The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/20/1996, C-3 - TA 64-96: TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW MECHANICAL CAR WASHES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C-N) ZONES. council A] aGEnba nEpont - 6 hm Nm4r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO • O FROM: Arnold Jonas Community Development Director Prepared By: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TA 64-96: Text amendment to allow mechanical car washes in the Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) zones. CAO RECOAMENDATION Grant final passage to Ordinance No. 1304 (1996 Series), as introduced on July 23, 1996, amending the zoning text to allow mechanical carwashes in the Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) zones, with approval of a Planning Commission use permit, and stipulating that such carwashes must be accessory to and in conjunction with service stations. DISCUSSION The City Council introduced Ordinance 1304 on July 23, 1996. The ordinance amends the zoning text to allow mechanical carwashes in C-N zones. The zoning text amendment will go into effect upon expiration of 30 days after final passage. Attached: Ordinance 1304, as introduced. �cr ORDINANCE NO. 1304(1996 SERIES) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS TEXT TO ALLOW MECHANICAL CARWASHES IN TEE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES,AND REMOVING THE 19000-FOOT SPACING REQUIREMENT FOR CARWASHES IN THE TOURIST COMMERCIAL ZONE. (TA 64-96) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 26, 1996 and recommended approval of amendments to the City's Zoning Regulations; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 23, 1996 and has considered testimony of other interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed revisions are consistent with the General PIan, the purposes of the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS,the City Council 1as considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1.The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration with Mitigation adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed text amendment to the Zoning regulations, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration with Mitigation and incorporates the following mitigation measure, as amended by the Planning Commission, in the project: The zoning regulations should be amended to allow mechanical carwashes in the C-N zone, with approval of a use permit similar to that required for carwashes in the Tourist Commercial (C-T) zone. The carwash is allowed only in conjunction with and incidental to service stations. SECTION 2. Section 17.22.010 (Table 9) is hereby amended by changes to the"Carwash- mechanical" row in the table, and by the modifications to footnote 9, as follows: USE R-1 R-2 R-3 R4 C/OS 0 PF I C-N I C-C C-R C-T C-S M `WW&* WN. PC9 D D �w Notes: 0-1304 /13�� Ordinance No. 1304 (1996 Series) Page 2 9. In thdl moi C zonei, car washes are allowed only in conjunction with and incidental to services stations, mid provided that no othen cm wash is 1omted within f 600 feet of dw site. SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance,together with the names of the Council Member voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty(30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at a meeting held on the 23rd day of July, 1996, on motion of Council Member Roalman seconded by Council Member Smith and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Roalman, Smith, Romero, Williams and Mayor Settle NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: ?tylerk Bo ie ca Mayor Allen Settle APPROVED: i o OOA 614 t-4EETIN AGENDA DATE d'-&-9ZITEM # RICHARD SCHMIDT 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, C4r9340544=4 VR%tOUNCIL ElCDD DIR /.� ffiI: rschmfdtdu 9��ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF August 20, 1996 [ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR I eCLERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHFPF Re: Aug. 20 Agenda, Miscellaneous Items ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR [ ❑ R AD,FILE ❑ UTIL DIR lZe 1 To the City Council: ❑ PERS DIRE ��-IR . Looking through your agenda packet, I am appalled at the lack of information staff provides you and how the agenda packets have been dumbed down (or should it be Dunned down) so that you couldn't possibly understand what you are doing based on the information provided. I am also appalled at the overwhelmingly propagandistic nature of the "information" being provided. Further, be it said that if other information is being provided to you to supplement the scanty stuff in you packet, the public doesn't have access to that information, and thus the public is being shut out -- by Dunn and company -- of having any meaningful role in understanding the business that is carried out in the public's name. Finally, I am amazed at the ease with which the current administration has bamboozled the five of you into dismantling San Luis Obispo as we have known it, with nary a word of caution that such is actually what you are up to. When I looked at the current agenda, I was dizzy with the number of major changes you are talking about approving as if they were routine weekly business. I BELIEVE IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT THIS IS THE MOST RECKLESSLY OUT OF CONTROL COUNCIL I HAVE ENCOUNTERED IN 26 YEARS OF LOCAL RESIDENCY. EVEN THE RAMPANTLY PRO-GROWTH DUNIN/RAPPA COUNCIL WOULD HAVE BLUSHED TO DO WHAT YOU DO WEEKLY, AND THE INFAMOUS COOPER COUNCIL NEVER WOULD HAVE TRIED. You have accomplished this all the while believing that the public is wholly behind what you do: you are very mistaken, for the public is angry beyond belief, but feels helpless because you have closed your wagons around the pro-growth/pro-business aristocratic politician "managers" who now run the city and have made it so difficult for the real public to have a hearing of their concerns that most have simply given up. That no one is willing to run against the incumbents is not a sign of approval, it is an indication of total revulsion and disgust and a surrender to defeatism due to the pointlessness of even attempting to speak in opposition. Such sentiments are not confined to persons like myself -- I still make an effort to speak truth to you, after all -- but are the common property of thousands of others far less sophisticated in city affairs than we are. A few more specific comments on agenda items: AUG 2 ii9fi CITY CI.fERK C-2. Annexation on South Broad. It seems we have one annexation after another these days. Why, other than to enable certain land speculators realize huge profits off their speculations? What public good is served by this? Of course, there's no map in the packet, so who knows what you're talking about? The open space is so poorly defined I can't figure out what's being dedicated, or where. Surely this will result in a situation that is wholly unenforceable, yet certain incumbents will be able to campaign on having acquired an open space dedication in return for annexation, and how we then need more annexations to accomplish more of the same. C-3. Carwashes on every corner in the CN zone. Bravo. We really need this. Wholly consistent with the Dunn program of erasing every difference between San Luis Obispo and West Covina or Santa Maria in the interests of promoting business. What's next? Drive-through restaurants? C-9 Santa Rosa Street Bridae. No indication of the effects on the creek, or the large trees near the bridge. Would be nice to know more. Do you understand the environmental effects? The public sure cannot understand based on the staff report. Since engineering's been trying to get rid of these trees for years, one suspects the worst. 2 Selling fire house. This is where "running government like a business" gets us -- a totally amoral approach in which long-term city assets are regarded simply as real estate to be disposed of to the highest bidder. Has the city considered adaptive reuse of the firehouse while retaining city ownership? Might this not be better in the long run than trying to dispose of the property during a real estate slump? Could the city ever repurchase such property for less than what it will get by selling it now? What about the city's fiduciary obligation to its own history? I have written to you before -- though, per usual, one might as well not waste one's time.--about the unique structural nature of the engine house, with its radiating truss roof structure -- a structure so unusual that many of the old-time structural engineering faculty at Cal Poly would make field trips to the site just to show it to students. The engine house space is remarkable. Take out the engines, and it could be a museum, playhouse, or whatever. Does the city not have interest in using its surplus resources to further the cultural life of the city? (Remember, the Dunn crew was dragged kicking and screaming into not quickly demolishing the library, now the SLO City Playhouse.) Are all city assets merely entry lines on some twerp's ledger sheet, and nothing more? You're nuts if you sell this building. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt �_��