HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/08/1994, 2 - TA 108-93: AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING REGULATIONS TO SIMPLIFY PROCESSING, ADD AND CHANGE DEFINITIONS, CLARIFY WORDING AND FORMAT, AND MARK MINOR CHANGES TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. �I�M��pll�llllllllll=IIIUII� MEETING PATE,,
cityo1" san suis oBispo
WRIZO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: /f
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Develo ment Director
BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: TA 108-93: Amendment to the Zoning Regulations to simplify processing, add
and change definitions, clarify wording and format, and make minor changes to
development standards.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Pass to print an ordinance adopting a negative declaration of environmental impact, and
modifying the Zoning Regulations, as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Report-in-brief
The Hughes, Heiss & Associates reorganization study (1992), commissioned by the City
Council, recommended that some changes be made to Table 9 of the Zoning Regulations, to
streamline processing of.permits for some uses. In addition, planning staff identified other
changes to the table and to other parts of the regulations to clarify and update the uses allowed,
and to change cumbersome procedures.
This phase (the second of four) of amendments modifies and adds definitions, clarifies wording
and simplifies processing, and includes a few changes to standards. Six changes are highlighted:
* Neighborhood grocery markets would be allowed in three residential and four
commercial zones, instead of one residential and two commercial. Standards would be
relaxed, to encourage their development.
* Slope calculations would be simplified, to provide an easier, more equitable way to
determine density on sloping lots or lots with creeks.
* Fence hei ht exceptions would be reviewed by the Director, rather than at a hearing
(although a hearing could still be required at times).
* Parking requirements would be allowed to be reduced for more mixed-use situations than
presently, and space requirements would be lowered for low-income housing projects.
* S-zone pEQ'ects would be reviewed at Administrative Hearings, rather than Planning
Commission.
* The Architectural Review Commission would be able to act on minor exceptions to
property development standards.
The amendments should allow projects that conform with City goals and policies to proceed with
minimum delays, yet would still provide opportunities for review and public comment, consistent
with City policies on public access.
CA
����H�� ►�IIIIIp�Ii11111l city of San Luis OBISp0
4
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Backgound
The total package of zoning regulations amendments is extensive, and difficult to absorb at one
time. Therefore, it has been broken down into four groups. The first group, which contained
only changes to Table 9, was approved by the City Council on June 1, 1993.
The Planning Commission reviewed the phase II changes on January 26, 1994, made some
changes, and recommends approval of the amendments as revised.
Data Summary
Address: Citywide
Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department
Zoning: Changes affect all zones.
General Plan: All designations are affected.
Environmental status: The Director granted a negative declaration of environmental
impact on October 15, 1993
Project action deadline: There are no State-mandated deadlines for legislative actions.
Project Description
The project is the amendment of the City's Zoning Regulations. Changes include:
Changes in process
* from Planning Commission to Administrative use permit Projects within the "Special
considerations" (S)overlay zones would require approval of an administrative use permit,
rather than a Planning Commission use permit
* from Administrative use permit to Director ap rov Several uses now require approval
of an administrative use permit. The proposal would allow a few of these uses to be
approved by the Community Development Director, by letter. Affects:
day care homes and centers
temporary uses, such as fruit stands
fence height exceptions
In each case, there is some form of notification to neighbors: either by letter or a posted
sign on the property. If there are concerns raised with the request, either by neighbors
or by the Director, then a public hearing may be scheduled.
�r
i��H����l►�IINI�pp I��U City O� San LUIS OBISPO
GMGo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TA 108-93
Page 3
* to eliminate Administrative use permit requirement: The requirement for approval of an
Administrative use permit for development of a non-conforming lot has been eliminated.
* to allow the Architectural Review Commission to act on some minor exceptions: Where
a project requires both an administrative use permit for relaxation of property
development standards, and review by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), the
ARC will be able to act on both requests.
New definitions
* Definitions for the following have been added or changed: boardinghouse or rooming
house, convenience store, day care, dormitory, guest house, hostel, neighborhood
grocery market, professional organization, residential care facility. Modifications have
been made to definitions of day care uses, which are within the use regulations section.
Clarification
* Wording has been changed to clarify sections that have appeared to be ambiguous in the
past, and to codify common interpretations. Word changes do not change the
regulations, but only clarify. Affects:
- home occupations
- density allowed on nonconforming lot
- satellite dish antennas
- yard standards
- group housing occupancy limits
- day care uses (expanded to include adult day care)
Additional references have been added to the list of other regulations that may apply to
development (section 17.16.005).
The Fire protection section within the performance standards section is proposed to be
eliminated. A duplicate paragraph (paragraph E in section 17.62.010) is to be
eliminated.
The day care section has been rearranged, and the parking section divided into more
paragraphs. The sections on temporary and intermittent uses have been reorganized for
consistency.
a?-3
�un��►►�Illll��ln ����l city of San lues OBIspo
Nis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TIt 108-93
Paqe 4
Minor changes to standards
* Some minor changes are proposed:
day care parking requirement changed
- method for calculating the average cross-slope of sites has been modified
- reduction in the parking requirement is proposed for shared parking lots and for
low-income housing projects
- use permit time limit established, for uses that cease operation
- a parking requirement for hostels has been added
- requirements to accommodate recycling containers and to design for energy
efficiency have been added
- neighborhood grocery stores would be allowed in.more zones, with approval of
an administrative use permit. Some of the restrictive standards governing
placement of these stores would be eliminated.
The enclosed annotated version of the amendments explains each of the changes briefly, just
ahead of the affected sections.
EVALUATION
The following paragraphs explain some of the more significant changes in greater detail than the
annotations. Discussion by the Planning Commission is indicated by italics:
1. Neighborhood grocery markets. The changes to the regulations would loosen up the
requirements for neighborhood markets, by eliminating significant obstructions to their
establishment. The changes are meant to provide opportunities for development of more
small neighborhood markets throughout the city. Changes can be found in sections
17.04.273 (definition), 17.08.095 (uses allowed in several zones - includes standards),
and 17.30 (R-4 standards).
The current regulations allow neighborhood grocery markets, which are limited to 2,000
square feet in area and may not sell alcoholic beverages, in three zones: High-density
residential (R-4), Central Commercial (C-C) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-N). In
the R-4 zone, a neighborhood grocery market must be "an accessory use in a residential
development which is under one ownership and contains a minimum of forty individual
dwelling units." Several standards must be met by all neighborhood markets.
o�
���h���NI�IIIII�IIPNu�u�i��l► city of san Lias OBIspo
WNS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 5
The current regulations effectively restrict market uses so that it is unlikely that any
markets could be established in the R-4 zone, beyond the existing one at Mustang
Village.
The proposed changes would allow for establishment of neighborhood markets, up to
3,000 square feet in area, in the three higher-density zones (R-2, R-3, and R-4), as well
as in the Office (0) and Tourist Commercial (C-T) zones, with approval of an
administrative use permit. These markets would be allowed by right in the C-N and C-C
zones, as they are now. The requirement, that markets be allowed only in developments
of 40 or more dwellings, would be eliminated. Most of the existing standards would be
retained. These standards, including the prohibition of alcohol sales in residential zones,
and the need for a use permit, would assure that convenience stores, such as Circle K
or 7-11 markets, would not be located in residential areas.
These changes would allow development of small markets within neighborhoods, rather
than just within high-density apartment complexes. If such markets were to be
developed, they could serve the minor needs of residents within walking or bicycling
distance, thus cutting down on automobile traffic and pollution, and providing greater
convenience to the neighborhood. Standards should assure.that the markets do not create
compatibility problems.
The Planning Commission generally felt that establishment of neighborhood markets
in residential areas is consistent with concepts of "neo-traditional town planning"and
would serve a need. Individual Commissioners, who supported the concept, commented
that the prohibition of alcohol sales in residential zones would likely discourage people
from establishing these markets, however. The Commission deleted the requirement
for a "good neighbor plan", saying that if such a plan is warranted it can always be
required through the use permit process. Otherwise it would be an additional burden,
One Commissioner, opposed to the change, was concerned that mixing such uses in
residential areas could lead to compatibility problems.
2. Density on sloping lots. The regulations now require a reduction in allowed density as
the "average cross-slope" of the site increases. Changes have been made to two aspects
of how the average cross-slope is calculated: 1) The way the regulations are currently
written has led to some confusion over what is the "natural" topography of the site. The
proposed changes would base calculations on "existing" topography, or that which will
exist after standard public improvements (streets and sidewalks) are constructed. 2) The
standard method for determining the average cross-slope creates widely differing slopes
for lots with creeks, depending on how deep the creek is. Rather than include the slope
of creek banks in the calculations, it is easier and more fair to exclude the creek area
altogether, and base calculations on the remainder of the site.
Planning Commission discussion focussed on I) how density would be calculated on
new subdivisions (where grading is a part of the design); and 2) the effect of excluding
the creek area on essentially flat lots.
�iuM�►�II�II�I��IID IIIII�III City of San LUIS OBISpo
nii-s- COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TA 108-93
Page 6
To respond to the first concern, the language was amended to say "approved on-site
grading". As to the second issue, some Commissioners felt that excluding the creek
area from lot area calculations would penalize property owners. The Commission
consensus (5-2), though, .was that such changes would make calculations easier and
made logical sense.
3. Fence height exceptions. Currently, all fence height exceptions have to go to an
administrative hearing, no matter how small. The majority of these exceptions are
reasonable and are approved, with no objections from neighbors. To shorten the staff
time spent on these minor exceptions, and correspondingly, to reduce the cost to the
applicant, staff is recommending that fenceheights be approved in a manner similar to
home occupation permits. A sign would be posted at the site, and after five days the
exception may be approved by letter. If objections to the exception are received within
that time, the request may be scheduled for a public hearing.
One Commissioner, voicing a philosophical opposition to fencing in general, objected
to making exceptions easier to get. The remainder of the Commission supported the
change.
.4. Parking requirements. The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) encourages limiting
the number of parldng spaces provided for commercial uses, to encourage employers and
customers to share rides and use other means of transportation. The recommended
changes to the required parldng section would reduce the number of parldng spaces
available for certain uses.
Currently, a mixed-use parking reduction may be granted (by administrative use permit),
when more than one use shares available parking, when the peak hours of the various
uses do not coincide. Up to a maximum reduction of 20% may be granted.
The changes propose a new category: "shared parking". Up to a 10% reduction could
be granted if more than one use shares parking, whether or not the peak hours coincide.
If the different uses do have different peak hours, then up to a 30% reduction may be
granted. Therefore, the changes would allow mixed uses up to a 10% greater reduction
than is currently possible.
Other changes:
* Housing occupied exclusively by very-low to moderate-income persons, as
defined by the State, may provide only one automobile and one bicycle space.
* On-site parldng for day care uses (in addition to parldng,for the residence) will
not always be required, if adequate on-street parking exists for dropping off and
picking up of clients.
* A parking requirement for hostels has been added. In the previous phase of
zoning regulations amendments, "hostels" were added to the "uses allowed" table,
"111
city of sari OBISPO
REPORT
MonAmCOUNCIL AGENDA E ORT
TA 108-93
Page 7
because the City Council felt this use is different from motels and hotels, and
wanted to encourage the establishment of compatible hostels in higher-density (R-
3 and R-4) residential areas. According to members of American Youth Hostels
(AYH), 60% of hostel guests typically arrive by public transportation or bicycles.
Forty percent arrive in cars, with an average of three persons per car. On
average, then, every ten guests would require one to two parking spaces. The
proposed parking requirement reflects the upper limit(two spaces per ten persons,
in addition to managers' spaces).
Some Planning Commissioners felt most developers will provide as little parking as
possible, but the Commission supported the possible reductions. An additional
proposed amendment, to include a statement that a use permit could set a maximum,
as well as minimum, limit on the number of spaces, met with opposition and was
narrowly defeated.
5. The S-zone. Currently, all development within the Special Consideration (S) overlay
zone requires approval of a Planning Commission use permit. This review requirement
has resulted in many minor projects being sent to the PC, with all the time and expense
that involves. The proposed changes would instead require an administrative use permit
for new uses in S zones. Of course, the Administrative Hearing Officer will still be able
to refer any items to the Planning Commission that seem beyond the scope of an
administrative hearing. This change will help streamline the City's permit process,
consistent with recommendations contained in the Hughes, Heiss and Associates
reorganization study.
The Planning Commission supported this change with little discussion. One
Commissioner asked that staff return with a report after one year, summarising actions
within S-zones.
6. Use permit action by ARC. Development projects often require minor property
development exceptions (such as reduced yards) as well as architectural review. The
Hearing Officer tries to coordinate his actions with those of the ARC, sometimes by
asking for the ARC's recommendation on exceptions. The ARC considers all aspects of
physical development, including the size of yards and the height of buildings, because
these elements affect the design and compatibility of buildings. It seems logical,
therefore, for the ARC to have the ability to act on property development exceptions as
part of its action on a project as a whole. The proposed changes allow a single
application (for architectural review) to be filed when minor exceptions are requested as
well. .This change would be similar to the regulations allowing only a PC use permit
application to be filed when both PC and administrative use permits are required, and
also similar to the City Council's ability to authorize exceptions as part of a subdivision
request. The consolidation of review processes is also in keeping with recommendations
of the City's Economic Strategy Task Force.
Most Commissioners supported this change. One Commissioner was concerned that
if the ARC's role is expanded, that commission may eventually be acting on uses,
��un�►�►il�lllll��P�m����l�ll city of San LuiS OBISpo
a
MIZa COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TA 108-93
Page 8
which are not within its purview. The proposed amendments would allow action only
on exceptions to property development standards.
FISCAL BIPACT
Most of the recommended changes would have the effect of reducing the time staff spends on
minor permits, and therefore allow present Planning staff levels to remain fairly constant, which
would have a favorable effect on the budget. The changes would also help the City provide
better service to applicants and to the citizens of our community. Many minor permits will be
processed in less time and for lower fees, and activities will be permitted (or permitted with
fewer restrictions) in areas where they will benefit citizens (neighborhood markets, day care
homes).
In years of high activity, the effect on the budget could be significant: In 1987 and 1988, when
permit levels were high, fence height exceptions averaged 17 per year, and S-zone applications
9 per year. An average of 43 use permits for yard exceptions were processed in each of these
two years, .many of which were associated with architectural review. According to time
estimates in the Hughes-Heiss report, this number of applications represents about 840 hours,
or 21 person-weeks per year. The proposed changes are estimated to reduce the amount-of time
spent on similar applications by about two-thirds, primarily because of the reduction of time
associated with preparing for Planning Commission or Administrative hearings.
Current permit levels are low. This situation allows staff to spend more time on longer-range
and more difficult projects.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may approve the amendments with revisions to wording.
The Council may deny some or all of the amendments.
The Council may continue discussion. Direction should be given to staff.
Attached:
Draft ordinance (includes legislative draft)
Planning Commission minutes - January 26, 1994
ORDINANCE NO. (1994 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS TEXT
TO SIMPLIFY PROCESSING, ADD AND CHANGE DEFINITIONS, CLARIFY
WORDING AND FORMAT, AND MAKE MINOR CHANGES
TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(TA 108-93)
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a hearing to consider
the zoning text amendment request TA 108-93 , amending various
sections of the Zoning Regulations as shown on Exhibit A, attached;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings;
Findings:
1. The proposed amendments conform to the general plan.
2 . An initial study of environmental impacts was prepared by the
Community Development Department on August 23 , 1993 , that
describes environmental impacts associated with the text
changes. The Community Development Director has reviewed the
environmental initial study and granted a Negative Declaration
of environmental impact. The initial study concludes that the
project will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment, and the City Council hereby adopts the Negative
Declaration and finds that it reflects the independent
judgement of the City Council.
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 of environmental impact adequately addresses the
potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed zoning
text change, and reflects the independent judgement of the City
Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2 . The zoning text amendment TA 108-93 , as shown
on Exhibit A, attached, is hereby approved.
SECTION 3 . A summary of this ordinance, together with
the names of councilmembers voting for and against, shall be
published once, at least (3) days prior to its final passage, in
Ordinance no. (1994 Series)
TA 108-93 : Citywide
Page 2
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
1994, on motion of , seconded
by and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
*AAt one
a-af)
P.C- Vev-si oh
Zoning Regulations Amendments
Phase II
The annotated version
Legend:
:.WMig is used to indicate words to be added.
Sw;ke-eek letters are used to indicate words to be deleted.
=== indicates "end of section".
... means the paragraph continues, but has not been reproduced here.
Annotations: Explanations of changes are indicated by text, WRITTEN IN SMALL CAPITALS,
bounded by straight horizontal lines.
THE DEFmmoNS: THE BOARDINGHOUSE AND ROOMINGHOUSE DEFINITION REFLECTS CHANGES
IN THE USE ITSELF: MEALS ARE NOT ALWAYS PROVIDED, AND OTHER SERVICES MAY BE.
THE RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY DEFINITION HAS BEEN UPDATED TO REFLECT CHANGES IN
STATE LAW.
THE DEFINITION FOR NEIGHBORHOOD GROCERY MARKET HAS BEEN MODIFIED AND MOVED FROM
THE R-4 SECTION (SECTION 17.30) So THAT IT CAN BE FOUND MORE EASILY, AND BECAUSE
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS INCLUDE ALLOWING SUCH MARKETS IN OTHER ZONES. THE
DEFINITION FOR DAYCARE FACnXnES HAS BEEN MOVED FROM SECTION 17.08 (AND MODIFIED
SLIGHTLY).
FIVE NEW DEFINITIONS ARE PROVIDED. SOME ARE NEEDED TO ASSIST IN ENFORCEMENT (GUEST
HOUSE). OTHERS DEFINE USES ADDED TO THE REGULATIONS (CONVENIENCE STORE, HOSTEL).
A DEFINITION FOR A "PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION" WAS NEEDED BECAUSE THE USE IS LISTED
IN TABLE 9, AND ITS MEANING WAS UNCLEAR TO THE PUBLIC. THE DEFINITION OF
"DORMITORY" WAS ADDED TO DISTINGUISH IT FROM OTHER USES.
�h c b1 f}-
C !�� is rcL41'vf. dr-c- ' '
02 W
Zoning regulations
Phase H amendments
Page 2
17.04 DEFINITIONS
17.Q4:0 ...:.....Boar Ouse'..or roattun house.
...........................:....::..................................................,......:;:.;:: :
..d nmt paG tlerf, : wTtci ; for.trmpensat�c�n, lodgntg as;pravide
toso
>`
. . «:v:;> 0.O :.:...:.encs:::..Aire»„„
n':..::.iiiiii:i.�i:.+i:miii::.ii:%:Y'.:niin:.i;i::.:�:iii:..:n+i:�:p'::':!�:;i'^iiii%ii:':.i:%U!:::�:pili:Yi::p::i:l::.}:iso::::::::i':�:Yi•.v:`!i:"::.:":::i'.:`.i:!::i:::::i":.:i":;ii
mall rel grc�ey ani snack sure altar cat+ rs pr�maily to::the atttomob�le<
..
OWN.♦A'.ice�i1Fs:.:.i ..... ....
1T »
I.7a0.4.00gay Catrer See aTsn °Re.$tdeat�ai care fdcililty
4- d Islay care facility" means a facility which provides nonmedical
care am# ur xrtsoti to children under 18 years of age atZdIults 1$years of
m.................n{.:...:4.. ......
`od ``vv ;fie in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance
............................::................:.........:...
essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection of the
individual on less than a 24-hour basis. " ”
2- M "Family day care home" means a home which regularly provides
nonmedical care, protection, supervision, and/or instruction of 14 or fewer
children, in the providers own home, for periods of less than 24 hours per day,
while the parents or guardians are away, and includes the following:
a- "Small family day care home" means a home which provides family day
care to sib $! or fewer children including children under the age of 10 who
reside at the home.
C21-/A
Zoning regulations
Phase H amendments
Page 3
b,.- "Large family day care home" means a home which provides family day
care..to 9 to 10s; children, inclusive, including children under the age of 10 who
reside in the home.
4
.. ................... ..........
.......... ....................... 6F 0",
Umi,
............ R. ..........
..........
.............
Pi M
an
taody or religious order:�:�ass:i
......... "....... ...
..........
n 4M
n ly..ert.t di.n ...... ......
...... :S.C. qO. .i:co.nv.e C onasFU ....Qr.
. ....... ..
............h.........
I A
17.0M 4 .........G"
-XI.
AR
........................................................................... ......
100. dd that b t .1. who
.XWAWC��....921 Wii.............i�VUOMTP....
.........................................
. .. ...................... ......... .
mufti
or offier 0 OUVON6 . us:
..e ic e
............ RM: -
.. ....... ................V.XXNXNX-.e:.X�..
i0w;0_4.3.73 Neighborhood grocery market.
...............
A retail grocery store with a gross floor area of 24, )W 3=0 square feet or less,
and ineluded as an meessery use in a resid ient whieh is under on
ewner-ship and eentains a fniRim.ufn (40) indi-vidual dwelling units.
NeighbedteW ma&ets sheA W a full range of food products
............................. 9 ani...
ineluding Fneal, deify, Yegetabies, fmi'
apdct
non aleehelie bevemges, and-sheR eafe,r- iprimanly to customers who
arrive by foot, bicycle, or other non-motorized vehicle transportation.
... ............ ............. ...... ..........
IV... ..... .....ft..........
niza .0 Th
n
. ............
.......... ... belong... ...
............. ............ ...
Au assoctatton ........ .619 6.0-to I
membersiM C
. ....... MOJ... . . ......................... ...
wine church, political paty, labor union,
fraternalor:mmh�
9T 14F
..... .. ..........................
Zoning regulations
Phase II amendments
Page 4
]'T► 4Q es de ti l<ca faai t";X
din Stag-3��ens+ €.#an�ziy homy or grc p ire lae�izt, 1W,hich prund for �4=
l�til�'�rlinecli�: �� a dentlal setting fay adults �x children t� need of
� stwtvicc�, I�s�ll��, SU�i'V�pn, t�assistance+essential �t suSt�ulug
e a;ctzi�It�es,o�da �.�vxri�,..o�r far.�he,� tecaon a�tl�e�ndtvrdua�.
n n
f
eeftifiedChapter 17.08
USES ALLOWED IN SEVERAL ZONES
SECTIONS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED AND RENUMBERED. SIMILAR USES ARE GROUPED UNDER
THE SAME HEADING TO MAKE THEM EASIER TO FIND.
17."�P20 lkfineral emtroetien.
17 08.030 Serwiee sWiensv
17.08.040 Home .
17.08.046 Day Gore Homes and Genters
17.08.050 Publie atilkies.
1!7.08.060 ft
17.08.070 Gemeteries and .
17.08.080 Vending maebines.
17.09.100 Genen"ent sales AMC—MA-*-A-F- hue! and aleebelie beverages
1:7.08.110 Homeless sheltem
!;E.08.120 Bleetromie game amusement eente
Smi
(3I`{ises<(�2t3stU36ns:
Zoning regulations
Phase II amendments
Page 5
7(}f3 O4Qneurre�n sales of ;;motor fuel and alxrholte beverages:;
�7,p8.U5€�lrend�ti� fifties
I t169 rtxtie game atn tseMat ee�nters;
. ..
aca»
TEMPORARY USES: MINOR WORD CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO CLARIFY THE INTENT OF THE
SECTION. THE DEFINITION OF INTERMITTENT USES HAS BEEN EXPANDED TO INCLUDE USES THAT
OCCUR UP TO 9O DAYS IN A YEAR, AND UP TO SEVEN DAYS IN A ROW. THE REVIEW PROCESS
HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT TO DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL FOR: 1)
REAL ESTATE OFFICES IN A TRACT; AND 2) CERTAIN LIMITED OUTDOOR SALES (SEASONAL
PRODUCTS).
17.08.010 Temporary i 'h" Uses.
:.,.:«,:�.:.M. .::.,..ww........:......
A. Purpose and Intent. The provisions codified in this chapter provide for certain temporary
01tertCLrit uses ' It establishes
standards and procedures to assure that such uses are compatible with their surroundings and the
intent of these regulations.
In o�v a te�� c►t~�t�itent ttsex the Director tna�esta�i'sslt re�utrements related
�� �t�t stat timi�.ted �o,,day's acid lioaz� ��,ap�ra;tton? rktllg tempazazy �t�tctures� and sztg
p�g; �acldatian ta;peafo�aYlre standards:specified below Thi I�uectpF shall z#eterrntrie
ilte eatertk m whaclx any:pent;on site,,pang anci :other,.�acthtses unay;satas�Fy the
uicni� foF 'thy i�se:�
'> teuk gray ife any P empar�y i
telto naclnstatrmtenue ve heanM..g
) w` eftts A temporary use is one which is established at a particular location for less than
one year. An intermittent use is one which occurs no more than 69 .0 days in a year and-feF
but which may continue from year-to-year.
Zoning regulations
Phase H amendments
Page 6
13- € Real Estate Sales Office in Tract.
4-.A temporary real estate sales office may be established in a residential development for the
initial sale of property in that development, upon
V.
Such an office may be located within a residence or a
common or temporary building. If a temporary building is used, it shall be removed upon
termination of the use.
2. Sales-e€€iees-shag net lett e e ' ci%@pt tM4tipviri =k4en-8ppivv�, ecz
C— Mobile Home as Construction Office.
A mobile home may be used as a temporary office at a construction site for not more than
six months upon written approval of the Chief Building Official subject to any conditions he
deems necessary to protect health, safety, and welfare. Upon written request received prior to
expiration, the use may be continued for six-month periods, not to exceed a total of eighteen
months, by the Chief Building Official.
An administrative use permit is required to allow a mobile home as a temporary ettlisct'a
office when the mobile home is not located on the same property as the construction site. The
same time limitations as stipulated above for an on-site mobile home would apply; with
approvals for extensions of the use made by the Director. Also with the Chief Building
Official's or Director's approval, the mobile home may be occupied by a resident guard or
caretaker, provided it is properly connected to city utilities or other safe means of waste disposal
is assured.
I- 3 Mobile Home as Temporary Residence at Building Site.
G Construction Activities.
k Educational Conferences.
PARADES: THE PERMIT REQUIREMENT FOR PARADES, CARNIVALS, FAIRS, AND FESTIVALS HAS
BEEN REVISED TO REFLECT THE EXISTENCE OF A PERMIT PROCESS THROUGH THE CITY CLERK'S
OFFICE. THE REVISION ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR A PERMIT FOR EVENTS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY.
Zoning regulations
Phase II amendments
Page 7
,
PFevided:
... days-
.;
6 « aX. a±e <' rrzrQ'`> aFs' es`yv ¢
�'se of���o�ptc�ert�,foie parades, c�rnz�als, ��r�and fes�uais rectuYr�approuat a
�dt�t�l�St�ttY�use peimt� >' '►ere exerts 3nyolve p�blle pr��rEy,cxlordtnattolz vvlth �e
t.Other T-empefffyAntefmittent Uses A tempefuy use-is-e„e which zs-established at
Temperwy or ifitetwAttent retail sales shall be limited te the types ef retag se4es aRewed by th
IR appfeving--a-use permit €er--a temperary-er inteFmiReat use the a shall establish
wx.v.v.,..v:.,.....::. ;.:..v............................:.....................
�J approval o�an ad` uEszstzapve use•;�Ztn�t,' the irectox mai approve over t�mpvrary or
nta~rmlttertt uses; Inelcing but ackt lim'tEd to' nuslcal Events, BrIGtlons, esffife sales, elothing
outlet sales, non�iroft rtefzts,.�atklrtg �ot sates, and car shows.
v2 ��
Zoning regulations
Phase II amendments
Page 8
;
,
tefnpomr-y pewef peles, and ether- tefnpewy stmetures shall be kept behifid a tea feet sethae
ftem &H sweet rights ef way and they shaA NO feame-,Ixed- mhithia tea days aftef the elese ef th-e
sale:
,
flags, whir4ygigs, or- ethers affeRtieR get6ag deyiees A41 be displayed oft site.
site-
:7. Fife extinguisher-s she4l be pfevided withia:* feet ef e4l peints oft ske E-2AIGB.G). Aiiy trees
sold fer- use in publie feei4ifies shag be flame pFeefed with a state Fife Mafshal appFayed
: •::.::.....::::::::<:::;;:::.%;:� d:Qh'er:A� i: y he5 - ,, + estm;
}i.. {�Y+�a��.q,:(�}{.��[,,,yyy,,,. ii://jy.��. ..�,.....:::V:'.�::••:::i:.]'!{�:}:p:.:[,]).:::::T{Y:']:e,:.i;::'::i::::i:.i:+.•:'"::::::^:::jri.:{f.:.'.:i:].Y.:(i�.:Y'^:.:i:.]ii::�i{'!y:]�:�_i�:p]_::.i��]::::
MMiF�]�...1M. .{}V AAl1YAR i[.Y k{.�{L1 4. Ya!}N'AW{i
.::.i:.. .rv.. ..::r. `'� R
uv n
sure <:o , soli ``::>: c '>tr':; ov` er
1'�5ales shalt be lu�iitect to Visnas treB5, ucnpns,oz,seasoal produce and elated..accessary
<:<::::;].::;.;;<;;>::.:<.;; : :..........:::::::..... .........:...................::...............:..::..............:..:::....:.......:...:»:......:...............
t oniy,as speied the fetterf aVpra�ra
Sales of;Christrnas trees, not lac conducted before Th' 'i ar after f. cem .er
264.
duratrvn of
Bump Arid produce;sales sfiall be sdb�e€t to Duec[car approVa:t
-/r
Zoning regulations
Phase II amendments
Page 9
....shad be nta nta tecF<in a neat anct .'d. .d....'.: manner at ali tztt es A saps items. sales
egtumten tenignra ' ies, at£d other;testtlx+rary stractures, and signage shall be dept
d a t f setb€a" fzrint all street nghts-nl�wa d they;shl b zemaed wt€h�n ten dais
ani a c rpiutg c septa s s a l be provrded znt a conven=
Mori ;�ste�s
:.: :::.::..:.:....:..,::::..::::: ...
nsite >far:ahe:>:dttaon::nfe
rt, x£�,ept ars�::t�an,:�t?�eet baek;;,�xcs .tbe,.� zz�ht�,€LLwa�.
A sib putt shall olaedr any propasstg�dage• 1.taxmum sign area sltiaail nod
e> 32 square feet. Nn hinting strips,tanners, flags,whirligigs,or oihei attention getting
clevicxs s :b�tt�s�tlayeci off:sits,wtthQnt fl�rP�tor approval.:.:>
S Whey the use temporary or mtexitiittectt, tYie applzcani may: required to post a refundable
deposit, set by themxnunity leveicjpmerrt l3izectr�r, wtt the Community Developmen€
rtment s to°clean-up, necsssa y, l epos f sha11 be'itt the form O.K. cash..er's
�lr, sib to:made pr �tik upying the s�t�.
<.
cad, ssl lotx "are:"subject tt� ail fire.safety measures, lading location o
�ac�arshers, as`xxe��iy �e Fits Matsltal.
• r y. ;lxTM. tmas Lrrus;SO ft>T.-rase xn.pu61 facdrtzes shad be llatne pxoofed with a state Faze
. ...
Nlarshai:appmved matersat�Y;a state licensed application
App #sl1l t ai City Ixrssrness taxCat ....As of thearector's approval and
e business"tac certcfi+ te anal be posted an a conspcaous lgcatian at all Mines when the use
1Q 'tae,
w applicant sf�shre building pertrtai far xtis :ty structure requnhg a permit, assoezated
tut�h`tl 'TTu~plan s]zall shnw the prtzposed vehicular Wow,tpatter, parking layoii
d o ou of trttctJ€ar s. Pis,s ail also Bien onstrate cotrtplaaaxC ru,rth Tatl� 4 xegirixeme is
.... ...
far€ i€: Wilr'
:......k..v.::.:.::vA..:.:::...:>:<,<.:n ..>. ,w>:.>,:<..,.::<,>:<,:...,:<.;:.:::. :. .,::.>:.::.>:.:::.:;>:::.::.:>:<.:..:;::..::................::.;:;:. :::::::::::::.::::...
4 o+ogly w ill agents, fhe County lelitt; parentj;v :
stn faGibties sfafl 6�elszpvxdeci etthex card st nz aA a nearby pry to the sstsfaetaz�ri
pf the Chime 11diIding t3ffiaal
13 No sales or djsplay shall tale place �n the public rt vof way
Zoning regulations
Phase II amendments
Page 10
I4 IT t wn#teu apt o�complaints from the ublto:or Police Depara ht, the Director's
approval, tray. sdul�d f admmsttattve hep revzesv, At'the puhllo hearing, the
Heat g.. flcer. adel, deletes or rttada£y Con, o vol, or nay xer oke tl a appzova
B.' �.:putdoor sales::: :�?utclpcx-::.sal� of nonagncttltttral productsy such as .food carts;:
taar �:esp and swap.� shall:be luru�ted tQ �e ty off'xetatl sales;allowe�k art ttte locatron:s
�1011�.: ;;;.QtitdoOrF.S'al�$; :n]3y 1��11kI �i1ttP�€i13tC31#r`Oi TIf1�n�t#y tluttdp0�r`.S�I�S d0 i1Q�
l�d'e��tai ;:rtd :: Ia ;>>s�l�:>merchat:clxse:=a;ssoctated::�±zth<;a<�bt�st#tess>: - �t <: a
Cridg o i)le,st :: .;sae:.. # t 1::;: ::: rld ►.:< .:as.:::6aat� ;ve[u1 and
:....i:.l.:::.:.:}::::::i:.:::::!>.:::::::!':n,..ii:::.:!::i'.y:::.,.v..::•.ei'::!: ::.i:.:i.i':. .:::::::. .:::::..:.:::::::. ::: :. :::::. ::: .::.....:::.:..i..i::::::: :. .i::: .: :i:..:::!.i:.i:i:.:i':.::. ....i:.i:.iii::.i'.i:.i
bitxidutg t�>' iandscape; naterials also lwhapter ifs Solitars attd Peddlers and Chaptx
S 4$-Sales a tre is and iSid walks}
,
.......... ...,,:...:...:... ;. .,...,,:.,:..
" v.�::::is)::: :.:.::.i.:::is i::::.::::i:::::!.i:.i::::'.i:
. C}#Izer flutdoa�r es require appxa ai of an adotznxstratt�re rise permit,except rn ca es where
t Du for der rmrnes Planning trc rtussipn use pormtt would be snare app npnate Par.
gi setbacks. to hex stcxrage areas, safety anc aesthe'ric screertutg, and other.
d�4pests...tyt?talciurgs.sT?atl . stabxshe by Fe��nxt agPravai<
n,..........<.
HOME OCCUPATIONS: CHANGES TO THIS SECTION ARE INTENDED TO CODIFY LONG-STANDING
INTERPRETATIONS: THAT ANY BUSINESS OPERATED FROM A HOME IS A HOME OCCUPATION;
THAT AUTOMOBILE REPAIR OFF-SITE IS ACCEPTABLE AS A HOME OCCUPATION, AND THAT
COUNSELING SERVICES ON A SMALL SCALE CAN BE DONE FROM THE HOME.
17.08.040.090 Home occupation.
B. Permit Required.
1. The conduct of home occupation requires the approval of a home occupation permit by the
Director, who may establish additional conditions to further the intent of this section. A permit
is required when a person does business in his/her home 6889 ' is ter<Itt `adtress as'>a
bt€sss.aSh�esS :and:'f a phony as a beslness plxane,:? Home occupations may be conducted
x: :... v:.:..
from dwellings located in residential zones or from dwellings located in commercial zones where
dwellings are an allowed or conditionally allowed use.
D. Prohibited Uses. The following uses by their operation or nature may interfere with
residential welfare and diminish the convenience intended for commercial zones, and therefore
shall not be permitted as home occupations:
1. Automotive repair (body or mechanical), or detailing, upholstery or painting of automobiles,
heal peiferntecl the same site as:tlie home:occupatonff�Site Nark is pernuttei.
Zoning regulations
Phase II amendments
Page 11
5. Medical offices, clinics, laboratories, expWijt tltat tilt nsetltng js permitted:when no more than
,,...:.,. A:........ .... 1�..:: ! . ..
side cwt.� �or�e�x:se�s �d at obe tie;
NEIGHBORHOOD MARKETS: STANDARDS (EXCEPT FOR PARKING) FOR NEIGHBORHOOD MARKETS
HAVE BEEN MOVED TO THIS SECTION FROM THE R-4 SECTION (17.30.030). THE MODIFIED
DEFINTTION WAS MOVED TO THE "DEFINITIONS" SECTION (17.04.273). THE PARKING
REQUIREMENT REMAINS IN THE "PARKING REQUIREMENTS" TABLE (TABLE 6).
17.08.095 Neighborhood grocery markets.
17.30.040 Development Standards for neighborhood greeery marke
Vit. latent. siantlarcls rn this xecttoa arc mtetrd+�t1 to assort:that ne�ghbtarhoocl mallets will
srxvt+�ersous�vb�>rve�w�;dt to neaxb� ne�ghborlto�ds, atfd who ill nor�aljy riot need ori
autc►mo��ttt get to the:marker•; �e standards should;ensure thax such markets offer;adequate
ftx►�l ani supplies attrael customers wha� 'wouldtherwxse drive to a large supermart�et'
l.xmitS oh hvurs:and alcohol sees and tither pr�vrsyoas wril'prevent such store$ from:becoming
a nutsanee w the net iorltnnd� .
B. Standards. The following standards shall apply to all neighborhood grocery markets.
Maximum Size. Gross floor area shall not exceed 2-,QW 3000 square feet per business.
Floor area for y accessory residential use shall not be counted toward the allowed market floor
area.
B- Height, Setback, Et Lot Coverages-and Density. Neighborhood grocery markets shall
comply with the height, setback, and coverage requirements for the residerttial tM.X.er zone
w ,.::.,,.x:.,....,:.:....:.......M,:,... ..,,.:..,w:. v.v.,..;.;..:
r .::.:.:. .....:....:... . .. ..:tesnien ..................ply M for
til zones tip standards
Ulating density under- Seetien 17.16.010.
E Loading and Deliveries. One curbside or off-street loading space shall be provided per
business. Loading and deliveries is permitted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 9 p.m.
�02�
Zoning regulations
Phase H amendments
Page 12
D-. Hours of Operation. Neighborhood grocery markets shall open for business no earlier than
7:30 a.m., and shall close no later than 10 p.m.
_.._.__
1 Alcohol Sales. Neighborhood grocery markets tivesdetazs shall be prohibited
.
from selling alcoholic beverages of any kind.
f1 Performance Standards. Neighborhood grocery markets shall comply with Performance
Standards, Chapter 17.18 of the Zoning Regulations. In addition, all exterior trash enclosures,
outdoor storage, heating or cooling equipment, refrigerators, and similar equipment shall be
visually screened, and located and/or designed to avoid noise, odor, glare, or vibration impacts
to neighboring properties.
Fr. Architectural Review. Neighborhood grocery markets shall be compatible with neighboring
structures in terms of scale, massing, architectural style or character, colors and materials,
access, exterior lighting and landscaping. Exterior changes shall require architectural review,
as provided in Chapter 2.48 of the Municipal Code.
neighboMeed gr-eeeFy Fauke! shall submit a Geed Neighber-Plan with thei
,
steps te be fakefl te address eemmen neighbor- eeneems, and Femedies fer- neighber- or- City in
the eyent ef fien eemplianee With use perntif eenditiens er- the Good Neighber- Plan. The pi—en
,
I .ding e& least ene exterrier litter reeeptaele fie& eaeb entry, emd periedie liKer piek up
.
DAY CARE: THE FOLLOWING SECTION HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH STATE
LAW, BOTH IN LETTER AND INTENT. TO SIMPLIFY ADMINISTRATION, CHANGES MAKE NO
DISTINCTIONS IN PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN CHILD AND ADULT DAY CARE. PARKING
REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN SIMPLIFIED TO MAKE THEM EASIER TO CALCULATE IN A VARIETY
�-ate
Zoning regulations
Phase II amendments
Page 13
OF SITUATIONS. REQUIREWENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMITS, FOR HOMES WITH 14 OR
FEWER CLIENTS, HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY A REQUIREMENT FOR APPROVAL BY LETTER.
17.08.845 't)0 CHOW, t> da Day Care Homes and Genters
A. Intent. The provisions set forth in this section are intended to enable child attitl'at# ltt3�a care
........:..:..:.:::.:::::::.:.
opportunities throughout the city, to ensure that day care facilities will be compatible with
residential uses, and to comply with Seefien 1597.30, et seq. aIses of the Health
and Safety Code of the State of California.
DEFINITION OF "DAY CARE FACILITY" HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE BEGINNING OF THESE
REGULATIONS. THE SEPARATE DEFINITION FOR "DAY CARE CENTER" HAS BEEN ELIMINATED
BECAUSE THE DISTINCTION IS MORE CONFUSING THAN USEFUL.
B. Defh-Adensr
3. J 1 J
eme faeilify ether- than a small er. large &fnily d"
1 , supen,isieft,
E % Permits Required.
€e eses e€ eeningregelatien They may established in 641 1 Iles whefe dwellings
allewed:—
x y r l ' t:es,serviaag ar�e�ver eheufs site at one tame ace consxderec r..... txat
fct 'Elte porpoises cs tng regulatipn}: 1'hy dray be established rn a1I zones where
dwelli s Istw�d l`to t s rec wire
2. Large €airy-day-eare heme 'lie-epem6en of a-lafge-fi�'�ay Bare-heme requ
zema ..1..._., a....,1,:....
�,,t�1�,,..,,�������,,��1 a J J J J 6
are"�C�
2. Dap care 1`aeilities set"vmg9 to,1 c1ex<ts on site Hite;tame may be established in any
zone where dwellings are allowed, subject to performance standards listed below. These
facilities require written approval by the Community Development Director, consistent with the
following review procedures:
��3
Zoning regulations
Phase 11 amendments
Page 14
a. Neaemg P Nt t ce. Not less evu!r than 10 days prior to the Director's action to approve
or den ;:>. _.....:::..........,:..;<:::>: .;;:::;:_::::<:>< ::;
y a a1spI}Caton;:#or ay cardaty setng 9 t ► ;ciirtts deer-eaeit, mailed
notice of the proposed use shall be given to all property owners within no more than a 100-foot
radius of the exterior boundaries of the proposed i l l Ste If no
t .; equt st . hear ag . s received by the Community
Development Department within ten days from the mailing of these notices, the Director may
approve the ft@MN d&y eafe peFmit mquest upon submission of all required information
and without further notice or public hearing.
b. Public Hearing. Ne public hearing shall be required fer day eaFe pemMts tetless if
requested in writing by the applicant or any other affected person.
c. l Approval. The Director is authorized to approve da"scare fac.we a 'i ''<,51't 34
dfib'kW day eafe per�rits, subject to the appeal provisions of Chapter 17.66 of this Title. In
accordance withel ><s [ tta>`<i4 California Health and Safe Code Seet}eR
.n.:<.:....... Safety
a3(3), the Director shall approve ;tile pse a-day ee&e pe when he or she determines
that the proposed facility:
1. complies with all applicable provisions of the Fire Code regarding health and safety;
and
2. complies with property development standards contained in Chapter 17.16 of this Title
and with City sign regulations; and
3. has been issued a luge fimi4y day care hein license from the State of California,
Department of Social Services; and
4. will satisfy performance standards of this section relating to noise, traffic, ltd
Pang, and spaeing and eeneentfadeff.
THE FOLLOWING REGULATION WAS ELIMINATED BECAUSE IT IS SUPERFLUOUS. IT CONTAINS NO
INFORMATION THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE ZONING MATRIX OR ELSEWHERE IN THESE
REGULATIONS.
,42
��
Zoning regulations
Phase II amendments
Page 15
lRg qt"d&dS.
3. a �ea�`e IciCttes se mors than lfA cLerts"requirepprt�t+at of an adr�tutistraflvo t�sc
P��„ rer� oih�rwtse a�lc3wad �x prolai�ated, s�st�t wrtlr.Sectxon i7 2Z;43.0 uses
v� by aitd Sec#iiin:��.�� s�.�'e� iss. ;t'h fa���es are sulllec�#t�the pefarmance
sti '' ettiune tv ...
D. Day Gefe . (moved to Section 2 above.)
E— Performance standards for day pare£ac hes servings once thact 8 cLertis=. lige-fe y
1. Noise. The day care facility shall be subject to all applicable provisions of the Noise
Ordinance (Chapter 9.12 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code). Where the day care facility
........... .......... ..
is adjacent to housing in a residential zone, outdoor play W.A:W ties shall be prohibited prior
to 9:00 a.m.
2. Traffic. Designated delivery and pick-up areas shall not pose any traffic or safety hazards.
Operators of day care €a l t er heme_ md eent -- shall provide carpool matching services to all
clients.
3. Padang. On site parng l~trr cfers Wath $ to A cltents, tine ort stte parking space is
uirecl; rn:a t pzrlang rept red for the reSfd ti , �xeept when tate I) etnr frndi thif
adegtaa .. street pang ex}sts for ct�rapp u oif and pscicrr�g ug ciZer#ts Certs vuxth more
A&14* ellents' must be provrd�e€ two 9ps peracxhtywheri:not a home.and
`� Spee �4r eat ��* day � oh+�rtts (based. 'tl't� �aCtlity's.ltrens��, rounded t� the nearest
whole number, m ac tion t requ f+7r the res�denaal.use,
one spree-per 300
ai pmyide 2 spaees f_ the Fesidential use. . See Section 17.16.0
60 of this Title.
after.the effeedye date ef this efdifianee in a r-esidenfiEd zene, Faust be leeated a mAnimufn ef 20
feet &efa the p ete- eF ffie_ ..t..:. ting day f6ei a'e, t tM t 1
�.e �."tet.:. '�b-�iei:,mzs-esr2sis-rnetxx�o, cit�ep� ertarnase
heroes.
Zoning regulations
Phase H amendments
Page 16
.....Da... .M .
. . .....accessory
to another use
::on
on:..ra be.filed.W . W. .. accessary:i.�usas
q &01
ca �1�,
onl
IX.1.-:...............
.. ......... . . . . ................
.................r....V.I *...fewer
.. .......................
w4ab.M.' s., ................. sitW�Oiid
w O.W.
... xy M
W1 dd'b h
C d' th
-P
. ..... .. .
RR-99 F.C.9
Ift
F— Exceptions. Nothing in this section shall prohibit applicants from requesting exceptions
or variances from the strict interpretation of zoning regulations to the extent allowed by said
regulations. The Director may authorize minor exceptions to performance standards upon
finding that:
1. The modification is in accordanct< with the intent and purpose of the zoning regulations, and
consistent with City elAld 00 care policy.
lar-ge family day eafe heines and day e
G-. . Nonconforming status. All .416, t .... I...es
XX:
eentefs licensed by the State at the time of ordinance adoption shall be considered legal
nonconforming uses, consistent with Chapter 17.10 of these regulations, except that
nonconforming day care twi hafnes may not be changed to another nonconforming use.
....... .. ....
&type..............4 with Raw
(Ord. 1225, 1992)
NONCONFORMING LOTS: THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERmrr (TO ALLOW
DEVELOPMENT OF A NONCONFORMING LOT) HAS BEEN ELIMINATED FOR THE FOLLOWING
REASONS: IF ALL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CAN BE MET, THEN SUCH A PERMIT IS
UNNECESSARY. IF EXCEPTIONS ARE REQUIRED, AN EXCEPTION PROCESS IS ALREADY AVAILABLE
THAT ALLOWS REVIEW.
THE PRovism ALLOWING A DWELLING TO BE BUILT ON A NONCONFORMING LOT HAS BEEN
CHANGED TO CLARIFY THE INTENT: THAT DENSITY STANDARDS DO APPLY, EXCEPT THAT IF THE
LOT IS EXTREMELY SMALL, A MINIMUM-SIZE DWELLING CAN BE BUILT THERE.
-- Zoning regulations
Phase II amendments
Page 17
NONCONFORMING LOTS
17.12.020 Regulations.
EP.... Property development standards shall apply to nonconforming lots, except that the density
standards all no prevent
shall t pre e t construction of a single t#w+e (nt the R xan to a stngle studxt
.:.
dwelling unit i 11 #@M§q where otherwise permitted by this chapter.(see Section 17.16.010,
Density). (Ord. 1102 - 1 Ex. A(5), 1987; Ord. 1085 - 1 Ex. A (part), 1987; Ord, 1006 - 1
(part), 1984: Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code - 9202.3(B))
OTHER PwvinONS: THE REGULATIONS REFER TO OTHER CITY CODES THAT MAY AFFECT
DEVELOPMENT. THIS LISTING HAS BEEN EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THREE ADDITIONAL SECTIONS.
17.16.005 Applicability of other provisions.
A. Development of property within the city may be subject to provisions of this code not
contained in this section or chapter, including, but not limited to, the following:
1. Fire prevention code, Chapter 15.08;
2. Building regulations, Chapter 15.04;
3. Demolition and moving of buildings, Chapter 15.36;
4. Subdivision regulations, Title 16;
5. Building setback line (plan line), Chapter 17.74;
6. Street right-of-way dedication and improvement, Chapter 17.76;
7. Exedyation and grading, Chapter- 1:7.78rdg regulfigns SectFwnS.fl4ff40;
8. Architectural (Review eommission, Chapter 2.48;
9. General Plan amendment regulations, Chapter 17.80;
10. Sign regulations, Chapter 15.40;
11. Condominium development and conversion regulations, Chapter 17.82;
12. Flood damage prevention regulations, Chapter 17.84;
13. Downtown housing conversion permits, Chapter 17.86;
14. Growth management regulations, Chapter 17.88;
15. Resource deficiency, Chapter 2.44;
16. Environmental review guidelines, adopted by council Resolution 3919-1979.
7. Afardabie ioustrsgtl�res, C#�apter I7t3
�8 (fin-shore support faetir#tes, chapter, I792
DeweltrpZnt aeerts, haptr7y94
�a7
Zoning regulations
Phase H amendments
Page 18
DENSITY ON SLOPING LOTS: THE METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE "AVERAGE CROSS-SLOPE"
HAS BEEN MODIFIED IN TWO WAYS: 1) THE CALCULATIONS WILL BE BASED ON THE EXISTING
TOPOGRAPHY, RATHER THAN "NATURAL", BECAUSE IN MOST INFILL LOTS THE SLOPE IS NOT
"NATURAL", AND BECAUSE IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO BASE CALCULATIONS ON THE CONDITION
OF THE SITE AFTER REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS ARE MADE; AND 2) ON SITES WITH CREEKS A
FAIRER DETERMINATION CAN BE MADE BY SUBTRACTING THE CREEK AREA, WHICH IS ALWAYS
UNBUILDABLE, FROM THE TOTAL SITE AREA.
17.16.010 Density.
2. The following procedure shall be used to determine the maximum development allowed on
a given lot or land area:
a. Determine the Average Cross-slope of the Site. "Average cross-slope" is the ratio, expressed
as a percentage of the difference in elevation to the horizontal distance between two points on
the perimeter of the area for which slope is being determined. The line along which slope is
measure shall run essentiallyperpendicular to the contours. 'SeGros° Q""`'! lstrtttt7[t7< te
: P .::::.:::::.::::::::.::::.::::.:.:.:.::;::::::::
:.,..:.,.:: ........................................
i. Where a site does not slope uniformly, average cross-slope is to be determined by proportional
weighting of the cross-slopes of uniformly sloping subareas, as determined by the eityeegifteeF
ii. Cross-slope determinations shall be based on the t topography of the flet site
�E =tCG+cyung fOF; xrn' -Stt gtlztig nCrSsa trGb +date nht-ovay
,. e , atrc€before grading fair ar prapcsed vrtysttermuemettts
€. msscr :H: ial Vie: :aissiated liar rex si; area extrusive cry rite-cif wad and 16. areas
to at szte i ;cct b ; azs; t Portio.ath lye the:tcnp oaf bank
or
azea
iii-. i ` Slopes calculated to the nearest 0.5 percent shall be rounded up.
iy- ` No slope-rated density reduction is required in the C/OS, C-R, C-C or PF zones.
N-- n The maximum development allowed for each average cross-slope category.......
o? 0�4
Zoning regulations
Phase II amendments
Page 19
YARDS: THE DESCRIPTION OF "YARD" HAS BEEN MODIFIED BY THE ADDITION OF "LANDSCAPE
BEAUTY" TO THE REASONS FOR HAVING YARDS. A CHANGE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE SECTION
ON REDUCED STREET YARDS, TO CLARIFY WHEN A GARAGE MAY BE LOCATED LESS THAN 20'
FROM THE STREET PROPERTY LINE. THIS CHANGE CODIFIES A LONG-STANDING
INTERPRETATION.
17.16.020 Yards.
A. Definitions and Purpose.
1. A "yard" is an area along a property line within which no structures, parking spaces or
parking backup spaces may be located, except as otherwise provided in these regulations. Yards
are intended to help determine the pattern of building masses and open areas within
neighborhoods. They also provide separation between combustible materials in neighboring
buildings. Yards are further intended to help provide lads €[ €t air circulation, views
and exposure to sunlight for both natural illumination and use of solar energy.
2. Discretionary Exceptions.
a. Reduced Street Yards. Upon approval of a use permit, the director may allow street yards
of not less than ten feet, for structures andtencl0sed garlang spaces, includingarportsr
fettcrons may be apresved €got garage , when the dnueway S.:.Iortg enavgl tcx ac.cbmmodate
b
a pa�ts :c�r ttxat+dawn..t c�rer}tart��}tt«sxdewal�.
FENCES: TWO CHANGES: 1) A PROVISION HAS BEEN ADDED TO ADDRESS FENCES THAT ARE
NOT WITHIN REQUIRED YARDS. IN THESE LOCATIONS, WHERE A BUILDING COULD BE BUILT,
FENCES ARE LIMITED TO EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT, EXCEPT WHERE THEY ARE CLEARLY A PART
OF A BUILDING. IN THAT CASE, THE HEIGHT STANDARDS FOR THE ZONE APPLY. 2) EXCEPTIONS
TO THE FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS CAN BE GRANTED BY LETTER, RATHER THAN
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING, SIMILAR TO HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS.
��9
Zoning regulations
Phase H amendments
Page 20
17.16.050 Fences, walls and hedges.
Fences, walls or hedges may be placed within required yards, provided:
A70 The maximum height in any street yard shall be as shown in Figure 9;
B-. The maximum height in any other yard shall be six feet;
pfd...............
sou I"
WAmd, d ::, M
1p
..... PW ...I......
..........
..................
...... . ...............
.............M.... .
bi " h, Wllw
.......... .............. part 6......i
..... ............ ...... :.ej p.. J�
In the
...........................................
Up Mloft&
C. Where fences or walls are located on retaining walls, the height of the retaining wall shall
be considered as part of the overall height of the fence or wall;
D. The Director may grant exceptions to these standards by a"Feving an admiaistnWye us
peffnit-subject to a finding that no public purpose would be served by strict compliance with
these standards.
E A puliirc notice shall be posteo at the slte of each proposed fence height exception If anyone
.......................... e
...... ......
tion
.. . .........note . ..
. ..b....... XXX- .X
q
(Ord. 1006 - 1 (part), 1984; Ord. 941 - I (part), 1982: prior code - 9202.5(F))
PAn3NG: CHANGES IN THIS SECTION INCLUDE: 1) THE ADDITION OF "SHARED PARKING
REDUCTION", WHICH WOULD ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED WHEN
SPACES ARE SHARED BY TWO OR MORE USES, REGARDLESS OF THE OPERATING TIMES OF THE
USES. 2) EXPANSION OF "MDCED-USE" REDUCTION ALLOWANCE - UP TO A 30% REDUCTION IN
TOTAL SPACES CAN BE GRANTED, WHEN THE USES SHARING THE SPACES HAVE DIFFERENT PEAK
DEMAND PERIODS. 3) INTRODUCTION OF THE ABILITY TO SET A MAXIMUM ON THE NUMBER OF
SPACES PROVIDED, AS WELL AS A mmmum. 4) FORMAT CHANGES WERE MADE TO HELP
Zoning regulations
Phase H amendments
Page 21
READERS FIND SPECIFIC PROVISIONS MORE EASILY. 5) CHANGES WERE MADE IN PARKING
REQUIREMENTS FOR DAY CARE FACILITIES AND HOSTELS.
17.16.060 Parking space requirements
A. Intent. This section is intended to ensure provision of adequate off-street parking,
considering the demands likely to result from various uses, combinations of uses, and settings.
It is the citys intent, where possible, to consolidate parking and to minimize the area devoted
exclusively to parking and drives when typical demands may be satisfied more efficiently by
shared facilities.
5haxed parking reductron, .Where tvvo ar more uses sUare common parlati'g areas;; the tnta
iu�ber ;ui* parl�ng spaces regtured may be reduced by up to tt7%, wltl approval of an
adrn"zttisttattve use Beit Wftere slza><ec€ parking is xgeater a mora than arse parcel; affected
�R�1�3 T#tuS{A;Ffl„�RT�w2n tp� �f3YQrnE�1g t11� 5�32•�: p$F�1JL�> to �hh� saasfaeh+vn of tfe
�fTCCe
B. Mi*ed Uses eet with
will net :ate
4. 1VIsx -use N.Y. reduetlo , y approng an adnwustratkve tlsepermtt, the LlYrector may
reduce t pat...........................tgiemenfor pr ects laaring parkrutg by up tet 20 percent, ui aadtt�on to
the shared parlolg reduetlon, gr maxtum parlarsg reduction of 3Q96,upon finding that
thr " ru+ s of rtta�atim parla ,drttatid frti venous uses ill:not cautc�de:
G. joint Use. Fer- sepanife paFeels or. independendy planned prejeets, the difeeter- may, by
i a eenflief iftr t a uses a w
eFe the
Gr. I3':. Off-site Parking. The Director may, by approving an administrative use permit, allow
some or all of the required parking to be located on a site different from the use. Such off-site
parking shall be within a zone where the use is allowed or conditionally allowed, or within an
office, commercial or manufacturing zone. It shall be within three hundred feet of the use and
shall not be separated from the use by any feature which would make pedestrian access
inconvenient or hazardous. The site on which the parking is located shall be owned, leased or
otherwise controlled by the party controlling the use. (Ord. 1006 - 1 (part), 1984; Ord. 941 -
1 (part), 1982: prior code - 9202.5(G))
�3/
Zoning regulations
Phase II amendments
Page 22
F- Bicycle and Motorcycle Spaces. Each use or development which requires ten or more
spaces shall provide facilities for parking bicycles and motorcycles at the rate of one bicycle
space and one motorcycle space for each twenty car spaces. Projects which provide more
bicycle and/or motorcycle spaces than required may reduce the required car spaces at the rate
of one car space for each five motorcycle or bicycle spaces, up to a ten percent reduction.
D-. x Requirements by Type of Use.
Except as otherwise provided in these regulations, for every structure erected or enlarged and
for any land or structure devoted to a new use requiring more spaces according to the schedule
set out in this subsection, there shall be provided the indicated minimum number of off-street
parking spaces located on the site of the use.
The right to occupy and use any premises shall be contingent on maintaining the required
parking. In no case may required parking spaces for a use be rented or leased to off-site uses
or used for other purposes.
Parking in addition to these requirements may be required as a condition of use permit approval.
0 Uses Not Listed.
The Director shall determine the panting requirement for uses which are not listed. His/her
determination shall be based on similarity to listed uses, and may be appealed to the Planning
Commission.
Imo:cattlattonL
1. The parking requirement is based on the gross floor area of the entire use, unless stated
otherwise.
2. When the calculation of required parking results in a fractional number, it shall be rounded
to the next highest whole number if the fraction is one-half or more; otherwise it shall be
rounded down to the next lowest whole number.
..:.:::n.: .:: :.�::::.:py.`:. ::. . ....::.:.:::.:::.:.:: :I::y::.::::y::!./..!.:!.: :.i: :!.:':%:'.::.:
t ;es:mud:be::..Drax.able
...:...:..:. .:..:.: :::::...:::::::::::::::::: .: :.:.::::::.::.::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::: .e
fi r comma : and ndc exclusruely assigned to any ui+disndW use
Zoning regulations
Phase H amendments
Page 23
For residential uses, when parking spaces are identified for the exclusive use of occupants of a
designated dwelling, required spaces may be arranged in tandem (that is, one space behind the
other) subject to approval of the Community Development Director.
:.:y.` Y ... .,.. Nn q
Housing occupied exclusively by persons aged sixty-two or older may provide one-half space
per ""N unit or one space per four occupants of a group quarters.
ar
Hogstng p e�teusrvely b very Iawr Iow , o€ moderate-mcorne households, as definer
b t: 1pavde Arte aid ode bzcrte space per dwelli ng;uct�t
k Additions and Changes in Use for Existing Uses or Structures which do not meet current
parldng standards.
Dwellings R-1 and C/OS: 2 spaces per dwelling, one of which must
be covered. All other zones: 1 per studio apartment: 1-
1/2 for first bedroom plus 1/2 for each additional bedroom
in a unit, plus 1 for each five units in developments of
more than five units. Zss= SeE' Pa. ' w.;:Q:,:
1 <under; 1 ±,16M.M.
Day Care Small family day care - same as for "Dwellings". Large
family day care- One spaee per- 300 square feet gress fleef
the wel�ieg- i ; .:>< .' >`<> ts>>::"<`» e < estt�a > ::::::iat ..
Day care center - Tava spxtaesp1.051
a IAF s e is gee
Home business - see Section 17.08.040
Homeless shelters Two spaces for the facility plus one space for each six
occupants at maximum allowed occupancy
�33
Zoning regulations
Phase II amendments
Page 24
Hospitals One space per bed
ste I space : ve taes*pias me space der tilanager When
:>
the. at xs part of a rldlce: t spaces pe>€ iue;beds; ix
Acl lfit"ti '"f 'tx ro`>., iT;pp,;,. ....le c »......
.:.....................n...
Hot tubs - commercial use One space per tub
Insurance service - Iocal One space per 300 square feet gross floor area
IIYRE PROTECTION: THE FOLLOWING SECTION HAS BEEN DELETED BECAUSE rr DUPLICATES THE
UNIFORM FIRE CODE.
44.16.080 Fire preteetionz.
To - that
H L •1 •• b o fifefighting
L 'LI fifighting equipmentl any building
eefiW__._J
after the effeeti-ve date of these fegulatiefis she4l eemply with the fellewing.&
eapable e€supperting fife€ighting-appaFaws, with an all :vesper driving-suffaee, unebs"efed
Ye "
J width of fist less than sixteen
feet,
ea, ..em eel eleermee e f net
le-- than
.t•y___ feet _•
inehes, and all eefRer-9 &Rd etwves hwAng eA inside faditis of twenty eight feet md an eutsid
f
Sifia Y bui4diagsSingle
height, J ' ti C feet
L _wag o f sale- mulct:.." bui4d_'__- _1___ _1t_—_._
.
941 1 qmtl), 1982- prier eede 9202.§R
SATELLITE DISHES: CHANGES MADE TO THIS SECTION ARE TO CLARIFY WORDING THAT HAS
BEEN FOUND TO BE CONFUSING. NO CHANGES TO THE PROCESS OR STANDARDS ARE MADE.
17.16.110 Satellite Dish Antenna
A. Purpose
Zoning regulations
Phase II amendments
Page 25
To establish regulations which regulate the installation of dish-type satellite antenna to help
protect public safety and preserve view corridors and neighborhood character.
B. Definition
1. A satellite dish antenna is a device incorporating a reflective surface that is solid, open mesh,
or bar-configured and is in the shape of a shallow dish, cone, horn or cornucopia, that is used
to transmit and/or receive radio microwave, or other electromagnetic waves between terrestrially
and/or orbitally based use.
C. Residential Performance Standards
The installation of dish-type satellite antenna may be permitted in all residential zones subject
to the following criteria:
1. Antenna size: Maximum diameter to be ten feet.
2. Setback: +a SSatellite dish antenna y sleet be located in an wired Stet
„K ►..eks r '.�. . a _,. _ ......e as -- - 17.16.02� Antennas
syr <:..,:..:F
located outside a street yard setback but between the residence and the street are prohibited.
3. Height: Maximum antenna height to be thirteen feet. All satellite dishes ;1ugtle ra
pFejeefing--ever side or rear yard fences shall be screened from neighboring properties.
Roof-mounted installations or pole-mounted installations attached to eaves are prohibited except
by use permit. Any antenna which may block significant views from neighboring buildings or
from public areas shall be subject to architectural review.
4. One dish type satellite antenna is allowed per situ . ''hn in addition to normal
television and radio antennas. .1
D. Commercial Performance Standards. The installation of dish-type satellite antenna may be
permitted in the Office, Commercial, and Industrial zones subject to the following criteria:
1. Installation shall be subject to Airchitectural Riieview in accordance with the adopted
Architectural Review Commission Ordinance and guidelines.
rr+pnivinQ a nnmiYYYii whether- he prejeef deel__-d miner-
ferAwded to the a
_ehit,,,...._..7 Review n
2. Installations shall not be permitted within streetyard.
3. Installations shall be located so as to minimize visibility from adjoining.properties and
rights-of-way.
a -35"
Zoning regulations
Phase II amendments
Page 26
E. Exceptions. Dish-type satellite antenna installations which cannot meet the performance
standards included in paragraphs C and D above, may be considered if an administrative use
permit is obtained as outlined by Chapter 17.58. Conditions imposed as part of use permit
approval would typically include requirements to minimize the visibility of the installation,
including blockage of significant public and private views of hillsides, city vistas, or open space
areas. Acceptable techniques to reduce the visibility of dish installations include use of
alternative materials (wire mesh instead of solid surface), painting the dish in a subdued or
natural color, and landscaped screening.
F. Open Space/Conservation Standards. The installation of dish-type satellite antennas may be
permitted in the Open Space/Conservation zone subject to an administrative use permit and
subject to-rarchitectural Rteview in accordance with the adopted ARC ordinance and guidelines.
G. Building Permit Required. All satellite dish installations require issuance of a building
permit. This is to insure that dishes are structurally sound and properly grounded. if Wiewby use ed
pe mi�-p lans submitted for a building permit for a roof-mounted or pole-mounted
installation require certification by a registered engineer. (Ord. 1107 - 1 Ex. A, 1987)
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS,
TO INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECYCLING CONTAINERS AND TO EMPHASIZE THE NEED TO
DESIGN TO CONSERVE ENERGY.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Sections:
17.18.010 Noise.
17.18.020 Vibration.
17.18.030 Mumination.
17.18.040 Air Contaminants.
17.18.050 Discharges to water or public sewer system.
17.18.060 Heat.
17.18.070 Solid waste.
1' SDEtie`` cirsero
;18'094 General and special conditions.
Y
�-3 �
Zoning regulations
Phase H amendments
Page 27
17.18.050 Discharges to water or public sewer system.
A. Discharges to groundwater or waterways, whether direct or indirect, shall conform with the
requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of
Fish and Game.
B. Discharges to the city sewer system shall conform to Article 11 of Chapter 13.08 of this code.
(Ord. 941 - 1(part), 1982: prior code - 9202.6(E))
17.18.070 Solid waste.
.............
an g.
Solid wastes shall be handled and stored so as to prevent nuisances,.xfi61t'h' d fire hazards ::...........A:
Roil- qiwl Oft. Suitable containers shall be provided to revent blowing tterii�' f
.N.:... .. ... Id. or sca
p
trash by animals. 8 Rifil tai IS ififfbd ..I t 'hqo=26 on site sorttng
��Pp: IXOMRIMe ��tkr.ov
. ....... . ....
Mid --,- -' Na. f (See also Chapter 8.04) (Ord. 941 - l(part), 1982: prior code -
9202.6(G))
RESIDENTIAL occuPANcy: THIS SECTION SETS Limos ON THE NUMBER OF PERSONS ALLOWED
IN GROUP HOUSING. THE SECTION HAS BEEN CHANGED TO EXCLUDE RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACMMES FROM THE CATEGORY OF "GROUP HOUSING".
Chapter 17.20
RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY STANDARDS
Sections:
17.20.010 Group housing - Permitted upon approval of use permit.
17.20.020 Group housing - Occupancy limits.
Zoning regulations
Phase II amendments
Page 28
17.20.010 Group housing - Permitted upon approval of use permit
Group housing (such as dormitory, rest home, boardinghouse or fraternity) which is occupied
by six or more individuals may be permitted upon approval of whatever type of use permit is
required by the zone district provisions. (Ord. 941 - 1(part), 1982: prior code - 9202.7(A))
17.20.020 Group housing - Occupancy limits
Use permits for group housing shall stipulate a maximum occupancy. fir:pub`t !ttiGs
ii:3:wu` N::Svn;:f Y'SSyII.'F r.:S:AYW..:.n>;rQ+>i):n:p:: in.SSY
:::: s tit ::ogre 2xt:�.€Menw.;ntiw►A4..l....:.i:n.:.
.
a " usThe occupancy limits
.
shall reflect habitable space within buildings and available parking and shall not exceed the
following standards based on the general plan:
TABLE 8
MAXIMUM POPULATION DENSITY FOR EACH ZONE
Maximum Population Density Zone
(persons per net acre)
R-1 21
R-2, O, C-N, C-T 25
R-3 40
R-4, C-R, C-C 55
(Ord. 941 - 1(part), 1982: prior code - 9202.7(B))
ADDmom TO TABLE OF ALLOWED USES: TABLE 9 HAS BEEN MODIFIED BY THE ADDITION OF
"CONVENIENCE STORES" TO THE "RETAIL. SALES -GROCERIES" CATEGORY; NEIGHBORHOOD
GROCERY MARKETS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE LIST OF USES ALLOWED WITH A USE PERMIT, IN
THREE RESIDENTIAL ZONES, THE OFFICE ZONE, AND THE TOURLST COMMERCIAL ZONE.
STANDARDS FOR THESE STORES HAVE BEEN MODIFIED AND MOVED TO THE "USES ALLOWED IN
SEVERAL ZONES" SECTION (17.08.095).
a,2-38
Zoning regulations
Phase II amendments
Page 29
Table 9 addition:
Uses allowed R-2 R-3 R-4 O C-N C-R C-C C-T C-S
Retail sales - groceries, A A A PC D
liquor and specialized
foods (bakery, meats,
dairy items, etc.),
@Yeetid@°;SIXi(at
Retail sales - 1)' I1 VA A A T7
neighborhood grocery
market
NIIGHBORHOOD GROCERIES: THE DEFINITION HAS BEEN CHANGED AND MOVED TO THE
"DEFINITIONS" SECTION OF THESE REGULATIONS. STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MODIFIED AND
MOVED TO SECTION — (USES ALLOWED IN SEVERAL ZONES).
1:7.30.030 Neighborhood Greeery Market dermed,
n
A retaH gFeeery stefe with a gress fleer- area of 2,000 square feet er- less, and ineitided as an
of feed pmduets—ineleding—meet dairy, vegetabies, €Mils, drygeed-s, andHenftleaheiic
feet, bieyele,
ern
TnE S ZONE: THE REVIEW REQUIREMENT FOR PROPERTIES IN THE SPECIAL CONSIDERATION
ZONES HAS BEEN LOWERED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION TO ADMINISTRATIVE.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATION (S) ZONE
Sections:
17.56.010 Purpose and application.
�-34
Zoning regulations
Phase II amendments
Page 30
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 aid;€ ru n ve use permit by-the
:..:.:::....:.:.::.:::.::::::.:.::::.:::<.:
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.
17.56.020 Allowed uses.
Subject to approval ofir� i t€a adve use permit
:>......:.::::.:..::.....::..,...:..: i � , any allowed
or conditionally allowed use in the underlying zone may be established. (Ord. 941 - 1 (part),
1982: prior code - 9203.17(B))
17.56.030 Property development standards.
As provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.080, the planning eemwAssiea aMM:ffi&ffiV6
§M may establish conditions relatingto improvements, building location,'access,%and
so on, which are more restrictive than provided in the underlying zone, in order to fulfill the
intent of these regulations. (Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code - 9203.17(C))
17.56.040 Procedure - Subdivisions- Waiver of use permit requirement when property
subject to subdivision map application.
The p1wwdng eemmissien e director may waive the requirement for a use permit when property
proposed for development is the subject of a subdivision map application. (Ord. 941 - 1 (part),
1982: prior code - 9203.17(D))
a-�o
Zoning regulations
Phase II amendments
Page 31
USE PERMnS: 1) USE PERMIT PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN MODIFIED TO INCLUDE A PROVISION
FOR THE AUTOMATIC EXPIRATION OF A USE PERMIT, WHEN THE USE HAS CEASED FOR MORE
THAN A YEAR. 2) A SENTENCE HAS BEEN ADDED THAT ALLOWS CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE
EXPIRATION DATES, AND A NOTE HAS BEEN ADDED THAT CLARIFIES THAT CONDITIONS MAY NOT
LIMIT USES TO SPECIFIC PERSONS OR GROUPS. 3) PROCEDURES ARE CHANGED TO ALLOW
CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTIONS BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION (ARC), WHEN ARC REVIEW I4 ALREADY REQUIRED.
Chapter 17.58
USE PERMITS
17.58.030 Procedures.
;ni�'F....x::::.�::.nv:y:.iniii::::{.i.":{.�i:::iiy:.`x:!Liv:n:.:.:;!'Y"'i:i
#'' ac�llia� tAoMls±�pi #'A
.;..�a nse>:ffrats.a1lovecl yVaof a nse:pernsat, ceases flperatlon for one year car
..a........:...:.....:.a....a..:........ .......................................:::.:..........::..:.:::....:.:.::...:.::..:::..:..:::.:.:..........:..::.....:.....:.........:...:....:.:.::.:..:.:..:..
$UCh<:btllf :> Ie<. . <god:.as.i: eced::: n:.:the::cbnditlmts;>: :;;ava1>< tliea< ristatemrt;niYiattis
>..:
li> <a1raat:: ata°new:>vse t >
3
2 : rnmunxty eselcrpt tettt D rector may extend the one» m limlt stated txr C t, 66 i
upo ......xpt of a wnd zequest,upon tndtng that clr umstanees have nat cha Iged s gntficantty
::ii:::iii:i:i::iii'iii::: ................::..................:..................:::..............:..::...:..........:..........................................:.....
81Ti ;;1 Ips::thG"iuSi ;GedS ;01"dit42tti
Section 17.58.050 Conditions of approval
................................
Conditions imposed by the director, planning commission or council may include;ttam' dt
rv:v ::nyvi::::x..iF:.i::!::a,!�.i�:/.i�'I!�!ie,!ni�:!:jJ!4:!i.i::!.i:iii'i:.:Y•:i::I.":i'.:!!.:!ji�:!{:.!�!!.::!i!.iii:!:i:!.isJ:.:4:!Q.i:�:njiili�::!n'.ii:::i:..iiiii'.yii'i.i::.iii:::>��t�f::ari::: ....v i.
+dlifl......S y. t 1 sett #flat I+ s#riCt t)Ye use fia spe a C person or group:: (Ord. 941 -
1 (part), 1982: prior code - 9204.2(E))
Section 17.58.070 Requirement for and compliance with use permits
Zoning regulations
Phase II amendments
Page 32
A. For any given development or proposed use,when more than one use permit - including
more than one type of use permit - is required by individual sections of these regulations, only
one use permit application need be filed and acted upon. If both an administrative use permit
or permits would simultaneously be required by separate sections, one planning commission use
permit shall be processed to cover all requirements T <;<:<,;:.:::o<::;;:,,:.:::::.;;:<w;:,;<;;.:,;,.;:<::;,<:: :<;:>:;;.:> <:::<::;::.:
Pe P req lith an ci...... tstratty u petit F
mr t c e t %7i i ziWinar arid' vie by`'t Arc sect..... vt w Ca mussxat
:.
00,
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: A PARAGRAPH HAS BEEN ELIMINATED THAT WAS A DUPLICATE.
17.62.010 Preliminary development plan.
Application for planned development shall be made to the community development department
and shall consist of a preliminary development plan, to include:
D. A quantified description of the total number and type of dwelling units, parcel sizes,
coverage, modified and natural open space, grading, residential densities, and areas devoted to
nonresidential uses;
E. ti—quantified desefiptien ef the l number and ..c dwelling --Feel _ _-_
tinitse s
open-spas and ffem deyeted to.
, iFesidential densities,
uses;neFiFesidential
F—Identification of portions of the development which would otherwise require a variance; and
reason for the deviation from normal standards;
Fr. A site plan and supporting maps, drawn to a suitable scale and clearly labeled, showing,
if applicable:
H Information on land area adjacent to the proposed development, indicating important
relationships between the proposal and surrounding land uses, circulation systems, public
facilities and natural features;
Any additional information which may be required by the director to evaluate the character
and impact of the planned development. (Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code - 9204.4(A))
P.C. Minutes
January 26, 1994
Page 1
draft
MINUTES - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
City of San Luis Obispo
January 26, 1994
PRESENT: Commrs. Mary Whittlesey, Gilbert Hoffman, Dodie Williams,
Brett Cross, Sandra Sigurdson, Charles Senn and Chairman
Barry Karleskint
ABSENT: None
OTHERS
PRESENT: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager; Judith
Lautner, Associate Planner; Cindy Clemens, Assistant City
Attorney; and Diane Wright, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC
COMMENT: There were no public comments.
MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meetings of December 1, 1993
and December 15, 1993 were approved as submitted and the
minutes of the regular meeting of December 29, 1993 were
approved as amended.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 1 General Plan Amendment/Rezoning GP/R 157-93 .
Consideration of a City-initiated amendment to the Land
Use Element of the General Plan to eliminate the "major
expansion area" designation from the 190 acre (+/-)
Dalidio area and to designate Service-Commercial/Light
Industrial, Retail-Commercial, Medium-High Density
Residential, Interim Conservation/Open Space, and
Conservation/Open Space land use designations for the
Dalidio planning area and an amendment to the text of the
adopted 1977 Land Use Element regarding comparison
retail-commercial and open space policies; 981 Madonna
Road; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Whisenand presented the staff report and said the amendment was
initiated by the City Council at the request of the Dalidio family
and the City Council believed it was appropriate to remove the
"major expansion area" designation so that a specific plan was not
required. He explained that the item was being introduced so that
Municipal Code requirements would be met, and he suggested the
Commission continue the item to a date uncertain.
Commr. Hoffman asked why this was necessary because of the
designation in the draft LUE and its adoption schedule.
P.C. Minutes
January 26, 1994
Page 2
Ron Whisenand said that the City Council had requested the General
Plan Amendment be processed in the event the draft LUE did not get
adopted on time.
Commr. Whittlesey moved to continue Item 1, General Plan Amendment/
Rezoning GP/R 157-93, to a date uncertain.
Commr. Hoffman seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES - Comm s. Whittlesey, Hoffman, Williams, Cross,
Sigurdson, Senn and Karleskint
NOES - None
ABSENT - None
The motion passed.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 2. Use Permit A 166-93. An appeal of the Hearing Officer's
action conditionally approving a request to allow a
second dwelling unit; 71 Benton Way; R-1 zone; Bud &
Betty Retzloff, applicants; Helen M. Alexander,
appellant.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judith Lautner presented the staff report and explained that an
administrative use permit allowing a second dwelling was approved
on December 17, 1993, and a neighbor appealed that decision on the
grounds it might set a precedent and increase water runoff on
properties on Broad Street. She said the request met all standards
for second dwellings and that granting this request would not set
a precedent because each request is considered on its own ability
to meet standards. She explained that grading regulations prohibit
additional drainage onto adjacent properties. She confirmed that
the Commission received letters from Florence Tartaglia opposing
the use permit and a letter from the applicants. She recommended
that the condition requiring architectural review be deleted
because no exterior changes were proposed and that the Commission
uphold the hearing officer's approval and deny the appeal with
findings and conditions.
In answer to a question by Commr. Whittlesey, Judith Lautner
explained the requirements for second dwellings.
Commr. Whittlesey said she had visited the site and talked with the
applicant.
Judith Lautner pointed out the location of properties concerned
about drainage on an overhead map. She said the building division
had determined that the request met all standards.
I
P.C. Minutes
January 26, 1994
Page 3
Ron Whisenand explained that allowing second dwellings to increase
affordable housing had been mandated by the State.
Chairman Karleskint opened the public hearing.
No one chose to speak.
Chairman Karleskint closed the public hearing.
Commr. Williams asked if the trailer would have to be removed to
provide the required four parking spaces.
Judith Lautner said when the space was rented out, the trailer
would have to be removed.
Commr. Williams moved to uphold the hearing officer's decision and
deny the appeal with the five findings and five conditions as
suggested by staff.
Commr. Sigurdson seconded the motion.
In answer to a question by Commr. Karleskint, Judith Lautner said
staff was not aware of any sewage problems in the area.
VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Williams, Sigurdson, Whittlesey,
Hoffman, Cross, Senn and Karleskint
NOES - None
ABSENT - None
The motion passed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Item 3. Zoning Regulations Amendments R 108-93. Amendments to
the Zoning Regulations to simplify processing, add and
change definitions, clarify wording and format, and make
minor changes to the development standards; City of San
Luis Obispo, applicant. (Continued from January 12, 1994)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judith Lautner presented the ' staff report and explained that
changes to the Zoning Regulations suggested by staff were divided
into phases and this was phase two. She said staff was
recommending changes to allow grocery markets in R-2 , R-3 and R-4
zones with an administrative use permit, to base slope
determinations on existing grade and exclude creek areas in
computing allowed density, and to allow approval of fence height
exceptions by letter from the Community Development Director
instead of by an administrative use permit. She recommended
parking regulations be modified to allow a 10 percent reduction for
P.C. Minutes
January 26, 1994
Page 4
shared parking with an additional 20 percent reduction if peak hour
usage did not coincide, a reduction in parking requirements for
very low to moderate income housing and day care uses, and the
addition of a parking requirement for hostels. She recommended
that a use permit not be required when an office use moved into a
residence in the office zone and did not expand the building, that
an administrative use permit be required for "S" zones instead of
a Planning commission use permit, and that the Architectural Review
Commission be able to grant administrative use permits for
exceptions to development standards when ARC review was also
required. She explained that the changes would reduce the amount
of time staff spent on minor issues, simplify processing, encourage
neighborhood grocery stores and hostels, and encourage less
dependence on private automobiles. She recommended that the
Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendments to the
City Council.
Chairman Karleskint announced that the Commission would begin by
considering the change for neighborhood grocery markets and
continue following the list in the staff report.
Commr. Williams expressed concern that the "good neighbor plan" on
page 12, item 8 was a dis-incentive.
Judith Lautner explained that the "good neighbor plan" originated
with a market at Mustang Village.
Commr. Williams said review would be required if complaints were
received and she recommended deleting item 8. She felt an addition
to encourage recycling was needed somewhere in the regulations.
Commr. Karleskint said that requiring a crime prevention emergency
response program for neighborhood markets in the "good neighbor
plan" created liability problems for the markets.
Commr. Cross expressed concern about compatibility. He said he did
not agree with allowing small grocery stores in any residential
zone except for R-4 .
Commr. Hoffman felt it was a market place decision.
Chairman Karleskint asked if there was a consensus to eliminate the
"good neighbor plan. " The Commission unanimously agreed.
In answer to a question by Commr. Senn, Judith Lautner said as
written, sale of alcohol would be prohibited in residential zones.
Commr. Senn said that if a small grocery store wanted to open and
was inappropriate, many nearby residents would formally oppose it.
a- 60�0
P.C. Minutes
January 26, 1994
Page 5
He believed a 3 , 000 square foot grocery store would not be
economically feasible if alcohol sales were prohibited.
The Commission agreed 6-1 to allow neighborhood grocery markets in
residential neighborhoods with Commr. Cross objecting to the
proposal.
Commr. Whittlesey requested that a recycling plan be added to
performance standards.
Commrs. Williams and Karleskint agreed with Commr. Whittlesey.
2. Density on Sloping Lots
In answer to a question by Commr. Cross, Judith Lautner explained
that basing density on existing topography could reduce allowed
density if improvements such as sidewalks created slopes. She said
existing topography had been looked at for developments such as
Stoneridge because lots had not been created.
Commr. Karleskint expressed concern about the statement regarding
on site grading because it could mean a recalculation after the
grading was done.
Judith Lautner said that was a valid concern and the wording could
be changed, but she believed that "existing grade" should replace
"natural grade. "
Commr. Hoffman felt the proposed wording was appropriate because it
stated that the slope was based on the lot as exists when a
building permit was applied for. He did not believe excavation
appeared to be included.
Commr. Cross said a builder could excavate a hillside and then ask
for a slope determination.
Judith Lautner suggested adding the words "Council approved
grading" so that excavation could not be included.
Commr. Senn said he was opposed to taking creek banks out of the
slope calculations. He believed property could be devaluated if
creeks were not included in the area of the site. He said it was
easier to determine parcel size than the irregular bank of a •creek.
Comms. Hoffman disagreed and said including the creek in the slope
of the lot has often decreased the allowed density.
a- A--
P.C. Minutes
January 26, 1994
Page 6
Commr. Senn said section 17.16. 01 referred to density as the number
of dwellings per acre. He said he understood the proposal would
reduce the density calculation by the amount of the creek area.
Judith Lautner drew a diagram to explain how cross-slope
calculations including the creek area were done and what was being
proposed.
Commr. Senn said he did not object to the slope of creek areas
being eliminated from slope calculations, but he felt the creek
area should be included in density calculations. He said he did
not disagree with protecting creek areas, but he was concerned that
it could down zone someone's property.
Judith Lautner explained that the maximum number of units allowed
was for flat land, and a steeper slope reduced the number of units
allowed per acre. She said more density would be often allowed by
eliminating the creek area.
Ron Whisenand said a greater density could be allowed on property
that remained after the creek area is eliminated from the
calculations.
Commr. Cross felt it is inappropriate to allow people more density
because a creek runs across a lot.
Commrs. Hoffman and Karleskint said they supported staff's
proposal.
Commr. Hoffman expressed concern about density being determined by
units in section 1716.010. He said it would be more realistic to
determine density by square footage.
Judith Lautner said staff would be discussing a change from units
to square footage in the next phase of Zoning Regulation
Amendments.
The Commission voted 5-2 to add "previously approved" to the
description of on-site grading with Commrs. Senn and Cross casting
the dissenting votes.
3 . Fence Height Exceptions
Commr. Cross said if someone wanted an exception to the code, that
person should expect to pay more and to go through the process.
Judith Lautner said most of the fence height exceptions were very
minor in nature and a large number were requested every year.
a-�
P.C. Minutes
January 26, 1994
Page 7
Ron Whisenand said about 99.9 percent of the requests were approved
and that indicated that either too many were being approved or that
the process needed to be made simpler.
Commr. Cross felt neighbors were reluctant to complain about fence
heights.
Ron Whisenand disagreed and said neighborhood residents appear to
be vocal.
The Commission voted 6-1 to accept staff's proposal for changes for
fence height exceptions with Commr. Cross casting the dissenting
vote.
4 . Parking Requirements
Commr. Senn expressed concern about a use permit. being able to
establish a maximum number of parking spaces.
Commr. Whittlesey said she preferred not to encourage more parking
than was necessary.
Commr. Senn said he did not disagree with discouraging excess
parking, but he felt it should be done by incentive not by
requirement. He said a maximum limit would result in people
opposing projects because of too much parking.
Judith Lautner explained that the statement was intended to give
the public notice that a maximum amount of parking could be
imposed. She said it was a suggestion by the APCD.
Commr. Hoffman asked if staff were considering establishing a
maximum number of parking spaces that was less than what was
required by the Zoning Code.
Judith Lautner said no.
Commr. Senn said setting a maximum penalized successful businesses.
He presented an example of a successful restaurant wanting to open
at another location. He did not believe it sent a proper message
to applicants.
Ron Whisenand said the language could be modified to state that a
minimum amount of parking is allowed by right but a use permit
could restrict the amount of additional parking requested.
Commr. Cross said applicants do not generally want more parking.
He said State Farm proposed more parking because it intended to
expand on the site.
a-�9
P.C. Minutes
January 26, 1994
Page S
Comm s. Karleskint, Whittlesey and Williams agreed with Commr.
Senn.
Commr. Whittlesey said she understood Commr. Senn's concerns, but
felt it would give notice of the possibility that a maximum could
be imposed.
Commr. Senn felt the language in the General Plan already sent that
message because it stated that single vehicle trips were being
discouraged.
Commr. Sigurdson said she supported adding the language for the
possibility of a maximum number.
Commr. Cross said it should be added because it would be honest
with applicants.
The Commission voted 4-3 not to add the proposed sentence stating
that a use permit could establish a maximum number of parking
spaces with Commrs. Cross, Sigurdson and Whittlesey casting the
dissenting votes.
Commr. Cross asked staff about parking for day care.
Ron Whisenand directed the Commission to Number 3 on Page 15 of the
Regulations.
Commr. Cross asked if there would be white curbs indicating loading
and unloading zones for day care.
Judith Lautner said that was not staff's intention. She explained
that it was difficult for day care centers to provide additional
parking and the City would be going against the intent of State Law
to impose that parking.
Chairman Karleskint opened the public hearing.
Elaine Simer, 1677 McCollum Street, said she had been a member of
American Youth Hostels for 10 years and had traveled with youth
across the United States. She said she was interested in opening
a hostel in San Luis Obispo, had located a building, but the
parking requirements couldn't be met. She said one parking space
for every 10 beds would be appropriate because many clients arrive
by bicycle or bus. She felt one space for managers was sufficient
because most managers of hostels were not married.
Judith Lautner said the City Council had not yet adopted parking
standards for hostels. She said staff was recommending two' parking
spaces for every 10 beds and one space for the manager unless the
P.C. Minutes
January 26, 1994
Page 9
hostel was part of a residence and then additional spaces would be
required for the residents.
Ms. Simer said she was interested in establishing a 12-16 bed
hostel.
Ron Whisenand explained that there were two different types of
hostels, one where a home was the primary use of the site with the
hostel being an accessory use and one to three additional spaces
would be required for the home, and the other where the hostel was
the primary use with a manager staying on the premises.
Chairman Karleskint closed the public hearing.
The Commission unanimously agreed to accept staff's recommendation
for hostels.
5. Offices
Commr. Senn moved to accept staff's recommendation for offices.
Commr. Whittlesey seconded the motion.
Commr. Cross asked if offices would require director approval.
Judith Lautner said yes, except when no additions were made to an
existing building.
Commr. Cross asked how the proposal was compatible with the adopted
LUE which stated that the City would review conversions of homes to
offices for compatibility with surrounding uses and for the
preservation of the architectural character of the buildings.
Judith Lautner said the historical nature of the building would not
be affected because the building would still exist.
Commr. Cross directed staff to page 17 of the 1977 General Plan.
He said a General Plan Amendment would be needed for the change.
Judith Lautner said Commr. Cross' concern was valid and suggested
the item be withdrawn at this time and considered at a later time.
Chairman Karleskint thanked Commr. Cross.
Commr. Senn withdrew his motion.
Ron Whisenand asked if the Commission had been discussing the
Office zones. He said the policy might still be in the draft.
P.C. Minutes
January 26, 1994
Page 10
The Commission said offices had been discussed.
Commr. Senn said it had also been discussed in regard to the
Housing Element.
6. The S-zone
Judith Lautner described several areas in the City that were
targeted by this item.
Ron Whisenand said staff's intention was to streamline the process
by allowing the hearing officer to grant non-controversial use
permits in S zones.
The Commission unanimously agreed to staff's suggestion for the S-
zone.
Commr. Cross requested that if the change is approved, staff
present a report to the Commission so that the Commission could
determine if the Hearing Officer considers issues that the
Commission should consider.
It was decided to provide a summary update to the Commission after
one year.
7. Use permit action by ARC
Commr. Karleskint believed that the ARC should not consider use
permits.
Judith Lautner said staff was recommending that the ARC only act on
property development exceptions, not those regarding uses.
Commr. Cross said that ARC's role appeared to have expanded beyond
its original intent and some people in the development community
believed the ARC was making decisions beyond its purview. He said
the Planning Commission is in an awkward position when it does not
agree with exceptions given to projects by the ARC through
schematic approval. He said the process needed to be changed so
that the Commission could determine exceptions before ARC schematic
approval.
Ron Whisenand said the intent was not to limit the Planning
Commission's authority on exceptions. He said only administrative
hearing officer exceptions would be decided upon by the ARC. He
said that he had attended most of the ARC meetings since he has
been with the City and he did not feel the ARC was making decisions
beyond its purview. He believed site plan design issues were in
a-�
P.C. Minutes
January 26, 1994
Page 11
the purview of the ARC and the exception process was part of that
process.
Commr. Cross said the Planning Commission needed to have purview
over land uses and exceptions to standards were land use issues.
Commr. Senn felt staff was asking the Commission to trust staff's
judgment as to whether it is appropriate for exceptions to be
handled by the ARC or the Commission. He said the process could be
changed in the future if the Commission believes it is not working.
Commr. Hoffman asked staff if the proposal gave authority to the
ARC to consider administrative use permits.
Judith Lautner said yes, but only those relating to property
development standards.
Commr. Hoffman asked where appeals of ARC administrative use
permits would go.
Judith Lautner said the appeals would go to the City Council.
Ron Whisenand presented an example of an administrative use permit
that granted an exception for a specific number of feet, and the
ARC believed the design would work better on the site with a
modification to the exception, but the ARC could not make that
change.
In answer to a question by Commr. Hoffman, Judith Lautner explained
that if permits for site development exceptions and ARC review were
required, an administrative use permit would not be required and
only ARC review would be needed. She said currently when an
administrative use permit and a Planning Commission use permit are
required, only a Planning Commission use permit is filed.
Ron Whisenand said it would give ARC jurisdiction over granting
exceptions to its own standards.
Judith Lautner said the ARC can already grant exceptions for creek
setback standards and trash enclosures in the street yard.
Commr. Hoffman said that administrative use permits were generally
appealed to the City Council and that would still occur without
Commission review.
Chairman Karleskint asked the Commission if it agreed with the
other items on page 31 of the amendment package including the
expiration of use permits.
�-53
P.C. Minutes
January 26, 1994
Page 12
Judith Lautner presented an example of a use permit for a sorority
granted in 1955 that ceased for several years yet not having to
reapply for a use permit.
Commr. Hoffman asked Cindy Clemens if this change would be
retroactive or only affect use permits granted after adoption.
Ron Whisenand suggested that the Commission pass the item tonight
with staff researching that concern before it was considered by the
City Council.
Commr. Whittlesey requested the Commission consider including a
solid waste plan and a recycling plan as conditions of approval.
Commr. Sigurdson stepped down due to a conflict of interest.
Commr. Whittlesey suggested adding a letter M, stating that
recycling and solid waste plans may be included, under Section
17.58.50, discussed on page 31 of the amendment package.
Ron Whisenand said that earlier the Commission voted 4-3 to
eliminate a reference to maximum parking spaces and this would be
an appropriate place to include a statement that a maximum number
of parking spaces may be considered to provide notice.
The Commission did not agree with Ron Whisenand's suggestion.
Commr. Sigurdson rejoined the meeting.
Commr. Karleskint said he generally supported permit action by the
ARC as stated in the amendment package, but suggested that the last
sentence be eliminated.
Commr. Hoffman agreed with Commr. Karleskint.
Commr. Karleskint said although he could agree to the change, he
was concerned that the ARC would begin to do things it was not
qualified to do.
Commr. Cross said he could not support ARC use permits because it
was not within their purview.
The Commission decided 6-1 to approve staff's recommendation for
use permit action by the ARC with the elimination of the last
sentence and with Commr. Cross casting the dissenting vote.
Other Issues
P.C. Minutes
January 26, 1994
Page 13
Commr. Whittlesey suggested clarifying that day care facilities
could have many children enrolled but only 8 on site at one time in
B. 1 on page 13 by adding the words "on site at one time" in B. 1 and
B.2 . She expressed concern about item D on page 15 because there
could be performance standards besides parking that might not be
looked at for the primary use. For example, she said a day care
center at a church could have noise and traffic impacts not
analyzed for the permanent use.
Judith Lautner explained that the impacts of a secondary use would
be considered but the primary and secondary uses would be under one
use permit.
Commr. Whittlesey suggested adding the words "space and" before the
word "containers" under solid waste and recycling on page 26.
The other Commissioners agreed.
Commr. Hoffman suggested a definition of big box stores be included
on the first page. He said he agreed with Ron Whisenand that the
use matrix should be changed to add it as an allowable use. He
said he did not believe that big box stores fit under the general
retail definition. He suggested acknowledging a new category for
big box stores and modifying Table 9 to allow big box stores in C-R
and C-S zones with a Planning Commission use permit.
Commr. Senn believed big boxes fit under the current retail
definition but he said he would not object to Commr. Hoffman's
suggestion.
Commr. Sigurdson felt the current retail definition was adequate
and it was not necessary to spend staff time developing a new
category.
Commr. Senn said a big box use would be appealed to the City
Council. He read from page 49 of the Zoning Code which stated
retail uses over 60, 000 square feet required a Planning Commission
use permit.
Commr. Hoffman withdrew his suggestion because he did not have the
current version of the Zoning Code.
Ron Whisenand briefly left the meeting to get 1993 copies of the
Zoning Code for Commissioners who did not have that version.
Commr. Hoffman suggested adding occupations which use non-inert
compressed gases to prohibited home occupation uses on Page 10 of
the Phase 2 amendments.
01-45's
P.C. Minutes
January 26, 1994
Page 14
Judith Lautner directed the Commission to the Zoning Regulation on
page 12 which discussed standards including fire and safety for
home occupations.
The Commission decided the verbiage on page 12 was sufficient.
Commr. Williams expressed concern about financial services being
offered to residents of a boarding house as mentioned in the last
sentence in the first paragraph on page 2 of the Phase 2
Amendments. She suggested the word "financial" be replaced with
the words "personal services. "
The other Commissioners agreed.
Commr. Williams suggested eliminating the sentence on page 3 under
neighborhood grocery markets that referred to catering to people
who arrive by non-motorized vehicles because this was understood to
be a characteristic of neighborhood markets. She suggested it
read: "A retail grocery store with a gross floor area of 3, 000
square feet or less which sells a full range of food products and
some convenience items. "
There was not support on the Commission to remove the statement
about catering to non-motorized vehicles.
Commr. Williams suggested replacing "no longer than 30 days" with
"for the duration of the permit" in paragraph 4 on page 8.
The Commission and staff agreed with Commr. Williams.
Commr. Williams suggested that paragraph 6 be modified to state
"When the use is temporary or intermittent the applicant may be
required to post a refundable deposit" and eliminate the words "if
necessary" because it was redundant.
Commr. Whittlesey suggested eliminating the dollar amount because
the amount could change.
Commr. Hoffman expressed concern that saying "may" instead of
"shall" and eliminating the dollar amount might result in not
everyone being treated the same.
Cindy Clemens said it could result in discretionary complaints.
Commr. Karleskint felt "shall" should be used instead of "may. "
Ron Whisenand suggested stating "deposit set by the Community
Development Director" instead of stating a specific amount:
P.C. Minutes
January 26, 1994
Page 15
Commr. Senn left the meeting at 10: 00 p.m. due to a prior
commitment.
Commr. Hoffman felt "shall" should be used instead of "may" and an
exemption should be included for non-profit organizations.
Cindy Clemens suggested the wording "Exceptions may be granted for
a show of good cause. "
There was not a consensus on the Commission to change "may" to
"shall. "
Commr. Williams said she had asked Judith Lautner if outdoor signs
needed to be addressed and was told that signs would be addressed
in the administrative use permit process. She asked the other
Commissioners if they would support addressing home occupations in
mobile home parks on page 10 and suggested adding "Requirements for
home occupation permits in mobile home parks may be different from
those in other residential areas.
Ron Whisenand expressed concern about treating mobile home parks
different than other residential areas.
Cindy Clemens advised that it would be better to analyze individual
requests based on restraints of a particular mobile home park than
to include a broad requirement for all mobile home parks.
Commr. Williams suggested that a definition for satellite dishes be
included on page 24 and Judith Lautner agreed.
Commr. Cross commented that the more attempts that were made to
streamline the process, the more complex it was becoming.
Commr. Williams moved to recommend approval of the Zoning
Regulations Amendments R 108-93 to the City Council as modified by
the Commission and based on the two findings as listed by staff in
the December 29, 1993 staff report.
Commr. Hoffman seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Williams, Hoffman, Whittlesey, Cross,
Sigurdson and Karleskint
NOES - None
ABSENT - Commr. Senn
The motion passed.
The Commission thanked staff for a job well done.
a-s�
P.C. Minutes
January 26, 1994
Page 16
Chairman Karleskint announced that the Commission would now be
considering a Business Item.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 4. General Plan Conformity Report. Determination of whether
the purchase of two parcels by the County of San Luis
Obispo for future expansion of the County Government
Center conforms with the City's General Plan; 1108 and
1144 Monterey Street; C-R zone; County of San Luis
Obispo, applicant.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Whisenand said that State Law requires the County to ask the
City. He explained that the Commission could chose not to respond,
and it would be assumed that the request was acceptable. He
explained that the Downtown Concept Plan was not technically part
of the General Plan, but because of its importance, staff had
included determinations of conformity. He recommended that the
Commission adopt a resolution based on the two findings in the
staff report.
Commr. Hoffman questioned why the parcels were described as level
in the site description.
In answer to questions from other Commissioners, Chairman
Karleskint explained that the Mitsubishi and Volkswagen dealerships
were being consolidated with Kimbell Motors and notice had already
been given to employees. He said he believed the County chose not
to expand across the street for security reasons.
Commr. Whittlesey felt it was important to keep County government
in downtown.
Commr. Hoffman moved to approve staff's recommendation.
Commr. Williams seconded the motion.
Commr. Cross expressed concern that by having County Government in
the downtown something else was being excluded. He said the County
was slowly taking over downtown, and County Government did not
produce tax revenue because it was not retail use. He said more
was being lost than gained. He felt that County had a
responsibility to find less expensive sites to develop on.
Commr. Whittlesey said she shared some of Commr. Cross' concerns,
but she believed it was good for businesses and could be a magnet
for more business in that area of downtown.
a-s?
P.C. Minutes
January 26, 1994
Page 17
Commr. Williams and Sigurdson agreed that it would benefit downtown
businesses.
Commr. Williams noted that it was on the periphery of downtown and
she said she supported the proposal.
Commr. Cross said major civic centers appear to be a wasteland and
are forever expanding.
VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Hoffman, Williams, Whittlesey,
Sigurdson and Karleskint
NOES - Commr. Cross
ABSENT - Commr. Senn
The motion passed.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Ron Whisenand said the final LUE draft would be coming back to the
Commission on February 23 , 1994. He said the Porter project would
be coming back with revisions after being denied by the City
Council. He mentioned that the Ferrini-Rosemont project was
tentatively scheduled to be considered by the City Council on
February 15.
Commr. Hoffman recommended that Commissioners seriously consider
attending the Planning Institute Conference in San Diego. Commr.
Karleskint agreed.
It was announced that it was Commr. Sigurdson's birthday.
Commr. Cross mentioned that the Cripe project on South Higuera had
been approved without requiring improvements because the owner
described it as a temporary use. He said the business had been
operating for about three years.
Ron Whisenand confirmed that the Commissioners received a letter
from Whitney McIlvaine about a large black truck parked on the
sidewalk next to the Cripe property.
Commr. Hoffman said he disagreed with the conclusion of the memo
that the truck was parked in a driveway.
Ron Whisenand explained that staff did not regulate where the
vehicle was parked, but staff regulated the parking spaces.
Commr. Hoffman said it was parked off the driveway. He said if it
was not an approved parking space it should be abated.
a�9
P.C. Minutes
January 26, 1994
Page 18
Ron Whisenand said the information would be passed on to the
abatement and zoning code officer.
The Commission mentioned several vehicles were parked on front
lawns on Oceanaire and Fredericks streets .
_ Cindy Clemens said that there was some question whether or not
current zoning code language was sufficient to allow people to be
cited for parking on lawns, but a change was in the process of
being adopted by the City Council which would make it easier to do
SO.
Commr. Cross mentioned that when discussing the Brizzolara Street
project the Commission determined that Highway 101 would probably
not be widened in the future. He said a copy of the District 5
Long Term Transportation document specifically outlined programs to
widen Highway 101 to six lanes from Highway 41 to Santa Barbara.
Commr. Whittlesey said it was also in the Circulation Element. She
asked staff to look into the cost of providing free bus service
compared to widening roads. She asked when the Laguna Mobile Home
Park was scheduled.
Ron Whisenand said it would be in the near future, but no specific
date had been scheduled. He said a memo would be prepared for the
Commission by staff and Cindy Clemens to be reviewed before the
meeting.
Cindy Clemens said the tenant group representing the Mobile Home
Park had hired an attorney and had become. more aware of the legal
issues.
Commr. Whittlesey said the hot dog cart at the former Rexall
location had tables and chairs.
Ron Whisenand said chairs had been approved but tables had not.
Chairman Karleskint announced that former Mayor Dunin had had a
slight stroke and was at Sierra Vista Hospital and doing fairly
well and that his wife, Helen, was temporarily at Cabrillo. He
said the manner of processing items from the Planning Commission to
the City Council was discussed at the Mayor's quarterly meeting and
a special meeting was being set up in March to further discuss that
issue. He asked the Commission to provide him with comments and
said Commissioners could accompany him to the meeting.
Ron Whisenand said he believed staff had done an excellent job of
outlining everyone's concerns on the Leitcher project.
�-do
P.C. Minutes
January 26, 1994
Page 19
Chairman Karleskint said applications for Planning Commission
vacancies were currently being accepted and interviewing would
probably begin February.
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. to a special meeting of the
Planning Commission on February 2, 1994 .
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Wright
Recording Secretary
r
a-6 �
MF71NG AGENDA
DkI.1 - ITEM #=
MEMORANDUM
March 3, 1994
TO: City Council
FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Offic
SUBJECT: Correction to ESTF Follow-Up Report
Please replace page 3-37 and 3-38 in the March 8th agenda packet with the attached
correction. The attachment moves the"downtown study regarding coexistence with the mall"
from the twelve month category to the six to twelve month category, consistent with the
revision noted in the staff report.
JD:bw
rpt.cor
r�zc
COUNCIL ❑]DR
AO ❑
CAO ❑ IEF
TTORNEY ❑
LEP.KIORIG ❑ HFI V F. DDGMT TEAM ❑READ FILE I]1994 ❑
CITY CLERK
i rr o!310Po.C.-.
Page 2
Economic Stability Duties
SYi 'i"ti�L2=11015
0 With Chamber assistance rekindle the "Shop San Luis Obispo" program (#19).
E Serve as a catalyst for formation of a "Tourism Network" (#25).
0 Evaluate conference facility concept (#29).
0 Consider downtown study regarding coexistence with the mall (#12.K).
: Olk:.,
MORE
'
a Encourage redevelopment of Madonna Plaza Shopping Center (#13.C.).
0 -Evaluate more formal business incentive program (#9).
E Reconsider Court Street options/project (#12.G.).
E Consider viability of daily Farmer's Market (#12.1.).
v Consider more formal efforts to encourage Auto Center Expansion, if necessary
(#17).
................................................,......
In general, the ACAO's involvement in some current day-to-day issues and future special
projects will need to be reduced in order to provide the capacity necessary to manage a
more proactive economic stability program. Outlined below are probable adjustments,
i i
recognizing that the CAO may wish to make adjustments over time.
1. Participation with the Personnel Director on Management Negotiation Team, except
for Fire Department and Mid-Managers, will be shifted to Deb Hossli.
2. Preparing the Capital Improvement Program(CIP) status report and chairing the CIP
Committee should be transferred from the ACAO to the Public Works Director, as
well. This would leave a CIP Committee composed of the Public Works Director,
Utilities Director, Finance Director, Community Development Director, Recreation
Director, and Assistant to the CAO.
3. The ACAO should be removed from the process of reviewing all agenda reports, and
selectively review only certain priority reports. Deb Hossli will instead fulfill the
overall coordinating/review role.
Page 3
Economic Stability Duties
4. Same as #3 above with respect to CAO Special Reports.
5. The ACAO would be replaced on the MIS Steering Committee by Deb Hossli.
6. Conversely, to 'balance out" these reassignments, other duties currently carried out
by the CAO and Ms. Hossli (but related to economic stability), will be picked up by
the ACAO. Examples include: serving on the Visitors and Conference Bureau
Tourist Development Plant Committee; serving on the Cal Poly Research Park
Committee; staff contact for Downtown BIA issues, including Board meeting
attendance. In addition, Ms. Hossli will be relieved of CIP status report preparation
(transferred to Public Works), and will be unable to undertake as many special
assignments.
gecaduty
DATE' "�' TEM #A
SAN LUIS DRIVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
1950 SAN LUIS DRIVE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401
MARCH 7 , 1994
COUNCIL OV CDD DIR
C ❑ FIN DIR
FLEFRUK40RIG
❑ FIRE CHIEF
Mayor Peg Pinard ❑ PW DIR
City Council Members ❑ POLICE CHF
990 Palm Street ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR
San Luis Obispo, California 93401 ❑ FILE 13 UTILDIR
!
Dear Mayor Pinard and Council Members, ' 13 PERS DIR
Though it is not always easy, our neighborhood association
tries to stay informed about those issues which could have
an affect on our neighborhood. Even .by limiting our focus
in this way some issues do escape our attention. For
example, we learned on Saturday, March 5th, that a public
hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, March 8th, regarding the
proposed "Zoning Regulation Amendments".
Since we do not have the time to review these proposals
before tomorrow's meeting, we respectfully request a
postponement for this public hearing.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
RECEIVED
Sincerely, f4IAR f 1994
CITY COUNCIL
�d L6Js l:LB1SE4�
Bonni Garritano
Chairman, San Luis Drive Neighborhood Association
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM #:62
64 V� A17
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
P.O. Box 12604 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Full Council has
recdved this document
Cja NCIL DO DIR
March 6, 1994 C ❑ FIN DIR
❑ FIRE CHIEF
,AfMRNEY ❑ PW DIR
Honorable Mayor and Council Members QrCLERKKRG ❑ POLICE Uhl-
City
HFCity of San Luis Obispo ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
P.O. Box 8100 13 UTIL DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 ❑ PERS DIR
Dear Mayor Pinard and Council Members,
The Residents for Quality Neighborhoods is dedicated to RECEIVEL)
preserving and enhancing the quality of residential
neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo. P'IAR 7 1994
We were just notified that this coming Tuesday' s agenda CITY COUNCIL'
SAN l.uls oBLSEO,�
contains multiple proposed amendments to the zoning
regulations pertaining to residential neighborhoods.
In order to have time to adequately review and respond to
these proposals, the Board of Directors respectfully requests
that Item 2 on the March 8, 1994 agenda be continued to a
later date.
Again, we request that we be notified in advance of any
proposals that may affect neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Raymond E. rdquist
Co-chair
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
AGENDA
DATE ITEM # MA1
COMMMCATION ITEM
:: ..v:::::v..v..a:.:n'+.tl.vvywiN(Ci%i ii:isiLri.Y.riii:!•.ni?:mnni:1::C:a•.`i`:.i XX..iiii:'isi!•ii:!•iiiii"iiiiii:Ciiiii':.iiiiii'1. i.:n:i'i':'liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:i%.ii:f.iiiiiiii:i.iiiiiii':vi ............
..M.......n.
March 8, 1994
TO: The Honorable City Council /
FROM: Diane Gladwell, City Clero
SUBJECT: Trolley UtilizationD
We have requests to utilize the trolley for three special events:
1) La Fiesta Parade (past El Presidentes and their families)
2) Train Centennial Celebration. A shuttle on Saturday, May 7 from the Palm
Street parking structure to the library, then to the train station to alleviate
parking congestion.
3) The Christmas Parade (City Council, staff and families)
We would like to seek Council direction to bring this item for approval at the earliest
possible date.
Attachment: Resolution 8246
IOUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR
"f AO ❑ FIN DIR
Id ACRO F
CHIEF� TTORNEY DIR�CLERKIORIG LICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
a�G READ rl E C7 UTIL DFR
❑ AERS DIR
RESOLUTION NO. 8246 (1993 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY .COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING A POLICY FOP,
SLO TRANSIT VEHICLE USE
WHEREAS, a policy for SLO Transit vehicle use needs to be
developed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo sets the following policy for SLO Transit
vehicle use.
1. San Luis Obispo Transit vehicles, including the trolley, will
only be used for SLO Transit routes and City of San Luis
Obispo activities.
2. That no San Luis. Obispo Transit vehicles will be loaned,
leased, or rented to another city, firm, or individual.
3. The City of San Luis Obispo can make its transit vehicles,
with operators, available to support Regional Transit
activities that benefit the City of San Luis Obispo.
Upon motion of Settle seconded by Romero
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Settle, Romero, Rappa, Roalman, and Mayor Pinard
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 7th day of December ,
1993 .
p
Mayor eg Pinard
ATTEST:
i e Gla well, qty Clerk
R-8246