Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/1996, 7 - ORDINANCE NO. 1310 (1996 SERIES); AMENDING 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 M 9-NO j agenda uepoat CITY O F SAN LUIS O B 1 S P 0 0 FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director Prepared By: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 1310 (1996 Series); amending 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 RECOND4ENDATION Direct the matter back to staff for scheduling a new public hearing before the Council in order to re-introduce the ordinance. DISCUSSION On September 17, 1996, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 1310, which will implement various Land Use Element policies of the City's General Plan. Minor modifications to the ordinance were made; including calculation of cross-slope density and the level of review for various sizes of warehouse stores. The ordinance was then scheduled for adoption as a consent item on October 1, 1996. At the October lg meeting, the matter was pulled from consent for further discussion and ultimately continued by the Council to the meeting of November 19'e. Concerns from business groups related to the proposed elimination of grocery, liquor, and specialized food stores as well as retail sales of"general merchandise" (drug, discount, department, and variety stores) from the City's C-S zoning district as called for by General Plan policies. Since the October meeting, the Chamber of Commerce's Land Use Committee has held several fact finding meetings to discuss the General Plan policies and proposed zoning changes. Staff has not received their final report but we expect that it will be made available before the Council meeting on this item. The Planning Commission has also had some lengthy discussions on the proposed amendments as well as the minutes from their meeting of August 10 1996. On November 6t°, the Commission adopted minutes from the August 14"meeting as well as made two clarifying motions to forward on to the Council. The minutes from both Commission meetings are attached to this report. The key point of clarification made by the Planning Commission was their desire for the who' category of retail sales of groceries, liquor, and specialized foods to be pulled from Council ordinance until staff could come back with a definition of convenience markets. St TA 79-96 Page 2 misinterpreted the Commission's action and forwarded a recommendation to the Council that included prolubition of all grocery, liquor, and specialized food stores from the C-S district. This action was taken with the understanding that staff would return to the Commission and Council in the future with a new definition for "convenience markets" which would be allowed in the C-S district consistent with General Plan policies. Since removal of the grocery store land use category from Ordinance 1310 would constitute a significant change, the ordinance will need to be re-introduced. Since this action by Council would require a new public hearing, staff would recommend that the matter be referred back to staff for processing to Council after the first of the year. ALTERNATIVES Should the Council disagree with the Commission's recommendation that the land use category of "retail sales of groceries, liquor and specialized foods" be pulled from consideration at this time, and if no other changes are required, the Council can still grant final passage to the ordinance as introduced on September 17, 1996. It is important to note that staff would still process a second amendment that will allow "convenience shopping" (including markets) in the C-S zoning district consistent with General Plan policies. Attachments Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 14°i and November 6* Original Ordinance as introduced by City Council action of September 171e �'e2 Draft Minutes Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Page 1 3. City Wide: TA 79-96: Review of amendment of the Zoning Regulations to implement the Land Use Element General Plan; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. The Commission discussed listening to the tapes of the August 14, 1996 meeting and corrected the minutes accordingly. Commissioner Senn made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ready to accept the minutes of August 14, 1996 as amended. AYES: Commrs. Senn, Ready, Karlekint, and Veesart NOES: None REFRAIN: Commrs. Kourakis and Jefliey ABSENT: Commr. Whittlesey The motion passed. Commissioner Senn then moved and Commissioner Ready seconded the motion to support Commissioner Veesart's motion on item number two of August 14th, 1996 with the exception that the Commission asked that the Table 9 land use category of retail sales of groceries, liquor, and specialized foods come back to the Commission in the future along with a definition of convenience stores as recognized by the City's General Plan. Commissioners Jeffrey and Kourakis refrained from participating on the vote since they were absent on August 14, 1996. AYES: Commrs. Senn, Ready, Karlekint, and Veesart NOES: None REFRAIN: Commrs. Kourakis and Jeffrey ABSENT: Commr. Whittlesey The motion passed. Commissioner Senn then moved and Commr. Veesart seconded that the minutes from August 14, 1996 should reflect that Commissioner Veesart, Karleskint, and Whittlesey recommend the elimination of retail sales of general merchandise(drug discount, department and variety stores)from the City's C-S zoning district and that Commissioner Senn and ready felt that they should be retained. AYES: Commrs. Senn, Visored, Ready, and Karlekint NOES: None 7-j Draft Minutes Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Page 2 3. City Wide: TA 79-96: Review of amendment of the Zoning Regulations to implement the Land Use Element General Plan; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. REFRAIN: Commrs. Kouralds and Jeffrey ABSENT: Commr. Whittlesey The motion passed. '7 Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1996 Page 2 1. 1020 Railroad Avenue: O 36-96: ew of General Plan determination for surplus of City property, C-R-S-H Zone; Saro , applicant. Development Review Manager Whise d presented the staff report, recommending finding the disposition of surplus City property istent with policies of the City's General Plan and exempt from the California Environmental ality Act. There were no questions asked of s aff at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Steven PuglK 226 Encanto Ave., hell Beach, representing the Rizzo family, stated they have reviewed the staff report and agree with ' . He urged the Commission to follow the staff report and offered to answer any questions. Seeing no further speakers come forward,the public co ent session was closed. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS: Commissioner Ready made a motion to find the dispositio of surplus City property consistent with policies of the City's General Plan and exempt from the ornia Environmental Quality Act. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Veesart. AYES: Commissioners Ready, Veesart, Senn, 'ttlesey, and Chairman Karleskint NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Kourakis and Jeffrey 2. Citywide: 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. ��J 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 confiising 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 staffto 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. J'6 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 storyto 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. 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 finther 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 ofthe clerical support uses. Seven out ofthe 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 Strasbaugh 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. •rld 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:Quaghno believes property values will be affected. Hardware stores will not be allowed under the new ordinance. Staff feels Mr. Quagiino'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 r 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 fiuther 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 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. 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 rooms was arrived at in referring to the definition of 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 bel 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. VVI w— Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1996 Page 10 Commissioner Veesart stated he would like to see building heights stay as it is proposed in the staff 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'is the limit in the C-R zone designation. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the General Plan says two stories or about 35'in general retail. 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. 7/3 Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1996 Page 11 Development Review Manager Whisenand suggested creating a new category for retail sales for convenience stores. Commissioners Veesart and Whittlesey would like to see retail sales-general merchandise restricted to C-R zones and agreed that these uses should not be allowed in the C-S zone. Commissioner Senn disagreed and stated most are relatively large users. There is not an inventory of properly zoned land providing these uses in the C-S zone effectively determining that these uses are not going to be allowed in San Luis Obispo because there is not an inventory of C-R 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 be primarily, but not exclusively, 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 agreewith the deletion of drug and discount stores because it effectively eliminates these uses. Commissioner Ready concurred. Commissioner Visored 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 contractors 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 requirements, and retail sales of groceries, liquor, specialized foods and convenience stores. Deletion of retail sales of general merchandise (drug, discount, department and variety stores)was approved on a 3-2 vote with Commissioner Senn and Ready voting no. Planning Commission Mmutes August 14, 1996 Page 12- 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ready. AYES: Commissioners Veesart, Whittlesey, and Chairman Karleskint NOES: Ready, Senn ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioners Kourakis and Jeffrey The motion passed. 3. 3897 South Hi era Street: MS 74-96/ SP 74-96 and ER 74-96: Review of minor subdivision of four lots from two (M 96-057) and review of a specific plan amendment allowing smaller than four-acre lots d additional uses in the southern end of the Higuera Commerce Park, M-SP Zone, R Ho d Strasbaugh, Inc., applicant. Chairman Karleskint refrained from partic ating due to a potential conflict of interest. Commissioner Senn was designated as Acting an. 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 b on findings outlined in the staff recommendation. Commissioner Veesart asked if this is currently two parcel Associate Planner McIlvaine stated it is one parcel. ere is an approved tentative map. She displayed an overhead of the parcel map (MS 91-152)to a Commission. Commissioner Ready asked when the vesting tentative tract map expires. Associate Planner McIlvaine deferred the question to toe applicant. S ORDINANCE NO. 1310 (1996 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS IN ORDER TO IIVIPLEMENT POLICIES OF THE 1994 LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (TA 79-96) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on June 12'h, and August 14'h, 1996, and recommended approval of certain amendments to the City's Zoning Regulations; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on September 17, 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 staff's 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. M // Ordinance No. 1310 (1996 Series) Page 2 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. 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. 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. 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 area" as defined in Subsection Alb below. iv. When the calculation of cross slope results in a fractional number, it shall be rounded to the next highest whole number if the fraction is one-half or more; otherwise it shall be rounded down to the next lowest whole number. 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: -i7�r Ordinance No. 1310 (1996 Series) Page 3 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-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 (in 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. Ordinance No. 1310 (1996 Series) Page 4 17.16.060 Parking space requirements. Table 6- Parking Requirements by Use is hereby amended as follows: Type of Use Number of Oft-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 R-4 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 As A A A A building materials and gardening supplies(hardware, floor and wall coverings,paint,glass stores,etc.) Retail sales-groceries, liquor A A A PC and specialized foods(bakery, meats,dairy items,etc.) 19 Ordinance No. 1310 (1996 Series) Page 5 Table 9-Uses Allowed by Zone R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 C/OS O" PF C-N C-C I C-R C-T C-S M 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 PC D establishment. Retail sales-warehouse stores -45,000 square feet or less gross PC D D floor area per establishment -more than 45,000 square feet PC PC PC gross floor area per establishment. 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 1758.020 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 tnay 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. Ordinance No. 1310 (1996 Series) Page 6 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. gY"�� Ordinance No. 1310 (1996 Series) Page 7 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: City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen ��— ORDINANCE NO. 1310 (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 OF THE GENERAL PLAN (TA 79-96) On September 17, 1996 the San Luis Obispo City Council voted 3-1; (Council Member Romero voting no) to introduce Ordinance No. 1310 which: modifies the Zoning Regulations relating to density calculations, parking standards for research and development uses, land use matrix changes, building height standards in the C-R zoning districts, planned development regulations, and definitions for research and development and warehouse stores. The Council must vote again to approve this ordinance before it can take effect. That action is tentatively scheduled for October 1, 1996 at a Regular City Council meeting to begin at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Room of the City/County Library, 995 Palm Street. Copies of the complete ordinance are available in the City Clerk's Office, Room No. I of City Hall. For more information, contact the Community Development Department at (805) 781- 7170. Bonnie Gawf, City Clerk � -.z3 MEETING AGENDA DATE-1!-_..ITEM #= ;)1plaftilumm realty -_: -- November 14, 1996 fFJ COUNCIL CDD DIR t�CAO .❑ FIN DIR �•j 9(ACAO ❑ FIRE 6Hlf F j To Mayor Settle and City Council MemberseATTORNEY .D PW DIR i{ d CLERWORIG ❑ PSE CHF j l: 13 , MGMT TEAM ❑ REC.DR Re: CIS Zoning Affecting: I ❑ C EAD FILE ❑ uT(L D9 a) Drug Stores ❑ PEAS DIR .. b) Discount Stores - _.. c) Department Stores d) Variety Stores Removal was never previously discussed - in several years of hearings on the LUE, there was never a discussion on these items. I can attest to this as both a participant and witness at numerous hearings. Removal of these uses from C/S zoning will be a long term mistake because- • Adequate safeguards exist-A Planning Commission Use Permit is required for the uses and if controversial, the decision will be made by City Council. • Existing businesses in these categories will be unable to expand -they will become non-conforming. • Desirable new businesses are effectively prohibited from locating in San Luis Obispo. Most vacant and usable commercial land is zoned CIS. • Von's store on Broad Street- potential future use is severely impacted. • More non-conforming uses is poor planning • Complicated and hair-splitting zoning decisions is unwise • The current system works -why complicate it? X ully submitted, RECEIVED ?W _ " F� MOV 1 y_ 1996. L. Se CITY COUNCW n01,SM OA. 444 8iguera Street,P.O.Boa 1224 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 (805) 544-8662 9 Fax (805) 544-2837 ,la 9-Uses Allowed by Zone R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 CIOS 011 PF C-N C-C C-R C-T C-S M -,ef ........... ............... ......... ail sales- general merchandise X. X. R� IX ............ 1g, discount, . ..... a(' ..... ..... ........... ,artment and variety stores) 'X. . M.............. X. X-1- 5,000 square feet or less gross u A A PC ........... X... .......... 3or area Per establishment .:::::::::. 5,001 to 60,000 square feet . ..... PC AA PC N. ss )or area per establishment ......... ............ ...... D PC X Is... _.X ,are than 60,000 square feet ...... ...... XI Ax ass floor area par establish- ... ... ... .. ....... ........... -ant. ........ 2�:1.XXI X. ................. ..... ... ... Ae A :ail sales and rental - specialties .......... oe stores, clothing stores, ....... ...... ......... A/record/videotepa stores, toy res, stationery stores. gift % )PS) ...... ...... ...... .......... .:X........ .... . ..... ................ ........... ......... X fools ....... .......... ............ % ....... ..... ....... .... ursary schools/Pre-school (see ...... Z. ................... ......... .......... ay care)" ... .......... x ............... ............. ...... XX... .......... X ............... ..... ernentary, junior high, high PC DD ............. -hoofs; schools for disabled/ X ........ ..... ........... ...... .......e. .......... 8ndicapped : .... ...: ............... ....... ........ ....... X: ........... e olloges/vniversities X ........ ............. ... ..... .......... .X.: smis I: usiness, trade, recreational. or ... ............ PC AJp A ......... .': M. ther specialized schools ...... ........... .....:X;X ........ ............. .... . .... ......... �Y.X1:X. ........... X oarding schools and academics PC ...... ............ ............ :I: X: X, D cretarial and related services3i ii A �.i' A ............ ... .... . . .... >urt reporting. stenography, )ing, telephone answering. etc.) ................... ........... .... ......... ................. ... .......... ........ ........... ........... D D rvice stations (sea Section D-::::;:: A X: . ..... ............ W .... ...... .08.030) ............. .......... PC acing rinks PC sm.... ..... .... ,cial services and charitable X: .................... AD D A ........ .......... X .......... socias ... ... . X....... Is: ....... ......... adiums . r C fG X;X. ...... .... ...... ............... P . ...... map meats .......... PC PC .......... ...... ...... ... ..... ... :... '.s.��; I. ro.X.:.s. Nimming pools (public) PC PC R. ............ ....... .......... xw ......... ........... :x 3ttoo parlors D D !� :: ::� ... ............ XXY. allow works X. X 5mporary parking lots (sea action 17.08.0101) N., w. ...... ...........1 16 1 .. ......:x-ff. .......... ............. ... ........ emporary real estate sales office i.p D D ............. tract (sea Section 17.08.01 OB) Allowed D = Director's approval required PC = Planning Commission approval required AID = Director's approval on ground floor: allowed Va. Director shall determine if a proposed, unlisted use is similar to a listed use. Numbered notes are at and of chart. 49 NdTING AGENDA DATE 17-19-26 ITEM # / San LUIS Obispo Chamber- of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo. California 93401-1278 (805) 781-2711 • FAX (805) 543-1255 e-rnad slo-chamber n.slonel.org David E. Garth. Execul ve Director November 13,1996A0 ❑ Fig i D 3'-CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR a-CLERIQORIC ❑ POLICE CHF Mayor Allen Settle and Members of the City Council : ❑ Maur TEAM ❑ REC DIR City of San Luis Obispo + ❑ C REAP FILE ❑ UTIL DIR 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,California 93401 ern Honorable Mayor Settle and Council Members: The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce would like to provide further input to your decision making process on C-S and C-R zone issues. As you recall,we have been very active in this process as it has applied to office uses in the C-S zone. We would now like to clarify our position on retail uses in the zone,as well as reiterate our position on height requirements in the C-R zone. Our Chamber continues to be sympathetic with staff concerns regarding a possible overabundance of retail uses in the C-S zone. We also recognize,however,that without adequately zoned space for these types of uses to locate,eliminating them from the C-S zone will effectively drive them from San Luis Obispo. Glancing at a land use map reveals how small our available inventory of non-CS zone land is for these uses,especially larger ones. With regard to the Retail Sales-General Merchandise category,we feel that staff's recommendation to limit department stores in the C-S zone makes sense. It is unlikely that department stores would choose to locate in the C-S zone in any case,but we feel that limiting these uses to the downtown and the Madonna Road regional mall area is more appropriate. With regard to drug, discount,and variety stores,however,we feel that the current Planning Commission review process is adequate to avoid an overabundance of these types of stores,while still granting enough flexibility to allow the City to capture those retail uses it feels are most appropriate. Again,we feel that the alternative,restricting these uses completely within the C-S zone,will only drive all of these stores outside the city limits. One of the most confusing issues regarding allowable land uses in the C-S zone for all parties has been the difficulty of adequately defining what the use categories mean. As an example,it was debated at length during the last City Council meeting on this subject whether Smart and Final was a grocery store or a warehouse store. The triggering factor that first opened the C-S zone debate centered around the TK Annexation area,and whether Food For Less is a neighborhood or warehouse store. TEN YEARS The Chamber feels that with many of the recent changes in the retail marketplace,many traditional definitions ofgqrp type are growing increasingly obsolete. In order to avoid C . RECEIVED �,r�Y ' _ ACCREDITED ��Vr1U CHAMBER 0ICOMMERCE NOVY c CITY CLERK OItY COUNCIL i r%blgb^ cs this confusion in the future,the City needs to maintain a cutting-edge set of definitions that encompass these new types of use. We feel that city staff has been accomplishing just that with its new definitions of research and development and warehouse stores. We believe that this process should be applied to the other retail categories as well,in order to avoid this confusion in the future. The Chamber also feels that there is one C-S zone area in the city that merits special consideration. We feel that the central Higuera street corridor represents a special situation that probably cannot be solved by traditional zoning because it is in transition. The area is a conglomeration of somewhat compatible uses but is changing over time. Furthermore,the corridor is one of the few areas where the city core can and should expand,because it is the link between the commercial core and the regional shopping at Madonna Road. We feel that the City needs the flexibility to adapt and encourage new economic development in this area that may not fit conventional zoning patterns (e.g.mixed uses combining manufacturing,wholesale,and retail/office for the same business.) To that end,we encourage the city to work with property owners in the area to develop an effective set of incentives that will help to establish stronger linkages between the central downtown core and the mall area on Madonna Road. Our hope is that such incentives would allow greater flexibility in building uses,will encourage economic development and an innovative mix of uses,and will encourage developments that recognize this area as a link between the core area and the regional shopping center and include elements that acknowledge the unique character of this area and seek to maximize its economic and community potential. Finally,the Chamber would like to strongly reiterate our belief that 35 feet height limitations in the C-R zone will reduce the architectural quality of buildings in this zone and result in sprawl. As we have mentioned before,reducing the height allowances from the current 45 foot limit will prohibit three-story structures in almost all circumstances,resulting in boxy structures a la Santa Maria,and encouraging sprawl to outlying areas rather than compact urban form in the urban core. We feel that reducing the maximum height in the C-R zone will have a negative effect on quality of life in San Luis Obispo,and we strongly urge you to reconsider your recommendation to reduce this height limitation. We would like to thank both the Planning Commission and City staff once again for considering our input into this process,as well as your dedication to a successful outcome for the proposed C-S and C-R changes. Yours very truly, 0'alcw-� Robert L.Griffin Andrew Merriam President Land Use Task Force Chair