must make the findings preliminary development plan, to include: required for initial approval. (Ord. 1006 - 1 (part), 1984: prior code - 9204.3(E)) A. A legal description of the total site involved; B. A statement of the objectives to be achieved by the planned development through the particular approach to be used by the applicant; C. A schedule indicating the approximate dates when construction of the development or stages of the development are to be started and completed; D. A quantified description of the total number and type of dwelling units, parcel sizes, coverage, modified and natural open space, grading, residential densities, and areas devoted to nonresidential uses; E. Identification of portions of the development which would otherwise require a variance, and reason for the deviation from normal standards; F. A site plan and supporting maps, drawn to a suitable scale and clearly labeled, showing, if applicable: 1. Existing site conditions,including contours, vegetation and water courses; 2. Proposed lot designs; 3. Location and floor area of existing and proposed buildings or outlines of areas within which buildings may be located; 4. Location and size of all areas to be conveyed or reserved as common open spaces or for public or semipublic uses; 5. Existing and proposed circulation system of arterial, collector, and local streets: off-street parking, loading, and 66 3-y/ emergency access areas; points of access to public 1. It provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular rights-of--way; proposed ownership of circulation routes; occupancy group(such as the elderly or families with childrr which would not be feasible under conventional zoning; 6. Existing and proposed sidewalks and paths; 2. It transfers allowable development, within a site, from areas of greater environmental sensitivity or hazard to 7. Existing and proposed utility systems, including sanitary areas of less sensitivity or hazard; sewer, storm drainage, water, electricity, gas and telephone; 3. It provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional development; 8. A general landscape plan. 4. Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards (privacy, usable open space, adequate 9. A general grading plan; parking,compatibility with neighborhood character, and soon) as well as or better than the standards themselves; G. Information on land area adjacent to the proposed 5. It incorporates features which result in consumption development, indicating important relationships between the of less materials, energy or water than conventional proposal and surrounding land uses, circulation systems, development; public facilities and natural features; 6. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits such as parking, open space, landscaping, public art, H. Any additional information which may be required by the and other special amenities which-would not be feasible under director to evaluate the character and impact of the planned conventional development standards. development. (Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code - 9204.4(A)) B. In order to grant a "density bonus" (as explained in Section 17.50.030), the Commission and Council must find 17.62.020 Actions of the Planning Commission. that the proposed development satisfies at least three of the five criteria set out in subsection A of this section. The After giving notice as provided in Section 17.70.030, the applicant shall provide a detailed statement indicating how the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the development satisfies the appropriate criteria set out in application. The Planning Commission may approve, approve subsection A of this section. The maximum density bonus is subject to certain modifications,or deny the application. The not automatic. In determining the allowable bonus, tb decision of the Planning Commission shall be in the form of Commission and Council shall assess the extent to which these a recommendation to the Council and shall be rendered in criteria are met. writing, stating all modifications or conditions to be reflected in the final development plan. (Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: C. To approve a planned development allowing large prior code 9204.4(B)) professional office buildings which can include multiple tenants but with no single tenant space less than 2,500 square 17.62.030 Actions of the Council. feet in the C-S or M zones, the Planning Commission or Council must find that it meets each of the criteria listed After giving notice as provided in Section 17.70.030, the below. The following types of office-related uses are Council shall hold a public hearing on the application and the prohibited in planned developments approved for C-S and M recommendations of the Planning Commission. The Council zones: Banks, real estate offices, financial institutions, may approve, approve subject to certain modifications, or medical clinics and doctors' offices and lawyers' offices. deny the proposal. The decision of the Council shall be rendered in writing, stating all modifications or conditions to 1. The project will be compatible with existing and be reflected in the final development plan. If it approves or allowed land uses in the area. conditionally approves the preliminary development plan, the 2. The project's location or access arrangement do not Council shall approve the rezoning and the official zone map significantly direct traffic to use local or collector streets in shall be amended to indicate approval of the planned residential zones. development. (Ord. 941 - I (part), 1982: prior code 3. The project will provide adequate mitigation to 9204.4(C)) address potential impacts related to noise, light and glare, and loss of privacy, among others, imposed by commercial 17.62.040 Required findings. activities on nearby residential areas, by using methods such as setbacks, landscaping, berming and fencing. A. To approve a planned development, the Planning 4. The project does not preclude industrial or service- Commission and Council must find that it meets one or more commercial uses in areas especially suited for such uses when of the following criteria: compared with offices. 5. The project does not create a shortage of C-S and M zoned land available for service-commercial or industrial 67 3-� development. (Ord. 1129- I (part), 1988: Ord. 1087- I Ex. 17.62.080 Amendment of final development plan. A(2), 1987; Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code - i204.4(D)) A. Minor differences between the approved development plan and construction plans may be allowed by the Director. 17.62.050 Requirement for development plan. B. Written requests for amendments to a final development No land division may be undertaken and no construction begun plan may be approved by the Planning Commission after a within an area zoned PD until a final development plan has public hearing, notice of which has been given as provided in been approved. (Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code Section 17.70.030. Amendments shall be limited to changes 9204.4(E)) in the size and position of buildings; the number, area or configuration of lou; landscape treatment; phasing, and the 17.62.060 Final development plan. like. A. Within six months of approval of conditional approval of C. Amendments may not include changes in proposed use, the development plan, the applicant shall file with the overall density, or overall configuration of the land uses and Community Development Department a final development circulation features. Changes to these aspects may be plan. At his discretion and for good cause, the Director may accomplished only by reapplication and submittal of a new extend for six months the period for filing. preliminary development plan. B. The final development plan shall include those items from D. Thee procedures apply whether or not all or part of the Section 17.62.010 (Preliminary development plan) which development has been built. (Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior describe the proposal, including division of land, type and code 9204.4.(H)) location of all buildings and improvements, and so on, but it need not include information on existing conditions. 17.62.090 Revocation of PD zoning. C. The Director shall review and take action on the final If a final development plan is not carried out in the time development plan within 30 days of filing. He shall approve specified in the development plan or within an approved it upon finding that it is in substantial compliance with the extension period, the Planning Commission and Council may preliminary development plan as approved or modified by the remove the PD designation according to the usual procedure Council. Upon approval of the fatal development plan, the for city-initiated rezoning. (Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior Director shall add the number of the planned development to code 9204.4(1)) the official zone map (for example, PD (9999)). Subsequently, all grading, construction and landscaping shall comply with the approved final development plan. D. The final development plan may consist of final subdivision maps, building construction plans, grading plans, and so on, that would normally be submitted in the course of development, and need not be a separate submittal. The Director shall determine the extent to which any additional documentation of development plans is required. (Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code -9204.4(F)) 17.62.070 Phasing. If the construction of the planned development is to occur in phases, the open space and common facilities shall be developed and made available in proportion to the number of dwelling units or nonresidential floor area occupied during any given stage. At no time during construction of the project shall the density of developed land exceed the overall density established in the final development plan. (Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code - 9204.4(G)) 68 36 COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 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 prohibited. 3.1 General Retail 3.1.1 Purpose and Included Uses The City should have area for General Retail uses adequate to meet most demands of City and nearby County residents. General Retail includes specialty stores as well as department stores, warehouse stores, discount stores, restaurants, and services such as banks. Not all area designated General Retail are appropriate for the full range of uses (see policies 3.1.2 and 3.1.5). 3.1.2 Locations for Regional Attractions The City should focus its retailing with regional draw in the locations of downtown, the area around the intersection of Madonna Road and Highway 101, and the area around Highway 101 and Los Osos Valley Road. 1 3.1.3 Madonna Road Area Retail Expansion No substantial additional land area should be added to the commercial centers at Madonna Road and Highway 101 until a detailed plan for the retail expansion has been approved by the City. The plan should describe the limits of commercial expansion, acceptable uses, phasing, and circulation improvements. Any permitted expansion should be aesthetically and functionally compatible with existing development in the area. Before approving an expansion plan, the City should consider an evaluation of how much it would transfer sales from existing retail area in the City and whether the proposed uses could be developed in existing retail areas. 3.1.4 Mid-Higuera Enhancement The City shall consider the potential enhancement of underutilized commercial land along Higuera Street between Madonna Road and High. Street. (See also Special Design Area, policy 8.5.) 37 3.1.5 Specialty Store Locations Most specialty retail stores should be downtown, in the Madonna Road area, or the Los Osos Valley Road area; some may be in neighborhood shopping centers so long as they are a minor part of the centers and they primarily serve neighborhood rather than citywide or regional markets. 3.1.6 Building Intensity The ratio of building floor area to site area shall not exceed 3.0, except that downtown sites which receive transfers of development credits for open space protection shall not exceed 4.0. The Zoning Regulations will establish maximum building height and lot coverage, and minimum setbacks from streets and other property lines, as well as procedures for exceptions to such standards in special circumstances. Architectural review will determine a project's realized building intensity, to reflect existing or desired architectural character in a neighborhood. When dwellings are provided in General Retail districts, they shall not exceed 36 units per acre. So long as the floor area ratio is not exceeded, the maximum residential density may be developed in addition to nonresidential development on a site. (See the residential section for policies on density bonuses for affordable housing.) 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 include 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 residential 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 plea$ant 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 neighborhood activities. .3-'YS 38 3.2.3 Expanding Centers The City should evaluate the need for and desirability of additions to existing neighborhood commercial centers only when specific development proposals are made, and not in response to rezoning requests which do not incorporate a development plan. 3.2.4 Stores in Residential Areas Small, individual stores within established residential areas may be retained when they are compatible with surrounding uses. Other isolated commercial uses which are not compatible with residential surroundings eventually should be replaced with compatible uses. 3.2.5 Building Intensity The ratio of building floor area to site area shall not exceed 2.0. The Zoning Regulations will establish maximum building height and lot coverage, and minimum setbacks from streets and other property lines, as well as-procedures for exceptions to such standards in special circumstances. Architectural review will determine a project's realized building intensity, to reflect existing or desired architectural character in a neighborhood. When dwellings are provided in Neighborhood Commercial districts, they shall not exceed 12 units per acre. So long as the floor area ratio is not exceeded, the maximum residential density may be developed in addition to nonresidential development on a site. (See the residential section for policies on density bonuses for affordable housing.) 3.3 Offices 3.3.1 Purpose and Included Uses The City should have sufficient land for Office development to meet the demands of City residents and the specialized needs of County residents. Office development includes professional and financial services (such as doctors, architects, and insurance companies and banks) and government agencies. The City should retain the regional offices of state and federal agencies. Not all types of offices are appropriate in all locations. (See office location policies below. Also see the Public Facilities section, page 49.) 3.3.2 Office Locations A. All types of offices are appropriate in the downtown General Retail district, but are discouraged at street level in storefronts of the commercial core. B. All types of office activities are appropriate in the Office district which surrounds the downtown commercial area, though offices needing very large buildings or generating substantial traffic may not be appropriate in the area which provides a transition to residential neighborhoods. C. Medical services should be near the hospitals. 3 -�/G 39 D. Government social services and the regional offices of state and federal agencies should be near the intersections of South Higuera Street, Prado Road, and Highway 101 (Figure 5); E. Large offices, with no single tenant space less than 2,500 square feet, and having no substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown government services may be in Services and Manufacturing districts, subject to approval of a Planned Development Zoning application. 3.3.3 Offices Outside Designated Areas Existing office buildings outside the areas described in policy 3.3.2 may continue to be used and may have minor expansions if they: A. Have access directly from collector or arterial streets, not Iocal residential streets; B. Will not significantly increase traffic in residential areas; C. Will not have significant adverse impacts on nearby uses. 3.3.4 Building Conservation Historic or architecturally significant buildings located in Office districts should be conserved, not replaced. 3.35 Building Intensity The ratio of building floor area to site area shall not exceed 1.5. The Zoning Regulations will establish maximum building height and.lot coverage, and minimum setbacks from streets and other property lines, as well as procedures for exceptions to such standards in special circumstances. Architectural review will determine a project's realized building intensity, to reflect existing or desired architectural character in a neighborhood. When dwellings are provided in Office districts, they shall not exceed 12 units per acre. So long as the floor area ratio is not exceeded, the maximum residential density may be developed in addition to nonresidential development on a site. (See the residential section for policies on density bonuses for affordable housing.) 3.4 Tourist Commercial 3.4.1 Basis for Tourism The City should be an attractive place for short-term stays, as well as an attractive destination for long-term visitors. The City should base its attraction on the character of the community, its natural qualities, and its educational and cultural facilities. The City should emphasize conference and visitor-serving facilities which have a low impact upon the environment and upon existing land forms and landscapes, and which provide low-impact visitor activities and low-impact means of transportation. 3.4.2 Locations Visitor-serving uses should be integrated with other types of uses, including overnight accommodations downtown, near the airport, and near the train station; small-scale facilities (such as hostels or bed-and-breakfast, places) may be looted in Medium-High Density Residential and High-Density Residential Districts,where compatible. Visitor-serving uses are especially appropriate where such uses have already concentrated: 40 along upper Monterey Street; at the Madonna Road area; at certain freeway interchanges; and in the downtown. 3.4.3 Appropriate Uses Tourist Commercial uses are those which primarily serve the travelling public. Tourist Commercial area should accommodate motels, restaurants, service stations, recreational uses, and minor retail sales for the convenience of travellers. To assure adequate space for visitor-serving uses, areas designated Tourist Commercial should not include offices, general retail stores, auto repair, or business services. 3.4.4 Residential Neighbors Site planning, building design, and types of activities for new tourist-commercial development adjacent to residential areas should be carefully reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, the Planning Commission, or both, to assure compatibility. 3.4.5 Building Intensity The ratio of building floor area to site area shall not exceed 2.5. The Zoning Regulations will establish maximum building height and lot coverage, and minimum setbacks from streets and other property lines, as well as procedures for exceptions to such standards in special circumstances. Architectural review will determine a project's realized building intensity, to reflect existing or desired architectural character in a neighborhood. When dwellings are provided in Tourist Commercial districts, they shall not exceed 12 units per acre. So long as the floor area ratio is not exceeded, the maximum residential density may be developed in addition to nonresidential development on•a site. (See the residential section for policies on density bonuses for affordable housing.) 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. 3.5.2 Appropriate Uses The following types of uses are appropriate in areas designated Services and Manufacturing. Certain area designated Services and Manufacturing may be reserved through special zoning provisions for certain types of uses, to assure compatibility among the wide range of potential uses, and to assure adequate land for certain types of uses. A. Wholesaling, warehousing, and storage; B. Vehicle sales and rental; C. Retail sales of products which require outdoor areas or large floor areas for display and storage, such as warehouse stores, lumber and building materials dealers, home improvement centers, furniture and appliances stores, and plant nurseries; � -y�r 41 D. Repair shops, printing services, laundries, animal hospitals, sporting goods stores, auto parts stores, and some recreation facilities; E. Light manufacturing, research and development, and laboratories. (See also "Business Parks" in the Airport section, page 74.) F. Large offices, with no single tenant space less than 2,500 square feet, and having no substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown government services may be in Services and Manufacturing districts, subject to approval of a Planned Development zoning application. 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. However, existing uses such as supermarkets and drugstores may be expanded if: A. They are compatible with nearby uses; B. The expanded use will not divert trade from other general-retail or neighborhood- commercial area which are better located to serve the expected market area. 3.5.4 Access Access to Service and Manufacturing area should be provided by commercial collector streets, to avoid customer traffic on residential streets or delivery routes which pass through residential areas. Driveway access onto arterial streets should be minimized. 35.5 Air & Water Quality Industries locating or expanding in San Luis Obispo shall comply with all applicable air-quality and water-quality regulations. 3.5.6 Utility Service Services and Manufacturing uses should connect to the City water and sewer systems, [rnless other means of providing service are identified in a City-adopted plan. 3.5.7 Vehicle Sales A. Auto Park Way The City intends to create'around Auto Park Way an easily accessible and attractive auto sales and service center. The City will reserve about 50 acres total for vehicle sales in this area, including the areas shown in Figure 3. (This amount is expected to be sufficient for relocation of dealerships located elsewhere in the City, plus expansion of dealerships in proportion to projected County population growth.) The areas shown for vehicle sales should be reserved for that use at least until the anticipated year 2004 update of this element, when the amount of reserved land may be reconsidered. 44 PROGRAMS See also Section 10, Implementation 3.7.1 Zoning Regulations The City will amend its Zoning Regulations to implement the commercial and industrial policies. 3.7.2 Planned Development Zoning The City will amend the Zoning Regulations so the "planned development" approach can be used on any size parcel, in any commercial or industrial zone. 3.7.3 Neighborhood Uses The City will rezone to Neighborhood Commercial existing Service Commercial sites which have become neighborhood convenience centers, if: (1)they primarily serve a neighborhood rather than citywide market; and (2) they are appropriately located considering access and compatibility with other nearby uses. 3.7.4 Tourist Information The City will consider establishing tourist information facilities near highway entries to the City, to reduce demands for on-site and off-site advertising by tourist- and general-retail uses. 3.7.5 Dependent Care The City will provide zoning incentives and investigate a program coordinating commercial and industrial development for the provision of child care and elder care for workers. 3.7.6 Neighborhood Centers The City will identify suitable sites for new or expanded neighborhood centers as it prepares specific plans. 3.7.7 Downtown Office Design The City will make more explicit its architectural review guidelines and revise its zoning standards, as necessary, to better achieve the desired architectural ch. der of downtown areas zoned "office" and "residential-office," so the character and fabric of existing neighborhoods will be protected. 3.7.8 Auto Sales Relocation The City will provide incentives to encourage relocation of vehicle sales to the Auto Park Way area. 3.7.9 Noise Control Zoning Regulations and Architectural Review Guidelines will include measures such as the following to prevent unacceptable noise exposure for residential areas or other noise-sensitive uses: location and shielding of mechanical equipment; location of truck loading, trash collection areas, and loudspeakers; landscaped setbacks or noise attenuation walls along property lines. (See also the Noise Element.) 3.7.10 Madonna Road Center The City will investigate ways to encourage more intense commercial development within, and more cohesion between, the existing shopping centers on Madonna Road. 3-so 52 PUBLIC & CULTURAL FACnXrMS Introduction As the County seat and a cultural center for the region, San Luis Obispo plans to accommodate several types of facilities to support government and cultural services. This section describes preferred locations for various types of facilities. POLICIES 5.1 Public Facilities 5.1.1 Grouping for Convenience Government offices that provide similar types of services should be grouped for efficient service delivery. 5.1.2 Private Businesses Within any area shown as a preferred location for public facilities, there may be compatible private businesses, so long as they do not displace the preferred public agencies. 5.1.3 Joint Projects Government agencies should cooperatively plan for new or expanded facilities. They should consider joint projects when mutual objectives can be met. 5.1.4 Civic Center There should be a downtown civic center (Figure 5). The following functions should be located in the civic center, along with compatible businesses: A. City Council offices and meeting rooms, clerk, administration, finance, attorney, personnel, community development, utilities, and public works administration and engineering. Any additional space for these functions should be in or close to City Hall. B. County supervisors offices and meeting rooms, administration, courts, jury commissioner, clerk, auditor, assessor, counsel, district attorney, personnel, engineering, planning and building, environmental coordinator, and voter. registration. Any additional space for these functions should be provided in or close to the County Government Center (Courthouse block). 5.1.5 Health Care There should be a health-care area on Johnson Avenue near Bishop Street .(Figure 5). The following functions should be located in the health-care area: 3-51 reElement 53 I I I I I 1 1 1 I � I I I i I i CIVIC CENTER i CULTURAL FACILITIES AREA i HEALTH CARE I AREA �! i .._. •� 1 ( I i L-> SOCIAL SERVICES ' AREA i I I FIGURE 5 city O l San is OBIS O ' `° PUBLIC FACILITIES AREAS P U CLUE gj 3-s i 54 A. Public Health Department; General Hospital; Mental Health Services. B. Other public or private offices or health facilities found to support the continued viability of General Hospital. If County General Hospital is to be rebuilt, the City will evaluate other sites within the City for public health care facilities, including consideration of convenient access from regional transportation systems. If County General Hospital is to be rebuilt, the City will evaluate other sites within the City for public health care facilities, including consideration of convenient access from regional transportation systems. 5.1.6 Social Services There should be a social services area on South Higuera Street near Prado Road (Figure 5). The following functions should be located in the social services area: County Social Services; California Employment Development and Rehabilitation; federal Social Security Administration. This area should have sufficient space to accommodate regional offices of state and federal agencies. 5.1.7 Related Offices Public offices not named in policies 5.1.4, 5.1.5, and 5.1.6, but functionally related to them, should be located in the appropriate area. 5.1.8 Unrelated Offices Public offices not named in policies 5.1.4, 5.1.5, and 5.1.6, and not functionally related to the named offices, should be consolidated at the social services area, or they may be expanded at their present locations or within designated office areas. 5.1.9 Different Offices Government and private activities of types not listed in policies 5.1.4, 5, and 6 may be established in these identified areas, so long as they are compatible with and do not displace the government functions which should be located in the areas. 5.1.10 Other Government Functions Some government functions which have been provided at certain locations in the City should be located close to related activities, though they should not be bound to any one of the identified centers. Such functions include: A. Probation - suitable for the civic center (courts), the County operational center on Highway 1 (sheriff), or the social services area; B. Alcohol and drug treatment programs - suitable for the social-services area or the health-care area. 5.1.11 Consolidation Desired It would be desirable to consolidate government agencies dealing with environmental quality, such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County Air Pollution Control District. .�S3 ��iio►►n►�►��II61111111111II pl►�►►i►►► I IIII IIII cit � y of son WIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1 . Project Title: PD 129-95 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Whitney Mcllvaine, Associate Planner, 781-7175 4. Project Location: 3030 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 3030 Inc., 444 Higuera Street, Suite 100, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Contact: Charles Senn Property Owner: 3030 Inc. Contact: Dr. Art Segal, 1428 Phillips Lane, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2594 Project Representative: Steve Pults, 1401 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Services and Manufacturing 7. Zoning: Service-Commercial (C-S) 8. Description of the Project: The project proposes to add Planned Development zoning to the site to enable large office tenants, consistent with Land Use Element policy 3.3.2 E, which states that large offices, with no single tenant space less than 2,500 square feet, and having no substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown government services, may be in Services and Manufacturing districts, subject to approval of a Planned Development zoning application. Other uses are also requested as allowed under Municipal Code Section 17.50.020. Specific tenants have not been identified. /O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include theldisabled in all of its services, programs and activities. V� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. 3-5A II Cityo san l�u�s OBISPO� 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: Three commercial buildings are under construction on the three and a quarter acre project site, which is on the eastern side of Broad Street between Orcutt Road and Mutsuhito Avenue. Surrounding uses include commercial-industrial businesses across Broad Street, a gas station to the south, Aggson's Paint and Glass to the north, and Villa Rosa residential condominiums to the east. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. r The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the2disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. v� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. 3-sem ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Land use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources Resources Geological Problems Hazards Recreation Water Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality Public Services Transportation and Utilities and Service Circulation Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, X and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on 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. 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 standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. 3 �-S 4 November 22, 1995 Signature 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 3-s7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? —1-- X As explained above under Project Description, the application is consistent with Land Use Element office policies. Zoning regulations implement the Land Use Element policy through note 10 following Table 9 - Uses Allowed by Zone which provides for establishing large offices in the C-S and M zones, subject to PD zoning approval. Office uses typically characterized by substantial public visitation, such as banks, real estate offices, financial institutions, medical and legal offices, are prohibited. Findings which the Planning Commission and City Council must make in approving a PD zoning for large offices are outlined in zoning regulations Section 17.62.040. The Commission and Council must also find uses allowed as part of a PD rezoning consistent with the General Plan (Section 17.50.020). No further mitigation is recommended. b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X Because the project is adjacent to the Villa Rosa residential development, office uses will probably be more compatible than other service commercial uses allowed on the project site. d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact X to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or X indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X 5 -3-YS ues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Leas Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? X b) Seismic ground shaking? X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X- -1 Landslides or mudflows? X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil X conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? X h) Expansive soils? X i) Unique geologic or physical features? X 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X rate and amount of surface runoff? FExposure of people or property to water related hazards X flooding? 6 3 s"� Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of X surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through X direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X otherwise available for public water supplies? 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an X exiting or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X any change in climate? 7 ��b NVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Land use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources Resources Geological Problems Hazards Recreation Water Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality Public Services Transportation and Utilities and Service Circulation Systems )ETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, X and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on 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. 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 standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. 3 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Create objectionable odors? X 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X Mitigatigation for traffic impacts has been assessed in conjunction with the construction project. (ER 48-94) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp X curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan)? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats X (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, X coastal habitat, etc.)? 8 3-44 ues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? _T 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? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan X or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential X health hazards? Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, X grass of trees? 9 -3 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 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) Fre protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X e) Other governmental services? X 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? X b) Communications systems? X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution X facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? X 10 3-(.,)/ r - jes and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks X or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X 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 Califomia history or prehistory? initial study, ER 48-94, concluded that with certain mitigation the construction and occupancy of three wrnmercial buildings on this site would have no significant adverse environmental impacts. The current application for PD zoning to allow some of the tenants to be large professional office uses does not raise any new issues related to environmental impact since existing zoning allows construction, architecture, and engineering offices with no limit on the leasable area which these uses could occupy. Approval of the PD zoning would simply expand the types - but not necessarily affect the proportion - of office uses allowed. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- X term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? See explanation under 16. a. 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) See explanation under 16. a. ')oes the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 12 3-41 See explanation under 16. a. 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Initial study ER 48-94 analyses the potential environmental impacts resulting from construction of three commercial buildings on the project site. The study and record of the architectural approval of the project are available in the Community development Department. File No.: 48-94. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. ER 48-94 addressed project impacts on community plans, land use, transportation and circulation, public services, utilities, noise, air quality, archaeological resources, and energy and resource use. Mitigation measures were adopted as conditions of project approval (ARC 48-94). c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. Mitigation adopted in approving the commercial construction project are attached. No further mitigation is recommended. Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 General Plan Land Use Element, August 1994; pp 40-43 2 Initial Study ER 48-94 3 Zoning regulations, August 1994; pp 43, 47, 67 19. ATTACHMENTS 1 ER 48-94 mitigation measures 2 Project data 3 Vicinity and site maps 13 346