Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/1996, 3 - AMENDMENT TO VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT POLICIES OF THE 1994 LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (TA 79-96). council MRtivD� P7—qbo j acenba nepout 1�NuA6. CITYOF SAN LUIS O B 1 S P O D FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director Prepared By: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manage SUBJECT: Amendment to various sections of the Zoning regulations in order to implement policies of the 1994 Land Use Element of the General Plan (TA 79-96). CAO RECOMMENDATION Introduce an ordinance to print amending the Zoning Regulations in order to implement policies of the 1994 Land Use Element of the General Plan. DISCUSSION Background On August 23`", 1994, the City Council adopted the Land Use Element (LUE) of the General Plan. Policy 10.1 of the LUE calls for amendments to the Zoning Regulations in order to implement General Plan policies related to allowable uses and development standards. This packet of zoning text amendments accomplishes this task and brings required consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Regulations. The amendment package was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 120, and continued to August 14°i for further community input and staff analysis. Copies of the Planning Commission staff reports, meeting minutes, and community input are attached for your review. At their hearing of August 101, the Commission recommended Council adoption of the amendments as modified. The Commission dropped from consideration, proposed changes that would have prohibited certain office uses from the City's Service Commercial (C-S) zoning districts. Rather than amending the Zoning Regulations to resolve the inconsistency with the General Plan, the Commission directed staff to independently process an LUE amendment that would allow these office uses in the Services and Manufacturing areas of the City. All other ordinance changes have been forwarded for Council consideration in the attached ordinance. Analysis As discussed above and in the attached Planning Commission staff reports, the City is required to maintain consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Regulations. There were several areas where the 1994 LUE update either called for change in Zoning Regulations or where staff had identified inconsistency needing correction. Specific areas that require change include: definition, parking, and zoning chart changes for bed and breakfast inns; • definition, parking, and zoning chart addition for research and development uses; • definition, parking, and zoning chart addition for warehouse stores; • revisions to density provisions to clarify"net" area available for development; • modification to the planned development regulations allowing smaller commercial sites to take advantage of PD benefits; • lowering the height limit in the Retail Commercial (C-R) zoning district from 45 to 35 feet; and • limiting certain office and retail uses presently allowed in the City's C-S zoning districts. The majority of the Commission discussion focused on the final two items on the above list. The remaining matters were forwarded onto the Council with minor change. With regards to the issue of building heights in the C-R zoning district, the Commission sided with General Plan policies that specify that retail commercial properties surrounding the Central Commercial core should have lower overall building heights which provide a transition to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. This recommendation was made despite the fact that the City's Downtown Physical Concept Plan allows buildings within the plan boundaries (which contain both C-C and C-R zoned properties)to be"two to three.stories." A three story commercial building is difficult to construct within the 35 foot height limit. The Commission's primary focus during their two hearings was on the issue of allowable C-S uses. The attached staff reports contain analysis of the existing conflict between General Plan policies and the Zoning Matrix as well as the planning principles that went into the current LUE policies. After extensive public input, the Commission voted to eliminate certain retail uses from the C-S zoning district that are no longer allowed by the General Plan. Specifically, the Commission agreed with General Plan policies stating that grocery (large non-convenience supermarkets), liquor, drug, discount, variety, and department stores are more appropriate in the retail, and in come cases, neighborhood centers of the City. Numerous other retail uses that are desired and appropriate in the C-S district, such as hardware stores, nurseries, furniture stores, sporting goods stores, etc, would be unaffected by the proposed changes. Recognizing that there is a need for convenience shopping for employees working in the City's services and manufacturing areas, the Commission directed staff to create a definition and new land use category of"convenience markets" which would be allowed in the C-S district consistent with General Plan policies. This amendment will be processed separately. There was extensive input received by the Commission on staffs recommendation to implement General Plan policies limiting office development to the City's downtown and surrounding Office (0) zones. The Commission felt that engineers, architects, contractors, and utility company administrative offices are appropriate in the C-S district. They felt the General Plan policy that grouped them with other professional offices no longer reflected the community values or was perhaps established in error. The Commission therefore directed staff to eliminate the office use changes from this text amendment packet and process a separate General Plan amendment that would include them as allowed uses in the Services and Manufacturing land use designations of the City. ALTERNATIVES The Council may adopt an ordinance in a modified format or direct staff to process amendments to the General Plan provided General Plan and zoning consistency is achieved. Attachments 1 -Draft Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission 2 -Planning Commission Staff Reports Community Correspondence (Council Reading File) 3 -Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1 ORDINANCE NO. (1996 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT POLICIES OF THE 1994 LAND USE ELEMENT (TA 79-96) WBEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on June 12', and August 10, 1996, and recommended approval of certain amendments to the City's Zoning Regulations; and WHEREAS,the City Council conducted a public hearing on , 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 provisions are consistent with the General Plan and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the EIR for the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan (Certified on August 23, 1994) and staffs determination that these implementation amendments constitute a secondary phase of the"project" evaluated by that EIR; and 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 EIR for the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Regulations, and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The Council hereby determines that no further environmental review is required. SECTION 2. Sections 17.04.030, 17.16.010, 17.16.060, 17.22.010, 17.40.020, and 17.50.010 are hereby amended to read as follows: 17.04.030 Bed and.b$reakfast inn. 04.24E) Hotel. ;: ..... "Pled an'd breakfast Inn':'. meansa building or group ofbuildtngs IrrCnndtngllftee or fewer rooins:or suites,for the accotnttZo lama of travelers,wtth:a common eating n'rfaruest A+kLk^en+ �_� 17.16.010 Density. A Determination of Allowed Development. 1. "Density" is the number of the dwelling units per net acre. In the C/OS and R-l zones, each dwelling counts as one unit. In the other zones, different size dwellings have unit values as follows: a. Studio apartment, 0.50 unit; b. One-bedroom dwelling, 0.66 unit; C. Two-bedroom dwelling, 1.00 unit; d. Three-bedroom dwelling, 1.50 units; e. Dwelling with four or more bedrooms, 2.00 units. 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 the slope is measured shall run essentially perpendicular to the contours. - 6rdinance 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 Community Development Director. ii. Cross-slope determinations shall be based on the existing topography of the net site area after accounting for any approved on-site grading necessary to accommodate right-of-way improvements, and before grading for other proposed on-site improvements. iii. Cross-slope shall be calculated only for the"net site area:as defined m::Subsection Alb.below 1. M%eze a site is e,ossed by a e,eek, that vul tion ofthe week betvoeen the tup of bank on eithei side of the week cluni3ml sh2d! nat be pai t ofthe average cion-siolie calculation o, nct area- iv. Slopes calculated to the nearest 0.5 percent shall be rounded up. v. No slope-rated density reduction is required in the C/OS, C-R, C-C or PF zones. vi. The maximum development allowed for each average cross-slope category is as follows: TABLE 1 MAXMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR CROSS-SLOPE CATEGORIES % Average Maximum Density Cross Slope (units per net acre) R-1 R-2, O R-3 R4 C,R&: C-N, C-T 04 0 -15 7 12 18 24 3;6 16-20 4 6 9 12 3;6. 21-25 2 4 6 8 36 26+ 1 2 3 4 36 By approving an administrative use permit, the Director may grant exceptions to the reduction of density with slope where the parcel in question is essentially surrounded by development at least as dense as the proposed development. The exception shall not authorize density greater than that. allowed for the category of less than 15% slope for the appropriate zone. (See also Section 17.12.020.D, Nonconforming Lots - Regulations.) b.Determine the Net Area of the Site. "Net area" ineladm is all the area within the property lines of the development site minas street right=o&way. excluding the fgilorvmg tseex n ►t of waydedtaated tti the Cary; Ar ea between the lops ofbankc of et$eks Shown on:the Open Space; lement"Creeks �vta; r rttat ceupted by.spectes hsted as "endangered" or "threatened" by the tT S ��sh' ar Wildlife Service or the.CalifornaDepartment ofxish and Game, oras "plants of Ivghest pranty" by the Galrforrua;Nattve Plant Soctey 1rea wtthirt the drip hie of"heritage 3rees" destgnated by the City, c.Multiply the resulting area(in whole and fractional acres)by the maximum density allowed (in units per acre) according to the table in subsection A.La. of this section. d. The resulting number(m dwelling units, carried out to the nearest one-hundredth unit) will be the maximum residential development potential. Any combination of dwelling types and numbers may be developed, so long as their combined unit values do not exceed the maximum potential. 17.16.060 Parking space requirements. Table 6-Parking Requirements by Use is hereby amended as follows: 3 _(a Type of Use Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required Bed atrd.lireskfast:ilrtta Qne:per roam or group of roOW:o be ocCupled as a suite; plus ode dor resident manager's quarters:; Motels-, hotels, bed and bmal.Fast inils One per room or group of rooms to be occupied as a suite, plus one for resident manager's quarters, plus eating/assembly area requirements. ftesearcl? ani development One'space.per 300' quare ;feet office or`lalioratory area,;: plus one spaee pe..... 0 square fee[; mdoor asseri bly ofab r rtcattop area, plus one space per 1,500. $quare feet 0: door..;work area ar tnd.0 VW ouse area: 17.22.010 Uses allowed by zones. Table.9- Uses Allowed by Zone is hereby amended as follows: Table 9-Uses Allowed by Zone R-1 R-2 R-3 R4 C/OS O" PF C-N C-C C-R C-T C-S M aaid5 fa'stsn s R.C. PC A A A Motels;atI hotels,—bed-an$ A A A bree ;sns(see'also"5a;arii Iteseazcftiad':ti velopent- A A/D A A A sei ycs'sottaar 'cpgsumer .......: :. 1iiuf sl;snuofeaazW relate 4ii `'slieu►cai arc riud tie a?apzuent'_ K D ransporuton eguiRinerit >veapongtnetals'chemicals; j ltlil g ertaTs: .........i:f Retail sales-indoor sales of AB A A A A building materials and gardening ................... supplies( rdAm floor and wall coverings,paint,glass stores,etc.) Retail sales-groceries,liquor and A A A PC specialized foods(bakery,meats, dairy items,etc.) Table 9-Uses Allowed by Zone R-1 R-2 . R-3 R4 C/OS 0" PF C-N C-C C-R C-T C-S M Retail sales-general merchandise (drug,hwdwere-,discount, de�p�artment and varipe(ty stores) -15,000 square feet or less gross A A A f'E floor area per establishment -15,001 to 60,000 square feet PC A A PE gross floor area per establishment -more than 60,000 square feet PC D PE gross floor area per establishment. iil` s= uaseuusestxiss PC D D Social services and charitable A D D A A agencies scats ` ' A - The use is allowed; D - If the Director approves an administrative use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.080,the use may be established: PC- If the Planning Commission approves a use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.080,the use may be established, A/D- The use is allowed above the ground floor. If the Director approves an administrative use permit,it may be established on the ground floor. 17.40.020 Property development standards. The property development standards for the C-R zone are as follows: A. Maximum density: 36 units per net acre for all dwelling, including dwelling units in hotels and motels, but not including other hotel or motel units (see also Section 17.16.010). B. Maximum street and other yards: See Section 17.16.020. C. Maximum height: 4515. feet (see also Section 17.16.020 and 17.16.040). D. Maximum coverage: 100% E. Parking requirements: See Section 17.16.060. 17.50.010 Purpose and application. The planned development zone is intended to encourage imaginative development and effective use of sites. It does this by allowing more variation in project design than normal standards would allow. Such variation from normal standards should provide benefits to the project occupants or to the community as a whole which could not be provided under conventional regulations. PD rezoning must occur simultaneously with approval of a specific project. In the C-N C-C :, ;=R; =' d zones, the PD zone may be applied to any parcel. In all other zones, the PD zone may be applied to any parcel or contiguous parcels of at least one acre. SECTION 3. Sections 17.04.328, 17.04.455, are hereby added to read as follows: 7 .. 2$ Researth;and.:c)<eveiopment " tesearcfl.a deyeloptnent" means a facility where basic scientific, markettng, r,similar types rescarclt.are conducted, or-where new products or 'services are designed, or prototypes are Ifroduced or.tesfed,.excI dih retail sales and produc.on run manufacturing:: 1'7.±D�;.455 nrehouse,store; "Watehot se " means n retatt7 oz wholesale store which,:sells items pnn �n1 trt<bulk quantities n cxmtatrlerS,end which:has mulmal range of brands and:minimal display space.that is,separate � tarageaias' SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of 1996 , on a motion of _, seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: Bonnie Gawf, City Clerk APPROVED: -� 5 om Je Jor seri _3 /O CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM a BY: Ronald Whisenand, MEETING DATE: August 14, 1996 Development Review Manager FILE NUMBER: TA 79-96 PROJECT ADDRESS: City-Wide SUBJECT: Amendment to various sections of the Zoning Regulations in order to implement policies of the 1994 Land Use Element of the General Plan. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Recommend adoption of the changes, with or without modification, to the City Council. BACKGROUND The amendment package was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 12' and directed back to staff for further analysis and community input. Specifically, the Commission asked for: a. more time for further input from business groups, and Jane McVey, the City's new Economic Development Manager; b. additional legislative history and background on the General Plan policies in question.; and C. notice of this hearing to be sent to all property owners within the Service Commercial (C-S) zoning district. EVALUATION A. Summary of Key Issues and Decisions Requiring Commission Action Staff has presented the Commission with a packet of text changes that provide consistency between the City's Land Use Element (LUE) and the Zoning Regulations. The amendments cover avariety of issue areas, some of which were the focus of attention at the June 12"' Planning Commission meeting. Staff heard no discussion at that meeting of the proposed definition changes, density modifications, parking requirements, and changes to the area limitations for commercial planned developments. Although still a key component of this amendment package, they will not be discussed in this report. The Commission should refer to the earlier staff report for more information and analysis of those changes. The Commission's discussion previously focused on General Plan policies that limit certain uses in the areas of the City designated as Services and Manufacturing, as well as those that call for a reduction in the allowable height limits in General Retail areas. This report will address these two main issues and should form the framework for the Commission's deliberation on August 14°i. As pointed out in the earlier staff report, the Commission must determine whether the proposed zoning text amendments would achieve conformance with existing General Plan policy. If the Commission majority finds sufficient grounds that the General Plan policies no longer reflect A+fae hw i+ 2 3 _�� "community values," then the Commission should recommend to the City Council, appropriate amendments to existing General Plan policies. The current inconsistency between land use regulations must be corrected. B. Land Use Element History The Commission has asked for additional legislative history on how the policies in question got adopted and what the planning principles were that motivated them. Staff has researched our records from the LUE update process and were unable to find where the discussion of appropriate uses for the Services and Manufacturing land use designation was included in the minutes of the Planning Commission or City Council. However, staff who were present at those meetings and were involved in the update of the LUE from the beginning, remember some of the principles that went into development of the policies. The Zoning Regulations have developed and evolved over the years with expansion of allowable C-S uses. This process has tended to create a district that has become somewhat "catch all" in nature and has presumably lost it's original intended purpose. The August 1994 LUE attempted to take a closer look at the various land use districts in the City and control the character of those districts by applying policies that logically relate uses to specific areas or zones within the City. As a result, in the Services and Manufacturing category, fewer types.of new retail stores and new, small offices could be developed. On the other hand, the update added the categories"warehouse stores" and "research and development" to the allowable uses. The update did not change the allowance for"planned developments" accommodating office tenant spaces larger than 2,500 square feet. The C-S zoning district is seen as being strongly instrumental in implementing the services and manufacturing principles of the General Plan. The LUE saw the areas designated for Services and Manufacturing as a potential resource for the desired "clean industry" uses that would provide solid economic growth for the Community (i.e. research and development). Since it was thought there would be special requirements and unique issues associated with these industries (such as larger development areas, suitable parking, neighborhood compatibility, etc.) that may not similarly apply to smaller office and specialty retail uses, it was felt that the City needed to reserve sufficient land area to accommodate these types of uses. Several of the office and retail uses allowable in C-S are also allowed in zones created primarily for those uses (Office, Retail Commercial, and Neighborhood Commercial). On the other hand, manufacturing uses are not allowed in zones other than C-S and M. If a wide range of retail and office uses could be developed in the C-S zone, they might occupy the limited land resource that otherwise would be available for desired industrial or service commercial uses. The concern was that other uses allowed in other zoning districts could perhaps reduce the amount of land that would be available for these other more specialized uses. The General Plan policies also recognize the value of the downtown as a resource needing land use protection. To reinforce the vitality of downtown, and to take advantage of proximity to government services and transit, offices should continue to be a key part of the commercial core and its immediate surroundings. However, some large offices —especially those that do not have substantial public visits—would be appropriate in outlying areas with a PD overlay, and would be compatible with light ��Z industrial uses. Statements made at the last hearing and in letters attached to this report, indicate that the C-S district needs to remain flexible in order to attract a diverse range of potential industries. Attracting a diverse economic base is in fact a key theme of several of the Community Goals contained in the introductory sections of the LUE. The issue however comes down to where should these uses locate or concentrate. It was envisioned that office and speciality retail uses should be located in areas closer to the downtown core and that service and research and development industries should be reserved for the C-S zoning district. Should the Commission feel that keeping the C-S district open to other uses is important to the economic growth of San Luis, then they should direct staff to re-evaluate LUE policies for the Services and Manufacturing land use district. As far as the height issue is concerned, the goal of Policy 4.18 is to have the pattern of development in the retail commercial areas match that in the downtown commercial core. The policy calls for building heights not to exceed two stories(not three as mentioned in attached correspondence). The height limit is currently 45 feet in the C-R district and is proposed to be reduced to 35 feet consistent with this LUE policy. The Downtown Physical Concept Plan calls for the preservation of the "existing building height patterns of two and three stories" in the downtown core. Although the Downtown Physical Concept Plan does not have the same status as the LUE, the goals contained in it may reflect a desire for building heights of three stories in the downtown and surrounding areas. Should the Commission feel that this is the case, staff should be directed to process an amendment to Policy 4.18 changing the height to "three stories (about 45 feet in height)." If this occurs, no amendment to the Zoning Regulations would be necessary. C. C-S hanges and Devaluation of Property Several comments made at the last hearing or contained in letters attached to this report, state that changes in C-S zoning will de-value property because the range of potential buyers or tenants will be limited. Staff does not believe that this is the case. The C-S district is currently one of the most generous zoning districts and allows over 90 "use categories." Limiting office development in the C-S district to PDs and removing certain retail uses will have no significant effect on the extensive listing of service commercial uses that will continue to be allowed in the C-S district. With such an extensive range of C-S uses remaining, there would be no "takings" as a result of adoption of the proposed changes. Neither component of the two prong test applied in Agins v. City of Tiburon, can be made. It was a finding in this key land use case that a general zoning law becomes a taking if the ordinance either(1)"does not substantially advance legitimate state interests" or (2) "denies an owner economically viable use of his land." D. Input From the City's Economic Development Manger Jane McVey, the City's new Economic Development Manager has reviewed the proposed changes along with minutes from the June 12'Planning Commission meeting. Jane's comments are attached to this report. In summary, she feels that while we should make sure that we have property available for new research and development industries, we can not forget the economic importance of supporting growth and expansion of our existing businesses. Jane has outlined several options for Planning Commission consideration. E. Alternatives Staff's recommendation is based on our role to implement Council policy. This policy has been set forth in the General Plan update. We have identified some legitimate planning principles justifying the policies in question in the above analysis. If the Commission feels that the policies no longer reflect community values, then you have the task of directing the matter back to staff to for preparation of a recommendation to the City Council for amendment to the LUE including revised policy language and the analysis necessary to support the requested changes. Attached: A. Legislative Draft Ordinance B. Memo From Jane McVey, Economic Development Manager C. Letters ORDINANCE NO. (1996 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT POLICIES OF THE 1994 LAND USE ELEMENT (TA 79-96) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on June 12', and August 14'x, 1996, and recommended approval of certain amendments to the City's Zoning Regulations; and WHEREAS,the City Council conducted a public hearing on , 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 Gity Council, finds that the prop sed' rovis ons:are consistent with P:., P t the General Plan and other applicable City ordinancesand WHERBAS, the City Council has considered...the EIR for the Land Use and Circulation Elements cifIhe General Plan(Cdrtified on August 23, 1994) and staff's::.oetetnttnat on that these implementation amendments constitute a secondary phase of the"project" evaluated by that EIR; and BT -IT,QRDAINED by the Council of the City of San aiiObispo as follows;: S£CTION1 The..City Council finds and determines that the FIR for.the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed texd amendments to the Zoning Regulations, and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The Council hereby determines that no further environmental review is required. SECTION 2. Sections 17.04.030, 17.16.010, 17.16.060, 17.22.010, 17.40.020, and 17.50.010 are hereby amended to read as follows: 17.04.030 Bed andSBreakfast inn. See Section . "$ed and breakfast tnn" means a butlding;or group of buildings providyngtvvelvs ar fewer rooms or Buttes forahe accommodation of travelers,.wtth ac m ea inz foz guests;! 17.16.010 Density. A. Determination of Allowed Development. 1. "Density" is the number of the dwelling units per net acre. In the C/OS and R-1 zones, each dwelling counts as one unit. In the other zones, different size dwellings have unit values as follows: a. Studio apartment, 0.50 unit; b. One-bedroom dwelling, 0.66 unit; C. Two-bedroom dwelling, 1.00 unit; d. Three-bedroom dwelling, 1.50 units; e. Dwelling with four or more bedrooms, 2.00 units. 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 differedce t` elevation to the horizontal distance between two points on the perimeter of the area for which slope it being detgrmined <The hne along which the slope is measured shall run essentially perpendicular ;tp the . ntour5. (4ena ii, the Giading I. Where a site-does not slope uniformly, average cross-slope is to be.:determined by proportional weighting off f the cross-slopes of uniformly sloping subareas, as determined by, the Community Developmetit DirectorX.: ,. ii. Cross-slope determinations shall be based on the existing topography of the net site area after accounting for any approved on-site grading necessary to accommodate right-of-way improvements, and befnrrgrading for other proposed.on-site improvements V. iii. Cross'sTopBshall be calcrtiated only for the'"net srte area" as;defined in Subsection Alb below Y. eithe, side of die meek chaiii.el shall nut be pan of the 2IVelage cioss-sloprcealMliatioll 01 net ares iv. Slopes calculated to the nearest 0.5 percent shall be rounded up. v. No slope-rated density reduction is required in the C/OS, C-R, C-C or PF zones. vi. The maximum development allowed for each average cross-slope category is as follows: TABLE 1 MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR CROSS-SLOPE CATEGORIES % Average Maximum Density Cross Slope (units per net acre) R-1 R-2, O R-3 R-4 € C-N, C-T 06C 0 -15 7 12 18 24 36 16-20 4 6 9 12 3.6 21-25 2 4 6 8 36 26+ 1 2 3 4 36. By approving an administrative-use permit, the Director may grant exceptions to the reduction of density with slope whereheparcel in question is essentially surrounded by development at least as dense as the proposed deuelopd ent The excepts n shalt;not 1.1 ii ze density greater than that allowed for the categot'y of less than I5°;n stupe for the appropnate zone. (See also Section 17.12.020.D, Nonconfoi riing Lots 'liegutations.) b.Determine the.Npt Area of the Site. "Net area" includes is all the area:within the property lines of the developltientsite - excludmg!the fotlowtng . S#reet ight-o£way`dedicated to the Gty; Area between the tops ofbiw ofcreeks shown on tt'e ©pen Space)rtement":trreeks I. 3. -ATAN..... occupied by!spectes bsted:as "endangered" qr "threatened" by the U.S Fish anci'�Vild....p ersnce or the t~al�farma Deparpment of F►sh and'Game: r as "plants of highest pno'rtty" by:the Caltforma Native Plant Society; W tbtn the drip:lme of'"hel tage trees"'.designated bytf e Crm; c. Multiply the resulting area(in whole and fractional acres)by the maximum density allowed (in units per acre) according to the table in subsection A.La. of this section. d. The resulting number(m dwelling units, carried out to the nearest one-hundredth unit) will be the maximum residential development potential. Any combination of dwelling types and numbers may be developed, so long as their combined unit values do not exceed the maximum potential. 17.16.060 Parking space requirements. Table 6-Parking Requirements by Use is hereby amended as follows: 2-17 Type of Use Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required Sed a c breakfast ulii One per roam ©r group of rooms to sbe oewpl-! as;a Butte, plusane for resident manager's quarters; Motels app hotels, bed and bjeakfast imi One per room or group of rooms to be occupied as a suite, plus one for resident manager's quarters, plus eating/assembly area requirements. esearch.and development One space per 300: squarelfeet office or.... torq aired, plus one spam per :SOA square feet lndoar assembly arfab ncatlon area,plus one space Fier 1,SOQ square feet gutdoor'workarea WarehpuSe Stq„re One space per 500 §quare feet gross floor.area:: 17.22.010 Uses allowed by Eones- Table 9- Uses Allowed°6y Zane is herby atnetidie:d utvs Table 9-Uses Allowed by Zone R-1 R-2 C/OS O” PF CN:>::: C-C C-R C-T C-S M «: PC A A A Motel '"" hotels, edyi++& Btx1 inrakfmtiam(sise`also`bezt.and offices(contractors)-all types of A A/D A X430 �c1:1) genal and special building contractor's offices....... ........... X. Offices en ea rdeers 10 ( Pacer )_ g >41:0 architects,and inditatnal deSi : >;. • Organizations(professional>.. 0:10 10 religious,political,labor, fraternal,trade,youth,etc.) Offices and meeting rooms i2SrCa+d` y14Ros A: M7. A A Bos twai `.aor(sum . istruneus`"officz ;sod stiriilstiieiric lie earif':i �eve3.P.M.W.-:1` D 3 spprt f griEqu P . . Wr:ap;4u5. 1� c�CilS . s ld ng er al. dull:>si...... .ems Retail sales-groceries,liquor and A A A PC 13 specialized foods(bakery,meats, dairy items,etc.) Table 9-Uses Allowed by Tone R-1 R-2 R-3 R4 C/OS O" PF C-N C-C C-R C-T C-S M Retail sales-general merchandise (drug,hardware,discount, department and variety stores) etioisesf " -15,000 square feet or less gross A A A f'E floor area per establishment -15,001 to 60,000 square feet PC A A Pe gross floor area per establishment -more than 60,000 square feet PC D PE gross floor area per establishment. aes 9varsesores PC A D Secretarial and related services A A/D A f3.1.0 t0 (court reporting,stenography, typing,telephone answering,etc.) ..: Social services and charitable A A A ageneses(see;also Utility companies -Corporation yards PC A A -Customer account se v.ces(bill A D q j paying and inquiries -Distribution and transmission facilities-see Section 17.08.050 -Engineering and ldminist#ation A A/D A offices ]0 -Payment dr OP Pett .. ,. A A A A.. A - The use is allowed; D - If the Director approves an administrative use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.080,the use may be established; PC- If the Planning Commission approves a use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.080,the use may be established; A/D- The use is allowed above the ground floor. If the Director approves an administrative use pennit, it may he established on the ground floor. 17.40.020 Property development standards. The property development standards for the C-R zone are as follows: A. Maximum density: 36 units per net acre for all dwelling, including dwelling units in hotels and motels, but not including other hotel or motel units (see also Section 17.16.010). B. Maximum street and other yards: See Section 17.16.020. C. Maximum height: 453:5 feet (see also Section 17.16.020 and 17.16.040). D. Maximum coverage: 100% E. Parldng requirements: See Section 17.16.060. 17.50.010 Purpose and application. The planned development zone is intended to encourage imaginative development and effective use of sites. It does this by allowing more variation in project design than normal standards would allow. Such variation from normal standards should provide benefits to the project occupants or to the community as a whole which could not be provided under conventional regulations. PD rezoning must occur simultaneously with approval of a specific project. In the C;=; C-C ; '=Ra zones, the PD zone may be applied to any parcel. In all other zones, the PD zone may be applied to any parcel or contiguous parcels of at least one acre. SECTION 3. Sections 17.04.328, 17.04.455, are hereby added to read as follows: 7.00:.q 0 .328 itesearc6,;and did t: ReSearCEi 2nd deyelbpment" me2rts facility where basic scientific, maiketing,';or similar types ttf reseatigh areottdticted, or where new products ar semces are designed, oT prototypes are. ibd¢Ceci or tested= exclvdm.g retazl sales and production run manufactunna: IMM 5 arelx'ouse store Uses. means a large xeta�Lar wholesale store which sells;:ttems'pitmanly an bulk quantit�es.or cotttaatiexs ,and which has mtmtrtal:range of brands and ai ntmal;display .space that: ge 'SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together wlth;3he names of Council members voting fpr and: against, shall be;published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the N. Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of 1996 , on a motion of _, seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ob Mayor ATTEST: Bonnie Gawf, City Clerk APPROVED: City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen ;<< CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rreNi# BY: Ronald Whisenand, MEETING DATE: June 12, 1996 Development Review Manager FILE NUMBER: TA 79-96 PROJECT ADDRESS: City-Wide SUBJECT: Amendment to various sections of the Zoning Regulations in order to implement policies of the 1994 Land Use Element of the General Plan. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Recommend adoption of the changes, with our without modification, to the City Council. BACKGROUND Situation After a lengthy review and hearing process, the City Council adopted the Land Use Element (LUE) of the General Plan on August 23', 1994. The LUE provides a"generalized blueprint" for the future of San Luis Obispo by establishing policies and programs that set forth a pattern for the orderly development of the community. A key component, or"second phase" of any General Plan update is implementation, where the various policies and programs of the LUE can be carried out. Policy 10.1 specifically calls for amendments to the Zoning Regulations in order to implement policies of the General Plan related to allowable uses and development standards. The City's Zoning Regulations are intended to "guide the development of the city in an orderly manner,based on the adopted general plan..." Section 17.02.050 specifically requires that the Zoning Regulations be"interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the general plan." Therefore in order to have consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Regulations, any changes to LUE policies, needs corresponding amendments to the Zoning Regulations. EVALUATION A. Proposed Text Changes The attached legislative draft contains recommendations for amendments to existing regulations (SECTION 2) and the establishment of new zoning provisions (SECTION 3). Reference and discussion of LUE policies that necessitate the change in Zoning Regulations are as follows: 1. Bed and Breakfast inns. Policy 3.4.2, relating to the location of visitor-serving uses, states that"small-scale facilities(such as hostels or bed-and-breakfast places) may be located in Medium-High Density Residential and High-Density Residential Districts, where compatible." In order to implement this policy, staff is recommending the establishment of a definition for bed and breakfast inns(Sec. 17.040.030), establish a parking standard similar to other visitor serving uses (Sec. 17.16.060), and addition of a separate use category in UZOUP.WPD Table 9 (Sec. 17.22.010). Bed and Breakfast Inns will now be allowed with a Planning Commission use permit in the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts and will continue to be allowed by right in the C-C, C-R, and C-T districts. 2. Density Provisions. Policy 2.4.1 clarifies how staff and project applicants are to calculate"net area" when determining residential densities. Specifically, "sensitive features such as creeks, habitats of rare or endangered plants and animals, and significant trees; land dedicated in fee to the pubic for streets or neighborhood parks" are not to be used in determining allowable densities. In addition to the modification to Section 17.16.0 10•A2b, staff is proposing some other minor clean-up amendments to the density standards. 3. Use Matrix (Table 91. a. Office Uses: Section 3.3 of the LUE address the City's office policies. While recognizing the need for sufficient land for office development, Policy 3.3.1 indicates, "Not all types of offices are appropriate in all locations." Policy 3.3.2 goes further to determine where office development should occur in the City. Specifically, all types of offices are appropriate in the downtown General Retail district (with some qualifications) and the Office district which surrounds the downtown commercial area. Medical services, government, and social services are subject to the City's long established "tri-polar" policy (LUE Section 5.1) which calls out certain locations outside of the core that are appropriate for these office types. Services and Manufacturing areas are no longer appropriate for office uses except with Planned Development zoning and where no single tenant space is less than 2,500 square feet. The Zoning Regulations currently allow contractor and engineering offices in the C-S zoning district by right and organization offices and meeting rooms with an administrative use permit. The"secretarial and related services" use category is also a type of office which is currently allowed in the C-S zone as well. To find out why these C-S office uses got established in the first place, one needs to review the 1977 General Plan, which contained policies allowing engineering and industrial design offices and certain retail and convenience commercial uses in the Service Commercial areas. These policies were not "carried over" during the LUE update thereby creating an inconsistency in the City's Zoning Regulations that needs to be addressed. Certainly, a number of existing offices that have been established in the C-.S zone under the old provisions, will become non-conforming by adoption of the attached implementation measures. The General Plan in fact recognized this and included Policy 3.3.3, which states that;"Existing office buildings outside the areas described in policy 3.3.2 may continue to be used and may have minor expansions" provided they are located where they will not impact nearby uses. All new offices will need to locate in accordance with current office policies. b. Research and Development Uses: Policy 3.5.2 E introduces research and development as a new land use type. Staff has therefore created a definition for "research and development" (Sec. 17.04.328), created appropriate parking standards for the use (Sec. 17.16.060), and identified the use in Table 9 (Sec. 17.22.010). Staff proposes the creation LAZOUP.WPD 2 of two categories of research and development depending on the intensity of the use. The more intensive uses will be subject to use permit approval thereby allowing for a public hearing and appeal process. C. Retail Uses: Commission review of a recent use permit for the TK Development site brought to light General Plan policies relating to the appropriateness of certain retail uses within the Service and Manufacturing areas of the City. Specifically, Policy 3.5.3 states that, "New specialty stores, department stores, or neighborhood commercial centers should not be developed in Service and Manufacturing areas." These uses are intended for the General Retail and Neighborhood Commercial areas according to LUE Sections 3.1 and 3.2. Staff is therefore recommending that certain retail sales uses be eliminated from the C-S zoning district. Again, as with the office policies, the General Plan recognizes that implementation will create a number of non-conforming uses. Policy 3.5.3 therefore allows continued use and expansion of existing retail uses provided certain findings are made. d. Warehouse Stores: Another new land use type to come about with adoption of the LUE is"warehouse stores." The term comes out of the listing of allowable uses within the Services and Manufacturing land use designation (Policy 3.5.2 Q. As with research and development, staff has created a definition (Sec. 17.04.455), parking standard (Sec. 17.16.060), and created a new use type in the zoning matrix to identify where these uses could locate within the City (Sec. 17.22.010). Note, similar policies in the General Retail sections of the LUE call for"warehouse stores" and therefore you will find them as allowable uses with use permits in the C-C and C-R as well as the C-S zoning districts. 4. Development Standards: Policy 4.18 of the LUE establishes a two story (about 35 feet)height limit for buildings surrounding the commercial core. The current height limit in the C-R zone (commercial area surrounding the downtown C-C core) is 45 feet. Staff is recommending that the height limit be reduced to 35 feet consistent with this LUE policy. It is important to note that the exception provisions contained in the Zoning Regulations (Sec. 17.16.040) would remain for unusual situations. 5. Planned Development Provisions: Currently, planned development rezoning requests are allowed on parcels of at least one acre in area (with an exception for the C-C zoning district). LUE Program 3.7.2 specifically calls for an amendment to this section to allow the use of PD zoning on commercial or industrial parcels of any size. B. Environmental Review The proposed amendments implement policies and programs of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. These policies and programs were given thorough environmental review through the General Plan Amendment process which culminated in the certification of a "project" EIR on August 23" 1994. Since these implementing amendments are called for by that General Plan, they can be considered a sub-phase of that project. No further environmental review is required. ALTERNATIVES L:\ZOUP.WPD A. The Planning Commission may recommend approval of changes different from what has been presented provided those amendments are determined to be in conformance with the General Plan. B. The Planning Commission may recommend that the Council direct staff to process an amendment to the General Plan should the Commission feel that any policies no longer reflect current community values. C. The Commission may continue action. Direction should be given to staff. Attached: A. Legislative Draft Ordinance B. Service Commercial Policy Excerpt From 1977 LUE L'\ZOUP.WPD Draft Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1996 Page 2 1. 1020 Railroad Avenue: 0 36-96: Review of eneral Plan determination for surplus of City property; C-R-S-H Zone; Saro Rizzo, appl' ant. Development Review Manager Whisenand pre nted the staff report, recommending finding the disposition of surplus City property consistent wit olicies of the City's General Plan and exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. There were no questions asked of staff at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Steven Puglisi, 226 Encanto Ave., Shell Beach, representi the Rizzo family, stated they have reviewed the staff report and agree with it. He urged the Co mission to follow the staff report and offered to answer any questions. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public co ment session was closed. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS: Commissioner Ready made a motion to find the disposition of surpl City property consistent with policies of the City's General Plan and exempt from the California En ironmental Quality Act. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Veesart. AYES: Commissioners Ready, Veesart, Senn, Whittlesey, nd Chairman Karleskint NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Kourakis and Jeffrey 2. Citvwide: TA 79-96: Review of amendment of the Zoning Regulations to implement the Land Use Element General Plan; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Development Review Manager Whisenand presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the changes, with or without modification, to the City Council. Commissioner Veesart asked if there is an issue of running out of appropriately zoned land for manufacturing if the current allowable uses in the C-S Zoning are allowed to continue. A44achMe'l+ Draft Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1996 Page 3 Development Review Manager Whisenand displayed an overhead transparency and stated we are running out of vacant C-S land. Commissioner Senn asked if Trader Joe's came in now and asked to located where they are, would they be turned down. Development Review Manager Whisenand replied yes. Commissioner Senn asked if Smart and Final would be turned down today. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated that as a warehouse store, it would be allowed. Commissioner Senn asked if the Circle K on Higuera and South would be allowed. Development Review Manager Whisenand answered no. No further questions were asked of staff at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Bill Thoma, Thoma Electric, representing the Chamber and himself, stated this has been a very confusing issue. He went to every Council, study session, and Commission hearing and the resulting zoning ordinance that would take away uses in the C-S Zone was never discussed. To take anything out of the C-S Zone when we have a zone that works very well is not right. He applauds the efforts of staff to include such uses as research and development, warehouse stores, and additional uses. To take uses away when there isn't a problem becomes subject to interpretation down the road. Mr. Thoma stated there was a comment in the original staff report that the language did not survive the General Plan, therefore the original language didn't survive in the update. The update of the General Plan was a complete rewrite. If something was left out, it was an oversight. Mr. Thoma feels this may be detrimental to the community. It is bad for business to further limit uses in a zone that's worked very well. There haven't been any demonstrated problems. The consistency should be made by changing the General Plan back to the way it was. We don't have a problem. Let's not fix it. A 35' high building will not permit an three-story building. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the General Plan does mention two stories and 35'. Commissioner Senn asked where in the two story/35' is in the General Plan. a7 Draft Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1996 Page 4 Development Review Manager Whisenand stated policy+ 4.18. Commissioner Senn asked if the building he works in at 444 Higuera was approved under the previous General Plan. Development Review Manager Whisenand answered yes. Commissioner Senn asked when three story to two story change in downtown took place. Mr. Thoma stated it was a previous Council action. John Belsher stated the San Luis Obispo Business Coalition formed a couple of years ago with a couple of purposes in mind, including promotion of economic vitality for the community. They have only taken united action on a couple of items. They have joined together to sign a letter opposing the proposed zoning changes. He distributed this letter to the Commission and staff. He also distributed a letter from Ron McCormick to the Commission and staff. Mr. Belsher stated creating a large number of nonconforming uses is a really serious matter and should be discouraged. There is money and time involved in a P-D amendment and has discretionary approval and has an arbitrary and capricious standard of review. It can be denied for any reason. A P-D is not an answer to solving people's desire to locate in the C-S Zone. The Commission has a lot of authority to interpret the General Plan and to recommend amendments. The Commissioner must exercise good planning. Steve Barasch, 225 Prado Rd., Suite H, stated he is the Government Affairs Director of the A.I.A.C.C.C.C., a property owner and real estate developer within the C-S Zone, property owner along Tank Farm Rd., and a real estate advisor to Union Oil, Union Land and Development Company, which is a subsidiary of Union Oil of California. As a representative of A.I.A., Mr. Barasch stated they sent the Commission a letter dated August 6. He feels there may be economic impacts of this possible action. Mr. Barasch has developed multi-tenant office and commercial properties within the C-S Zone that respect both the current C-S zoning requirements and the Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan. He has invested additional money to be in the Higuera Commerce Park. He has adhered to additional setbacks, height requirements, and signage, which are over and above the normal C-S Zone. They presently have nine different uses within this C-S Zone property. Under the proposed text amendment, seven of the nine uses would not be allowed and considered nonconforming uses. Of the seven, four of the uses are owners because they have an air-space subdivision. Each of the owners is concerned because it may affect the reselling, reevaluation, or refinancing of their property. �'aQ Draft Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1996 Page 5 He feels there could be a significant diminishing of the values of the properties. Half of his office is designated as an architect's office and the other half is a construction yard. The proposed use modification in the C-S Zone is punitive because some people have invested a great deal of resources, time, and money in creating a product that will now be considered nonconforming. If a new height limit is imposed, it would penalize a land owner. He feels he could be penalized for the improvements he has made, for the releasing of the units, resale of the units. Mr. Barasch urged the Commission to reevaluate the Land Use Element of the General Plan in order to remove any perceived or actual inconsistencies in the City's present Zoning Ordinance. In the event it is deems impractical to revisit the Land Use Element of the General Plan, he recommends the Commission consider subdividing the C-S Zone further into sub-zones, based on present and potential intensity of land uses. This would preserve present and future property owners' investments and encourage further capital investments in terms of inventory improvements to the existing businesses. He quoted Peter Drucker, "Nothing is less productive then to make more efficient what should not be done at all." Commissioner Senn asked which of Mr. Barasch's tenants would be considered nonconforming. Mr. Barasch stated the American Red Cross, the engineering offices Lampman and Smith, half of his own office, and some of the clerical support uses. Seven out of the nine occupants would be affected. This would also have an economic ripple effect in the community. Lauren Brown, 7 Chuparosa Dr., stated he is representing the Manufacturers'Association and Maggie Cox. He cited and distributed Ms. Cox's letter to the Commission. Mr. Brown stated he would like to address the Commission representing three business entities, JBL Scientific, Granada Associates, and Strawboro (Inaudible) Associates. He stated Table 17.16.060 in the category of research and development, there are some guidelines for calculating parking space. They are real sensitive to this. He requested that the third category be modified to read one space per 1,500 square foot, and this would apply to outdoor work area or indoor warehouse area. The biggest concern that JBL Scientific has is in Table 9. He requested clarification of the wording in category 6. He would like assurance that their business, as it operates now, is an allowed use in the C-S Zone. He proposed category 6 to read: Research and development and services, light chemical processing. JBL is regulated by numerous governmental agencies relative to public safety. They are inspected on a regular basis. He would also like to encourage a 45' height limit. JBL Scientific uses several engineering firms in the area and the employees frequent the delis also located in the area. This closeness also saves unnecessary automobile trips. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated delis would still be allowed and encouraged in this area. � a� Draft Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1996 Page 6 Mike Cannon, residing in Atascadero, stated he has two pieces of property in the C-S Zone on Pacific St. He is strongly of the opinion that subtracting or restricting any of the allowed uses would result in the considerable reduction in the value of C-S property. It would pose a financial burden on the business and land owners. This would pose a long-term drastic reduction in the actual property in the event of refinancing and reselling. It is not easy to do business in this city because of the economic precariousness of the area. Requiring P-D approval on the uses that are listed in the staff report poses significant impediment on the part of the business owner or entrepreneur who wants to start a business in the area. A P-D costs $2,500 for a permit, expenses to prepare the plans, and $3,000 to $6,000 in holding costs. He questions the wisdom of encouraging one business activity over and at the expense of many others. He supports the addition of the uses proposed by staff. He suggests changing the General Plan to conform with the Land Use Element. Ned Rogoway stated he is a planner and has an office in San Luis Obispo. He has over 20 years experience administering zoning ordinances in this county. Creating nonconforming uses is a very serious matter for property owners. He has served a number of years on Chamber committees dealing with land use issues through the course of the update. He has worked with the City and the County consultants in the preparation of the first drafts of the Airport Concept Plan. He has found the staff to be receptive to enhancing economic development programs. He feels the staff is reading literal meaning into details of the General Plan, which were first proposed by the Environmental Quality Task Force. During the General Plan update process, it seems as though the study was moving in a good direction until the Environmental Quality Task Force draft came to the Council. Unfortunately the Council adopted some of the policies that were very harmful to the prospect of healthy economic growth, and now they're being translated into reality in this proposal. The idea of restricting offices to a minimum of 2,500 square foot starves out many critical land uses which need to locate in semi-industrial environments. These uses are the heart of the import-export functions of this county and they generate much of the dollar flow which supports this area. He feels Footnote 10 on Table 9 should be changed. He feels the 2,500 square foot standard should be kept, but allow the planning director to approve offices in this zone. The General Plan says that convenience sales should be located in close proximity to the workers, and yet this excludes retail sales in this draft. Retail sales should be allowed in this zone with Planning Commission approval. Mat Quaglino stated he is a multiple property owner in the C-S Zone and a multiple business owner who would be affected by this change. The staff report points out the need to accommodate industry in the C-S Zone because of inventory not being there to support additional research and development and warehouse-type stores. The City lacks adequate space for this type of use. Maybe they should consider getting the airport area for this type of development. The staff report stated they don't believe amendments to the Zoning Ordinance will lower property values. Mr. Quaglino believes property values will be affected. Hardware stores will not be allowed under the new ordinance. Staff feels Mr. Quaglino's store may be a home improvement store, but that's open to interpretation. The location of his store is suitable for a hardware store. He believes it is not a suitable location for a _3-3� Draft Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1996 Page 7 weapons facility. There needs to be some definite interpretation. He questions some of the proposed excluded uses. He feels something is trying to be fixed that is not broken. He also has land out in the airport area which may be reclassified and become nonconforming. Chuck Botsner, 738 E Higuera, stated he is concerned about bringing the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance into alignment. With regard to certain office uses, he agrees with the comments made by previous speakers. The ambiguity needs clearing up. He is concerned about the height issue: He struggled.with the Downtown Concept Plan in trying to create descriptive standards for creating building mass, bulk, and form. He read a statement from the Downtown Concept Plan to the Commission. He would hate to see a limit on height based on the number of feet or stories. He supports the staff recommendation to process the amendment to 4.18 to change the height to three stories. The Anderson building is approximately 75'and it is not offensive. There should be a general concept with ARC approval. Tom Freedman, 1012 Vista Del Colados, stated it appears a flawed General Plan has come into conflict with the real world. He feels the way to resolve this issue is to go back to the General Plan and revise it in such a way that no existing use presently legal in the C-S zone would become nonconforming. Words are easier to change than businesses. Mike Spangler, San Luis Obispo resident, stated he owns property in the C-C and C-S Zones. He supports the Chamber's position on this issue. He believes that the intent of this change is to force certain developments into the C-C and C-R Zones. He supports this intent as a good planning tool. He feels by further restricting certain businesses to particular locations in town will discourage businesses from locating here. Tom Swem, real estate broker, 570 Marsh, stated he is in favor and would encourage staff to work towards amending the General Plan to meet what is actually functioning nicely in the community in terms of the uses that are in the C-S Zone. In terms of vacancy or the need for space, it is hard to find floor spaces of less than 2,500 square foot Downtown office space is more expensive and it is a tremendous difference in economics for a small businesses working out of 1,500 square foot and are trying to make a living. There is a negative impact of a nonconforming status. He asked the Commission to encourage staff to look at leaving things the way it is currently. John French, 3942 Hollyhock, stated he is familiar with the problems that are associated with P-Ds. He does not think that would be a solution to this problem. He concurs with the previous speakers. The reason there is such a reaction to a seemingly small change is that the C-S Zone a very entrepreneurial zone in this community. Making even small adjustments in the C-S Zone is going to get a very strong reaction from the business community. There needs to be more C-S area. There are two ways to create more C-S area. One is to start pushing people into another zone. The only way to expand the office zone in to push it into the affordable housing zone in downtown. He shares Draft Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1996 Page 8 staffs concerns with the availability of C-S Zones. The solution is not to restrict the number of uses that can be put in the C-S Zone, but more should be created and the uses should be broadened. Bob Burke, representing PG&E and their property at 4325 S. Higuera, stated their property is in the County currently and in the airport annexation area. They oppose the proposed changes to the C-S Zone. They have been at this property for 40 years and it is the center of their utility operation in this area. They feel that these changes would negatively affect them and possibly jeopardize their ability to continue to conduct their operations. They feel they may have a problem if they want to expand their operations or add new offices in the future. He asked the Commission to reconsider the proposed changes and look at changing the General Plan rather than the zoning changes that are proposed. Dave Garth, 2046 San Luis Dr. Executive Director for the San Luis Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber's approach is that regulations are needed when other systems don't work. We've had this current zoning for six years and it's worked. It's very hard to find downtown office space. There has not been a flooding in the C-S Zone for smaller offices. A regulatory approach is not in the best interest of anybody and businesses could move to another area. There are businesses that don't want, can't afford, or don't have a need to be located downtown. The goal is being met and the system is working without a heavy-handed regulatory approach. Dave Prado, property owner of 110-158 S. Higuera, stated he will be directly affected by a change. He feels in making these proposed changes, he will be penalized by becoming nonconforming. He concurs with the previous speakers. He would like to see the uses in the C-S Zone expanded. He would like to see the General Plan amended. Al McVey, Vintage Properties, stated he supports the Chamber's position and would like to discourage the Commission from creating a large number of nonconforming uses in the C-S Zone. He has not received notice relative to any of these meetings. He feels the inconsistency was create by oversight in the adoption of the Land Use Element. He would like this problem to be solved by amending the Land Use Element. He concurs with the previous speakers. It works, don't fix it. Mr. Brooks, 863 W. Foothill Rd., stated he own a furniture store which was started in 1965. His business draws customers from up and down the coast. When his customers come to town, they are also spending money elsewhere in the City. He has restrictions from OSHA and the Air Quality Control Board. He does not want the City to implement more restrictions. There are a lot of family owned businesses in the C-S Zone. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated Mr. Brooks' furniture store and other commercial buildings in the vicinity would continue to be allowed in the C-S Zone. 2 -2-2- Draft Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1996 Page 9 Dolores Estrata, Archer St., stated her family has lived in the same house for 37 years. She does support small family businesses in her area. It is important to see the small entrepreneurs continue to grow. He father is 79 years old and is able to walk to local stores for groceries. The public comment session was closed. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS: Commissioner Senn asked how the number of 12 was arrived at in referring to bed and breakfast inns. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated he didn't know that answer. Commissioner Senn asked if staff had an objection to raising the number to 15. Development Review Manager stated that the larger the bed and breakfast inns become, the finer the line is going to be with a motel or hotel. Commissioner Senn stated there are two bed and breakfast inns in town. If one of these inns wanted to increase the number of rooms, this would provide the ability for a modest expansion without it becoming nonconforming. The Planning Commission agreed to increase the number of rooms in a bed and breakfast inn to 15. Chairman Karleskint asked for a definition of a warehouse store. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated that can be found on Page 14 of the staff report. Commissioner Senn stated he is concerned about an inadequate parking ratio for warehouse stores. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated he would feel more comfortable if staff contacted warehouse stores in other communities and do some more background research on this. Community Development Director Jonas suggested more study on this issue. Commissioner Senn stated he would be comfortable having this determined by the Director. The Planning Commission referred the determination of the number of parking spaces back to staff for further study. Commissioner Veesart stated he would like to see building heights stay as it is proposed in the staff 2 --33 Draft Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1996 Page 10 report and recommended in the General Plan update. Commissioner Senn asked if the Downtown Concept Plan was completed when the General Plan . Amendment was completed or did it follow. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the Downtown Concept Plan was completed first. Chairman Karleskint asked if the height maximum is limited to approximately 35'. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the General Plan says two stories or about 35'. Commissioner Senn feels the vision of the downtown scenario is a retail usage on the ground floor, offices on the second, and a residential component on the third. Commissioner Whittlesey feels comfortable with 35'. It has not created a problem. The Commissioner reached consensus to accept staffs recommendation of a 35' height maximum. Commissioner Veesart suggested defining "large" relative to 17.04.455. Development Review Manager Whisenand suggested dropping the word "large" from 17.04.455. Commissioner Ready expressed a concern regarding Table 9, Offices (contractors) and Retail sales-warehouse stores. Commissioner Senn stated Table 9, Social services and charitable agencies seems to be of issue. Commissioner Veesart stated he is not happy with warehouse stores, but does not want to reopen the issue. Commissioner Ready suggested adding "and related light chemical processing" to Table 9, under Research and development. Commissioner Veesart questioned the square footage of retail sales. Commissioner Senn stated 20,000 square feet is an average number that he's seen in his experience for general merchandise. Development Review Manager Whisenand suggested creating a new category for retail sales for 3 -31 Draft Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1996 Page 11 convenience stores. Commissioners Veesart and Whittlesey would like to have Planning Commission approval for Retail sales-general merchandise and agreed that these uses should not be allowed. Commissioner Senn disagreed and stated most of them are relatively large users. There is not an inventory of properly zoned land. Commissioner Ready concurred with Commissioner Senn. Commissioner Veesart believes hardware stores are appropriate uses in the C-S Zone. Commissioner Senn feels department and variety stores should primarily be in the downtown area or in one of the primary shopping areas. Commissioner Ready concurred with Commissioner Senn. Commissioner Ready stated "specialty store" needs to be defined. The Planning Commission agreed to move hardware to retail sales, indoor sales and building materials. Hardware would be an allowable use. Commissioner Senn does not agree with the deletion of drug and discount stores. Commissioners Ready and Whittlesey concurred. Commissioner Veesart made a motion to recommend the adoption of the ordinance as amended with the exception of 17.22.010, Table 9, Offices (contractors)-all types of general and special building contractor's offices; Offices (engineering) engineers, architects, and industrial design; Organizations (professional, religious, political, labor, fraternal, trade, youth, etc.) offices and meeting rooms; Secretarial and related services (court reporting, stenography, typing, telephone answering, etc.); Utility companies; Engineering and administration offices. These items are directed back to staff for preparation of a recommendation to the City Council for amendment to the LUE, including revised policy language and the analysis necessary to support the requested changes. The Commission also requested the staff to bring back warehouse parking requirement and a new land use category of convenience markets. Development Review Manager Whisenand asked if the motion included indoor warehouse area under research and development, 1,500 square foot parking requirement for parking areas, 15 rooms for bed and breakfast inn, and light chemical processing. Commissioner Veesart replied yes. ,3 35 Draft Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1996 Page 12 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ready. AYES: Commissioners Veesart, Ready, Senn, Whittlesey, and Chairman Karleskint NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioners Kourakis and Jeffrey 3. 3897 South Higuera Street: MS 74-96, SP 74-96 and ER 74-96: Review of minor subdivision of four lots from two (MS 96-057) and review of a specific plan amendment allowing smaller than four-acre lots and additional uses in the southern end of the Higuera Commerce Park; M-SP Zone, R. Howard Strasbaugh, Inc., applicant. Chairman Karleskint refrained from participating due to a potential conflict of interest. Commissioner Senn was designated as Acting Chairman. Associate Planner McIlvaine presented the staff report, recommending that the Commission recommend that City Council, by resolution, approve a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact and the requested amendment based on findings outlined in the staff recommendation. Commissioner Veesart asked if this is currently two parcels. Associate Planner McIlvaine stated it is one parcel. There is an approved tentative map. She displayed an overhead of the parcel map (MS 91-152) to the Commission. Commissioner Ready asked when the vesting tentative tract map expires. Associate Planner McIlvaine deferred the question to the applicant. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Rob Strong, applicant's representative, stated it expired Nov. 7,1995. With extensions, they have two years beyond that. They don't intend to use the extension. They're going to try to do improvements and the final map concurrently. They are ready to go within the next six months. Mr. Strong stated the Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan is about 20 years old. Fifteen years ago the 30 acres south of the main body of the 50-acre subdivision was added to it. They have eight acres 3 -3� Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1996 Page 12 5. City-wide: TA 79-96: Review of the Municipal Code Text Amendment of the Zoning Regulations to implement the Land Use Element of the General Plan; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Associate Planer Matteson presented the staff report, recommending the Commission recommend to the City Council the adoption of the changes, with or without modification. Commissioner Ready asked staff the basis for reducing the maximum height in the C-R zone from 45' to 35'. Mr. Matteson stated it is a land use policy. The downtown development section discusses the desire and character of buildings. Commissioner Ready asked if the 35' in the Land Use Element is describing the downtown core. Mr. Matteson stated it is describing the Retail Commercial zone which extends along Monterey St. from Santa Rosa up to approximately the railroad and along Marsh and Higuera from approximately Nipomo St. down towards the Marsh and Higuera intersection. Commissioner Senn stated there has been this thrust to get residential as part of the commercial component downtown. The reality of the economics is you can't do it with a 35' building. There has to be the flexibility to have additional height. He is concerned about limiting the height to two-story buildings. Mr. Matteson stated the Land Use Element policy says three stories, or about 35'. Commissioner Senn questioned the limitation of three stories instead of 35'. A 35' limit will not encompass three stories. Mr. Matteson stated this would be the only zone within the City where height limit is expressed in stories instead of feet. Commissioner Ready asked what the effect will be of allowing a PD zone to be applied to all commercially zoned parcels, regardless of size. Mr. Matteson stated when the PD zone was first employed by the City, it was really envisioned more as a tool to use on fairly large sites. But, over the years it has become more of a tool to revise development standards to accommodate a specific development. 3-37 Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1996 Page 13 Mr. Matteson stated if the Commission feels there is a fundamental problem with any of the zoning te#changes, the Commission should direct staff to pursue a General Plan amendment, or recommend that the Council initiate one. Concerning the C-S zone, Commissioner Senn stated there has been some interpretation made by staff in which offices that are permitted under the zoning matrix are not really permitted because it is in conflict with the General Plan. He is concerned that this ties the people's hands in the business community. When looking at the definition of offices, Section 3.3.1 of the General Plan says office development includes professional and financial services such as doctors, architects, insurance companies, banks, and government agencies. The Service and Manufacturing section says the City should have sufficient land designated for services and manufacturing for activities such as wholesaling, building contractors, utility company yards, etc., but it doesn't define the services. He feels the interpretation that the City is imposing really isn't required by the General Plan language because it specifically defines what office development is. Manager Mandeville stated the definition section in the Land Use Element defines offices a lot more broadly. Bill Thoma, Thoma Electric, 3562 Empleo St., feels there has been some interpretation on staffs part. There are a lot of people who will be effected by this. He doesn't believe the intention is to exclude small offices in C-S zones. There is enough concern in the business community to not rush to a decision on this. He has a serious concern about some of the changes. Regarding the height limitation, there is no way to get a three-story building into 35'. If there is a conflict with the General Plan, it should be remedied through a General Plan amendment. He feels that something such as this which has a sweeping change should have more input from the businesses groups. He asked the Commission to allow more review before this is moved forward. Dave Garth, representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated this will effect virtually the most important business zone in San Luis Obispo and the business community is concerned about it. He hopes the Commission doesn't take any action on this tonight that couldn't be undone. The business community would like a chance to review this. This could effect the marketability of properties and the ability to do economic development to bring companies into San Luis Obispo. He strongly believes that density should be increased in order to protect the open space around the City. Height is one of the ways of increasing density without too much lot coverage and building mass. He also believes in mixed use concepts of residential housing in the downtown area. So much has happened in the last few years in terms of the types of industries that are interested in San Luis Obispo. He feels the zoning should be kept flexible. Matt Quaglino,business owner, stated he just found out about this issue the night before this meeting. He owns five pieces of property that will be directly affected by this issue. He feels there needs to be some more input in this before a decision is made. Two of his businesses will become nonconforming uses with this change. ,3 -3� Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1996 Page 14 Steve Rarig, Rarig Construction, stated they own a piece of property on Santa Barbara and High St. and has plans to build a multi-tenant commercial building there. This new amendment will restrict the types of users that he can put in this building. He sees this process as limiting what he can do. He doesn't agree with the change because it is not flexible. Also, a three-story building cannot be built in 35'. He does like the new category of R & D and would like to see it addressed further. Steve Barasch, 225 Prado Rd., stated he earns most of his living as a real estate developer. He owns property in the C-S zone within the Higuera Commerce Park and multiple parcels along Tank Farm Rd. and parcels in the County that are in the sphere of influence that will annexed by the City. Mr. Barasch feels the impetus for a lot of the C-S modifications within the C-S zones is based on the fact that the City is encouraging office space in the downtown and wants to get its zoning in order for future airport area annexation. He feels this is the underlying premise for some of the adjustments. He thinks the research and development zone makes a lot of sense. There is a huge vacancy within the C-S and the industrial zones within the City. He conducted a survey seven months ago and there is approximately 250,000 s.f. of untenanted space within the C-S and the industrial zones. He wants to make sure the Commission knows the proposed text changes are another thing which might impede people from relocating or expanding their businesses here. He feels this change will be a down-zoning of his property. He would expect the City to compensate him for this down-zoning because it reduces the value of the property that he owns. Values in the non-residential field have slid 301/o to 40%over the last four years. Raw land has fallen 60% in the City. If the goal of the City is to encourage economic development, the vacant spaces should be filled to keep values somewhat constant. He feels this is the wrong time to do this change and feels it is unreasonable because a lot of the kinds of uses that are in the C-S and the research and development zones really don't belong in the downtown. Commissioner Veesart asked staff if under the proposed changes, existing nonconforming uses would be allowed to be sold. He doesn't feel this change would be considered a taking or create a diminishment in the value of property if the existing nonconforming uses were allowed to continue. Mr. Matteson stated he doesn't believe this would be a taking requiring compensation because the regulation would be based on a public purpose. Anytime there is a reduction in the uses that could be conducted on the property, the value might be reduced. Change of ownership would not affect continuation of a certain type of use. Manager Mandeville stated a reduction of use or value does not constitute a taking. Mr. Barasch stated if he owns an office unit and he wants to sell it, the appraisal value will be lower because the range of potential buyers or tenants will be limited. In this view, he feels this is a form of taking. This change will result in a diminished value of the property and there is a compensation factor when this is done. 3-23 Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1996 Page 15 Commissioner Ready asked staff if there is some time limitations, with regards to grand fathering, for re-leasing to a certain occupancy before loosing the benefit of the grand fathering. Mr. Matteson stated under the zoning regulations, if a nonconforming use ceases for a continuous six months,the replacement use must comply with the zoning regulation, but that for existing offices in the C-S zone, a General Plan Policy would allow that type of use to continue even if a particular space was vacant for six months. Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated the specific language in the General Plan will prevail over the general tole in our Zoning Code of six months, so that any similar use would be able to continue or come in and there wouldn't be a six-month cutoff. Mr. Barasch asked if a new tenant with a similar use would be able to lease a space even with the proposed change. Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated there is no six-month requirement. The General Plan says existing office buildings outside the areas described may continue to be used and may have minor expansions. Manager Mandeville stated the Commission is not looking only at whether or not to approve these zoning text amendments for consistency. The larger issue is whether or not these are the General plan land Use policies we want to have. Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated nothing would prohibit the Commission from sending this up to the Council with a recommendation that there be General Plan amendments pursued. Nothing would prohibit the Commission from continuing this item with direction to bring back some proposed amendments to the General Plan. If there is enough concern from the issues that have been raised, the appropriate action would be a continuance for further discussion. Manager Mandeville stated the project description consists of these text amendments for conformity with the General Plan. The Commission may want to have staff take this forward to the Council with a recommendation for denial with a further recommendation that there be some amendments to the Land Use Element to address the concerns. Mr.Barasch suggested that the Commission defer any action until the new Economic Development Manager comes in and can really explore some of the impacts of the proposals. The public comment session was closed. Commissioner Ready made a motion to continue this matter to allow staff the opportunity to consider the matters that have been raised. As part of the consideration, he would also like the Economic Development Manager to analyze the proposed text amendments and/or or suggest changes with // Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1996 Page 16 respect to the General Plan. He would also like the notice of the continued meeting to be provided to the owners of C-S properties to allow for the maximum input from the public. Commissioner Senn seconded the motion. Commissioner Ready requested staff to provide the Commission with copies of the minutes of Land Use Element update meetings when the services and manufacturing category was discussed. Commissioner Senn displayed photos to the Commission of development on C-S properties which would not be permitted if the text changes are adopted. He feels the Commission should make a recommendation to the Council that they initiate a General Plan amendment, to make it consistent with the uses that are currently permitted in the C-S zoning matrix Commissioner Ready withdrew his motion. Commissioner Senn made a motion to recommend to the City Council that they make an appropriate amendment to the Land Use Element that makes the language in the General Plan Land Use Element consistent with the existing zoning code and zoning matrix for the C-S and M zones, 3A and 3C of the staff report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ready. Commissioner Veesart will not support the motion. He does not oppose delaying this item in order for the Chamber and other interested parties to reply. A delay will give the business, development, and the public time to comment on this. Commissioner Jeffrey feels this is an opportunity for the Commission to invite more public input. Chairman Karleskint and Commissioner Kourakis concurred with Commissioner Jeffrey. Commissioner Senn amended his motion to include specifically 3.3.1 where it reads, "The City should have sufficient land for office development to meet the demands of City residents and the specialized needs of County residents. Office development is professional and financial services such as doctors, architects, insurance companies, banks, and government agencies." He also wants to amend his motion by including, "Office Development does not include such office uses as engineers, contractors, architects, and related uses." Commissioner Senn stated he wants to add to Paragraph 3.5.1, "Services referred to herein include engineering and industrial design offices, certain retail and commercial services, as designated in the zoning matrix. Commissioner Senn restated his motion: The Commission recommends to the City Council that the Land Use Element be amended so that the services and manufacturing uses covered by Items #3A and#3C of the staff report are consistent with the zoning regulations. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ready. Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 1996 Page 17 AYES: Commissioners Senn, Ready, and Chairman Karleskint NOES: Commissioners Veesart, Kourakis, and Jeffrey, ABSENT: Commissioner Whittlesey Commissioner Veesart made a motion to continue this item to allow an opportunity for the Chamber of Commerce and other interested groups and property owners a chance to comment on the proposed changes, and for staff to come back with some legislative history and more background and direction on this item. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ready. Commissioner Veesart stated after the Commission has heard some additional public comment and additional background information there can be thorough discussion about what types of uses would be allowed in the C-S zone. Commissioner Ready asked that the motion be amended to include that specific notice be give to property owners and businesses in the C-S zone and input from the Economic Development Coordinator. Commissioner Veesart asked that this item be brought back before the Commission in 60 days, or sooner if possible, and to try to obtain comments from the Economic Development Director. Commissioner Senn is not supportive of the motion. Commissioner Kourakis is supportive of the motion. AYES: Commissioners Veesart, Ready, Kourakis, Jeffrey, and Chairman Karleskint NOES: Commissioner Senn ABSENT: Commissioner Whittlesey The motion passed. Commissioner Kourakis requested staff to provide a zoning map and a General Plan map to the Commission the next time this item is heard. 6. City-wide: GP and ER 54-96: Revi of General Plan Amendment Text to amend Water and Wastewater Management Element (o et ratio, wells, reclaimed water, infill reserve); amend the Land Use Element (annexatio and service) and review of environmental determination for water policies amendme , City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. The Commission agreed to consider the four parts of th amendment separately. 3 -y2 WIN PROPER S INC. MONG AGENDA ' DATE Z ITEM # 66 Field Point Road, Greenwich, CT 06830 Tel. (203) 861-7788 Fax (203) 861-7765 Certified Return Receipt Requested September 12, 1996 City of San Luis Obispo City Clerks Office 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Attn: The Mayor and City Council Re: Land Use Element General Plan Text Amendment for Property Zoned C-S TA 79-96 Dear Gentlepersons: Please allow this letter to serve as notice that we object to the above referenced zoning amendment based on the fact that our tenants may be interpreted to be a non- conforming use. Thank you for the opportunity to set forth our position. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Youly, 7 atherine E. Sutherland Director of Property Management CES/Ja —�. COUNCIL CDD DIR 1 cc: File -Interstate Bakeries, Municipal, Ownership Pj 9i/CAO ❑ FAN DIR !0 ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF 1' d�/ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR ® CLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF j ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR J EP 1)96 O PERS DIR / CITY CLERK j�.• l/S�yJr1K ;J.r.. MEETING�r �� A� DATE TEM # 9 - Memo To: Mayor& Council Via: John Dunn, CAO From: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director By: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Subject: Revised Ordinances for TA 79-96 Date: September 17, 1996 Due to a potential conflict of interest for Council Member Smith with regards to changes to the Zoning Regulations relating to bed and breakfast inns, we have revised the draft ordinance that was included in your packet for the above referenced text amendment. Specifically, we have developed two separate ordinances for your consideration tonight. The first ordinance addresses those zoning changes relating to bed and breakfast inns. The second ordinance contains the remaining changes that will accomplish General Plan implementation. The revised draft ordinances are attached. COUNCIL `CDD DIR T�. pf p ❑ FIN DIR I' VAI ❑ FIRE CHIEF �TTORNEY .❑ PWDIR CLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF.i MGMTTEAM ❑T REC DIR f, ❑ C READ FILE ❑ U nL DIR ❑ PERS cm � 6` SCP 1 1996 CITY CLERK ORDINANCE NO. (1996 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT POLICIES OF THE 1994 LAND USE ELEMENT RELATING TO BED AND BREAKFAST INNS (TA 79-96) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on June 12`x, and August le, 1996, and recommended approval of certain amendments to the City's Zoning Regulations; and WHEREAS,the City Council conducted a public hearing on , 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 provisions are consistent with the General Plan and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the EIR for the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan (Certified on August 23, 1994) and staffs determination that these implementation amendments constitute a secondary phase of the"project" evaluated by that EIR; and 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 EIR for the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Regulations, and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The Council hereby determines that no further environmental review is required. SECTION 2. Sections 17.04.030, 17.16.060, and 17.22.010, are hereby amended to read as follows: 17.04.030 Bed and breakfast inn. 2 "Bed and breakfast inn" means a building or group of buildings providing fifteen or fewer rooms or suites for the accommodation of travelers, with a common eating area for guests. 17.16.060 Parking space requirements. Table 6-Parking Requirements by Use is hereby amended as follows: Type of Use Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required Bed and breakfast inn One per room or group of rooms to be occupied as a suite, plus one for resident manager's quarters. Motels and hotels One per room or group of rooms to be occupied as a suite, plus one for resident manager's quarters, plus eating/assembly area requirements. 17.22.010 Uses allowed by zones. Table 9 - Uses Allowed by Zane is hereby amended as follows: Table 9-Uses Allowed b bZone R-I R-2 R-3 R-4 C/OS O" PF C-N C-C C-R C-T C-S M Bed and breakfast aims PC PC A A A IMotels and hotels(see also"bed A A A and breakfast inns" A - The use is allowed; D - If the Director approves an administrative use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.080,the use may be established; PC- If the Planning Commission approves a use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.080,the use may be established; A/D- The use is allowed above the ground floor. If the Director approves an administrative use permit,it may be established on the ground floor. SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of , 1996 , on a motion of _, seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES:- ABSENT: Mayor ' 4 ATTEST` Bonnie Gav✓, City Clerk APPROVED.:. N116yey J Jor nsen . ORDINANCE NO. (1996 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT POLICIES OF THE 1994 LAND USE ELEMENT (TA 79-96) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on June 12'", and August 10 1996, and recommended approval of certain amendments to the City's Zoning Regulations; and WHEREAS,the City Council conducted a public hearing on , 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 provisions are consistent with the General Plan and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the EIR for the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan (Certified on August 23, 1994) and staffs determination that these implementation amendments constitute a secondary phase of the"project" evaluated by that EIR; and 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 EIR for the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Regulations, and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The Council hereby determines that no further environmental review is required. SECTION 2. Sections 17.16.010, 17.16.060, 17.22.010, 17.40.020, and 17.50.010 are hereby amended to read as follows: 17.16.010 Density. A Determination of Allowed Development. J ` 1. 'Density" is the number of dwelling units per net acre. In the C/OS and R-1 zones, each dwelling counts as one unit. In the other zones, different size dwellings have unit values as follows.- a. ollows:a. Studio apartment, 0.50 unit; b. One-bedroom dwelling, 0.66 unit; C. Two-bedroom dwelling, 1.00 unit; d. Three-bedroom dwelling, 1.50 units; e. Dwelling with four or more bedrooms, 2.00 units. 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 the slope is measured shall run essentially perpendicular to the contours. L 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 Community Development Director. ii. Cross-slope determinations shall be based on the existing topography of the net site area after accounting for any approved on-site grading necessary to accommodate right-of-way improvements, and before grading for other proposed on-site improvements. iii. Cross-slope shall be calculated only for the"net area" as defined in Subsection Alb below. iv. Slopes calculated to the nearest 0.5 percent shall be rounded up. v. No slope-rated density reduction is required in the C/OS, C-R, C-C or PF zones. vi. The maximum development allowed for each average cross-slope category is as follows: TABLE 1 MA3ONfUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR CROSS-SLOPE CATEGORIES % Average Maximum Density Cross Slope (units per net acre) R-1 R-2, O R-3 R-4 C-R& C-N, C-T C-C 0 -15 7 12 18 24 36 16-20 4 6 9 12 36 21-25 2 4 6 8 36 26+ 1 2 3 4 36 By approving an administrative use permit, the Director may grant exceptions to the reduction of density with slope where the parcel in question is essentially surrounded by development at least as dense as the proposed development. The exception shall not authorize density greater than that allowed for the category of less than 15% slope for the appropriate zone. (See also Section 17.12.020.D, Nonconforming Lots -Regulations.) b. Determine the Net Area of the Site. "Net area" is all the area within the property lines of the development site excluding the following: 1. Street right-of-way dedicated to the City; 2. Area between the tops of banks of creeks shown on the Open Space Element "Creeks Map; 3. Habitat occupied by species listed as "endangered" or "threatened" by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the California Department of Fish and Game, or as "plants of highest priority" by the California Native Plant Society; 4. Area within the drip line of"heritage trees" designated by the City. c. Multiply the resulting area(in whole and fractional acres)by the maximum density allowed (in units per acre) according to the table in subsection A.La. of this section. d. The resulting number(n dwelling units, carried out to the nearest one-hundredth unit) will be the maximum residential development potential. Any combination of dwelling types and numbers may be developed, so long as their combined unit values do not exceed the maximum potential. 17.16.060 Parking space requirements. Table 6-Parking Requirements by Use is hereby amended as follows: Type of Use Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required Research and development One space per 300 square feet office or laboratory area, plus one space per 500 square feet indoor assembly or fabrication area, plus one space per 1,500 square feet outdoor work area or indoor warehouse area. 17.22.010 Uses allowed by zones. Table 9 - Uses Allowed by Zone is hereby amended as follows: Table 9-Uses Allowed by Zone R-1 R-2 R-3 R4 C/OS O" PF C-N C-C C-R C-T C-S M Research and development- A A/D A A A services,software,consumer products,instruments,office equipment and similar items,and related light chemical processing Research and development- PC D transportation equipment, weapons,metals,chemicals, building materials,and similar items Retail sales-indoor sales of A8 A A A A building materials and gardening supplies(hardware,floor and wall coverings,paint,glass stores,etc.) Retail sales-groceries,liquor and A A A PC specialized foods(bakery,meats, dairy items,etc.) Retail sales-general merchandise (drug,discount,department and variety stores)(see also"Retail sales-warehouse stores") - 15,000 square feet or less gross floor area per establishment A A A -15,001 to 60,000 square feet gross floor area per establishment PC A A -more than 60,000 square feet gross floor area per establishment. PC D Table 9-Uses Allowed by Zone R-1 R-2 R-3 R4 C/OS O" PF C-N C-C C-R C-T C-S M Retail sales-warehouse stores I PC D D Social services and charitable A D D A A agencies(see also `organizations') A - The use is allowed-, D - If the Director approves an administrative use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.080,the use may be established; PC- If the Planning Commission approves a use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.080,the use may be established; A/D- The use is allowed above the ground floor. If the Director approves an administrative use permit,it may be established on the ground floor. 17.40.020 Property development standards. The property development standards for the C-R.zone are as follows: A. Maximum density: 36 units per net acre for all dwelling, including dwelling units in hotels and motels, but not including other hotel or motel units (see also Section 17.16.010). B. Maximum street and other yards: See Section 17.16.020. C. Maximum height: 35 feet (see also Section 17.16.020 and 17.16.040). D. Maximum coverage: 100% E. Parking requirements: See Section 17.16.060. 17.50.010 Purpose and application. The planned development zone is intended to encourage imaginative development and effective use of sites. It does this by allowing more variation in project design than normal standards would allow. Such variation from normal standards should provide benefits to the project occupants or to the community as a whole which could not be provided under conventional regulations. PD rezoning must occur simultaneously with approval of a specific project. In the C-N, C-C, C-R, C-T, C-S, and M zones, the PD zone may be applied to any parcel. In all other zones, the PD zone may be applied to any parcel or contiguous parcels of at least one acre. SECTION 3. Sections 17.04.328, 17.04.455, are hereby added to read as follows: 17.04.328 Research and development. "Research and development means a facility where basic scientific, marketing, or similar types of research are conducted, or where new products or services are designed, or prototypes are produced or tested, excluding retail sales and production-run manufacturing. 17.04.455 Warehouse store. "Warehouse store" means a retail or wholesale store which sells items primarily in bulk quantities or containers, and which has minimal range of brands and minimal display space that is separate from storage areas. SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty(30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of , 1996 , on a motion of _, seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: Bonnie Gawf, City Clerk APPROVED: ppwtorn J or sen a T . MLS ' AG AGENDA DATE_.f-17A ITEM # COUNCIL DD DIR i Date: August 8, 1996 114 KcAo ❑ FIN DIR �i CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF PFAJTORNEY ❑ PW DIR To: Ron whisenand, Development Review Manager d LERKIoRIc ❑ POUCE CHF ❑ MGWrTEAM ❑ REC DIR From: Jane McVey, Economic Development Manager �READFILE ❑ UrLDIR ^ �, ❑ PERS DIR Subject: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment As requested by the Planning Commission, I have looked at the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance in order to conform it to the General Plan. Before offering my observations, let me first emphasize that this fairly complex and controversial issue has been referred to me at a point where I have had very limited experience in the City. Therefore, my observations are based on my professional experience elsewhere as well as on the fairly substantial number of comments I have already received from business persons concerning this issue during my early tenure with the City. Based on the information available to me, it appears that there are potential impacts resulting from the changes that need to be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to final decisionmaking. These impacts could unintentionally affect the City's highest economic development priority: retaining and expanding . existing business. These impacts need to be weighed against other policy goals the Commission or Council may wish to achieve through the C-S zoning changes. My understanding and observations are as follows: The proposed change in zoning attempts to conform existing zoning to the newly adopted General Plan Land Use Element. The City's newly adopted General Plan allows C-S zoning only in specific geographic areas. C-S zoning currently includes a wide range of uses from offices to retail. San Luis Obispo zoning also contains language to restrict C-S zoning to offices of greater than 2,500 square feet. The change includes only certain types of offices in C-S zoning and attempts to re-direct many office uses into and around the downtown area, in part to preserve as much available land as possible for "R & D" or other "clean" industry purposes. The General Plan allows "minor" expansions but the definition of "minor" is unclear. With regard to the City's business retention goals, the General Plan states on page 7, Number 11, that San Luis Obispo should "retain existing businesses and agencies and accommodate expansion of existing businesses, consistent with other goals." Businesses seem unsure about what this proposed change will do to their current or future investment in San Luis Obispo. Various business and property owners have indicated that should the change in C-S zoning pass they believe that they will no longer be able to expand at their current location and that the marketability of their property will be affected. It appears that the distinction between certain types of businesses and particularly office uses is unclear. Therefore, the businesses and property owners are unsure about the intention and implementation of the proposed change. I Memorandum Page 2 There is great diversity of opinion about the amount of available land and existing space in San Luis Obispo. Without a property. inventory data base that includes acreage/square feet, price, zoning, size, development status, etc., I cannot evaluate either property supply or demand for particular types of uses. My limited observation is that available office space tends to be in very small increments. In many cases, the visual appearance between office, light manufacturing and research buildings is not significant given certain design standards. In the current market, for a property owner to finance a building, financial institutions as well as owners are looking for flexibility in order to have an exit strategy. If a property has a single purpose, its reuse becomes more difficult to market and the owner holds the liability for the debt service in the interim. If no reuse is found, or it takes an excessive amount of time to be absorbed, the city gains no employment to backfill the lost employment and also loses tax revenue. Concern has also been expressed about absorbing the available land zoned for research and development for C-S uses. Having available land for development and policies regarding redevelopment is very important for the economic health of the community, but not at the expense of the existing business base. Nationwide, most job growth within a community comes from existing businesses. It is my'belief that the most important element of a sound economic development program is to retain the existing job base. Therefore, the challenge is to find a way to balance the long-term land use plans for the city with the shorter term economic needs. The business perspective of city land use policies and zoning requirements impacts not only their willingness to expand their businesses in the city but also the city's ability to attract new businesses. Some alternatives for consideration are as follows: 1. Amend the General Plan to allow expansions of existing businesses in the C-S zone. 2. Define "minor expansions" so that the property owners have more predictability regarding their assets and their investment in San Luis Obispo. 3. Create an amortization schedule to allow expansions of a specified percentage of existing buildings within the existing zoning ordinance to allow property owners a window of opportunity for future asset management. 4. Re-define C-S on some other criteria other than "office" to take into account customer visits, traffic, aesthetic appearance, etc. Some of the distinctions of types of offices may not conform to current business practices. S Memorandum Page 3 Again, the opinions expressed are based on a limited observation of the product on the market and no experience with the demand for property or buildings in San Luis Obispo. It is, however, based on the belief that the City sincerely wants to retain existing businesses for the economic health of the entire community and that whatever changes are adopted property owners need to be given ample time to plan for disposition or changes in use. I also think that the Code needs to be easily understood and based on some commonly accepted principles by the community and potential investors. 'p R �illlllll IIII��������illlllllll�llllllllll � city of sAn tuis OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 September 4, 1996 Retain this docurrlent for future Cou:xil meeting 2083 Partnership Date, 4 agsrd;zad, Attn: Garry Holdgrafer II — 3592 Broad Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Subject: C-S Zoning Dear Mr. Holdgrafer: I have read your letter of August 28`x, and believe I understand your position regarding the proposed changes to the City's Service Commercial (C-S) zoning district. You are concerned that if the changes occur as required by the City's General Plan and recommended by the City's Planning Commission, you would not be able to develop your property at 3592 Broad Street with a large grocery store. Under our present zoning regulations,grocery stores of all sizes are allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial (C-N),Central Commercial (C-C), and Retail Commercial (C-R)zoning districts "by right." Grocery stores are also allowed in the Tourist Commercial (C-T) and the C-S zoning district with a conditional use permit. The use permit process is intended to ensure that the new use is compatible with other uses in the area as well as determine whether or not the use is in conformance with the City's General Plan. Since 1994, the General Plan has not allowed large (non-convenience) grocery stores within the C-S zoning district. Therefore, in accordance with General Plan policies, any use permit for a grocery store in the C-S zoning district could not be approved. You mention in your letter that City zoning would not allow development of new grocery stores. As mentioned above, grocery stores are allowed now, and will continue to be allowed in the C-N, C-C, and C-R zoning districts. Not counting several smaller convenience/specialty grocery stores in this City, there are currently six grocery stores located in these three commercial zoning districts. The General Plan contains policies that ensure convenient shopping in close proximity to the neighborhoods where people live. Consistent with this policy,the General Plan and Zoning maps have been developed to create five neighborhood centers throughout the City to serve the needs of our residents. In addition, the Council developed a sixth neighborhood shopping center (Marigold Center) at the comer of Tank Farm and Broad Streets to serve the growing residential neighborhoods at the southern end of town. This will mean a seventh large grocery store to serve our City. Finally, two other large grocery stores are planned at South and Broad and Tank Farm and South Higuera which would bring the total grocery store count to nine. You will note that the above calculations do not take into consideration the Vons store that is located near your property on Broad Street. As part of the Council action to approve the Marigold Center, there was an agreement that once Vons moved to the new site,the old store would close and could not be used for grocery store use in the future. The reasoning behind this condition was the residential neighborhood is not large enough to support more than one large grocery store. OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. �� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. Pr 2083 Partnership Page 2 August 30,1996 Again,the issue as to whether the City should exclude grocery stores from the C-S zoning district will be heard by the City Council on September 17'''. I will make sure that your letters are added to the Council's staff report packet. In addition, I hope you attend the meeting to let the Council know of your concerns. Sincerely, i nald WhisZd Development Review Manager cc: Mayor and Council John Dunn, CAO Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney t; / 087 Partnership z August 28,1996 9� ` q&e JSFO City of San Luis Obispo city"� 0 r. 990 Palm Streetuy�yv�� ' San Luis Obispo,Ca. 93401-3249 Re: C-S Zoning z� Mr. Whisenand: %.. After receiving the letter of August 22,1996 it seems you still do not understand our position on the proposed changes to the C-S Zone. I have reviewed the g• zoning map for the City of San Luis Obispo and have determined that if the property does not already have a grocery or retail store there is no chance in getting one in the future. The city of San Luis Obispo has not planned for any expansion for any retail/grocery use. The majority of the parcels that are currently in the C-S Zone are already • developed or are limited in size to small type developments. There are only a very few parcels where the grocery/retail use would even be a consideration. Our property of 9.79 acres and the adjoining parcel of 11+ acres are two of the few that can handle this type of development. e• .. The planning commission seems to think we need more hardware stores in the area as they left that use in the C-S Zone. Has it occurred to the staff that we already have five (5) hardware stores in the southern half of the city already. Hardware use is not whats needed in the City. I would like to know why the City staff and the Planning commission is against the influx of grocery services into the City of San Luis Obispo. It does not qualify as a "dirty industry", it does not qualify as an "extreme use" of the natural resources. I would like an answer to the above question. -> The excuse of "we only want neighborhood type stores" is fine, but we only have ' stores ( Von's, Albertson's, Scolaris and Trader Joe's) that are owned by large 4 corporations where the main offices are located outside of the county. I would like an answer to the question of why the City of San Luis Obispo would deny the citizens of F. �a? K. �.-. 3592 Broad Street 1 •- San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 543-2682, Fax (805) 543-0447 s.lF Gy AFW r ^,� �y. San Luis Obispo the grocery services that they deserve and desperately need. It took eight years of hard work to get annexed into the city with an agreement between the city and the property owners to a C-S Zone with the ability to have ' retail/grocery stores as an allowable use. The General Plan was in process during the R' annexation process and the city knew of the uses we desired for the area. If we knew x the city had the intentions of eliminating the retail/grocery use's from the C-S Zone we would not have agreed to annex into the city. 1 It is possible for the staff and the City Counsel to change the General Plan to meet the current uses for the C-S Zone. This would be an option that would be agreeable and easiest for the many property owners in the City. It would also eliminate the problems you will incur with non-conforming properties, which will become a 4 ' major problem immediately upon approval. R. We will take all legal action available to retain our right to have all the uses allowed currently for the C-S Zone to remain in effect . If you would like to discuss this matter I can be reached at (805) 543-2682. Since ely, G of er I1 Managing General Partner 2083 Partnership cc. San Luis Obispo City Counsel a r •a a,. a.: 41 A Z 208JPartnership i s August 28, 1996 n' ' City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401-3249 h Re: C-S Zoning 1 �s Honorable Mayor: Distinguished Council Members �t After attending the last planning commission and hearing the concerns of all the residents regarding the proposed changes to the C-S Zoning causes me to write ¢' this letter. They were all overwhelmingly against the change with many of them presenting the idea of changing the General plan, instead, of changing the uses for which they currently have for there property. Having a large parcel that will be greatly affected by a change, it seems the staff still does not understand our position -S Zone. I have reviewed the zoning map for the on the proposed changes to the C City of San Luis Obispo and have determined that if the property does not already = have a grocery or retail store there is no chance in getting one in the future. The city of San Luis Obispo has not planned for any expansion for any retail/grocery use. The majority of the parcels that are currently in the C-S Zone are already developed or are limited in size to small type developments. There are only a very few ' parcels where the grocery/retail use would even be a consideration. Our property of y 9.79 acres and the adjoining parcel of 11+ acres are two of the few that can handle this type of development. k , to The planning commission seems to think we need more hardware stores in the area as they left that use in the C-S Zone. Has it occurred to the staff that we already have five (5) hardware stores in the southern half of the city already. Hardware use is not what needed in the City. I would like to know why the City staff and the Planning commission is against the influx of grocery services into the City of San Luis Obispo. It does not qualify as a "dirty industry", it does not qualify as an "extreme use of the natural resources. I would like an answer to the above question. The excuse of we S.Y. RECEIVED p . ' 3592 Broad Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 AUG 3 0 1996 (805) 543-2682, Fax (805) 543-0447. CITY COUNCIL SY . SAN I '* 081SP0,Cal <yyM,i r. 7u. w 7 , S. only want neighborhood type stores" is fine, but we only have stores like Von's, Albertson's, Scolaris and Trader Joe's all of which are owned by large corporations where the main offices are located outside of the county. I would like an answer to the question of why the City would deny the citizens of San Luis Obispo the grocery services that they deserve and desperately need. It took eight years of hard work to get annexed into the city with an agreement between the city and the property owners to a C-S Zone with the ability to have retail/grocery stores as an allowable use. The General Plan was in process during the 's* annexation process and the city knew of the uses we desired for the area. If we knew .4 the city had the intentions of eliminating the retail/grocery use's from the C-S Zone we would not have agreed to annex into the city. It is possible for the staff and the City Counsil to change the General Plan to meet the current uses for the C-S Zone. This would be an option that would be agreeable and easiest for the many property owners in the City. It would also eliminate the problems you will incur with non-conforming properties, which will become a major problem immediately upon approval. We will take all legal action available to retain our right to have all the uses allowed currently for the C-S Zone to remain in effect . If you would like to discuss '3 this matter I can be reached at (805) 543-2682. -,r Sinc ely, r. G H grafer II Managing General Partner 2083 Partnership y;