HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/06/1999, 2 - U/R/ER 132-98 - CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A MIXED USE USE PERMIT, AND REQUEST TO AMEND THE CITY'S ZONING MAP DESIGNATION FROM M, MANUFACTURING, TO M-MU, MANUFACTURING WITH THE MIXED USE OVERLAY ZON 1
council °
acEnaa REpoin 2
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner
SUBJECT: U/R/ER 132-98 - Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's
approval of a Mixed Use use permit, and request to amend the City's zoning map designation
from M, Manufacturing, to M-MU, Manufacturing with the Mixed Use overlay zoning, for
property located on the northwest side of Laurel Lane,just north of Orcutt Road(Atoll Holdings,
1150 Laurel Lane).
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
A. Adopt Draft Resolution A, denying the appeal, upholding approval of the use permit,
including Condition No. 14 which endorses the addition of a second driveway to serve the
project from Laurel Lane.
B. Introduce an ordinance to print, approving a negative declaration with mitigation measures,
and amending the zoning map from M to M-MU for property located at 1150 Laurel Lane,
based on findings.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
A. Adopt Draft Resolution B,upholding the appeal,modifying the approval of the use permit by
deleting Condition No. 14, which endorses the addition of a second driveway to serve the
project from Laurel Lane.
B. Introduce an ordinance to print, approving a negative declaration with mitigation measures,
and amending the zoning map from M to M-MU for property located at 1150 Laurel Lane,
based on findings.
DISCUSSION
Background
The applicant/appellant, Atoll Holdings, Inc., would like to utilize the larger manufacturing and
warehousing building on the site for a variety of different land uses including larger-scale offices.
To this end,the applicant has filed a planning application for architectural review to evaluate site
and building changes, as well as applications for environmental review and a Mixed Use (MU)
overlay rezoning. The MU rezoning would enable the applicant to have uses not typically
allowed in the Manufacturing zone such as large-scale professional offices and a school, as well
2-1
Atoll Mixed Use Rezoninz a Permit Appeal (R 132-98)
Page 2
as some innovative uses for some rail cars proposed on the west side of the property. The
Planning Commission reviews and makes a recommendation on zoning amendments to the City
Council,which takes a final action on such requests.
Municipal Code Chapter 17.55,Mixed Use(MU)Zone also requires that a use permit be approved
by the Planning Commission prior to establishing any use within the MU zone(Section 17.55.020
C.). The use permit requirement allows the Planning Commission to determine whether the
proposed uses comply with the zone,are compatible with each other and the surroundings,and are
consistent with the General Plan. The required use permit was considered by the Planning
Commission concurrently with their review of the proposed MU rezoning. The use permit
approval is contingent on the MU rezoning being approved,and an ordinance being adopted,by the
City Council.
Planning Commission's Review/Action on Rezoning
On a 4-2-1 vote (Commis. Senn & Ready voting no; Commr. Whittlesey absent), the
Commission reviewed the initial study of environmental impact, and recommended to the City
Council approval of the request to rezone the property from M to M-MU,based on findings. The
Commission's action included the approval of a required use permit, based on findings and with
conditions. The report prepared for the Commission's review of the rezoning and use permit is
attached.
The Commission liked the unique mix of uses proposed and the efforts to tie the project into the
adjacent City bicycle path. The Commission's main issue with project site planning was with
maintaining the single existing access point to the site. The Commission preferred two points of
access, and Condition No. 14 was added to the use permit conditions, which endorsed, but did .
not outright require, the development of a second driveway to the site to provide egress and
ingress for proposed uses, with the location to be determined by the Director of Public Works.
Appeal Filed
On February 18, 1999, Hank Harbers, President of Atoll Holdings, Inc., filed an appeal of the
Planning Commission's action to approve the use permit required with the MU zoning. While
he, as the applicant for the project, is supportive of the Commission's recommendation for the
Council to approve the MU zoning, and of the Commission's action to approve the use permit,
his appeal is with a specific condition of the use permit approval. The specific concern is with
Condition No. 14 which was added by the Commission at their public hearing on the request
Condition No. 14 says:
The Planning Commission endorsed the addition of a second driveway to the site to
Provide egress and ingress for proposed uses with the location to he determined by the
Director of Public Works.
2-2
Atoll Mixed Use Rezoning ;e Permit Appeal (R 132-98)
Page 3
Staffs Position on Second Driveway
Originally submitted plans showed a second driveway to the site off of Laurel Lane,south of the
existing driveway that accesses the site. The driveway was proposed to provide a more direct
connection between the street and the new proposed parking lot. Public Works staff had
concerns with this driveway because of its proximity to the existing driveway serving offices to
the southeast. They felt that there would be potential conflicts in turning movements created by
the proximity of the two driveways. Based on direction from City staff, the applicant eliminated
the second driveway from plans.
The Public Works Department looked at the potential traffic-generating impacts of the project -
both the proposed rezoning and the added interior building spaces contemplated. While it was
determined that the project would contribute to added vehicle trips on Laurel Lane, staff made
the determination that the added traffic would not adversely impact the Level of Service (LOS)
on Laurel Lane. Therefore, a second driveway is not necessary based on anticipated trip
generation associated with the project.
The Public Works Department states in an attached memo that they continue to object to the
proposal for a second driveway to minimize potential driveway/intersection conflicts along this
street corridor. In fact, they feel that the existing driveway with modifications could serve
proposed development, along with future development of the vacant property to the immediate
east with direct frontage on Laurel Lane. However, they indicate that another driveway that
allowed only right-tum in and out access to the property might be acceptable depending on the
specifics of future development plans.
Conclusion
The wording of Condition No. 14 as adopted by the Planning Commission is ambiguous. It
indicates that it was the preference of a majority of those Commissioners supporting the motion
to approve the use permit to have the second driveway, but then it relies on the Director of
Public Works to select the appropriate location. Therein, lies the conflict with the condition,
since City staff does not endorse the development of a second driveway along Laurel Lane.
There are two main reasons for staffs position. One, the amount of traffic anticipated with
project development does not warrant it. Two, it is a goal of the City to limit the number of
driveways along major roadways to minimize conflicts in ming movements to keep traffic free-
flowing. Therefore,to avoid ambiguity with the future review of the project by the Architectural
Review Commission (final approval of the development plan has not yet been secured), the
appellant is seeking a decision from the City Council at this time on the need for a second
driveway to serve the project.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Introduce an ordinance to print, approving a negative declaration with mitigation measures,
and amending the zoning map from M to M-MU for property located at 1150 Laurel Lane,
2-3
Atoll Mixed Use Rezoning. Permit Appeal (R 132-98)
Page 4
based on findings, but specifying a different range of uses than included in the Planning
Commission's recommendation. With this alternative, the Council would make changes to
Finding Not of the Ordinance as drafted.
2. Adopt the Resolution, included as Attachment 4, denying the requested zoning map
amendment based on inconsistency with the City's General Plan.
3. Continue with direction to the staff.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance approving the rezoning
Attachment 2: Draft Resolution A (denying appeal - Planning Commission's
recommendation)
Attachment 3: Draft Resolution B (upholding appeal- CAO's recommendation)
Attachment 4: Draft Resolution C (denying the rezoning)
Attachment 5: Appellant's appeal form received 2-18-99
Attachment 6: Memorandum from Public Works dated 3-22-99
Attachment 7: Planning Commission follow-up letter & Resolution No. 5249-99
approving use permit
Attachment 8: Planning Commission follow-up letter & Resolution No. 5250-99
recommending approval of MU zoning
Attachment 9: Draft 2-10-99 Planning Commission Minutes
Attachment 10: 2-10-99 Planning Commission Staff Report
2-4
ORDINANCE NO. (1999 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM MANUFACTURING (N)
TO MANUFACTURING WITH THE MIXED USE OVERLAY ZONE (M-MU)
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1150 LAUREL LANE (R 132-98)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearing on February 10, 1999,
and ultimately recommended approval of the rezoning (R 132-98) to change the designation on
the City's zoning map from M, Manufacturing, to M-MU, Manufacturing with the Mixed Use
overlay zoning,for property located at 1150 Laurel Lane;.and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, April 6, 1999, and has
considered testimony of the applicant,interested parties,the records of the Planning Commission
hearings and actions,and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the
General Plan and other applicable City ordinances;and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact with Mitigation Measures as prepared by staff and reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the project's Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures adequately addresses the potential
significant environmental impacts of the proposed rezoning, and reflects the independent
judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration with
Mitigation Measures.
2-5
Ordinance No. (1999 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed rezoning
from M, Manufacturing, to M-MU, Manufacturing with the Mixed Use overlay, makes the
following findings:
1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan,
specifically Land Use Element Policy 3.7, Mixed Uses,which states that "Compatible mired
uses in commercial districtsshould be supported"
2. The planned development of the site and proposed uses will comply with the MU zone, are
compatible with each other and their surroundings, and are consistent with the General Plan
(SLO Municipal Code Section 17.55.020C.). These uses include the allowed, and
_conditionally allowed, uses for the M zone listed in the zoning regulations, as well as large
offices, retail sales and repair of bicycles, specialty retail sales, museums, and elementary
schools,subject to the restrictions stipulated in Use Permit U 132-98.
3. The project is consistent with the purpose of the Mixed Use overlay zone which is to allow
the combining of uses on a site which otherwise would not be allowed or required.
4. The project's location or access arrangements do not significantly direct traffic to use local or
collector streets in residential zones.
5. The project allows some large offices at the site, will not affect potential impacts related to
noise,light and glare, and loss of privacy,among others,imposed by commercial activities on
nearby residential areas.
6. The project does not preclude industrial or service commercial uses in areas especially suited
for such uses when compared with offices.
7. The project does not create a shortage of C-S and M-zoned land available for service
commercial or industrial development
8. A Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures was prepared by the Community
Development Department on January 12, 1999, which describes significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed rezoning and associated project development The
Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on
the environment subject to the mitigation measures shown in the attached initial study ER
132-98 being incorporated into the project
2-6
Ordinance No. (1999 Series)
Page 3
SECTION 3. Action. The request to change the City's zoning map designation from M.
Manufacturing, to M-MU, Manufacturing with the Mixed Use overlay zoning, for property
located at 1150 Laurel Lane,is hereby approved.
SECTION 4. Adoption.
1. The zoning map is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A.
2. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in
documents which are on display in City Hall and are available for public viewing and use.
SECTION 5. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members
voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the
Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go
into effect 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 . 1999,on a motion of
seconded by , and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
2-7
Ordinance:No: x999 Series)
Page 4
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_.day of__ . . ___ , 1999.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price,City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
i tto*jeG.Jorgensen. .
2=�
S r�I
G �. ,y� K�� r �'�uc •'rte �
t
Yr. f
• • 1 - -
Draft Resolution A
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING CONEVUSSION'S
ACTION,THEREBY UPHOLDING THE DECISION TO APPROVE
USE PERMIT U 132-98 WITH ALL THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONS,INCLUDING
CONDITION NO. 14 ENDORSING A SECOND DRIVEWAY,FOR
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 1150 LAUREL LANE
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 10, 1999,
and ultimately recommended approval of the rezoning (R 132-98) to change the designation on
the City's zoning map from M, Manufacturing, to M-MU, Manufacturing with the Mixed Use
overlay zoning, as well as approved a required use permit (U 132-98), for property located at
1150 Laurel Lane; and
WHEREAS, H.C. Harbers Jr.,'Project representative, filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission's action on February 18, 1999, based on a concern with Condition No. 14 of U 132-
98 as approved by the Planning Commission;and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, April 6, 1999, and has
considered testimony of the applicant/appellant, interested parties, the records of the Planning
Commission hearings and actions,and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;and
W1DREAS, the City Council finds that the project is consistent with the General Plan
and other applicable City ordinances.
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Negative Declaration with Mitigation
Measures(ER 132-98)as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1.Finding. That this Council,after consideration of the proposed project
2-10
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 2
(U 132-98), the appellant's statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the
following findings:
1. The project's mixed uses are consistent with the general plan and are compatible with the
surroundings, with neighboring uses, and with each other, subject to the limitations on types
and sizes of uses regulated by conditions.
2. The project's design, limiting uses, and physically separating office and warehouse entries,
protects the public health,safety and welfare.
.3. The location and size of the site,and the siting of the building on the property are conducive to
establishing an unique variety of land uses that are compatible with surrounding uses including
residences,offices and the railroad bike path.
4. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single use development of the site
including:
• services which benefit on-site workers,as well as neighbors;
• reduce auto travel by providing services and jobs in close proximity to nearby housing;and
• support for the development of alternative transportation opportunities by providing facilities
and services to support the adjacent bicycle path.
5. The project is consistent with the General Plan, including policies on government office
locations, with the recommended condition regarding restrictions on types of government
offices that potentially could locate at the site.
6. A Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures was prepared by the Community
Development Department on January 12, 1999, which describes significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed rezoning and associated project development. The
Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on
the environment subject to the mitigation measures shown in the attached initial study ER
132-98 being incorporated into the project.
SECTION 2. Action. The appeal is hereby denied, and the action of the Planning
Commission to approve Use Permit U 132-98 is upheld, subject to the following conditions:
1. The use permit will become effective only if the City Council adopts an ordinance to change
the site's zoning to M-MU.
2-11
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 3
2. A maximum of 100,000 gross square feet of floor space in the modified larger manufachning
building on the site may be occupied by professional office uses.
3. Except as otherwise noted in these conditions of approval, all requirements included in the
zoning regulations for the M zone shall apply. The list of M zone uses shall apply as amended
through conditions of this use permit allowing some retail uses and large offices with some
restrictions.
4. Some uses, not otherwise allowed in the M zone, such as retail sales and repair of bicycles,
specialty retail sales and museums, may be established in proposed stationary railroad cars
through the approval of an administrative use permit. The M zone already allows restaurants
and snack shops through the administrative use permit process. These uses may also be
considered in proposed stationary railroad cars.
5. A Planning Commission use permit shall be required for any requests to establish a school at
the site, other than the types of specialized technical schools that are already allowed by the
underlying zoning. The use permit shall focus on adequate separation of the school from
other uses that might pose safety issues, provision of places for parents to drop-off and pick-
up children and suitable outdoor use and play areas for children.
6. More than one office tenant may occupy office space on the site, but no single professional
office tenant may occupy less than 2500 square feet of adjacent,interconnected floor area.
7. The following types of office-related uses are prohibited: banks, real estate offices, financial
institutions,medical clinics,doctors offices,and lawyers offices.
8. Government agencies not fimctionally related to general government,social services,or health
care operations,as specified in the General Plan Land Use Element Section 5.1 may be allowed
at the site through the approval of an administrative use permit where it can be demonstrated
that there is limited need for public visitation. The Hearing Officer may refer these requests to
the Planning Commission if the request raises potentially significant General Plan consistency
issues.
9. The proposed train cars shall not encroach within existing City easements, nor shall they
impact existing and future City facilities and operations within said easements.
10. The existing trees planted over the public sewer main are of concern to the City. All trees
shall be required to be removed from the sewer easement and replaced with new trees at more
appropriate locations, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer, City Arborist and Director
of Public Works.
11. The Public Works Department is agreeable to a private bike path connection to the new
2-12
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 4
Public bike path. The exact alignment and elevation of the connection may be adjusted so as
to minimi impacts to the drainage channel (on-site & offsite), trees, minimize grading and
accommodate existing public improvements (eg - water main, fiber optic conduits, irrigation
system components, lighting infrastructure, landscaping, etc.) to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
12.All off-site improvements shall be constructed in accordance with City's Railroad Bicycle
Path Phase I, Spectficatfon No. 9098. All new improvements, or modifications to existing
bike path improvements shall be warranted by the applicant for a period of one year
following the final inspection. The applicant shall sign an agreement and provide a surety
guarantee (in a form acceptable to the City; eg - Letter of Credit) prior to the start of any
work,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
13.In accordance with the Airport Land Use Commission's action of August 19, 1998, an
avigation easement shall be recorded over the project site prior to final approval or
implementation of the rezone. All subsequent discretionary and subdivision permits on the
project site shall also be required to record avigation easements.
14. The Planning Commission endorsed the addition of a second driveway to the site to provide
egress and ingress for proposed uses with the location to be determined by the Director of
Public Works.
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 . 1999.
2-13
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page:5
Mayor Allen,Settle:
ATTEST:
Lee Price,City Clerk —--
APPROVED AS TO FORM:.
Jorgensen
i
2-14
Draft Resolution B
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION,THEREBY UPHOLDING THE DECISION TO APPROVE
USE PERMIT U 132-989 BUT DELETING CONDITION NO. 14
ENDORSING A SECOND DRIVEWAY,FOR
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 1150 LAUREL LANE
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 10, 1999,
and ultimately recommended approval of the rezoning.(R 132-98) to change the designation on
the City's zoning map from M, Manufacturing, to M-MU, Manufacturing with the Mixed Use
overlay zoning, as well as approved a required use permit (U 132-98), for property located at
1150 Laurel Lane;and
WHEREAS, H.C. Harbers Jr., project representative, filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission's action on February 18, 1999,based on a concern with Condition No. 14 of U 132-
98 as approved by the Planning Commission;and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, April 6, 1999, and has
considered testimony of the applicant/appellant, interested parties, the records of the Planning
Commission hearings and actions,and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the project is consistent with the General Plan
and other applicable City ordinances.
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Negative Declaration with Mitigation
Measures(ER 132-98)as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
2-15
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 1.Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project(U
132-98), the appellant's statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the
following findings:
1. The project's mixed uses are consistent with the general plan and are compatible with the
surroundings, with neighboring uses, and with each other, subject to the limitations on types
and sizes of uses regulated by conditions:
2. The project's design, limiting uses, and physically separating office and warehouse entries,
protects the public health,safety and welfare.
3. The location and size of the site,and the siting of the building on the property are conducive to
establishing an unique variety of land uses that are compatible with surrounding uses including
residences,offices and the railroad bice path.
4. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single use development of the site
including:
• services which benefit on-site workers,as well as neighbors;
• reduce auto travel by providing services and jobs in close proximity to nearby housing;and
• support for the development of alternative transportation opportunities by providing facilities
and services to support the adjacent bicycle path.
5. The project is consistent with the General Plan, including policies on government office
locations, with the recommended condition regarding restrictions on types of government
offices that potentially could locate at the site.
6. A Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures was .prepared by the Community
Development Department on January 12, 1999, which describes significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed rezoning and associated project development. The
Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on
the environment subject to the mitigation measures shown in the attached initial study ER
132-98 being incorporated into the project.
SECTION 2. Action. The appeal is hereby upheld, and the action of the Planning
Commission to approve Use Permit U 132-98 is modified to delete Condition No. 14 endorsing
the development of a second driveway to serve the project. Therefore the use permit is approved,
2-16
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 3
subject to the following conditions:
1. The use permit will become effective only if the City Council adopts an ordinance to change
the site's zoning to M-MU.
2. A maximum of 100,000 gross square feet of floor space in the modified larger manufacturing
building on the site may be occupied by professional office uses.
3. Except as otherwise noted in these conditions of approval, all requirements included in the
zoning regulations for the M zone shall apply. The list of M zone uses shall apply as amended
through conditions of this use permit allowing some retail uses and large offices with some
restrictions.
4. Some uses, not otherwise allowed in the M zone, such as retail sales and repair of bicycles,
specialty retail sales and museums, may be established in proposed stationary railroad cars
through the approval of an administrative use permit The M zone already allows restaurants
and snack shops through the administrative use permit process. These uses may also be
considered in proposed stationary railroad cars.
5. A Planning Commission use permit shall be required for any requests to establish a school at
the site, other than the types of specialized technical schools that are already allowed by the
underlying zoning. The use permit shall focus on adequate separation of the school from
other uses that might pose safety issues, provision of places for parents to drop-off and pick-
up children and suitable outdoor use and play areas for children.
6. More than one office tenant may occupy office space on the site, but no single professional
office tenant may occupy less than 2500 square feet of adjacent,interconnected floor area
7. The following types of office-related uses are prohibited: banks, real estate offices, financial
institutions,medical clinics,doctors offices,and lawyers offices.
8. Government agencies not fimctionally related to general government,social services,or health
care operations,as specified in the General Plan Land Use Element Section 5.1 may be allowed
at the site through the approval of an administrative use permit where it can be demonstrated
that there is limited need for public visitation. The Hearing Officer may refer these requests to
the Planning Commission if the request raises potentially significant General Plan consistency
issues.
9. The proposed train cars shall not encroach within existing City easements, nor shall they
impact existing and future City facilities and operations within said easements.
10.The existing trees planted over the public sewer main are of concern to the City. All trees
2-17
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 4
shall be required to be removed from the sewer easement and replaced with new trees at more
appropriate locations, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer, City Arborist and Director
of Public Works.
11.The Public Works Department is agreeable to a private bike path connection to the new
public bike path. The exact alignment and elevation of the connection may be adjusted so as
to minimize impacts to the drainage channel (on-site & offsite), trees, minimise grading and
accommodate existing public improvements (eg - water main, fiber optic conduits, irrigation
system components, lighting infrastructure, landscaping, etc.) to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
12.All off-site improvements shall be constructed in accordance with City's Railroad Bicycle
Path Phase I, Specification No. 9098. All new improvements, or modifications to existing
bike path improvements shall be warranted by the applicant for a period of one year
following the final inspection. The applicant shall sign an agreement and provide a surety
guarantee (m a form acceptable to the City; eg - Letter of Credit) prior to the start of any
work,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
13.In accordance with the Airport Land Use Commission's action of August 19, 1998, an
avigation easement shall be recorded over the project site prior to final approval or
implementation of the rezone. All subsequent discretionary and subdivision permits on the
project site shall also be required to record avigation easements.
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 . 1999.
2-18
'Resolution No: (1999 Series)
Page 5
Mayor.Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price;City Clerk --
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
U
- — -- —
y J_ . To.Jorgensen
.2=19
Draft Resolution C
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP
FROM MANUFACTURING (M)TO MANUFACTURING
WITH THE NTDED USE OVERLAY ZONE(M-MU)
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1150 LAUREL LANE(R 132-98)
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 10, 1999,and
ultimately recommended approval of the rezoning (R 132-98) to change the designation on the
City's zoning map from M, Manufacturing, to M-MU, Manufacturing with the Mixed Use
overlay zoning,for property located at 1150 Laurel Lane;and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 6, 1999, and has
considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties,the records of the Planning Commission
hearings and actions,and the evaluation and recommendation of staff and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the
General Plan and other applicable City ordinances.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
I. The project is inconsistent with the General Plan because[Council to specify reasons].
SECTION 2. Action. The request to rezone the property located at 1150 Laurel Lane
from M to M-MU is hereby denied.
2-20
Resolution No. Series)
Page 2
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 1999.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jeffrey G.Jorgensen
2-21
Feb- 12-99 11 : 18A City of SLO-CD Dept. 805 781 7 3 RECEIVED P 2
FEB 18 998
SLO CITY CLER
A , QtY 4 SAA luis
UNAPPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1. Chapter 1.20 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of
PLANNING COMgSSION rendered on
F'EBRIIARY 10 1999
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.)
We hereby appeal the condition added by the Planning C�ission to use Pelt
site.R132-98 that would require the provision of a second driveway access to the
site.
We originally proposed two driveways
us that our existing driveway was aebut the City t Traffic Department advised
gaate and that a second driveway would
actually cause additional
Off site driveway, Problems due to its proximity to an existing
The undersigned discussed the dedision being appealed with:
Mr. Arnold Jones
Name/Department on February 12, 1999
(Date) —
Appellant: Atoll Holdings, Inc.
1150 Laurel Lane SIA CA 93401
Name/ Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
544-8203
Home Phone Work Pho
Representative: 1150 Laurel S1.0, CA 93401
Hal eH $ �.-p�� aurel LaneMailing Address (& Zip Code)
l
For Official Use Orly
Calendared for V �� 9 9
9 Dale ,& Time Received
c: City Attomey
City Administrative Officer RECEIVED
Copy to the follcwin department(si:
2 "� FEB 18 1998 '22
ATTACHMENT 5 SLO Cvry
ATOLL HOLDINGS INC
P.O.BOX 3259,SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA,U.S-A.93403
1150 LAUREL LANE,SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA,U.S.A.93401
TELEPHONE(805)5448203 (800)423-4384 FAX(805)543-2634
RECEIVED
FEB 1 81998
February 17, 1999 SLO CITY CLERK
Ms.Lee Price
Clerk to the any Council
City of San L.ms Obispo
990 Palm Sweet
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249
Dear Ms.Price
Enclosed is an appeal to the City Council for a decision rendered by the Planing Commission on
February 12, 1999.
with kindest regards,
J
H.C.Harrbers,Jr.
President
DIVISIONS: ESCORP • TIME RECORDING CO. • SYMTRA • TRWASTERS
INTERNATIONAL GOLF CURSES SERVICE UPPORT�ES mTERNATIONAL2-23
'EY o
Ism US OB1SPO
72
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 22, 1999
To: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner
From: Jerry Kenny, Supervising Civil Engineer
Subject: Traffic Impacts of Atoll Project at 1150 Laurel Lane(U 132-98)
The following is a summary of the Public Works Department's comments re:the proposed
mixed use of office and manufacturing uses on the subject property:
1. The City's Transportation Division of the Public Works Dept evaluated the impacts for
existing and proposed uses(including"The Crux"climbing facility)and determined that the
mixed use zoning would double the present traffic generation, based on existing M zoning.
However,doubling of the existing traffic still would not cause an adverse impact on Laurel
Lane traffic, since the level of service(LOS)is A, which is substantially below LOS D,the
acceptable LOS in the City's Circulation Element.
2. The original project plan showed a new exclusive driveway connection to Laurel Lane,along
the southerly property line,to serve the planned office and other future uses. The connection
to the existing gated access to the northerly side of the building was proposed to be blocked,
except for emergency vehicles. Public Works staff recommended that the existing circulation
be maintained but denial of the new driveway connection to Laurel Lane, due to certain
conflicting turning movements with the existing driveway to the adjacent southerly"Main
property". Staff recommended that a traffic engineer analyze the impacts of this new
driveway on Laurel Lane and the adjacent Maino driveway or that an acceptable"common
driveway"be created to mitigate the anticipated conflicts. As a result,the applicant revised
the plans to delete the new driveway.
3. The present driveway is 30 S.wide and can easily accommodate two egress lanes(dedicated
LT and RT)and one ingress lane. Future development of the undeveloped portion fronting
on Laurel Lane, can also utilize this driveway. Any temporary congestion that may occur
would be limited to only"onsite"impacts. Laurel Lane would not be affected.
4. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 5249-99,which includes Condition 14,
which would"allow"a second driveway. The wording does not appear to be a mandate of
development under the use permit. It states that the Planning Commission"endorses"a
second driveway-at a location approved by the Public Works Director. The Public Works
Department continues to object to a second driveway along this frontage to minimi��
potential intersection(driveway)conflicts along this corridor. However,depending on a
development plan for the undeveloped portion,it may be possible to consider a controlled RT
in and RT out driveway, if justified.
cc: MMfMB/HB/file
TS/JH DNiiev1...0 ml I Iso Moll Traffic impacts
ATTACHMENT 6 2-24
cityo san tuts oBispo
February 17, 1999 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
Atoll Holdings, Inc.
Attn: Val Milosevic
951 Schaffer Lane
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
SUBJECT. U 132-98: 1150 Laurel Lane
Request to evaluate the proposed mix of uses
Dear Mr. Milosevic:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of February 10, 1999, approved your use
permit, based on findings and subject to conditions,as noted in the attached resolution.
The action of the Planning Commission will become effective only if the City Council
adopts an ordinance to change the site's zoning to M-M U. However,this decision maybe
appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. An appeal may be filed with the
City Clerk by anyone aggrieved by the decision.
If you have any questions,please contact Pam Ricci at(805)781-7168.
Sincerely,
Ro Id G. Whi nand
D velopment Review Manager
cc: Atoll Holdings, Inc.
1150 Laurel Lane
SLO, CA 93401
Escorp
P.O. Box 3259
SLO, CA 93406-3259
SLO County Assessor's Office
Attachment: Resolution No. 5249-99 ATTACHMENT.57
The CrtY of San Loris Obispo i5 committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-74111.
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5249-99
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct
a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on February 10, 1999, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application
U 132-98, Atoll Holdings, Inc., applicant.
ITEM REVIEWED:
Request to evaluate the proposed mix of uses.
DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
1150 Laurel Lane
WHEREAS, said Commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and
studies made by itself, and in behalf of testimonies offered at said hearing has
established existence of the following circumstances:
1. The project's mixed uses are consistent with the general plan and are compatible
with the surroundings, with neighboring uses, and with each other, subject to the
limitations on types and sizes of uses regulated by conditions.
2. The project's design, limiting uses, and physically separating office and warehouse
entries, protects the public health, safety and welfare.
3. The location and size of the site, and the siting of the building on the property are
conducive to establishing an unique variety of land uses that are compatible with
surrounding uses including residences,offices and the railroad bike path.
2-26
Resolution No. 5249-99
Page 2
4. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single use development of the
site including:
• services which benefit on-site workers,as well as neighbors;
• reduce auto travel by providing services and jobs in close proximity to nearby
housing; and
• support for the development of alternative transportation opportunities by
providing facilities and services to support the adjacent bicycle path.
5. The project is consistent with the General Plan, including policies on government
office locations, with the recommended condition regarding restrictions on types of
government offices that potentially could locate at the site.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Use Permit Application U 132-98
approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. The use permit will become effective only if the City Council adopts an ordinance to
change the site's zoning to M-MU.
2. A maximum of 100,000. gross square feet of floor space in the modified larger
manufacturing building on the site may be occupied by professional office uses.
3. Except as otherwise noted in these conditions of approval, all requirements included
in the zoning regulations for the M zone shall apply. The list of M zone uses shall
apply as amended through conditions of this use permit allowing some retail uses and
large offices with some restrictions.
4. Some uses, not otherwise allowed in the M zone, such as retail sales and repair of
bicycles, specialty retail sales and museums, may be established in proposed
stationary railroad cars through the approval of an administrative use permit The M
zone already allows restaurants and snack shops through the administrative use
permit process. These uses may also be considered in proposed stationary railroad
cars.
5. A Planning Commission use permit shall be required for any requests to establish a
school at the site, other than the types of specialized technical schools that are
already allowed by the underlying zoning. The use permit shall focus on adequate
separation of the school from other uses that might pose safety issues, provision of
places for parents to drop-off and pick-up children and suitable outdoor use and play
areas for children.
2-27
Resolution No. 5249-99
Page 3
6. More than one office tenant may occupy office space on the site, but no single
professional office tenant may occupy less than 2500 square feet of adjacent,
interconnected floor area.
7. The following types of office-related uses are prohibited: banks, real estate offices,
financial institutions,medical clinics,doctors offices,and lawyers offices.
8. Government agencies not functionally related to general government, social services,
or health care operations,as specified in the General Plan Land Use Element Section
5.1 may be allowed at the site through the approval of an administrative use permit
where it can be demonstrated that there is limited need for public visitation. The
Hearing Office may refer these requests to the Planning Commission if the request
raises potentially significant General Plan consistency issues.
9. The proposed train cars shall not encroach within existing City easements, nor shall
they impact existing and future City facilities and operations within said easements.
10. The existing trees planted over the public sewer main are of concern to the City. All
trees shall be required to be removed from the sewer easement and replaced with
new trees at more appropriate locations, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer,
City Arborist and Director of Public Works.
11. The Public Works Department is agreeable to a private bike path connection to the
new public bike path. The exact alignment and elevation of the connection may be
adjusted so as to minimize impacts to the drainage channel (on-site & offsite), trees,
minimize grading and accommodate existing public improvements (eg - water main,
fiber optic conduits, irrigation system components, lighting infrastructure,
landscaping, etc.) to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
12.All off-site improvements shall be constructed in accordance with City's Railroad
Bicycle Path-Phase 1, Spec cation No. 9098. All new improvements, or
modifications to existing bike path improvements shall be warranted by the applicant
for a period of one year following the final inspection. The applicant shall sign an
agreement and provide a surety guarantee (in a form acceptable to the City, eg -
Letter of Credit) prior to the start of any work, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Public Works.
13. In accordance with the Airport Land Use Commission's action of August 19, 1998,
an avigation easement shall be recorded over the project site prior to final approval
or implementation of the rezone. All subsequent discretionary and subdivision
permits on the project site shall also be required to record avigation easements.
14.The Planning Commission endorsed the addition of a second driveway to the site to
provide egress and ingress for proposed uses with the location to be detenap
the Director of Public Works.
Resolution No. 5249-99
Page 4
The foregoing resolution was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of San
Luis Obispo upon the following roll call vote:
AYE S: Commrs. Loh, Jeffrey, Peterson and Cooper
NOES: Commrs. Senn and Ready
ABSENT: Commr. Whittlesey
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
2-29
lips, II1
city osAn tuis oBispo
EliAs 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
February 17, 1999
Atoll Holdings, Inc.
Attn: Val Milosevic
951 Schaffer Lane
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
SUBJECT: R and ER 132-98: 1150 Laurel Lane
Request to change the official zoning map from M (manufacturing)to
M-MU(Manufacturing.Mixed-Use),and environmental review.
Dear Mr. Milosevic:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of February 10, 1999, recommended that the
City Council adopt the mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact, and
approve the rezoning request, based on the findings noted in the attached resolution.
The action of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council and,
therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for public hearing
before the City Council on March 16, 1999. This date, however, should be verified with
the City Clerk's office(805)781-7102.
If you have any questions,please contact Pam Ricci at(805)781-7168.
Sincerely,
Ro Id G. Whienand
Development Review Manager
cc: Atoll Holdings, Inc.
1150 Laurel Lane
SLO, CA 93401
Escorp
P.O. Box 3259
SLO, CA 93406-3259
SLO County Assessor's Office
Attachment: Resolution No. 5250-99 ATTACHMENT P
30
63 The GtY of San Luis Obispo is committed to indude the disabled in all of its services.Programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deal(805)781-7410.
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 6250-99
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct
a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on February 10, 1999, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application
R and ER 132-98, Atoll Holdings, Inc., applicant.
ITEM REVIEWED:
Request to change the official zoning map from M (Manufacturing) to M-MU
(Manufacturing,Moved-Use),and environmental review of the project
DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
1150 Laurel Lane
WHEREAS, said Commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and
studies made by itself, and in behalf of testimonies offered at said hearing has
established existence of the following circumstances:
1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan,
specifically Land Use Element Policy 3.7, Mixed Uses, which states that "Compatible
mixed uses in commercial districts should be supported."
2. The planned development of the site and proposed uses will comply with the MU
zone, are compatible with each other and their surroundings, and are consistent with
the General Plan (SLO Municipal Code Section 17.55.020C.). These uses include the
allowed, and conditionally allowed, uses for the M zone listed in the zoning
regulations, as well as large offices, retail .sales and repair of bicycles, specialty
retail sales, museums, and elementary schools, subject to the restrictions stipulated
in Use Permit U 132-98. 2-31
Resolution No. 5250-99
Page 2
3. The project is consistent with the purpose of the Mixed Use overlay zone which is to
allow the combining of uses on a site which otherwise would not be allowed or
required.
4. The project's location or access arrangements do not significantly direct traffic to use
local or collector streets in residential zones.
5. The project allows some large offices at the site, will not affect potential impacts
related to noise, light and glare, and loss of privacy, among others, imposed by
commercial activities on nearby residential areas.
6. The project does not preclude industrial or service commercial uses in areas
especiallysuited for such uses when compared with offices.
7. The project does not create a shortage of C-S and M-zoned land available for service
commercial or industrial development
8. A Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures was prepared by the Community
Development Department on January 12, 1999, which describes significant
environmental impacts associated with project development. The Negative
Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on
the environment subject to the mitigation measures shown in the attached initial
study ER 132-98 being incorporated into the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends
the City Council approve R 132-98.
The foregoing resolutibn was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of San
Luis Obispo upon the following roll call vote:
AYE S: Commrs. Loh, Jeffrey, Peterson and Cooper
NOES: Commrs. Senn and Ready
ABSENT: Commr. Whittlesey
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
2-32
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 10, 1999
CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, February 10, 1999, in Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners David Jeffrey, Allan Cooper, Paul Ready, Alice Loh,
Stephen Peterson, Mary Whittlesey, and Chairman Charles Senn
Absent: None
Staff Community Development Director Arnold Jonas, Recording
Present Secretary Leaha Magee, Associate Planners Glen Matteson and Pam
Ricci, and Assistant City Attorney Gilbert Trujillo.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
The Minutes of January 13, 1999, and January 27, 1999, were accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON AGENDA ITEMS:
Lee Price, City Clerk, invited the Commission and staff to the annual Council
recognition dinner of advisory body members on Wednesday, March 17, 1999, at 5:00
at the Monday Club.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 1150 Laurel Lane: Request to change the official zoning map from M
(Manufacturing) to M-MU (Manufacturing, Mixed Use) with a possible Planned
Development (PD) combining district, and environmental review; Atoll Holdings,
Inc. Applicant.
ATTACHMENT 9 2-33
Draft Planning Commission R .es
February 10, 1999
Page 2
Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented an overview of the project and a summary of
staffs recommendation. She noted that there were two main components to the project
-the mixed use rezoning and the required use permit. She suggested that the Planning
Commission review the initial study of environmental impact, and recommend that the
Council approve the request to rezone the property from M to M-MU, based on findings;
and that the Commission approve the use permit, based on findings, and subject to
conditions which she outlined.
Commr. Peterson questioned staff on the rationale of Condition 6, Page 8.
Pam Ricci stated that Condition 6 is included to ensure that offices established at the
site would be consistent with General Plan policies which define large scale
professional offices as containing at least 2,500 square feet of floor area. She indicated
that a 1986 office study identified a need for larger scale offices in the City, and that
existing office zones around the downtown could not accommodate this need.
Commr. Loh referred to Condition 4 and questioned if bicycle repair shops are really
compatible with museums.
Ms. Ricci stated the applicant submitted a letter describing the types of businesses
proposed for this location. Of the uses indicated, it was not clear which ones would be
located in the railroad cars. She indicated that use permits would be required, and use,
compatibility, and parking issues would be reviewed through this process.
Commr. Loh asked if the school board was contacted regarding the need for the
elementary school.
Ms. Ricci stated the contemplated school use is a pre-existing private school which is
currently looking for a larger, more convenient location. She explained that Proposed
Condition No. 5 outlines the criteria for evaluating the establishment of a school at the
site.
Commr. Loh had staff explain the ARC and Planning review of this project.
Commr. Jeffrey referred to LUE Policy 3.3.2 E on Page 4 and asked if there's a
possibility of a MU/PD zone.
Ms. Ricci said this had not been done before and explained that staff doesn't feel there
needs to be two zonings to accomplish the applicant's goal.
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director, said he felt a MU/PD zone would be
redundant. It would be more straight forward to use the MU zone. LUE Policy 3.3.2E
does not indicate that it is mandatory to have a PD for offices of this nature and size.
2-34
Draft Planning Commission i._. Aes
February 10, 1999
Page 3
Commr. Cooper asked if the playing field has improvements and if it will be used by
other members of the community.
Pam Ricci stated there are some rough improvements and that the applicant can
address usage.
Commr. Cooper said he felt the railroad car concept is interesting and asked what the
ARC comments were.
Ms. Ricci stated the ARC liked the idea and supported it as tying in with the bike trail
and the railroad.
Commr. Peterson asked for comments on bicycle parking because he felt it will be
heavily used due to its location next to the new path.
Pam Ricci stated the number of bicycle parking spaces is governed by the Zoning
Regulations and Bicycle Transportation Plan. The Public Works Department provides
criteria for location of bike parking, to the approval of the ARC with design plans.
There were no further comments or questions and the public comment session was
opened.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Val Milosevic, project architect, said he is in agreement with the recommended
conditions. He explained that bicycle repair would be minor and limited in relation to a
bicycle rental shop.
Commr. Loh stated the original submission shows another vehicle access that was
eliminated. Currently there is only one access to service this 498-space parking lot.
Ms. Loh felt this poses a concern in case of an emergency.
Mr. Milosevic stated the current design in direct response to a concern that Public
Works had with a second driveway due to conflicts with the neighboring egress onto
Laurel Lane.
Commr. Loh asked for comments on the undeveloped open space parcel adjoining this
site.
Mr. Milosevic stated this parcel is zoned office and will most likely have its own access
and parking when developed.
Hank Harbers, property owner, stated at present they have 65,000 square feet that is
rented. They've tried smaller units of 2,400 sq. ft. and found that it was too large for
most applications. In the past, Corbett Canyon rented up to 60,000 sq. ft. and currently
2-35
Draft Planning Commissic mutes
February 10, 1999
Page 4
they have 30,000 sq. ft. Another client has 30,000 sq. ft. The current proposal is a way
to maximize the total usage of the building.
Chairman Senn expressed concern about the 80,000 square feet of office coming on
the project in a PD fashion. The entire County Social Services building is 58,000 sq. ft.
and the net effect was that it drew business out of the downtown. The magnitude of
80,000 sq. ft. of office space, coupled with concerns about compatibility of the existing
uses, should be addressed. He questions marketing efforts and asked if there has
been input from the City's Economic Development Director. Mr. Senn was reluctant to
say the City should give up 150,000 sq. ft. of warehousing/manufacturing space and
tum it into one more group of competing offices.
Commr. Cooper asked if fencing around the property would remain.
Mr. Harbers replied no. There will be no fencing between the bike path and the
parking.
Commr. Cooper asked if retail will be exclusive for the use of on-site tenants.
Mr. Harbers stated the concept is that during the week, the retail/restaurant would
service persons on the property. During the weekend it would be open to persons who
will be hopefully using the bike path.
Commr. Loh asked if there are liability concerns without fencing in relation to the creek.
Mr. Harbers stated the creek is not on his property. The on-site water is drainage.
Commr. Jeffrey asked how the railroad cars will be placed on site.
Mr. Harbers answered a crane will place the cars on the railroad track siding.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Ready stated with respect to the list of uses proposed to be attached
under Recommendation A, Page 6, he is concerned about making a recommendation
to the City Council without having that list attached. Specific uses should be included.
Ms. Ricci stated the purpose of this overlay zone is to allow large-scale offices with the
restrictions noted in the use permit conditions, and to allow bicycle repair services,
specialty retail sales, and museums, with approval of an administrative use permit.
Restaurants and snack shops would already be allowed with a use permit under the
current zoning. Elementary schools would be allowed with a Planning Commission use
permit.
2-36
Draft Planning Commission N,. es
February 10, 1999
Page 5
Commr. Cooper asked if staff opposes a school at this location.
Ms. Ricci stated the report didn't make a specific recommendation, but just pointed out
there may be compatibility issues and that there would need to be provision for outdoor
play areas, separation of bathrooms, and suitable drop-off/pick-up locations for
children.
Commr. Loh stated the OS parcel, although not designed, is a part of this parcel. This
area should be conceptually designed as a whole instead of in a piecemeal fashion.
Arnold Jonas explained that this parcel has two different zoning designations; only one
of which is being requested for change. The design of the project is not part of the
issue before the Commission.
Commr. Loh felt secondary access to the site should be provided through the O-S area
which could be incorporated into the future design.
Commr. Peterson supported a secondary access.
Commissioner C000er moved to recommend approval of the request to rezone the
property from M to M-MU based on the findings presented in the staff report and
approval of the use permit based on findings and with conditions as presented in the
staff report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jeffrey.
Commissioner Jeffrey requested the motion be amended so that Finding 2 would
exhibit the five additional uses.
Commissioner Cooper accepted the amendment to the motion
Commissioner Jeffrey requested the motion be amended to include a Condition 14 to
reguire a second ingress/egress to this site to facilitate circulation and to ensure
adequate access in case of emergency to the determination by Public Works
Commissioner Cooper accepted the amendment to the motion
Commissioner Peterson questioned staff on requirements of bicycle parking. He felt
that because of the adjacency of the bike path, additional bicycle parking might be
needed.
Chairman Senn felt that, because of the magnitude of this project, additional input
should be received from manufacturing associations, the City's Economic Development
Director, and the Chamber of Commerce. The general plan contains language relative
to making certain there is adequate land for industrial and commercial service uses
before it is taken out. He said he likes the physical modifications to the building and
2-37
Draft Planning Commissic ,notes
February 10, 1999
Page 6
feels the change in uses is probably good, but he cannot support the request. He's
concerned on the impact this project may have on the downtown area. He felt once this
is taken out of its current use, nothing else comparable will be built because it's
economically prohibitive. He said he has not been persuaded of the compatibility.
AYES: Comms. Cooper, Jeffrey, Loh, and Peterson
NOES: Commissioner Ready and Chairman Senn
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried 4-2. Commissioner Whittlesey was absent.
2. 3450 Broad Street: Request to change the official zoning map from C-S (Service-
Commercial) to CS-PD (Service-Commercial, Planned Development) to allow
professional offices in a commerciaLlwarehouse building, and environmental review;
Acacia Creek, LLC, applicant.
Chairman Senn refrained from participation due to a potential conflict of interest. Vice-
Chairman Ready presided over the hearing.
Pam Ricci presented the staff report and recommended that the Commission review the
initial study of environmental impact, and recommend approval of the amendment to
the City Council, based on findings and subject to conditions.
Commr. Cooper asked if there is a concern of creating a quadra-polar area in light of
the tri-polar concept.
Pam Ricci stated the tri-polar concept specifically relates to governmental offices and
not offices in general.
Commr. Peterson asked for comments on transit service available for uses that will be
located at this site.
Pam Ricci stated the Tri-Counties Regional Center, which provides training for disabled
adults, has specifically requested a transit facility on site. The Public Works
Department has preliminarily approved a transit stop design that would be located just
above the creek and the bridge. This will need Caltrans approval. There is currently a
bus stop on Broad Street further to the south that will be relocated to this site.
Commr. Jeffrey suggested including "proposed" in the first bullet on Page 8 in reference
to the County of SLO Drug Rehab tenant space. He added the Tri-Counties Regional
has a medical component which provides therapy and examinations and asked if that
aspect will be moved to this location as well.
Ms. Ricci deferred the question to the applicant.
2-38
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MEM#t
BY: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner MEETING DATE: February 10, 1999
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager
FILE NUMBER: R 132-98
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1150 Laurel Lane
SUBJECT: Request to amend the City's zoning map designation from M, Manufacturing, to
M-MU,Manufacturing with the Mixed Use overlay zoning,for property located on the northwest
side of Laurel Lane,just north of Orcutt Road.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
A. Review the initial study of environmental impact, and recommend to the City Council
approval of the request to rezone the property from M to M-MU,based on findings.
B. Approve the use permit,based on findings and with conditions.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicant would like to utilize the larger manufacturing and warehousing building on the site
for a variety of different land uses including larger-scale offices. To this end, the applicant has
filed a planning application for architectural review to evaluate site and building changes, as well
as applications for environmental review and a Mixed Use overlay rezoning. The MU rezoning
would enable the applicant to have uses not typically allowed in the Manufacturing zone such as
large-scale professional offices and a school, as well as some innovative uses for some rail cars
proposed on the west side of the property.
The Planning Commission has the authority to approve the required use permit with the
establishment of a MU zone, and reviews and makes a recommendation on zoning amendments
to the City Council,which takes a final action on such requests.
Data Summary
Address: 1150 Laurel Lane
Applicant: Atoll Holdings,Inc.
Representative: Val Milosevic
Zoning: O-S,Office with the Special Consideration Overlay, for the front 3.6 acres along Laurel
Lane; and M,Manufacturing,for the rear 13.4 acres.
General Plan Land Use Designations: Offices and Services&Manufacturing
ATTACHMENT 10 2-39
R 132-98
Page 2
Environmental Status: A Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures was recommended by
the Development Review Manager on January 12, 1999. Final action on the initial study will be
taken by the City Council.
Project Action Deadline: Legislative actions not subject to processing deadlines.
Site Description
The subject site, consisting of 17 acres, has a split zoning with the front 3.6 acres along Laurel
Lane zoned O-S, Office with the Special Consideration overlay zoning, and the rear 13.4 acres
zoned M, Manufacturing. The M portion of the site is currently developed with two buildings
and parking and driveway areas. The smaller, northerly building contains about 6,400 square
feet and houses the Crux Climbing Gym. The larger, southerly building has a floor area of
approximately 155,000 square feet and is occupied by manufacturing, warehousing and
administrative office uses.
Project Description
The applicant is proposing to add 33,260 square feet to the larger building through a
level addition within the existing building footprint. Offices here would have a minimum floor
area of 2,500 square feet to be consistent with requirements in the zoning regulations for office
planned developments in the M zone and also consistent with Land Use Element policies which
allow some disbursement of larger scale offices outside traditional office zones.
To accommodate the new offices,the proposed building would be altered through the addition of
both ground floor and upper floor storefronts. With installation of the storefronts, existing
concrete panels would be removed up to about 10 feet high, and existing metal siding above
would be refurbished through painting. New awnings are proposed between the two levels of
storefronts as a transition and to add some interest to the elevation. Over the main building
entry, a projected facade is proposed above the upper level storefronts. To meet increased
project Pig demands, an existing open playing field area is proposed to be made into a
parking lot
Previous Review
On October 5, 1998, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) conceptually reviewed the
project in advance of completion of the initial study and Planning Commission and City Council
consideration of a Mixed Use overlay rezoning. The ARC, on a 5-0-2 vote, continued action on
the project to a date uncertain.
In general, the Commission was very enthusiastic about the project, supporting the design and its
attempts to connect with the adjacent City bicycle path. They endorsed using railroad cars as
adjunct buildings, suggested that outdoor use and seating areas be retained with the new project,
and supported the use of tree wells, rather than full landscaped islands in the center of the
planned new parking lot. They also wanted to see enlarged elevations of the west wall of the
building which focused on details of the entry.
240
VLADIMIR MILOSEVIC ARCHITECT
TEL (805) 773-5768 951 Shaffer Lane Pismo Beach CA 93449 FAX (805) 773-4137
July 16, 1998
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1150 LAUREL LANE —ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION FOR M PORTION OF LAND
The subject property is owned by Atoll Holdings Corporation and has an area of 17 acres,
of which 3.6 acres fronting Laurel Lane are zon O-S, and 13.4 acres behind are zoned
M. The O-S portion is undeveloped except for some parking, The M zoned portion has
two buildings, a 6,400 square facility known as The Crux Rock Climbing Gym, and a
148,000 square foot manufacturing plant.
In the large building, manufacturing is now limited to less than 10% of the floor area, and
the balance is used for warehousing and administrative offices. The goal of this
application is allow other uses in this underutilized facility.
With the city's new endeavors to enhance the Railroad District and the construction of the
new Bicycle Path along the railroad track, which neighbors the subject property along its
western side, improving this property as proposed would work hand in hand with the
city's efforts.
The present proposal includes the following:
1.. Convert the western side of the plant into a two-story office area within
the building envelope. Each space will have a minimum of 2,500 square
feet of area.The exterior walls would be remodeled.
2. New parking would be added in the area between the building and
railroad.
3. An 8-foot wide bicycle path would be constructed to link this facility with
the city's new Bike Path.
4. A new access driveway would be built from Laurel Lane to the serve the
new parking area. This driveway will be linked to the existing driveway
and provide vehicular and bicycle access to the Crux.
S. There is an existing railroad spur along the western side of the building.
About half of it would be removed and landscaped, and four railroad
cars would be brought in and stationed on the remaining tracks.The use
of these could be for"diner restaurant", retail shops, museum, etc.
2-4l
6. There are 5 existing loading platforms that served the railroad spur. This
would be linked with a continuous boardwalk along the side of the
building, providing access to the building and the railroad cars.
7. Fencing along the western property line will be removed and replaced
with a landscaped earth berm to screen the parking from the city's Bike
Path.
8. It is envisioned that the new parking lot could be used as a staging area
for weekend bicycle events.
9. Other desired uses for the site include bicycle rental and repair facilities
and accessory sales establishments. There is also an interest by one of
the local private elementary schools, to convert part of the facility to a
Kindergarten to Sixth grade school.
ATOLL11
2-#2
R 132-98
Page 3
EVALUATION
1. Rezoning Request& Consistency with the City's General Plan
The project site has a split zoning with the front 3.6 acres along Laurel Lane zoned O-S, Office
with the Special Consideration overlay zoning, and the rear 13.4 acres zoned M, Manufacturing.
The"M"portion of the site is designated for "Services and Manufacturing" on the General Plan
Land Use Element (LUE). map. The applicant is applying for the Mixed Use (MU) overlay
zoning for the M portion of the site to allow more variety in the range of uses allowed in the
larger manufacturing building on the site. A mezzanine level is proposed to be added within the
existing building to provide additional area for future large-scale offices.
Municipal Code Chapter 17.55, Mixed Use (MU) Zone, states that the MU zone, in combination
with any other zone, permits combining uses on a site which otherwise would not be allowed or
required. Although the zoning regulations indicate that the primary purpose for the MU zone is
to allow combining residential uses and commercial uses on a single parcel, the regulations go on
to stipulate that any combination of uses may be approved by the City. Land Use Element Policy
3.7 supports the establishment of a MU zoning by stating that "Compatible mixed uses in
commercial districts should be supported "
2. Required Planning Commission Use Permit
Section 17.55.020 C.also requires that a use permit be approved by the Planning Commission prior
to establishing any use within the MU zone. The use permit requirement allows the Planning
Commission to determine whether the proposed uses comply with the zone, are compatible with
each other and the surroundings, and are consistent with the general plan. Findings which the
Planning Commission must make in approving the use permit are outlined in Section 17.55.040.
The Commission must also find that uses comply with the MU zone, are compatible with each
other and their surroundings,and are consistent with the General Plan(Section 17.55.020C.).
In terms of the specific request to allow large offices in the larger manufacturing building on the
site,the location and size of the site,and the siting of the building on the property are conducive to
establishing the new land use. The surrounding land uses include the railroad tracks and new City
bike path to the southwest,Sinsheimer Park to the north,apartments and houses to the northwest,
and offices to the southeast. The building's location 240 feet away from the residentially zoned
property to the north provides for an adequate land use buffer. In respect to surrounding residential
uses,the proposed offices will be more compatible than other types of uses typically allowed in the
manufacturing zone. Office uses are also consistent with the established office buildings to the
southeast of the subject building.
An old railroad spur line exists along the southwestern side of the project The applicant is
proposing to have a series of stationary railroad cars placed here that could be adapted for a
variety of uses including a diner restaurant, bike repair,retail shops and a museum. LUE Section
3.5 contains the policies for the Services and Manufacturing category. It menti,Qns4r
R 132-98
Page 4
"convenience restaurants and other activities primarily serving area workers" are appropriate
types of uses in this land use category. In stags opinion, these small-scale type uses will
complement the City's bike path and also provide services for on-site workers and neighbors. In
order to monitor the size and location of the establishment of these uses at the site, and to assure
that adequate parking is provided,staff is recommending that they be allowed through the approval
of an administrative use permit
The applicant's project description mentions the possibility of an elementary school being
established at the site. Staff sees the potential for safety and compatibility issues with a school.
Therefore, staff is recommending that a Planning Commission use permit be required for any
requests to establish a school at the site,other than the types of specialized technical schools that
are already allowed by the underlying zoning. The use permit would focus on adequate
separation of the school from other uses that might pose safety issues, provision of places for
parents to drop-off and pick-up children and suitable outdoor use and play areas for children.
3. Planned Development(PD)vs.Mixed Use Overlay(MLI)
The LUE encourages a wide range of uses in the Services and Manufacturing land use category
including large-scale offices. LUE Policy 3.5.2 F., Appropriate Uses, allows for large offices
with the proper approvals. This policy is also reiterated in the Offices Section, specifically
Policy 3.3.2 E. However, the LUE specifies that the proper process for establishing large-scale
offices is through the Planned Development,PD,zoning.
When the project was initially submitted, staff grappled with the proper zoning category and
overlay zoning to place on the site. The applicant originally applied for the Planned Development
overlay zoning to establish the range of desired uses at the site, including the establishment of
large offices(defined as having a minimum floor area of 2,500 square feet).
With the exception of the PD overlay zoning for large-scale offices in the C-S and M zones, the
intent of the PD zoning is to promote imaginative project design that may need exceptions to one
or more development standards. In this case, the development plan itself is quite conventional,
and does not require any exceptions to zoning standards, other than the list of allowed uses.
Therefore, it was staffs recommendation to pursue the Mixed Use (MU) zoning in order to
provide additional flexibility to enable a wider range of uses.
The general plan also supports the use of the MU overlay zoning. As previously mentioned,LUE
Policy 3.7 encourages "compatible mixed uses in commercial districts. " The applicant's proposal
is innovative and creative. It takes advantage of its unique setting,next to the railroad tracks and
residential uses, and provides an interesting mix of uses that could work at the site and still be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. While the concept is exciting, it does not
necessarily mesh with City zoning categories that are traditionally more static. For these reasons,
staff believes that the MU overlay is the preferred approach with this proposal and site. However,
the Commission should indicate whether the use of the MU zoning is consistent with the intent of
LUE Policy 3.32 E.
In approving large-scale offices here, findings and conditions would be consistent with the PD
R 132-98
Page 5
approach. Therefore,office uses typically characterized by substantial public visitation or need for
access to downtown government services,such as banks, real estate offices, financial institutions,
medical and legal offices,would be prohibited
1n terms of retail uses,staff is recommending conditions that the uses be limited to a narrow range
that would be allowed in the small spaces provided by the railroad cars. This would address
general plan consistency concerns that the uses would not be community draws that are inconsistent
with policies for the Services and Manufacturing category. Conditions would help to assure that
these uses truly served on-site workers, bicyclists, pedestrians and neighbors, rather than the
community at large.
4. Parkin
New parking areas will be created along the south and east sides of the main building to
accommodate the increased demand for parking spaces created by the added office areas. Project
statistics indicate that a total of 489 parking spaces will be provided to serve all planned site
uses; this represents a surplus of 68 parking spaces over the required 421 spaces. With
conceptual review of project plans,the amount and configuration of parking was not an issue.
5. Site Access
Originally submitted plans showed a second driveway to the site off of Laurel Lane, south of the
existing driveway that accesses the site. The driveway was proposed to provide a more direct
connection between the street and the new proposed parking lot Public Works staff had
concerns with this driveway because of its proximity to the existing driveway serving offices to
the southeast. They felt that there would be potential conflicts in turning movements created by
the proximity of the two driveways. Based on direction from City staff, the second driveway
was eliminated.
6. Compatibility with Airport Land Use Plan
The Project site is located on the County of San Luis Obispo's Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP)
map. The map divides the territory it covers into areas which are based on their proximity or
sensitivity to airport operations. The project site is located in Area 6. This area is defined "as
other land in the planning area "
On August 19, 1998, the County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) took action to
recommend that the City support the proposed rezoning, with the list of proposed uses submitted
by the applicant including a possible school, based on the finding that the zone change would
have no impact on compatibility between airport operations and surrounding land uses, with the
condition for filing an avigation easement. Compliance with this requirement is met through
proposed Condition No. 13 of the subject use permit
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend that the City Council deny the proposed amendment, based on inconsistencyte
R 132-98
Page 6
with the general plan. Planning Commission action is final unless appealed to the City
Council.
2. Continue review of the amendment with specific direction to the applicant and staff.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Other departments were consulted regarding both the physical development plan site and the land
use change. Specific requirements from other departments have been incorporated as conditions
of planned development approval.
RECOMMENDATION
A. Review the initial study of environmental impact, and recommend approval of the
request to amend the zoning map from M, Manufacturing, to M-MU, Manufacturing
with the Mixed Use overlay zoning based on the following findings:
1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan,
specifically Land Use Element Policy 3.7, Mixed Uses, which states that "Compatible mixed
uses in commercial districts should be supported"
2. The planned development of the site and proposed uses will comply with the MU zone, are
compatible with each other and their surroundings,and are consistent with the General Plan
(SLO Muncipal Code Section 17.55.020C.).
3. The project is consistent with the purpose of the Mixed Use overlay zone which is to allow
the combining of uses on a site which otherwise would not be allowed or required.
4. The project's location or access arrangements do not significantly direct traffic to use local or
collector streets in residential zones.
5. The project allows some large offices at the site, will not affect potential impacts related to
noise, light and glare,and loss of privacy,among others,imposed by commercial activities on
nearby residential areas.
6. The project does not preclude industrial or service commercial uses in areas especially suited
for such uses when compared with offices.
7. The project does not create a shortage of C-S and M-zoned land available for service
commercial or industrial development.
8. A Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures was prepared by the Community
Development Department on January 12, 1999, which describes significant environmental
impacts associated with project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the
project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the
mitigation measures shown in the attached initial study ER 132-98 being incorporgtedipto
R 132-98
Page 7
the project
B. Approve the use permit, based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
Findings
1. The project's mixed uses are consistent with the general plan and are compatible with the
surroundings, with neighboring uses, and with each other, subject to the limitations on types
and sizes of uses regulated by conditions.
2. The project's design, limiting uses, and physically separating office and warehouse entries,
protects the public health, safety and welfare.
3. The location and size of the site,and the siting of the building on the property are conducive to
establishing an unique variety of land uses that are compatible with surrounding uses including
residences,offices and the railroad bike path.
4. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single use development of the site
including:
• services which benefit on-site workers,as well as neighbors;
• reduce auto travel by providing services and jobs in close proximity to nearby housing;and
• support for the development of alternative transportation opportunities by providing facilities
and services to support the adjacent bicycle path.
5. The project is consistent with the General Plan, including policies on government office
locations, with the recommended condition regarding restrictions on types of government
offices that potentially could locate at the site.
6. A Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures was prepared by the Community
Development Department on January 12, 1999, which describes significant environmental
impacts associated with project development The Negative Declaration concludes that the
project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the
mitigation measures shown in the attached initial study ER 132-98 being incorporated into
the project
Conditions
1. The use permit will become effective only if the City Council adopts an ordinance to change
the site's zoning to M-MU.
2. A maximum of 100,000 gross square feet of floor space in the modified larger manufacturing
building on the site may be occupied by professional office uses.
2-47
R 132-98
Page 8
3. Except as otherwise noted in these conditions of approval, all requirements included in the
zoning regulations for the M zone shall apply. The list of M zone uses shall apply as amended
through conditions of this use permit allowing some retail uses and large offices with some
restrictions.
4. Some uses, not otherwise allowed in the M zone, such as bicycle repair services, specialty
retail sales and museums, may be established in proposed stationary railroad cars through the
approval of an administrative use permit. The M zone already allows restaurants and snack
shops through the administrative use permit process. These uses may also be considered in
proposed stationary railroad cars.
5. A Planning Commission use permit shall be required for any requests to establish a school at
the site, other than the types of specialized technical schools that are already allowed by the
underlying zoning. The use permit shall focus on adequate separation of the school from
other uses that might pose safety issues,provision of places for parents to drop-off and pick-
up children and suitable outdoor use and play areas for children.
6. More than one office tenant may occupy office space on the site, but no single professional
office tenant may occupy less than-2500 square feet of adjacent,interconnected floor area
7. The following types of office-related uses are prohibited: banks, real estate offices, financial
institutions,medical clinics,doctors offices,and lawyers offices.
8. Government agencies not functionally related to general government,social services,or health
care operations,as specified in the General Plan Land Use Element Section 5.1 may be allowed
at the site through the approval of an administrative use permit where it can be demonstrated
that there is limited need for.public visitation. The Hearing Office may refer these requests to
the Planning Commission if the request raises potentially significant General Plan consistency
issues.
9. The proposed train cars shall not encroach within existing City easements, nor shall they
impact existing and future City facilities and operations within said easements.
10. The existing trees planted over the public sewer main are of concern to the City. All trees
shall be required to be removed from the sewer easement and replaced with new trees at more
appropriate locations, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer, City Arborist and Director
of Public Works.
11. The Public Works Department is agreeable to a private bike path connection to the new
public bike path. The exact alignment and elevation of the connection may be adjusted so as
to minimiimps to the drainage channel (on-site & offsite), trees, minimize ging and
accommodate existing public improvements (eg - water main, fiber optic conduits, irrigation
system components, lighting infrastructure, landscaping, etc.) to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
2-48
R 132-98
Page 9
12. All off-site improvements shall be constructed in accordance with City's Railroad Bicycle
Path Phase I, Specif-kation No. 9098. All new improvements, or modifications to existing
bike path improvements shall be warranted by the applicant for a period of one year
following the final inspection. The applicant shall sign an agreement and provide a surety
guarantee (in a foam acceptable to the City; eg - Letter of Credit) prior to the start of any
work,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
13. In accordance with the Airport Land Use Commission's action of August 19, 1998, an
avigation easement shall be recorded over the project site prior to final approval or
implementation of the rezone. All subsequent discretionary and subdivision permits on the
project site shall also be required to record avigation easements.
Attached:
Vicinity map
Site plan/floor plan
Applicant's project description
Memos from other departments
ARC Minutes of 10-5-98
Mixed Use(MU)Zone, Chapter 17.55 of Zoning Regulations
List of allowed uses for the M zone
Excerpts from LUE
Mitigation Measures/lnitial Study ER 132-98
2-4/
a
jl`�MI
F �//
III/ MIN
MM
"f. /
M 0/11
f/ f
•
• • •
�1♦♦♦♦1♦♦14fi,4W♦♦♦♦11♦1♦♦♦♦♦ate'\\ ,, ,
1 .1• /•♦i•♦i•♦i•• •
•It .1♦♦1♦11♦� .♦11♦�1:
♦1�1�,1♦1♦1♦11•♦AII•j♦1• ♦i♦te ♦ ,
,,♦11'1`'1`+fs♦•♦. i11♦11 , ` .
\,♦'♦1111♦IIp 1 ♦♦1♦.1.1111:♦`\ J.
���1.1♦♦ 11.11.11:1111.11.11♦♦i `J
�1 �♦.1:1:11 ;
`.•111T��♦11•t/
14W 40
. • . ;
• Laurel Lane ;'
/ I
adlow
Wo \
OF
� d� ly .�:� pI /'18 111 --- 1 `1 •2
MI
1
r .
I =
" 46Z. , ■ \
1� ►� === moi: • l s
t
•d:•--��:---''tom �i �I
�. -AllIJ.
r4 0 lH —
e . l
a �- =yl ��� Irr11nil• '7t
r
= r.
VLADIMIR MILOSEVIC ARCHITECT
TEL (805) 773-5768 951 Shaffer Lane ■ Pismo Beach CA 93449 FAX (805) 773-41?
December 23, 1998
Pamela Ricci, AICP
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
RE: 1150 LAUREL LANE
ATOLL BUSSINESS CENTER
Dear Pam,
In response to one of the concerns raised by Public Works regarding traffic patterns originally
proposed for the referenced project, I have revised the Site Plan. Six copies of the revised plan
are hereby submitted.
We believe the new plan removes concerns regarding internal circulation and driveway location
conflicts with adjacent properties. An independent traffic study is no longer needed, and
therefore, there are no other obstacles preventing the completion of the Environmental Review.
We would like to resume the process immediately and have a hearing before the Planning
Commission at the earliest possible date.
If there are any other documents that I need to submit, please let me know.
Yours trul
Vladimir Milosevic, Architect
C. H. Harbers
ATOLL21
2-54
ter•� inY.l F�
O �
Memorandum
TO: Jerry Kenny
From Jun Hanson
Date: 0 V05199
Re: Atoll Business Center Trip Generation
Currently the ADT for Laurel lane is approbmately 9,800 vpd. The development of the proposed Atoll
Business Center as presented by the applicant should increase the ADT on Laurel Lane to
appropmately 13,000 vpd. Estimated peak hour traffic flaws are 980 vph existing and 1,300 vph
Proposed. The proposed volume of traffic is well under the capacity of the roadway,which is estimated
to be 4,000 vph based on the capacity of the All-Way Stop controlled 'intersections. These figures
indicate that Laurel Lane cunenfly has the capacity to handle the additional traffic that should be
generated by the project presented by the applicant
CAWINDOV&MesktoplAtop 010499.doo
2-55
• - . . :
PROJECT REVIEW
September 17, 1998
To: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner
Via: Jerry Kenny, Supervising Civil Engineer
From: Mike Bertaccini, Engineering Assistant
Subject: 1150 Laurel Ln.,RIEMArc 132-98,Atoll Business Center
COMMENTS
A. The applicant must revise the plan submitted to show the existing water main, sewer main,
water& sewer services and associated easements to evaluate the proposal for any conflicts.
B. The proposed train cars pose several problems. First,the cars are proposed across the
Property line,extending into City owned property. Second,the City removed the railroad
spur track within City property....How does the applicant propose to move full sized train
cars onto this site? The Public Works Department opposes any use of the new bike path for
access,temporary or permanent.
C. The plans lack the detail needed to assess possible impacts to the existing water and sewer
mains due to the proposed improvements within the easement.
D. The Public Works Department is concemed about possible turning movement conflicts
between the most southerly driveway and the driveway serving the adjacent southerly
property-
COMMONS
ropertyCONDITIONS
1. The Public Works Department is agreeable to a private bike path connection to the new
public bike path. The exact alignment and elevation of the connection may be adjusted so as
to minimiimpacts to the drainage channel (on-site &offsite),trees,mani i=' grading and
accommodate existing public improvements(eg-water main, fiber optic conduits,irrigation
system components, lighting infrastructure, landscaping,etc.)to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
All off-site improvements shall be constructed in accordance with City's Railroad Bicycle
Path-Phase I,Specification No. 9098. All new improvements,or modifications to existing
bike path improvements shall be warranted by the applicant for a period of one year
following the final inspection. The applicant shall sign an agreement and provide a surety
guarantee(in a form acceptable to the City; eg-Letter of Credit)prior to the start of any
2-56
work,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
2. The addition of offices and other uses (other than the existing warehouse)needs to be
evaluated with respect to traffic and circulation(on-site&off-site). Therefore, a registered
civil engineer(specializing in traffic analysis)shall analyze the effects of the proposed
project on Laurel Lane,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
The analysis shall focus on possible turning movement conflicts between vehicles using the
proposed southerly driveway and the existing driveway serving the adjoining property to the
south. Other considerations shall be the effects of proposed internal gating intended to
separate parking areas and limit through circulation between the existing parking lot and the
proposed expansion area.
3. The proposed train cars shall not encroach within existing City easements,nor shall they
impact existing and future City facilities and operations within said easements.
4. The existing trees planted over the public sewer main are of concern to the City. All trees
shall be required to be removed from the sewer easement and replaced with new trees at more
appropriate locations,to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer,City Arborist and Director
of Public Works.
CODE REQUIREMENT'S
EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all
storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and
excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than
five acres,but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale,also require-a
permit Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General
Construction Activity Permit,the owner(s)of land where construction activity occurs must
submit a completed 'Notice of Intent" (MOI)fond,with the appropriate fee,to the State Water
Board.
He: G VDevRevl .T1-1 1150 p1.doc
2-57
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pam Ricci,Community Development Department
FROM: Spencer Meyer,Fire Department
SUBJECT: 1150 Laurel Lane,ARC,ER, R 132-98
DATE: August 11, 1998
ACCESS:
Proposed access shall conform to all current San Luis Obispo Fire Department Development
Guidelines. All access ways within this project shall be designed as fire lanes. The minimum
required turning radiuses(with reference to fire apparatus)shall have an inside tracking distance
of 32 feet and outside tracking distance of 44 feet(some meridian/planter/parking/driveway areas
may be affected).
Minimum fire access shall be painted red with appropriate signage installed to prohibit parking.
F RE-FLOW:
On-site distribution mains(with the fire pump)appear adequate for the proposed land-use.
HYDRANT LOCATIONS:
Private fire hydrant density appears adequate for the proposed land-use. Some existing hydrants
will have to be relocated to facilitate the new proposed parking lot and/or Fire apparatus access
requirements.
GENERAL NOTES:
Building should be reviewed for the compatibility of existing and proposed occupancies/uses
with references to all applicable Building and Fire Code requirements.
Jerry Kenny,Engineering Department
Dan Gilmore,Public Utilities Department
Ron Hanson, Fire Department
2-58
San Luis Obispo County n
Planning Department
County Planning Commission
Airport Land use Commission
August 19, 1998
Community Development Department/Pam Ricci
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
SUBJECT: CITY FILE# 132-98 - ATOLL HOLDINGS (ZONE CHANGE FROM M TO
M-MU
Thank you for referring the above project to the Airport Land Use Commission. The
proposed zone change is compatible with the San Luis Obispo County Airport's Land
Use Plan (ALUP). On August 19, 1998, the Airport Land Use Commission reviewed
the application,and recommends that the City approve the project with the conditions
in the attached report (require an avigation easement over the rezone site, and for any
subsequent discretionary or subdivision permits on the rezone site).
Please call me if you have questions or comments (781-5701).
Sincerely
Ted Bench
Airport Land Use Commission
2-59
I"'......w.r^......,..........• I^.... ... Ce.. i ..... /lL.:,..... !^'.. :[....,:., n7An0 . ronc, c•n conn
SITE/GRADING MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 18, 1998
TO: Pam Ricci
FROM: Bob Bishop (Building hWector)(:R—�
SUBJECT: 1150 Laurel(New Building Facade,Parking Area,&New Parcel)
1. Details and location of any utilities located within the proposed new parcel should be
analyte and provided. If easements or removal of any utilities is necessary,they should be
completed prior to creation of the new parcel.
2. A number of compact parldng stalls are shown facing the boardwalk along the remodeled
side of the building. Compact parking should be discouraged,if average size parking stalls
may be accommodated. In the least, the arrangement of the compact parking stalls should
meet the intent of the old standard in which compact parking was disbursed throughout the
overall facility.
2-60
ARC Minutes
October 5, 1998
Page 9
Directions
er a canopy structure to 14'
■ Beef up the columns on the canopy structure.
Provide a cornice around the canopy.
■ ' the design of the canopy in with the design of the b
■ B the scale of windows and doors and provide m e articulation(less modern
looking).
■ Look at pulling the er feature forward on the foodmart buil
■ Use of slump stone is O.
■ Use texture on exterior walls,n C M panels.
■ Use compatible building materials an rs on foodmart and canopy ctures.
■ Provide a minimum of six trees on the site.
■ Eliminate"We appreciate your business"signs. Spann are O.K.
■ Look at landscaping at the comer of site and consider—smal a opy trees ' lace of taller
proposed trees.
Conditions
Commr. Rawson seconded th
AYES: lingworth, Rawson, Parker
N Regier, Stevenson
ABSENT: Aiken, Loh
The motion passed.
Note: Commrs. Regier and o "no" to the motion because they felt the project
design shoul er to integrate into the community and the historic character of this
site.
4. ARC 132-98; 1150 Laurel Lane: Review of site improvements and a new building
facade; M zone; Atoll Holdings,Inc.,applicant.
Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending continuance of the
project with direction to the applicant and staff on further informational needs and necessary
revisions to address project issues.
Hank Harbers, applicant, explained the current building size and existing tenants. He noted the
building solely as manufacturing is too big for the community.
Val Milosevic, representative, responded that selling off the portion of the site closest t2W
ARC Minutes
October 5, 1998
Page 10
Lane was contemplated and therefore the plans reflect that possibility.
In response to questions from Commr. Stevenson, Milosevic mentioned the idea of future
building near the railroad tracks that might be used in conjunction with the bike path and related
uses.
Commr. Illingworth asked about consistency with the railroad land use plan and the idea of
utilizing some railroad design elements,such as awnings and lighting.
Commr. Stevenson suggested looking at providing some areas for employees to use as a break
area and lunch spot. He thought it would be nice to include bike lockers to encourage employees
to ride to work. He supported tree wells with compact spaces and looking at a shelter for the
existing bus stop to the north.
The ARC in general liked the idea of using railroad cars.
Commr. Rawson asked about the boardwalk material. Milosevic responded it was wood.
Hank Harbers stated he hoped to tie into the bike path, especially on the weekends. He said that
cyclists would be welcome to use the parking lot. He recommended replacing the Monterey
Pines,as they die, with Silk Oaks.
Commr. Stevenson suggested the idea of a frontage road along the office parcel would help to
retain trees.
Commr. Illingworth would like a strong connection with the bike path. He wanted to see an
enlarged elevation for the entry of the building.
Commr. Rawson moved to continue to a date uncertain with the following direction:
• A larger-scale western building elevation and section need to be submitted which focus on
the details of the entry.
• Proposed tree wells with compact spaces in the center of the new parking lot are acceptable,
but the row of compact spaces closest to the building entry needs to be replaced with
conforming average spaces.
• The project's relationship to the new City bicycle path is good. Plans should include
information on where bicycle lockers will be provided to encourage workers to ride their
bikes to work.
• Incorporate outdoor use and break areas within the project to keep the current feel of the
site's park-like setting.
• Show proposed tree removals along with planned replacement plantings.
• Support was given for the use of stationary railroad cars as adjunct buildings.
• Submit complete plans with all required details included on application checklists.
2-62
ARC Minutes
October 5, 1998
Page 11
Commr. Stevenson seconded the motion.
AYES: Rawson, Stevenson, Illingworth, Parker, Regier
NOES: None
ABSENT: Aiken, Loh
The motion passed.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Architectural Review
Commission scheduled.for Monday, October 19, 1998 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing
Room,City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Mandeville
Pam Ricci
Recording Secretaries
2-63
C. Use permit approval by the Planning Commission
Chapter 17.55 is required prior to establishing any use within the
MU zone, except that this provision does not apply
MIXED USE (MU) ZONE changes of use within an existing building. The u:
permit requirement allows the Planning Commission
Sections: to determine proposed uses compliance with the MU
zone, compatibility with each other and their
17.55.010 Purpose surroundings, and consistency with the general plan.
17.55.020 Application and procedure
17.55.030 Property development standards 17.55.030 Property development standards
17.55.040 Mandatory findings
Property development standards shall be those of the
17.55.010 Purpose underlying zone. However, use-permit approval may
include. more provisions and standards to assure
The MU zone, in combination with any other zone, compatibility of uses and surroundings, or less
permits combining uses on a site which otherwise restrictive standards, to the extent allowed by
would not be allowed or required. use-permit approval in other sections of these
regulations, to make particular use combinations more
The primary purpose of the MU zone is to permit feasible.
combining residential uses and commercial uses on a
single parcel, although any combination of uses may 17.55.040 Mandatory findings
be approved by the City. The MU zone is intended to
promote a compact city, to provide additional housing A. In granting a use permit pursuant to this chapter,
opportunities (including affordable housing the Planning Commission must make the following
opportunities), which is the first priority, and to findings:
reduce auto travel by providing services, jobs, and
housing in proximity. The City desires the safety (1) The projects mixed uses are consistent with the
provided 6y having residential components in general plan and are compatible with their
commercial areas. surroundings, with neighboring uses, and with ea
other.
17.55.020 Application and procedure
(2) The projects design protects the public health,
A. Application of the MU zone may be initiated by: safety, and welfare.
(1) The City Council or Planning Commission, to (3) The mixed uses provide greater public benefits
ensure that mixed residential and commercial uses than single-use development of the site. This finding
will be included when certain parcels are developed or must enumerate those benefits, such as proximity of
redeveloped; or workplaces and housing, automobile trip reduction,
provision of affordable housing, or other benefits
(2) An applicant, to obtain permission for a mix of consistent with the purpose of this chapter.
uses not otherwise allowed.
B. To require property development standards more
B. Each ordinance adopting an MU zone shall specify: restrictive than those of the underlying zone, the
Planning Commission must make one of the following
(1) The types of uses which are required or allowed findings:
to be combined;
(1) Site-specific property development standards are
(2) Any standards for the uses locations or their needed to protect all proposed uses of the site, in
relationships to each other; particular residential uses.
(3) Any issues specific to the site or the intended (2) Site-specific property development standards are
combination of uses which must be resolved by the needed to make the project consistent with the intent
design of the projem of these regulations.
74 2-64
(3) The preponderance of the development proposed Chapter 17.56
for the site is of a type not normally permitted in the
underlying zone, so property development standards SPECIAL CONSIDERATION (S) ZONE
for the zone where such development is normally
found are appropriate. Sections:
17.56.010 Purpose and application.
17.56.020 Allowed uses.
17.56.030 Property development standards.
17.56.040 Procedure - Subdivisions - Waiver of
use permit requirement when property
subject to subdivision map
application.
17.56.010 Purpose and application.
The S zone has two purposes:
A. In combination with any zone, to require approval
of an administrative use permit before any use may
be established. The use permit requirement is
intended to assure compatibility of the use with its
surroundings or conformance with the general plan,
or to determine if a proposed development solves
problems such as noise exposure, flood hazard,
airport hazard, or slope instability which are
particularly severe on a given site. Such development
review may also be used to protect areas of scenic or
ecological sensitivity, wildlife habitat, or wildland fire
hazard.
The ordinance adopting the S zone will specify the
considerations to be addressed, and the ordinance
number will be incorporated in the official zone map
designation:
B. In combination with any other zone, to require a
larger minimum parcel size than required by the
underlying zone. In such cases it will be designated
on the zone map as, for example, R-1-S-3, which
indicates a minimum parcel size of three acres. (Ord.
941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code- 9203.17(A))
17.56.020 Allowed uses.
Subject to approval of an administrative use permit,
any allowed or conditionally allowed use in the
underlying zone may be established. (Ord. 941 - 1
(part), 1982: prior code - 9203.17(B))
J
75
2-65
. �Ilullllllll���� IIIlllll�
IIIIII L� Of SAn
ICIS OBISPO
Community Development Department, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 9340'
XIII. MANUFACTURING (M) ZONE
This is a summary of provisions governing uses allowed in the Manufacturing (M) zone. Consult the City of
San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations for additional information.
Date Revised: October 1994
1. Allowed Uses:
• Athletic and health dubs, gymnasiums, fitness centers, game courts
• Auto dismantling, scrap dealers, recycling centers
• Auto repair and related services (body, brake, transmissions, muffler shops; painting, etc.)
• Auto sound system installation
• Broadcast studios
• Building and landscape maintenance services
• Bus stations
• Cabinet and carpentry shops
• Caretaker's quarters
• Car wash -self-service
• Catering services
• Construction activities
• Contractors Office -all types of general and special building contractor's offices
• Contractor's yards
• Delivery and private postal services
• Equipment rental
• Exterminators and fumigators
• Feed stores and farm supply sales
• Gas distributors - containerized (butane, propane, oxygen, acetylene, etc.)
• Government agency corporation yards
• Laboratories (medical, analytical research)
• Laundry/dry cleaners
-cleaning plant
-pick-up point
• Manufacturing - food, beverages, ice; apparel, electronic, optical, instrumentation products;
jewelry; musical instruments; sporting goods, art materials
• Photocopy services - quick printers
• Photofinishing -wholesale and blueprinting and microfilming services
• Printing and publishing
• Railroad yards, stations, crew facilities
• Refuse hauling, septic tank,and portable toilet services
• Repair services
-small household appliances, locksmiths, seamstress, shoe repair
-large appliances, electrical equipment, power tools, saw sharpening
• Retail sales -outdoor sales of building and landscape materials (lumber yards, nurseries, etc.)
• Retail sales - indoor sales of building materials and gardening supplies, floor and wall coverings,
paint, glass stores, etc.)
• Service stations
• Tire recapping
• Traller rental
• Trucking/taxi service
• Utility companies
-corporation yards 2-66
Manuracturing (M) Zone - Page 2
• Utility distribution facilities (See Section 17.08.080)
• Warehousing, mini-storage, moving company
• Water treatment services
• Wholesales and mail order houses
2. Uses Allowed with Di>ectWs or C Md Buildma Official's Approval by Letter
• Mobile home as temporary residence at building site
• Outdoor sales of Christmas trees and other seasonal agricultural products
3. Uses Allowed by Director's Approval of an Administrative Use Pennifi
• Advertising and related services (graphic design, writing, mailing, addressing, etc.)
• Ambulance services
• Animal hospitals, boarding, grooming, training (large animals)
• Antennas (commercial broadcasting)
• Bars, taverns, etc. (without entertainment facilities)
• Bowling alleys
• Car wash
-mechanical
• Churches, synagogues, temples, etc.
• Circus, carnivals, fairs, festivals, parades on private property
• Computer services
• Day care (See Section 17.08.100)
-day care center
• Detective and security services
• Mobile home as construction office
• Parking (as a principal use-deviations to existing setbacks and building heights are permitted upon
approval of a use permit as required by Section 17.22.010)
• Restaurants, sandwich shops, take-out foot, etc.
• Schools
-business, trade, recreational, or other specialized schools (in the M zone, schools are limited
to those offering instruction in fields supportive of allowed uses)
-nursery schools/pre-school, child day care
• Temporary sales
• Temporary uses - not otherwise fisted
4. Uses Allowed by Plannirm Commission Approval of a Use Permit:
• Airports and related fatalities
• Cemeteries, mausoleums, columbariums
• Drive-in theaters
• Homeless shelters
• Hot tubs -commercial use
• Manufacturing -basic metals,chemicals, building materials,fabricated metals,textiles, paper and
cardboard; machinery, transportation equipment
• Mineral extraction
• Retail sales and rental -autos, trucks, motorcycles, RV's
• Retail sales -auto parts and accessories except tires and batteries as principal use
• Retail sales -tires and batteries
• Retail sales and rental - boats, aircraft, mobile homes
• Skating rinks
• Stadiums
• Swimming pools (public)
• Tallow works
5. Any other uses we not allowed. 2-67
Land Use Element SL ) General Plar
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 business services, wholesaling, building contractors, utility
company yards, auto repair, printing, food manufacturing and other light
manufacturing, 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 nrimar*l-y
serving area workers.
3.5.2 Appropriate Uses The following types of uses are appropriate in areas
designated Services and Manufacturing. Certain areas 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;
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 Tusiness 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.
G. Certain businesses and professional services having no substantial public
visitation or limited need for access to downtown government services may
be in Services and Manufacturing districts. Examples of such uses are
computer services, utilities engineering and administration, architects and
engineers, industrial design, advertising, building contractors, labor and
fraternal organizations, veterinarians, and insurance and financial services
that do not directly serve retail customers.
2-68
Land Use Element SLA) General Plan
3.5.8 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 projects realized building intensity, to reflect
existing or desired architectural character in a neighborhood. Dwellings may be
provided only as caretaker quarters, as shelters (with discretionary review), or as
part of a specially approved mixed-use development The appropriate residential
density would be set considering the maximum residential density allowed in any
neighboring residential area. (Also, see the residential section for policies on
density bonuses for affordable housing.)
3.6 Overall
3.6.1 Dependent Care New development should be offered incentives for
provision of child care and elder care for employees.
3.6.2 Convenience Facilities Convenience facilities serving daily needs, such as
small food stores, branch banks, and child and elder care, and amenities such as
picnic areas, will be allowed in centers of employment Space for such amenities
may be required within large commercial and industrial developments.
4V3.7 Mixed Uses
Compatible mixed uses in commercial districts should be encouraged.
46 2-69
Applicant Acceptance of Mitigation Measures
Project: 132-98
1150 Laurel Lane
This agreement is entered into by and between the City of San Luis Obispo and Atoll
Holdings, Inc. on the ?--I 'ri' day of _�L t.-,A U,o,2''r , 1999. The
following measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse
environmental impacts. Please sign the original and return it to the Community
Development Department.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. The project shall include:
• bicycle parking and locker facilities for employee use;
• outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees to stay on site during the
lunch hour, and extensive tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce
evaporative emissions from automobiles.
2. Prior to final approval or implementation of the rezone, the property owner shall
grant an avigation easement to the City of San Luis Obispo via an avigation
easement document prepared by the City over the project site that is recorded with
the County Clerk. Furthermore, all subsequent discretionary and subdivision
permits on the project site shall also be required to record avigation easements.
3. Where feasible, existing mature trees shall be retained and incorporated into the
project landscaping plan. Where proposed plans do not allow for the retention of
existing trees, the applicant shall incorporate new trees into the landscaping plan to
compensate for trees removed to the approval of the Architectural Review
Commission(ARC). All existing trees that are located over the sewer main easement
shall be removed and replaced with new trees at more appropriate locations, to the
satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer,City Arborist and Director of Public Works, and as
shown on the project landscaping plan to be reviewed and approved by the ARC.
4. Future site development shall incorporate the following as feasible:
• Skylights to maximize natural day lighting.
• Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
• Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
5. The new building shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling.
The construction project shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling
discarded materials, such as concrete, sheetrock, wood, and metals, from the
construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid Waste
Coordinator or the Community Development Director, prior to building permit
issuance.
2-70
ER 132-98
Mitigation Agreement
Page 2
6. An Archaeological Resources Inventory (ARI) shall be completed prior to final
architectural approval of the project (Phase I report). If excavations encounter
significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources or cultural materials,
then construction activities which may affect them shall cease until the extent of the
resource is determined and appropriate protective measures are approved by the
Community Development Director. The Community Development Director shall be
notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that they may be
recorded by a qualified archaeologist.
7. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor
should be called Jn to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the
items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note
conceming this requirement shall be included on the grading and construction plans
for the project.
If the Community Development Director or hearing body determines that the above
mitigation measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or
modify the mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures.
Please note that section 15070 (b) (1) of the California Administrative Code requires the
applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration is released for public review. This project will not be scheduled
for public review and hearing until this signed original is returned to the
Community Development Department.
pkf B. Jonas/ Representative for.
Community Development Director Atoll Holdings, Inc.
2-71
lIF111 II
clt:y o sAn luis oaspo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CAS 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY ER 132-98
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I. Project Title:
Atoll Business Center
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7168
4. Project Location:
1 150 Laurel Lane
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Atoll Holdings, Inc.
1150 Laurel Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation (see attached Exhibit A):
Office, 3.6 acres along Laurel Lane
Services & Manufacturing, 13.4 acres to the west
7. Zoning (see attached Exhibit B):
O, Office, 3.6 acres along Laurel Lane
M, 13.4 acres to the west
2-72
® rhe Gtity of Sen Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications llevioe iDr the!leaf(805)781-7410.
B. Description of the Project:
The applicant would like to utilize the larger manufacturing and warehousing
building on the site for a variety of different land uses including larger-scale offices.
In order to allow for an expanded range of uses, the applicant has filed an
application for a Mixed Use (MU) overlay rezoning. The MU rezoning would enable
the applicant to have uses not typically allowed in the Manufacturing zone such as
large-scale professional offices and a school, as well as some innovative uses for
some rail cars proposed on the west side of the property.
In terns of physical changes, the applicant is proposing to add 33,260 square feet
to the.larger building through a mezzanine level addition within the existing building
footprint. Offices here would have a minimum floor area of 2,500 square feet to
be consistent with requirements in the zoning regulations for office planned
developments in the M zone and also consistent with Land Use Element policies
which allow some disbursement of larger scale offices outside traditional office
zones.
To accommodate the new offices, the proposed building would be altered through
the addition of both ground floor and upper floor storefronts. With installation of
the storefronts, existing concrete panels would be removed up to about 10 feet
high, and existing metal siding above would be refurbished through painting. New
awnings are proposed between the two levels of storefronts as a transition and to
add some interest to the elevation. Over the main building entry, a projected
facade is proposed above the upper level storefronts. To meet increased project
parking demands, an existing open playing field area is proposed to be made into a
parking lot.
9. Project Entitlements Requested:
The applicant has applied for environmental and architectural review of project
plans to evaluate site and building changes, as well as a rezoning to add the MU,
Mixed Use, overlay to the underlying Manufacturing portion of the site's zoning.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The subject site, consisting of 17 acres, has a split zoning with the front 3.6 acres
along Laurel Lane zoned O-S, Office with the Special Consideration overlay zoning,
and the rear 13.4 acres zoned M, Manufacturing. The M portion of the site is
currently developed with two buildings and parking and driveway areas. The
smaller, northerly building contains about 6,400 square feet and houses the Crux
Climbing Gym. The larger, southerly building has a floor area of approximately
2 2-73
155,000 squarefeet and'. is occupied by manufacturing; warehousing and
administrative office uses.
1`1. Other public agencies whose a_ppPoval:its fech red (e:g. permits, financing approval,
or participation agreement);
None.
3 2- /4
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning X Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing X Energy and Mineral X Cultural Resources
Resources
X Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
X Water X Noise X Mandatory Findings
of Significance
X Air Quality Public Services
X Transportation and X Utilities and Service
Circulation Systems
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse
effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the
project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment
of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code.
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, ther
wi(I not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on a
attached sheets have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be X
prepared.
I find that the proposed project May have a significant effect on the environment, and a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at leas
one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable lega
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis a
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a"Potentially Significant Impact' or is "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated.' An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) hav
been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided o
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are impose
upon the proposed project.
4 2-75
January 12, 1999
_R'naturir Date
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager for Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
Printed Name
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except 'No Impact' answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A'No
Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact
simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture
zone). A 'No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as
well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on
a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. 'Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect 1
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 tothe 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.
5 2-76
Issues and Supporting Inforrna. ources sources Pote," J7 Potmtieuy LASS Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 132-98 Issues unless Impact
Page 6 mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1,2 X
b) Conflict with.applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? X
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? 3 X
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible.land X
uses?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community .(including a low-income or X
minority community)?
The project site has a split zoning with the front 3.6 acres along Laurel Lane zoned O-S, Office with the
Special Consideration overlay zoning, and the rear 13.4 acres zoned M, Manufacturing. The applicant is
applying for the Mixed Use (MU) overlay zoning for the M portion of the site to allow more variety in the
range of uses allowed in the larger manufacturing building on the site. A mezzanine level is proposed to be
added within the existing building to provide additional area for future large-scale offices.
Municipal Code Chapter 17.55, Mixed Use (MU) Zone, states that the MU zone, in combination with any
other zone, permits combining uses on a site which otherwise would not be allowed or required. Although
the zoning regulations indicate that the primary purpose for the MU zone is to allow combining residential
uses and commercial uses on a single parcel, the regulations go on to stipulate that any combination of uses
may be approved by the City. Land Use Element Policy 3.7 supports the establishment of a MU zoning by
stating that`Compadbiemixed uses in commercial districts should be supported:'
Section 17.55.020 C. also requires that a use permit be approved by the Planning Commission prior to
establishing any use within the MU zone. The use permit requirement allows the Planning Commission to
determine whether the proposed uses comply with the zone, are compatible with each other and the
surroundings,and are consistent with the general plan. Findings which the Planning Commission must make in
approving the use permit are outlined in Section 17.55.040. The Commission must also find that uses comply
with the MU zone,are compatible with each other and their surroundings,and are consistent with the General
Plan (Section 17.55.020C.).
In terms of the specific request to allow large offices in the larger manufacturing building on the site,the
location and size of the site, and the siting of the building on the property are conducive to establishing the
new land use. The surrounding land uses include the railroad tracks and new City bike path to the southwest,
Sinsheimer Park to the north,apartments and houses to the northwest,and offices to the southeast. The
building's location 240 feet away from the residentially zoned property to the north provides for an adequate
land use buffer. In respect to the residential uses,the proposed offices will be more compatible than other
types of uses typically allowed in the manufacturing zone. Office uses are also consistent with the established
office buildings to the southeast of the subject building. Proposed ancillary uses in railroad cars,such as bike
repair and snack shop, will complement the City's bike path.
Conclusion: The applicant's processing of the MU rezoning is an appropriate tool for requesting types of uses
at the site beyond those normally allowed. The consistency of particular uses will be evaluated through review
of the required use permit. No further mitigation is recommended.
2- POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
6 2-77
Issues and Supporting Informat,:.. Sources Sources POW, Y Potmtiaallr LA=Than No
Significant Significant Significatt Impact
ER 132-98 LCS11 Unless impact
��
Page 7
projections? X
b) Induce substantial growth:in an area either directly or
indirectly:(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area X
`or majornfrastructure?).
c). -Displace;: exipnq housing, especially . .affordable.
housing?:. _ .: ;: : X
Conclusion: Not significant.
The project is the development of a commercial use in a commercial zone and does not directly affect the
supply of City-wide housing. Therefore, the use will not significantly increase population levels or create a
demand for new housing.
3._GEOLOGIC-PROBLEMS.. Would-the:proposal result m orexpose people to potential impacts:involving::
a) -Fatilt rupture? X
b) Seisnrrc ground7shakingT X
.c) Seismic;ground:failure ncfuding liquefaction? X
d) Seiche,;tsunamt 'or volcanic:.hazard? X
e) Landslides or.mudflowss? ,. X
.f). Erosion;:;,changesantopography.orunstable soil.
condmons:from excavation;grading, or fill? X
.. . ..
.g) Subsidence of:the::land?:.;..;.'.'. X
h) Expans
the:soils?_.. X
r) Unique!geologic or physical features? X
The project site is generally flat and is already developed with the larger manufacturing building, the Crux
gym, parking lot areas and landscaping. A soils report would have been required with original construction
permits for the two structures. Structural plans will be submitted with working drawings regarding the new
offices at the mezzanine level. Since no new buildings will be created, no further mitigation is required.
4. WATER:;:::Would:ahe;proposahresuk in: . -
a) Changes:in atisorptiontates,-drainage patterris, or the:. .
rate and:amount�ofsurface'runoffl. 2 X
b) Expo sur"f people or property to waterrelafed hazards
such as"flooding X
c) Discharge to=sur#ece waters or.other afteration of
surface-water quality.4e:g =temperature)dissolved X
oxygen sor-iturbid)ty?
d) 'Changes:in
...: . the amouritofrurfae,waterinany water.
body
X
e) Changes_in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? . X
f).. ,Change)n the quantify of.ground:waters;.:either through.
direr additions orwithdrawals,-or-through:interception X
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through.
substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g) .Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwiseavailable for public water supplies? X
The project will significantly increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site. Land Use Element
Policy 6.4.7 encourages the use of porous paving, landscaping, or other design elements to reduce surface
water runoff and aid in the ability for surface drainage to percolate effectively into the soil. Through the
7 2— /O
Issues and Supporting Informatn... Sources Sow= Potm. .y Powwally Leas Thea No
Sipifi=d Sigodemrc Sigoificitit Impad
ER 132-98
15811a SS �
midgadon
Page 8 1ncm
review of the required architectural review application, changes to drainage patterns can be adequately
evaluated with the grading and landscaping plans.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would.the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard of contdbute::to an..-.....
existing or projected..air quality violation. (Compliance:`. 4 X
With APCD Environmental:Guidelines)?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X
W. .Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature;.or cause.
any change in climate? X
d),:'Create objectionable-odors? X
Site development will impact air quality as a result of construction activity and traffic generated by uses
established. Standard mitigation is recommended to reduce impacts resulting from construction activity and
future site development.
Short-term Impacts
During project construction, there will be increased levels of fugitive dust associated with construction and
grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy duty construction equipment.
Compliance with the dust management practices contained in Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec.
7004 (b)) will adequately mitigate short-term impacts. No further mitigation is necessary.
Long-Term Impacts
San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PM,, (fine particulate matter 10
microns or less in diameter) air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment
pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The
1995 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution
Control District (APCD) to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed
to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use.
Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan.
Motor vehicles account for about 40% of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone formation, and are
also a significant source of PM7,. Thus, a major requirement in the CAP is the implementation of
transportation control measures designed to reduce motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local residents.
The following mitigation measures will encourage transportation alternatives to the single occupant vehicle
and make the project attractive to bicyclists and pedestrians.
1. Miti-gation Measure:
The project shall include:
• bicycle parking and locker facilities for employee use;
• outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees to stay on site during the lunch hour; and
• extensive tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from automobiles.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 5 X
b) Hazards to safety from design features.(e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses X
(e.g. farm equipment))?
#1 Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? X
g 2-"79
Issues and Supporting Informati, Sources sow .room. POtcnfiWIY Less Than No
significant si®ii5cant significant Impact
ER 132-98 ftiucs unless h*=
Page 9 in16pt'on
Incorporowd
d) Insufficientparking capacity on-site or off-site? X
e) Hazards or barriRm for.pedestrians or bicyclists? 6 X
fl Conflicts-with_adopted polities.supporting alternative
transportation (e g .bus turnopts,:bicycle racks) X
g). Rail, waterborne or air traffic 4mpacts le gc:compatibility
with San Luis Obispo Co. AtrpoctLand Use::Plan):.;. 7, 8 X
Traffic & Circulation Impacts
Currently the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for Laurel Lane is approximately 9,800 vehicles per day(vpd). The
development of the proposed Atoll Business Center as presented by the applicant should increase the ADT on
Laurel Lane to approximately 13,OOOvpd. Estimated peak hour traffic flows are 980 vehicles per hour (vpd)
existing and 1,300 vph proposed. The proposed volume of traffic is well under the capacity of the roadway,
which is estimated to be 4,OOOvph based on the capacity of the All-Way Stop controlled intersections. These
figures indicate that Laurel Lane currently has the capacity to handle the additional traffic that should be generated
by the project presented by the applicant.
In conclusion, expected trip generation levels will not result in localized impacts that require mitigation. Site
development will be subject to the City's traffic impact fees which were established (Resolution No. 8406)
to mitigate the impacts of new development on the City's streets, transit, and bikeway facilities. No further
mitigation is necessary.
City Bicycle Path
The City's Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies a Class I bicycle path from Cal Poly to the southern City
limits along the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. Much of this bike path has not yet been formally
installed, but a recently completed segment of the path between Orcutt Road and Boulevard Del Campo is
adjacent to the site on its southwest side.
The applicant's project description indicates that old rail cars may be used on the site to house various uses
such as retail uses and a diner-type restaurant. It also mentions that there may be facilities provided on-site
to serve bicyclists such as bicycle rental and repair facilities, and accessory sales. These uses would not
result in negative environmental impacts, but rather would complement and enhance use of the bicycle path.
Compadbt'lity with Airport Land Use Plan
The project site is located on the County of San Luis Obispo's Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) map. The map
divides the territory it covers into areas which are based on their proximity or sensitivity to airport
operations. The project site is located in Area 6. This area is defined`as other land in the planning area.
On August 19, 1998, the County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) took action to recommend that the
City support the proposed rezoning, based on the finding that the zone change would have no impact on
compatibility between airport operations and surrounding land uses, with one condition. That condition
follows and is proposed as a mitigation measure.
2. Mitigation Measure:
Prior to final approval or implementation of the rezone, the property owner shall grant an avigation easement
to the City of San Luis Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the City over the project
site that is recorded with the County Clerk. Furthermore, all subsequent discretionary and subdivision
permits on the project site shall also be required to record avigation easements.
9 2-OU
Issues and Supporting Informat.. . Sources Sow= Prom, ftLmhally Less Than No
Si0ficau sig ificam sivuicmt Impact
ER 132-98 Imms Ilnk= Impact
Page 10 mit4ati n
kmrpwaw
7. BIOLOGICAL.RESOURCES. Would-the::pnsposal affect;...
of Endangered,.threatened or rare species.or their habitats
-
pe.
&ig but not amited to plants;fish,insects;. 9 X
,animals-or bih:14
b) Locally deslgnated`species.(e.q' heritage trees)T 10 X
c) 'Locally desionated::inatura. :oom.muniti.et(e�jl oak:forest,.
coastal:habitat 'eta)? X
d) Wetiand-habitat-(e.g: marsh, riparian:andwernsiLpool? X
e).., Wildlife_dispersal or::migration:.460- idors?.:_ .;. ,. X
Existing Trees
Proposed building changes are confined to the footprint of the larger manufacturing building. A new driveway
will be installed to provide access between the existing driveway to the site from Laurel Lane and the new
parking lot on the west side of the larger manufacturing building.The area where the new parking lot is
proposed is currently used as playing fields and is mostly devoid of landscaping except for grasses. Therefore,
the project will not result in significant changes to the site's biological resources.
However,a number of trees will need to be removed to accommodate site changes,mostly where the new
driveway is proposed,and also those trees planted over a public sewer main. Removal of these trees will
change the number and diversity of plant species on the site.
Conclusion: May be significant.
The City Arborist has reviewed project plans and does not object to the proposed removal of trees. Addition of
trees on the site as indicated on the project landscaping plan will compensate for the loss of trees proposed to
be removed.
3. Mitigation Measure:
Where feasible,existing mature trees shall be retained and incorporated intq the project landscaping plan.
Where proposed plans do not allow for the retention of existing trees,the applicant shall incorporate new trees
into the landscaping plan to compensate for trees removed to the approval of the Architectural Review
Commission(ARC). All existing trees that are located over the sewer main easement shall be removed and
replaced with new trees at more appropriate locations,to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer,City
Arborist and Director of Public Works,and as shown on the project landscaping plan to be reviewed and
approved by the ARC.
_ENERGY i4111D'-MINE3AL'RESO:URCES;.!;Would the:
proposal:
a) :Conflict with adopted energy conserv"diiiplans? :. X
b) Use mon-renewable resources in a wasteful .and
inefficient manner?. X
c) 'Result:in the-loss of availability of a-knowri:mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region X
and the fesidents:of the State?
The Energy Conservation Element states that, 'New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of
conventional energy for space heating and cooling, water heating, and illumination by means of proper
design and orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure.' The City implements
energy conservation goals through enforcement of the California Energy Code which establishes energy
conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction. Buildings proposed as part of this
project must meet those standards. The City also implements energy conservation goals through
architectural review. Project designers are asked to show how a project makes maximum use of passive
10 2-Sl
Issues and Supporting Informatj. ., Sources Sounes wooer.. .,f Potentially Iess7han No
SiSFOCOet Signifi= Signifieaet hopaet
ER 132-98 Unless tmpea
Page 11
Incorpondcd
means of reducing conventional energy demand, as opposed to designing a particular image and relying on
mechanical systems to maintain comfort.
To avoid using non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner, the following standard mitigation is
recommended:
4. Mitigation Measure:
Future site development shall incorporate the following as feasible:
• Skylights to maximize natural day lighting.
• Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
• Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
9 >:'NAZARDS Would.the proposal involve:.
a) ;A insk;of accidental;dxplosion-or:release.of hazardous
substances(including, but not limited to:.oil, pesticides, X
chemicals or:rediation)?,;`.. .
b) =Possibleinterfarence.with.amemergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? X
C,)....'.ThecrBationaf:'any health haierd:or,potential:health
hazarded X
dY :Exposure of people to eiushngsources=of,potential
fiealth hazards? X
s) ncreast3d firehazard in:areas.wlth flammable,;brush,
The site is identified in the City's Safety Element, Natural Hazards Map, as having a low potential for
wildland fires.
10.NOISE:.-Would the.proposal:vesult in: .
a)'. locreaswin existing noise levels?:' . 12 X
.. ,..
b) F-XPQ:sure.:of people.to''unacoeptable noise levels as
defined"�by the'San Luis`Obispo:GeneraPPlan Noise 12 X
,Element?
Office uses are generally quieter than many service and light industrial types of uses allowed in the M zone.
Therefore, the establishment of additional office uses may actually have a positive impact on ambient noise
conditions at the site. However, with the noise source of the railroad directly to the southwest, the building
areas where office uses are proposed will need to be designed to provide acceptable noise levels for interior
spaces.
The Noise Element indicates that levels of 45 dB for indoor areas for professional office uses. Complying
noise levels for interior spaces can be achieved through standard building techniques. No further mitigation
is necessary.
1.1: PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or aftered
government:services in any of-the following areas:
a) Fre protection? X
b) Police protection? X
W 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,.
l l 2-82
Issues and Supporting Informati.,.. Sources Sw= toren. -F Rintieily Us Tem No
Sip"Xmt sipirumc S*Mcmt expam
ER 132-98 ISSI unless hV=
Page 12 meson
Luotpmzted
or substantial alterations to the:foijowing utiliities:
a) Power or natural gas? X
b) Communications systems? X
W Local or regional water treatment or distribution.
facilities?
13 X
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
e) Storm water drainage? X
f) Solid waste disposal? 14 X
g) Local or regional water supplies? X
Water Treatment & Distribution Facilities
This project has been reviewed by Utilities Department staff. Comments note that the project is subject to
water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of
constructing the water supply, treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to service it.
Water Supplies
The City has adopted Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new development
and land use changes do not jeopardize adequate water service to current and new customers. Section
17.89.030 of the regulations states that a water allocation shall be required to: "obtain a connection to the
city water system for a structure or facility not previously connected; change the use of land or buildings,
whether or not a construction permit is also required; obtain a construction permit."
The project will increase future water demand. To receive an allocation, the property owner will need to
provide water offsets through retrofitting the plumbing of existing structures to save at least as much water
annually as the projected demand, or otherwise satisfy the requirements of the water allocation regulations
through an approved method. Compliance with the provisions of the Water Allocation Regulations and the
water impact fee program is adequate to mitigate the effects of increased water demand.
Solid Waste
Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californians
dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of wasteper month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a
threat to groundwater, air quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity
by 2018. The Act requires each city and county in California.to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by
50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project, consistent
with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element, recycling facilities must be accommodated on the
project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials should be
submitted with the building permit application. The project should include facilities for both interior and
exterior recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project consistent with the Source Reduction
and Recycling Element, and should provide a program for the recycling of construction materials.
5. Mitigation Measure:
The new building shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling. The construction
project shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded materials, such as concrete,
sheetrock, wood, and metals, from the construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval by the
City's Solid Waste Coordinator or the Community Development Director, prior to building permit issuance.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X
12 2-83
Issues and Supporting Informats..., Sources somas PM, .y Pota"ly Len ltan No
significant swfiamt sigddic M to pvz
ER 132-98 tssoa unless bmw
Page 13 M
Ineorpormd
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X
W ..Createiaight or glare? X
The aesthetic concerns associated with site development will be addressed with the Architectural Review
Commission's review of plans. Proposed light standards shall be designed with light fixtures that direct light
downward and prevent light trespass onto adjacent properties. No further mitigation is required.
14:�CULTURAL;RESOURCESc .Would the prtiposalc: -
a) Disturb:paleontological=resources?:
X
b) Disturb archaeologic .I.iresources?. 15 X
C) Affect histonwl resources?- X
.
. . Have the:potertti.. tacause a phy-cal change which
would affect urngUe ethnic cultural values? X
e) ResMct existing relrgious`or sacred uses wlthm the_:
potentral'impact aiea? - X
Although the site is not considered by the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines to be an
'archaeologically sensitive area', it is over an acre in size which does not exempt it from required
archaeological or historical assessment. Therefore, the guidelines require that the applicant contract with a
certified archaeologist to perform a surface survey and prepare a report of findings.
6. Mitigation Measure:
An Archaeological Resources Inventory (ARI) shall be completed prior to final architectural approval of the
project (Phase I report). If excavations encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological
resources or cultural materials, then construction activities which may affect them shall cease until the
extent of the resource is determined and appropriate protective measures are approved by the Community
Development Director. The Community Development Director shall be notified of the extent and location of
discovered materials so that they may be recorded by a qualified archaeologist.
7. Mitigation Measure:
If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called in to
work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with
state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on the grading and constructio
plans for the project.
15:'RC-PREATION.. :Woutd:.ffiei
proposal: . ,.
a) Increase the-demand for neighborhood or regronaFparks:
orother recreational facilities?::.. - X
b) .:Affect existing recreational-opportunities?`'` . X
.16. MANDATORY.FINDINGS;OF SIGNIFICANCE.:.
a) Does the project have thepotentialto degrade the
quality.of.the environment, substantially reduce.the.
habitat.of a fish.or wildlife species, cause:a:fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate.a plant or animal community, X
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Without mitigation, the project would have the potential to have adverse impacts for all the issue areas
-71
13 2-84
Issues and Supporting Informatwi, Sources Soorca 79G90Y Last m No
Sipifimt Significant sipi5cim hq=
ER 132-98 la= Units > *=
In �
Page 14 lncco
checked in the table on page 3.
W Does the;pfoject have the potential to achieve short-
to rra;_to::the disadvantage,of-long-term, environmental X
In this case, short- and long-term environmental goals are the same.
:c) ` Dbes�the-;project haye'impacts:that are individually
rimited;-,tint-cumulatively considerable?= ('Cumulatively
constdeiable' means at the incrementaleffects of a
;project.,are considersfile=when viewed,`in.connection X
... projects; the:effects of.
with the effects of;the past
4 .�
othaFqwerit.projects,sahd thezeffects of:orobable
future Projects!
The impacts identified in this initial study are in general specific to this project and would not be categorized
as cumulatively significant. However, the incremental effects of air quality deterioration and additional
vehicle traffic are impacts which are individually limited, but considerable when viewed in conjunction with
the effects of other past, current and future projects.
A): Does=the project-havei;emnronmentiii.dffects:uvhich will:
cause substantial_adverse;effe.is on:.human.beings, X
either dtrecNy or.:in directly7.,
...
With incorporation of mitigation measures, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on
humans.
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysts may be:;,used zwhete, pursuantA the tiering, program EIR, or other CEOA process, :one ;or.
more.effects hays beenWadequatelji analyzed an an.earner EIR or:Negative Declaration. .Section;15063 013
M. In-.thin:case a:discussion.should identify the4ollowing:items: '
a);:..Earlier:anafysis-use_d :Identify-earlier;analyses and!state,wherethey are:available for review.
None.
), Irtpacts;adequetely addressed. Ide which:effects.from the above checklist were.within:the scope
P.
of`and rade uatel `ana
q y ed to an.>earlier .document pursuanr;.to applicable legal rstandards-,: and stat,
whethersuch effects were:addressed.by mitigatiommeasures based on the.earlier analysis.
None.
c) Mitigation measuresFor-effects that are 'Less than-Significant with Mitigation.lncdrporated;'.describe
the:rrritigation'measures which were_mcorporated.or:refined from the earlier document and the extent t
which=tttey:address�ite�specific conditions'df:.the roact:` : - _
Not applicable.
.Authoiity Public Resources'Code°Sections 2-1083.and.21087. . .
Reference:l'ublic;..Resources-Code Sections..21.0800, 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083,-21083.3;
21.093;x321094,`21-1:5:1.;.SoOds&om v..Couniy:ef:Mendocino,;202:Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988);Leonofff V..
Monterey'Board of Sgoen*ors'. 222 Cala App. 3d 1337 (199.0).
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations and map, dated 2-21-97.
2. General Plan Land Use Element text and map, city of San Luis Obispo, updated August 1994, and
including subsequent amendments.
3. City of SLO Land Use Inventory and Geographic Information System, current database.
4. APCD's 'CEQA Air Quality Handbook', August 1995.
5. Memo from Jim Hanson of Public Works dated 1-5-99.
S. City of SLO Bicycle Transportation Plan, October 27, 1993.
14 2-85
Issues and Supporting Informat,.., Sources Sousa Pots.. .y pountiaur L=Than No
signirma sipoifieant signi8eart impact
ER 132-98 LUM men IMP=
Page.15 Mifiged�
7. County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan for SLO County Airport, December 1973.
S. Memo from Ted Bench, County Airport Land Use Commission, dated 8-19-98.
9. City of SLO Informational Map Atlas, Sheet 8.
10. Memorandum from Jerry Kenny dated 9-17-98.
11. City of San Luis Obispo Safety Element, August 1978.
12. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, May 1996.
13. City of SLO Water Allocation Regulations, June 1995.
14. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element, Brown, Vence & Associates,
July 1994.
15. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, October 1995.
19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONMORING PROGRAM
1. Mitigation Measure: The project shall include:
• bicycle parking and locker facilities for employee use;
• outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees to stay on site
during the lunch hour; and
• extensive tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative
emissions from automobiles.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
detailed plans submitted for use permit, architectural review and building
permit primarily by the Public Works and Community Development
Department staffs.
2. Mitigation Measure: Prior to final approval or implementation of the rezone, the property owner
shall grant an avigation easement to the City of San Luis Obispo via an
avigation easement document prepared by the City over the project site
that is recorded with the County Clerk. Furthermore, all subsequent
discretionary and subdivision permits on the project site shall also be
required to record avigation easements.
Monitoring Program: An avigation easement shall be recorded with the San LuisObispo County
Clerk/Recorder's Office. Evidence of its filing shall be provided to planning
staff prior to issuance of a building permit for the project.
3. Mitigation Measure: Where feasible,existing mature trees shall be retained and incorporated into
the project landscaping plan. Where proposed plans do not allow for the
retention of existing trees,the applicant shall incorporate new trees into the
landscaping plan to compensate for trees removed to the approval of the
Architectural Review Commission(ARC). All existing trees that are located
over the sewer main easement shall be removed and replaced with new trees
at more appropriate locations,to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer,
City Arborist and Director of Public Works, and as shown on the project
landscaping plan to be reviewed and approved by the ARC.
Monitoring Program: The Architectural Review Commission will ultimately approve the project
landscaping plan. Community Development Department staff will: review
building permit plans to insure consistency with ARC approvals; and
provide field inspections to confirm that installation complies with plans.
4. Mitigation Measure: Future site development shall incorporate the following as feasible:
` Skylights to maximize natural day lighting.
° Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
• Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
15 2-86
Issues and Supporting Informat,.,., Sources sources Porn. ry Pokn ialry Less Theo No
sw fw= siaifiewn swfieant Impact
ER 132-98 ISSM Unless hnPM
Page 16 In BOO
porged
plans submitted for a building permit by the Community Development
Department staff.
5. Mitigation Measure: The new building shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site
recycling. The construction project shall include a solid waste recycling
plan for recycling discarded materials, such as concrete, sheetrock, wood,
and metals, from the construction site. The plan must be submitted for
approval by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator or the Community
Development Director, prior to building permit issuance.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
detailed plans submitted for architectural review and building permit
primarily by the Community Development Department staff.
6. Mitigation Measure: An Archaeological Resources Inventory (ARI) shall be completed prior to
final architectural approval of the project (Phase I report). If excavations
encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources or
cultural materials, then construction activities which may affect them shall
cease until the extent of the resource is determined and appropriate
protective measures are approved by the Community Development
Director. The Community Development Director shall be notified of the
extent and location of discovered materials so that they may be recorded
by a qualified archaeologist.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
plans submitted for final architectural review and a building permit by the
Community Development Department staff, and subsequent inspections.
7. Mitgation Measure: If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native
American monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to
document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with
state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be
included on the grading and construction plans for the project.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
plans submitted for a building permit by the Community Development
Department staff.
16 2-87
UI�AGENDA
uNTE y ITEM #
NCIL CDD DIR
❑ FIN DIR
April 2, 1999 CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
Q�9RNEY ❑ PVd DIR
Mayor Allen Settle ERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
John Ewan if QMT TE EY p UT
L DIR
Jan Howell Marx ❑ D PERS DI
Dave Romero
Ken Schwartz
Re: Proposed PD for 1248 Laurel Lane—ATOLL Holdings
Dear Mayor Settle and City Council,
This letter is not written as a member of the Planning Commission, but as a citizen. This
is not to second-guess the Planning Commission decision.
The building at 1248 Laurel Lane contains approximately 150,000 sq. ft. I am concerned
that any conversion of an industrial facility this size into offices may have detrimental
effects on the City of San Luis Obispo. This project will provide as much as 120,000 sq.
ft. of offices. To put this in context, this is over twice the size of the County Social
Services building located on the comer of Higuera and Prado Road, four times as large
as the Dalidet building located in the 1100 block of Pacific Street, approximately five
times the size of the General Telephone facility at the comer of Osos and Mill Streets,
and almost as large as the entire Strasbaugh manufacturing facility on Buckley Road. It
will be the largest office project in the history of the City of San Luis Obispo.
The decision to convert the building to office use may or may not be best for the City of
San Luis Obispo. On one hand, it may be detrimental in that a substantial number of
businesses may relocate from the downtown area because of the ability to obtain
cheaper rent On the other hand, it may be a benefit to the City in its effort to attract
high-tech oriented businesses.
At this time no-one knows the real impact and, most importantly, there has been no
concrete evidence presented.
It is requested that City Council acquire additional information, and consider appointing a
committee of knowledgeable individuals, (i.e. the Inclusionary Housing Committee)to
determine if the conversion of this building, from an Industrial to an office facility, is a
sound decision for the community.
Thanks for your consideration.
Charles L. S� l
1
RECEIVED
APR ` 2 1999
SLO CITY COUNCIL