Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/21/2000, 2 - RFP REQUESTING CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR REVISIONS TO THE COMMERCIAL ZONING REGULATIONS M<aiN D.�. COU11C1 �� - zi-On agenda RepoRt It..N.W., C IT Y OF SAN LU IS O B I S P O FROM: Ronald Whisenand, Interim Community Development Directo /ZJ By: Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner SUBJECT: RFP REQUESTING CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR REVISIONS TO THE COMMERCIAL ZONING REGULATIONS CAO RECOMMENDATION A. Approve the work scope for preparation of revisions to the City's commercial zoning regulations and authorize staff to proceed with sending out Request for Proposal (RFP) documents to qualified consulting firms. B. Authorize the CAO to award the contract to a qualified consulting firm if the proposed contract amount is within the funding amount allocated in the budget. DISCUSSION Situation The City Council, on the recommendation of the Planning Commission, included an update of the commercial zoning regulations as one of the Council Goals in the 1999-01 Financial Plan. To meet this goal, the budget includes funding for a consultant to assist in the preparation and processing of revisions to the City's commercial zoning regulations.The Planning Commission held two meetings in 1999 to assess the overall effectiveness of current regulations and to solicit community input on possible improvements.The consultant will use the results of those meetings and City Council direction as a starting point. Background For years, City staff and the Planning Commission have discussed the need to review the effectiveness of the City's commercial zoning districts. More specifically: Are the City's commercial zoning districts and land use categories still appropriate given changes in business practices and technology? Is Neighborhood-Commercial zoning still appropriate, and if so for what kind of sites? (Does it make sense to apply the same zoning standards to projects as different as Laguna Village Shopping Center and the High Street Market?) How does the classification of uses need to be changed to better reflect new types of businesses and new ways of doing business? (What are "computer services" anyway?) 2-1 Council Agenda Report—Commercial Zoning Revisions Page 2 Is it time to expand the Central-Commercial zone? (How would this impact the parking in-lieu fee program?) Is there a better way to accommodate certain types of offices? (Should large offices simply be allowed in the C-S and M zones subject to performance standards, rather than requiring a Planned Development overlay zone? Should office uses be allowed on small individual lots in the C-N zone? Should they be allowed on the second story in commercial shopping centers?) Is it time to modernize the format of the zoning regulations? (Should the format of Table 9- Uses Allowed by Zone be changed for easier reference? Do we need to expand the definitions section?) Does the Mixed Use ordinance really encourage mixed commercial and residential use? (Are there other incentives that should be offered?) Planning Commission Recommended Work Scope At the conclusion of the May 26, 1999 meeting, the Planning Commission moved to forward the follow-;ng recommendations for a work scope to the City Council. The Planning Commission agreed that consultant analysis of the City's commercial zoning should: 1. Explore the creation of a new "Community-Commercial" zoning district that would apply to centers such as Laguna Village, Foothill Plaza, Scolari's, and Marigold that not only serve the surrounding neighborhood but residents throughout the city. 2. Develop a list of uses allowed in the new "Community-Commercial" zoning district that would reflect the community-wide market area that they serve. 3. Narrow the list of allowed uses in the remaining Neighborhood-Commercial zoning districts to those that are truly neighborhood serving and are pedestrian oriented. 4. Refine the Service-Commercial zoning district to reflect service, light industrial, and R&D type uses, distinguishable from Business Park and Office zones. 5. Provide a revised zoning matrix (Table 9 in the Zoning Regulations) with similar uses grouped together and uses that are more clearly defined. 6. Evaluate expanding the Central-Commercial zone into adjacent Retail-Commercial zones in the downtown core. 7. Address the effectiveness of the Mixed Use ordinance and suggest possible incentives for mixed commercial/residential development 8. Evaluate the City's application of Planned Development zoning. 2-2 Council Agenda Report—Commercial Zoning Revisions Page 3 The scope of work will require analysis; meetings with the public and affected property owners; preparation of draft map and text revisions to the general plan and zoning ordinance; scoping of potential environmental impacts and public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. City staff will be responsible for environmental review and preparation of reports to the Planning Commission and City Council. Original versus Expanded Work Scope The original work scope emphasized the need to more clearly define Neighborhood Commercial and Service Commercial districts, and to modernize the zoning regulations use categories, definitions, and formatting. Expanding the Central-Commercial zone; evaluating the effectiveness of the Mixed Use ordinance; and evaluating the use of Planned Development zoning were not part of the original work scope anticipated in the 1999-01 Financial Plan. Adding these tasks could become unwieldy and may be more costly. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission agreed that these additional items should be addressed. The work scope includes them as bid alternates. Staff recommends that these issues be addressed as follows: A. Central-Commercial Zoning: Because of the detailed parking and site development analysis that will be necessary to properly evaluate expanding the boundaries of the Central- Commercial zone, it may be more appropriate for this item to be addressed as a high-priority work program the 2001-03 budget. B. Mixed Use Development: As part of this set of commercial zoning revisions, the consultant could provide a list of incentives offered by other communities to encourage mixed residential and commercial development. C. Planned Development (PD)Zoning: 1. Combination Use PD's: The Zoning Regulations, under Section 17.50.020, allow any use or combination of uses which conform with the General Plan to be established on a site through the Planned Development (PD) rezoning process. This application of PD zoning could simply be eliminated. Instead of requiring PD zoning, uses consistent with the General Plan could be added as allowed uses, or conditionally allowed uses, in an updated zoning matrix (Table 9). Applicants also have the option of requesting approval of a combination of uses under the Mixed Use ordinance, providing the uses do not conflict with General Plan provisions (Section 17.55.020A.(2)). 2. Large Office PD's: The General Plan and Zoning Regulations enable large offices to be located in the Service-Commercial (C-S) and Manufacturing (M) zones with certain stipulations and minimum floor areas. A comprehensive evaluation of the City 's application of Planned Development zoning for large offices in the C-S and M zones would be more appropriately undertaken once the City has updated its office demand study, which is also included as part of 2-3 Council Agenda Report—Commercial Zoning Revisions Page 4 the City's 1999-01 Financial Plan. However, required findings for this application of PD zoning could be clarified as part of these commercial zoning revisions. Schedule for Commercial Zoning Revisions With City Council endorsement of the RFP and work scope on November 21", RFPs would be sent out to qualified consultants on November 28h. The contract would specify that a working draft of the revisions to the commercial zoning regulations be prepared within 90 days of awarding the contract(in the first week of February). Therefore,it is anticipated that the draft revisions would be completed by mid-May. Rather than try and present all recommended revisions at the same time, staff will separate recommendations into several components to be acted on individually. It is likely that a Planning Commission meeting in May would serve as the first in a series of public forums to review and discuss the draft revisions. Consequences of Not Taking the Recommended Action If a consultant were not retained to assist in analyzing and drafting revisions to the commercial zoning regulations, it would be the responsibility of City staff to complete the work. Given the high level of the current workload in the Development Review Division of the Community Development Department, completion of the update would not be achieved as expeditiously. FISCAL IMPACT The 1999-01 Financial Plan budgeted $15,000 for commercial zoning revisions. This amount was estimated to be adequate for the original work scope. To enable the work scope to be expanded based on direction from the Planning Commission, additional funding could be transferred from the Community Development Department's general carry over fund, subject to approval by the City Administrative Officer. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve a lesser work scope. Items not included in this round of revisions could be deferred as a high priority work item in the 2001-2003 budget. 2. Continue consideration of the work scope and RFP with direction to staff on necessary. changes. 2-4 Council Agenda Report—Commercial Zoning Revisions Page 5 Attached: Attachment 1 - Work scope Attachment 2: - Planning Commission meeting minutes of February 24, 1999 Attachment 3: -Planning Commission meeting minutes from May 26, 1999 Available in the Council Reading File*: 1. A complete copy of the RFP 2. Staff reports for the 2/24/99 and 5/26/99 Planning Commission meetings, which include reports prepared by Crawford, Multari, and Clark 3. Letters and comments submitted to the Planning Commission * Also available for public review in the Community Development Department &WM/commercial zoning revisions/RR(Council report) 2-5 COMMERCIAL ZONING REVISIONS ATTACHMENT 1 PRELIMINARY WORK SCOPE PAGE 1 PRELIMINARY WORK SCOPE FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING REVISIONS Project Description The City is seeking a qualified consultant to assist with the update of the City's commercial Zoning Regulations and any related General Plan amendments. The consulting firm, Crawford Multari, Clark and Mohr (now Crawford, Multari and Clark) prepared two reports on commercial zoning in San Luis Obispo — Review of Commercial Zoning Districts (February 1999) and Review of Commercial Zoning Districts: Part 2 Conclusions, Alternatives for Further Study (May 1999). The consultant will use these reports and minutes from the February 24 and May 26, 1999 Planning Commission workshop meetings as a starting point to prepare revisions as directed by City Council at their November 21, 2000 meeting. Scope of Work 1. Review pertinent background materials. a. Review key General Plan land use policies related to commercial development; commercial Zoning Regulations; reports, minutes, and tape recorded discussions from the February 24 and May 26, 1999 Planning Commission workshop meetings and the November 21, 2000 City Council meeting. Potential proposers interested in reviewing these documents and tapes prior to submitting a proposal may contact Project Manager Whitney McIlvaine at (805) 781-7164 to obtain copies. 2. Provide an overview assessment of existing zoning districts. a. Submit a written assessment and outline any recommendations for re-characterizing the existing categories, based on a review of City policies and Zoning Regulations;field observations of physical development and mix of uses in the various zones;and alternative approaches taken in other similar communities. 3. Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of creating a new "Community-Commercial" zoning district for community(versus regional)shopping centers. a. Identify all areas suitable for a "Community-Commercial" designation, such as Laguna Village, Foothill Plaza, Scolari's, and Marigold. Identify areas that would be suitable for Community-Commercial zoning in the future, such as in the Margarita and Orcutt areas. Provide map exhibits of these areas in hard copy and computer disk formats. Desirable products would be a large colored map (General.Plan size)and an 8.5" x 11" map suitable for black and white photo copying. Coordinate with the Planning Technician in the Community Development Department regarding available computer files and compatible formats. b. Develop a list of uses allowed or allowed with use permit approval in the new "Community- Commercial"zoning district that would reflect the community-wide market area that they serve. c. Draft necessary changes to Land Use Element policies and to the Zoning Regulations to characterize this new designation and establish development standards. d. Meet with affected property owners and document their concerns and ideas related to rezoning their property "Community-Commercial." 2-6 COMMERCIAL ZONING REVISIO, PRELIMINARY WORK SCOPE PAGE 2 ATTACHMENT 1 e. Identify potential impacts that may result from the proposed rezoning,e.g. the creation of non- conforming uses and possible impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. f. Provide a brief summary report outlining recommended changes for this work scope item. 4. Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of narrowing the list of allowed uses in the remaining Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N)zoning districts to those that are neighborhood serving,pedestrian oriented,and compatible with surrounding residential uses. a. Identify all properties affected by this proposal, including any new areas where C-N zoning may be appropriate. Provide map exhibits of these areas in hard copy and on disk, including a large colored map (General Plan size) and an 8.5" x 11" map suitable for black and white photo copying. Coordinate with the Planning Technician in the Community Development Department regarding available computer files and compatible formats. b. Develop a list of uses for remaining sites zoned Neighborhood-Commercial which would be allowed or allowed with use permit approval. Uses should be neighborhood serving, or at least highly compatible with residential uses; pedestrian oriented; reasonable in terms of lot size, street type, available parking and surrounding uses. It may be appropriate to develop performance standards based on the nature of the use, site characteristics, and surrounding development. c. Meet with affected property owners and document their concerns and ideas related to revising the current list of allowed uses in the Neighborhood-Commercial zone. d. Identify potential impacts that may result from the proposed changes,e.g. the creation of non- conforming uses and possible impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. e. Provide a brief summary report outlining recommended changes for this work scope item. 5. Refine the Service Commercial (C-S) zoning district to reflect service, light industrial, and R&D type uses. a. Review the list of allowed uses in the C-S zone in light of creating a new Community- Commercial zone and possible revisions to the City's use of Planned Development zoning for large offices(See discussion of PD zoning below.) b. Meet with affected property owners and document their concerns and ideas related to revising the current list of allowed uses in the C-S zone. c. Identify potential impacts that may result from any proposed changes,e.g.the creation of non- conforming uses and possible impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. d. Provide a brief summary report outlining recommended changes for this work scope item. 6. Revise the zoning matrix (Table 9) so that similar uses are grouped together and use categories are modernized and clearly defined. a. Modernize and reformat the list of uses in Table 9. Coordinate with the Planning Technician in the Community Development Department regarding available computer files and compatible formats. 2-7 COMMERCIAL ZONING REVISION PRELIMINARY WORK SCOPE PAGE 3 ATTACHMM b. Provide clear definitions for uses not already defined in the zoning ordinance, especially for computer and telecommunication uses. c. Provide a brief summary report outlining recommended changes for this work scope item. 7. Provide a brief summary report outlining any further changes you would recommend given what you have learned during the course of this project. 8. Identify issues that should be analyzed in the initial study of environmental impact, using the City's initial study checklist. a. City staff will prepare the environmental review document. This task simply requests the consultants assistance in scoping issues to be discussed in the initial study. 9. Be prepared to make presentations and discuss recommendations at Planning Commission and City Council meetings(minimum of 5 meetings). BID ALTERNATES In addition,the Commission asked that Council also address expansion of the Central-Commercial (C-C) zone into adjacent Retail-Commercial (C-R) zones in the downtown core; the effectiveness of the Mixed Use ordinance and possible incentives for mixed commercial/residential development; and the City's application of Planned Development zoning. 1. Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of expanding the Central-Commercial (C-C) zone into surrounding Retail-Commercial(C-R) zones in terms of General Plan consistency, site development potential,parking,and compatibility with surrounding development. a. Identify areas that would be suitable for Central-Commercial zoning. Provide map exhibits of these areas in hard copy and computer disk formats. Desirable products would be a large colored map (General Plan size) and an 8.5" x 11" map suitable for black and white photo copying. Coordinate with the Planning Technician in the Community Development Department regarding available computer files and compatible formats. b. Quantify the potential increase in development capacity (e.g. building square footage) that may be possible as a result of rezoning certain areas Central-Commercial. c. Meet with affected property owners and document their concerns and ideas related to expansion of the C-C zone. d. Identify potential impacts that may result from the proposed changes, e.g. potential parking shortfalls and possible impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. e. Review the Parking and Downtown Access Plan (available at the Community Development Department) and the City's parking in-lieu fee program; identify potential conflicts with existing plans and programs related to downtown parking; and outline possible solutions. E Provide a brief summary report outlining recommended changes for this work scope item. 2—O COMMERCIAL ZONING REVISIC,­3 PRELIMINARY WORK SCOPE PAGE 4 ATTACHMENT Y 2. Evaluate the effectiveness of the Mixed Use ordinance and suggest possible incentives for mixed commercial1residential development. a. Survey comparable communities regarding the effectiveness of zoning ordinance provisions and incentive programs for mixed use development and summarize your results in a report. 3. Evaluate the City's application of Planned Development zoning for large offices and mixed commercial uses. a. Review applicable General Plan and zoning ordinance sections related to Planned Development overlay zoning and selected application files provided by City staff. b. Evaluate eliminating the requirement for Planned Development rezoning to establish certain large offices in the Service-Commercial(C-S)and Manufacturing(M)zones and instead allowing such uses subject to use permit approval and performance standards. Draft revisions to the Land Use Element and Zoning Regulations necessary to implement this revision. c. Evaluate using the Mixed Use overlay rather than the Planned Development overlay for establishing a mix of commercial uses per Zoning Ordinance Section 17.50.020. d. Provide a brief summary report outlining recommended changes for this work scope item. 2-9 ATTACHMENT 2 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1999 CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 24, 1999, in Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. David Jeffrey, Allan Cooper, Paul Ready, Alice Loh, Stephen Peterson, Mary Whittlesey, and Chairman Charles Senn Absent: None Staff Community Development Director Arnold Jonas, Recording Secretary Present: Leaha Magee, Development Review Manager Ron Whisenand, and Assistant City Attorney Gilbert Trujillo. Also present was commercial zoning workshop consultant Mr. Paul Crawford. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made. PUBLIC WORKSHOP: 1. Citywide: Commercial Zoning Public Workshop. Evaluation of the City's current commercial zoning categories, policies, on where these commercial districts are to be located within the city and the current listing of commercial use types. Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager, presented an overview of the workshop. 2-10 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1999 -Worksho, Page 2 ATTACHMENT 2 Mr. Crawford reviewed his experience and described zoning ordinance content including zoning districts and allowable land uses, development standards, and procedures. Commr. Whittlesey asked for comment on the performance based approach to allowable zoning uses. Mr. Crawford stated that performance based zoning does not look at specific uses that might be allowed, but instead looks at the effects of the uses. This might involve setting limits on traffic generation rates and using development standards to define form and mass between the relationship of commercial buildings and their surroundings. The difficulty with this approach is that it provides almost no certainty without a fair amount of analysis as to what uses are allowed in given zoning districts. Commr. Cooper asked for comments on the need for defining specialty retail, regional- draw retail, and computer services. Mr. Crawford stressed the importance of defining and updating every use listed and recommended including additional definitions. Commr. Jeffrey noted that increasingly popular districts in other communities are light industrial and light manufacturing. Mr. Crawford stated heavy industry (mills/factories) doesn't occur in most communities. He felt that virtually every community is interested in high-tech industry, if industrial development is desired at all. There are many different high-tech industries and some include the use of hazardous materials with potential environmental effects. There is a lot of competition to attract post-industrial uses which involve production of intellectual property that typically locate in areas where telecommunications are effective. Many older zoning ordinances that have light and heavy industrial zoning districts are being revised to focus more on lighter industrial uses and service commercial. Heavy industrial is mostly located in metropolitan areas. Commr. Jeffrey commented that he's found mixed uses are not used with commercial uses in other communities. Mr. Crawford stated more cities are developing mixed standards for mixed use development versus mixed use zoning districts. Cities trying to maintain downtown vitality encourage mixed use development/upper floor residential. Chairman Senn opened the floor to receive public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT: 2-11 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1999-Workshop Page 3 ATTACHMENT 2 Bill Thoma, Thoma Electric, stated the Chamber of Commerce would like to participate in this process and felt this could be a complicated issue with unintended consequences. Chairman Senn suggested a Chamber subcommittee be formed to provide for effective participation. Mr. Thoma stated that businesses are changing. Grocery stores now include banks and dry cleaners and don't necessary fit into some categories. However, innovative ideas should not be restricted. He felt there should be flexibility for businesses to grow and flourish in our city and questioned drawing/attracting major corporations without having proper sites available. Rob Strong, address unstated, said he believes there are apparent problems in the City's commercial zones and felt this workshop is timely and necessary. He didn't feel there is a sufficient number commercial categories. The Laguna Village Shopping Center, Marigold Center, and University Square are classified as commercial retail, neighborhood commercial, or service commercial. There is no community commercial district, yet all three centers function as community-wide service centers. Each contain certain uses that appeal beyond the boundaries of the neighborhood. He felt a General Plan Amendment is necessary to create a community commercial zoning district. He felt that specific definitions of"neighborhood" and "community" are needed. He also felt certain prescriptions of the General Plan are too specific in that instead of describing the character or range of uses, it takes a General Plan amendment to achieve some things that most communities can achieve by a rezoning or use permit. Use-related parking requirements are also troublesome. He felt commercial portions of the zoning ordinance should be revamped and believes development related parking standards are more appropriate than use related parking standards. Brett Cross, address unstated, felt city-wide traffic impacts need to be considered and a clash exists between planning and how it disconnects from the economics of the real world. Shelly Stanwick, Director of Governmental Affairs, Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber is interested in participating in discussions. The Chamber is not sure of the extent that business owners are experiencing zoning problems, but has received calls expressing concerns with various commercial zoning issues. They would like to provide the opportunity through a task force for Chamber members to be involved in surveying membership to provide the city with accurate data. Because of the anticipated annexation of the airport area, different zoning needs might be necessary for business professionals and targeted high-tech industries. Julie Galvin, Laguna Village Shopping Center representative, said they have difficulty getting tenants. They have to turn away many uses because they are zoned commercial neighborhood and uses must have a retail component. They did have a 2-12 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1999 -Worksho, Page 4 ATTACHMENT 2 bank branch at one time, but cannot have a credit union because it's considered a regional draw. She noted that they are located on one of the busiest intersections in the city, and yet they've been told a commercial neighborhood center is not supposed to have a regional draw. They have submitted an application to the City to expand the commercial neighborhood towards professional and office uses which are currently disallowed. She said supported Mr. Strong's idea of a community commercial zone. Doreen Case, address unstated, noted there was recently a problem with a hostel being allowed in an R-3 zone. This was a greater density than people wanted to see. She requested that hostels and Bed and Breakfasts be included in a tourist commercial zone where they would be better suited and more compatible. Hamish Marshall, Westpac Investments, said he is frustrated by the amount of time spent dealing with inconsistencies of exclusive uses allowed within certain commercial zones and then more loose uses allowed in the same zone. He felt it is very difficult to pin down what types of uses are allowed and disallowed. The 3450 Broad Street project was designed to honor an average parking ratio because the tenancy was unknown. Perhaps not having such specific uses, but an overall span of uses for commercial zones is a good idea. Mike Guerre, 1828 Broad Street, stated Lucent Technologies moved into a rental on Broad Street and remodeled the site which bothered the neighborhood at first, but nobody complained because of the improvements being made. At this point, the neighborhood has gotten to like this use because there is no parking issue since there are few employees. He asked that commercial use be considered on more heavily traveled streets. Brian Christianson, 818 Pismo St., supports a sit-down workshop for citizens to discuss one-on-one what works with regards to commercial within the city. He believes there is the inability to provide one thing under a one zone category. The C-S zone doesn't allow retail, but provides transportation corridors and inexpensive land. The C-N zone doesn't allow community sites for shopping centers (for example, the Marigold Center has a C-N designation on almost 18 acres of land). He felt discussion is needed on PD and MU overlay zones. MU language should clearly state that it must be consistent with the LUE. There needs to be consideration for having all of land use designation under one group. Performance based designations do provide the ability to get community benefits factored into development. He supports an ongoing inventory of commercial lands that is updated regularly. National- standards for commercial designations could be used as comparisons. Mark Anderson, Rosetti Co., stated one of the problems with the C-N zone is the 2,000 sq. ft. limitation on specialty retail. Coast to Coast Hardware vacated the Foothill Plaza in 1987 and that space has not been leased since. The Zoning Ordinance states that discount, variety, and hardware are the only uses to exceed 2,000 sq. ft. and not many of these stores are available. The Foothill Plaza owner has split up this space to 2-13 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1999 -Workshop. Page 5 ATTACHMENT 2 mitigate the 2,000 sq. ft. limitation, but hasn't been successful. Any building that doesn't have a retail orientation in the C-N zone is almost impossible to lease because offices aren't allowed. Joe DeLucia, 139 Longview, felt there are some problems inherent in the existing zoning regulations as far as identifying approved uses. There is a proliferation of PD overlay applications. Without having adequate absorption factors or adequate vacancy factors, it is impossible to analyze marketplace distortions. When the marketplace tums, there will be an abundance of office space that has been virtually subsidized because PD overlays have been allowed. This may dramatically affect downtown office uses. Charles Smith, 674 Sandercock, owns property as 2120 Broad Street and is experiencing a C-N zoning problem because he can't put in office uses. He prefers office uses because of its minimal traffic impacts. He complained of the high traffic generated by neighboring beauty salons which are allowed uses. Hal Dill, address unstated, has been endeavoring to lease office space in the C-N zone and is mystified by the limited amount of uses. Many office uses should be allowed in the C-N zone. Many existing buildings are use limited. Diane Sheeley, City Economic Development Manager, stated absorption and vacancy data is not available at this time, however, the economic development program is informally tracking inquiries received and special needs requested. She would ultimately like to try to incorporate gathered information into the GIS inventory. Chairman Senn asked if our zoning matrix works or if it deters business from expanding/locating in our city. Ms. Sheeley has not found the existing zoning to be an issue. Commr. Jeffrey asked at what level should absorption rates and economic information be included in consideration and at what level. Ms. Sheeley was not prepared to answer that specific question, but stated in looking at the airport area specific plan, the City has informally looked at the types of businesses that have previously looked in our community and that have been referred that are targeted industry to make sure that we're making room for these individuals and planning for the appropriate related infrastructure. Tom Phillips, 3990 Broad Street, Marigold Center, stated Marigold and Laguna Center are square pegs in round holes. He finds many disallowed uses frustrating and feels a task force may be helpful in simplifying zoning. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed. 2-14 Planning Commission Minuter February 24, 1999-Worksho, Page 6 ATTACHMENT 2 COMMISSION COMMENT: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director, commented that over the years the C- N district has created more and more problems for staff. He doesn't believe that there is any such thing as neighborhood commercial anymore because super markets and drug stores are now huge and have to draw community-wide to survive. The little corner grocery store barely exists in today's world because they don't tend to be economically feasible. Mr. Strong's idea of a community zoning district has merit, but there are concerns of a community-wide draw which tends to lead to more traffic and more potential impacts on adjoining residential uses. Mr. Jonas stated another issue area is the C-S district. It appears that people who own or lease C-S properties want the C-S district to be all things to all people in the non- residential area, with the exception of heavy industrial uses. The City has more pressure to allow a wide range of uses in the C-S district than it has in any other district in town. He noted much concern about allowing office uses in the C-S district. One reason that offices were originally not allowed at all and even today are only allowed theoretically with a PD overlay for large office uses, is that there was a community goal for keeping office uses around the downtown because traditionally those office uses served the attomeys/courthouse, governmental offices, the professional uses, that those people who generated our General Plan and over the years tried to guide the development community felt that those should be close to our downtown to keep it vital and alive. He felt this is a real issue that should be examined. Dir. Jonas said he felt the C-R zone seems to be stable in terms of the kinds of uses allowed and what people feel it should allow and where it goes, but people more and more are trying to make the C-S zone like the C-R zone, possibly because land on the peripheral is cheaper or there is more available. Dir. Jonas stated relative to our expansion areas, that the City will be generating a new zoning district for office park to go in the airport area because there is specific interest and it would create an area that would specifically be aimed at attracting the targeted industry clusters. This is an area where we can provide those kinds of uses where they can't be provided in other parts of town at the current time. Commr. Jeffrey asked for comment on the MU overlay. Dir. Jonas stated the way the regulations are written allow a great deal more flexibility than perhaps some people felt was intended. If the Commission feels that's not necessarily appropriate, it may want to look at in the future. He liked the idea of allowing residential in certain non-residential districts rather than trying to spread it around the C-S zone by attaching MU overlay. 2-15 Planning Commission Minut( February 24, 1999 -Workshor Page 7 ATTACHMENT Mgr. Whisenand described his position as Development Review Manager and Administrative Hearing Officer. He stated it's very rare that staff can't find a category to fit all uses. He felt some zoning cleanup and modernization could occur. The main problem and frustration he hears from the development community in that uses are not only tied to zoning, but the General Plan as well. He felt the General Plan has good, solid planning principles behind it. He felt looking at the General Plan is the key. He noted there are some good reasons why offices surround the downtown, but we should also recognize that there are some situations where large professional offices cannot fit downtown. In these situations, the General Plan supports some larger office buildings in the C-S district with a PD overlay. In terms of C-N, the General Plan has some specific policies as to what we want to see in neighborhood commercial areas. He felt the General Plan policies make sense and generally work and meet the needs of the overall population. Commr. Peterson asked why more residential is not being seen above ground-floor in commercial development. Dir. Jonas felt it takes a very particular type of personality that would enjoy living in a situation above commercial business because of potential noise problems and other conflicts. He did note it is very desirable for communities to keep activity in areas that otherwise go dead at night and that it very healthy to have sort of around-the-clock human presence. Mr. Crawford added that most developers tend to be either residential or commercial and develop what they are familiar with. Chairman Senn felt there are financing difficulties in funding such mixed projects, as well. Mr. Crawford summarized that in comparison with other communities, there isn't much wrong with the city's commercial zoning districts in relations to usability or substance, but he did find some that are problematic. The neighborhood commercial district and uses are a difficulty in the current ordinance because of the nature of changing business. Stores with a primary focus that may be neighborhood-serving for its own economics will find it necessary to include a lot of other activities. Mr. Strong's notion of a community commercial district as an additional district might make sense to consider as an alternative approach. Mr. Crawford stated the City's plan is good in its clarity in what should happen in different areas of the community. It says very clearly that C-S areas are intended not primarily for retail uses and should be reserved for the kinds of land uses that don't fit well in other kinds of retail areas and classic service uses which sometimes are blurred in their distinction between service and industry. Service commercial districts in many communities are intended to accommodate uses that are problematic in terms of traffic, noise, appearance, and as a result, are difficult to find places for. There is a public 2-16 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1999 -Worksho, Page s ATTACHMENT policy issue about how much you want to use the service commercial areas for uses that can really be located many different places. Mr. Crawford stated with respect to the use list issues, he would recommend focusing on refinement. There isn't anything fundamentally wrong with the land use in the current zoning ordinance. It could use some updating, deletion of obsolete uses, consolidation, and modern terminology. Uses need to be clearly defined and examples are helpful. Mr. Crawford stated the general notion of where offices should go has been addressed. From a planning principle standpoint, it makes sense to concentrate office uses in and near the downtown, but the reality is that the size of properties downtown and the nature of existing development make it difficult to build new office facilities to accommodate larger tenants. There is clearly a great demand for office-type uses which encompasses a variety of things. Mr. Crawford suggested Commission input be provided to help formulate conclusions to be presented at a later date. Commr. Cooper has concern with the proliferation of interpretations of C-S and is going to be more stringent and rigorous in looking at exceptions, variances, or overlays in this zone. He said he is concerned with the C-N designation and doesn't feel this community can support much more C-N designations. He felt the C-N zone can be made more flexible for existing uses. The ideas of community commercial should be explored further. He said he understands there is some concern about the proliferation of MU and he would like to see that limited as well. Commr. Whittlesey had concern about C-N and its future. The community commercial category should be further explored/discussed and perhaps be incorporated in either the C-N or either more fully developed in concept. She concurred with having a stringent construction with the C-S and allowed uses. The General Plan is very clear about office use. She felt zoning categories are getting convoluted to address what everybody would like. She said office uses belong in an office category and not in the C-S. She felt the Commission is going in the appropriate direction to get the goals of the workshop accomplished, and is interested in hearing from a broader represented range of the community. Commr. Jeffrey expressed interest in looking at the government tripolar concept in terms of whether or not it's viable, based upon the rapidly changing social service delivery system and designated uses within zones relative to rapidly changing system of health care delivery which would incorporate local clinics which are not typically included in a number of zones. He is interested in hearing from a broader represented range of the community and would like input from the Chamber. He is also interested in the performance standard basis of looking at zoning in terms of intensity of use. He felt 2-17 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1999-Workshol- Page s ATTACHMENT there needs to be some sort of a performance or intensity of use component along with the zoning regulations itself. Commr. Loh complimented staff and Mr. Crawford in their presentation. She felt that reexamination of zoning areas such as C-S, C-N and the PD and MU overlays. C-N is really limited with 2,000 sq. ft. for uses and eight-acre maximum use. She is also interested in C-S proximity to residential. She would like to encourage residential components in MU overlays. She felt SLO is a small town and should maintain a small town character. She liked the idea of making MU or PD overlays more flexible and noted the C-T zone is also supported by local citizens living in the area and feels the C- T zone may need to be revisited and possibly incorporated with something else. Commr. Jeffrey suggested that a zone for light manufacturing might incorporate uses and not tie up all of the C-S Zone. Commr. Peterson feels the C-S Zone has been jumbled by many different uses. PDs and MUs added to many parcels may compromise compatibility. He felt we should stick with what the C-S was designed for which is uses which are slightly incompatible with other uses. The City shouldn't be allowing so many retail and offices uses to sift into this zone. He also questioned that there might be too much C-S area and that this might be studied through a performance standard. He understood a neighborhood commercial zone to be smaller-scale, pedestrian-oriented zone. He agreed with the comments of possibly establishing a community commercial zone that would be focused on neighborhood uses without specialty stores or a regional draw. He suggested using incentives to encourage residential development above commercial uses. Commr. Ready stated the C-N concept in the city zoning matrix should reflect the evolution of business and retail practices as well as computer and technology industries. He supported the concept of not having a C-N zoning, but a community-type of commercial zoning and distinctions with respect to potential types of uses in certain types of zones. He would like a real-world look at uses/distinctions to decide if allowances or disallowances are valid. He felt zoning designations need to be adaptable and overlays should provide flexibility. Availability concerns are valid and may warrant exceptions/overlays. Absorption studies may be necessary under certain circumstances. Chairman Senn felt the C-N is an antiquated zone and that there probably are some uses that the City ought to think about permitting. He supported a real-world look at what C-S is and what is desired because there is a lot of land zoned C-S in the county which permits offices. If the City wants to annex property at the airport, there may be tremendous resistance because office uses are currently allowed. He suggested an advisory committee be formed to study real-world definitions/uses, market scenarios, and absorption related to our City. He commented on the lack of available downtown 2-18 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1999 -Worksho, ��,H +ti Page 10 ATTACHM large office space. He raised the question of protecting the integrity of downtown without discouraging businesses from finding available facilities. Mr. Crawford will report back to the Commission after further study. 3. Comment and Discussion: A. Staff- Agenda Forecast: March 10, 1999 —Acacia Creek PD Project, Off-Site Parking Variance for the Monterey/Santa Rosa Project B. Commission: Chairman Senn reported the inclusionary Housing Ordinance was approved by Council. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for March. 10, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 990 Palm St., San Luis Obispo. Respectfully submitted, Leaha K. Magee Recording Secretary 2-19 ATTACHMENT 3 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES MAY 26, 1999 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 26, 1999, in Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners David Jeffrey, Allan Cooper, Stephen Peterson, and Chairman Paul Ready Absent: Commissioners Mary Whittlesey, Alice Loh, and Charles Senn Staff Long-Range Planning Manager John Mandeville, Recording Secretary Present: Leaha Magee, Community Development Director Arnold Jonas, and Assistant City Attorney Gilbert Trujillo. Also present was Consultant Paul Crawford. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no public comments. PUBLIC WORKSHOP: 1. Ci ide: Commercial zoning public workshop follow-up. Evaluation of the City's current commercial zoning categories/policies on where these commercial districts are to be located within the City, and the current listing of commercial use types. Director Jonas presented a workshop overview and summarized key objectives to (1) review and identify deficiencies in the City's commercial zoning regulations, (2) solicit community input on the effectiveness of our commercial zoning districts, (3) determine if our commercial zoning regulations are outdated and in need of change in order to reflect current and planned development trends, thereby better preparing the City for zoning in the new millennium, and (4) rethink the interrelationship among the various commercial zoning districts and make sure they are consistent with the Tres, Planning Commission Workshop Minutes May 26, 1999A � 0 Page 2 goals, and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan and continue to reflect the needs of our citizens. Mr. Crawford reviewed the report and summarized conclusions reached at the February 24, 1999, workshop which included the possibility of a new Community Commercial district, revisions to the list of uses currently allowed uses within the C-N and C-S zones, and refinements to Zoning Ordinance Table 9 to modernize the list of allowable uses. Commissioner Jeffrey did not feel mixed uses, mixed use clarifications, and P-D overlays as discussed at the previous workshop were addressed in the report. Commissioner Peterson noted that his previously raised topic of incentives to encourage more mixed uses was not addressed in the report. Commissioner Jeffrey noted that in anticipation of annexation of the airport area, the C- S zone would not always be appropriate and perhaps an additional zone which incorporated light industrial or manufacturing would be feasible. Director Jonas commented that there is a project underway as part of the Airport Area Specific Plan which identifies the need to develop a business park zone which will differentiate campus-like settings from the typical C-S and M zones. Manager Mandeville added that a draft list of uses has been developed for a business park land use and it is differentiated from the C-S use in that it is more oriented towards research and development and office uses. Commissioner Cooper had Mr. Crawford explain the shaded areas on the table, pages 6-8, and stated he feels a C-S use inventory would be helpful. He questioned why the proposed C-C zone only has 40 allowable uses. Mr. Crawford explained that the draft intent for the C-C zone is more focused and regional serving than the C-R zone. Commissioner Peterson was interested in seeing further discussion on mixed uses, dwellings above retail uses, and potential related incentives. There were no further comments or questions and the public comment session was opened. PUBLIC COMMENT: Brett Cross, 1217 Mariner's Cove, said he would have liked the hearing be more of a workshop format. He expressed concerns about neighborhood commercial being changed to the concept of a "power center" that would increase traffic generation and 2-21 Planning Commission Workshop Minutes May 26, 1999 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 3 decreased rates of return for existing centers. He noted the table is confusing as to what is allowed in the C-N zone and what is proposed in the C-C zone. Director Jonas did not feel "power center" as used in the report, was a good term to describe the proposed community commercial area. He explained that the goal for a community commercial center is to make the district more correctly reflect the existing neighborhood shopping centers, but amend the uses to make them more compatible with current marketing practices for neighborhood shopping centers and not to establish an entirely different center that would spread large uses throughout the community. Mr. Cross felt the Commission should consider all impacts of allowing uses that draw from the community. Matt Quaglino, Arroyo Grande, property owner in the airport area, is concerned about how the airport area will be zoned if annexed into the city. Many buildings in this area are built more towards the high-tech end, especially on Broad Street The county's zoning is C-S-BP and it's going to be difficult if auto uses are allowed next to ISP offices. Manager Mandeville commented that from previous airport area workshops, the recommendation is for the west side of Broad Street to have a business park land use designation. The focus has been to minimize the creation of nonconforming uses when the City's zoning goes into effect. Mr. Quaglino added that it takes a lot of land to create a good business park. Most of the land in this area is comprised of two-acre parcels. He suggested advanced planning for adjoining properties to create a nicer area. Tom Phillips, 3990 Broad Street, Marigold Center project manager, favors moving forward with this process as written. He believed this greatly simplifies and modernizes the zoning. He felt the new C-C zone makes a lot of sense and noted the four centers in town are already established and there is no room to add large anchor stores to them. Diane Sheeley, City Economic Development Director, encouraged moving this forward and was pleased that Council-adopted targeted industries are being considered. She had contacted many interest groups and encouraged their attendance at this workshop. Brian Christianson, 848 Pismo Street, said he also would have preferred a true workshop format. He was surprised that the report does not include any of the previous discussions on Mixed Use and P-D zones. He did not believe there is any connection between the General Plan and the newly proposed C-C district that would indicate any impacts, especially in relation to proposed size and the statement to serve within a one- mile area. He felt it is worthwhile to have inventories of all commercial land and was interested in the approach to the footnote regarding drive-through businesses. He would like to focus on mixed use and the P-D aspects in relation to the wholg G2eDeral Planning Commission Workshop Minutes May 26, 1999 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 4 _ Plan for the community and what is going to happen to the C-C designation. He did not believe the mixed use designation could survive a legal challenge the way it is written, and felt mixed uses should be consistent with the General Plan designation. The need for mixed uses has become intertwined with the P-D and the uses need to be separated. Mr. Cross complained about the format of the workshop and said he would like more free-flow discussion with more public participation. Mr. Crawford explained that the purpose of the workshop is not to detail a draft amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to provide a new district, but to do some preliminary thinking about the issue to assist the Commission in discussing the possibility of moving forward with the idea considering some amendments. He felt the intent of a community commercial district is to have zoning designations that could be applied to current centers that work better than the ones that now apply. His work did not look at the Mixed Use Overlay or P-D in the original analysis or the follow up report, but he commented that nearly every community that wants to pursue the idea of compact urban form and pedestrian orientation sustainability are all interested in mixed use but are having trouble attaining it. He described developers' and lenders' hesitations with mixed use projects. He added that incentives could include floor area ratio bonuses, reduced parking requirements, and height limit increases. Commissioner Cooper noted that it is interesting that the Laguna Village Shopping Center which is zoned C-N which could become C-C and would have many more opportunities for business and financial uses. He felt the Commission should address symmetry as to what extent certain C-C areas that are slated for rezoning are going to benefit some while others may suffer. Director Jonas suggested addressing M-U and P-D districts on a parallel track because these zones also apply to districts beyond the commercial. Mr. Cross feels the Commission should keep in mind the concept behind the commercial neighborhood zone and consider its validity and what uses could be allowed in keeping with the concept. .The size of uses allowed should be well thought out in terms of regional traffic generation. He would have liked to have seen the current list of uses allowed in the C-N zone and proposed uses listed in the C-C zone. Mr. Crawford noted the list presented in the report shows all uses as they are currently listed and the proposed changes are shown shaded. Chairman Ready felt it was not the Commission's purpose to identify any specific area to change zoning. He felt they might consider whether or not, based upon current zoning, it would be appropriate to recommend consideration of a new zone to address areas without being specific to any particular area other than to say that there are areas. that should be considered. 2-23 Planning Commission Workshop Minutes May 26, 1999 ATTACH(JW Page 5 Mr. Christianson felt the proposed C-C designation is driving the comprehensive plan, and the community hasn't had any input on whether this is appropriate. Most community members feel strongly about having a strong downtown and limited commercial within the perimeter. He did not believe the Commission's process is allowing public participation in deciding whether this new zoning is wanted. There are no General Plan guidelines that would govern this designation. He felt we are now generating shopping centers that are a different commercial development. General commercial uses will be dispersed throughout the community; it had previously been limited by General Plan policy to the downtown and to the Madonna Road Center. He felt a C-C designation will create a prime opportunity to find new sites for development and this is a significant change. Mr. Cross did not want the Commission to be too tightly focused because this C-C designation has a wide envelope. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed. (The Commission recessed for ten minutes.) COMMISSION COMMENT: Commissioner Peterson displayed/reviewed overheads and raised the idea of rezoning two parts of the downtown that are currently zoned C-R to the existing C-C. He found it curious these two areas are zoned C-R because in many places they are designated as part of the downtown core, but by being zoned C-R, they are not allowed to develop in the downtown fashion because of the on-site parking requirements. He referred to the Monterosa Building at Monterey and Santa Rosa Streets and noted the first level parking is contrary to many desires of the downtown, specifically pedestrian oriented development. Generally the City is trying to encourage in-fill development to alleviate the pressure of sprawling development on the fringes of the city. He felt a slight up zoning of these areas would address his concerns and encourage positive development/redevelopment by allowing more intensive use of the property without having to provide so much on-site parking. He noted some surrounding areas are not zoned in such a way that parking in-lieu fees may be paid. Commissioner Jeffrey felt Commissioner Peterson's proposal would open up areas for discussion of a more central parking structure location that would meet the needs of the downtown commercial core. Chairman Ready felt Commissioner Peterson's suggestion addresses concerns about in-fill with respect to properties that are somewhat limited in C-R areas that are impractical to develop/redevelop. Commissioner Cooper felt Commissioner Peterson's suggestion balances the equation insofar as the Commission has been discussing providing more appropriate zoning on the outlining areas. 2-24 Planning Commission Workshop,Minutes May 26, 1999 Page 6 ATTACHMENT Commissioner Jeffrey felt the workshop process and scope has been incomplete. He would like to follow through with previous comments to pass along .the findings that were presented by Mr. Crawford to the RQN, Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Association, etc., because they may have some potential issues with neighborhood impacts and the appearance of a decentralization of the commercial core. He referred to the joint Council/Commission/ARC meeting and the public comments regarding the desire for a workshop format. Commissioner Jeffrey said he would like to see a workshop forum to receive additional input. He expressed concern that Mixed Use and P-D comments have not been addressed in the report and felt it would be helpful to have an inventory of undeveloped C-T and C-S zones discussed. He would like to see this report referred to a number of community interest groups, have an open forum, and have the information filtered back through the Commission, given back to Mr. Crawford with recommendations for modification and then forwarded on to the City Council. Commissioner Peterson said he would like to address the issues in the report and include any other items to create a working document before sending the report on to other groups for review. Chairman Ready felt the Commission should forward identified issues to the Council for their determination of the possibility of furthering the pursuit. Commissioner Peterson concurred. He was not comfortable with sending the report to other groups yet because he felt previous Commission discussion was more far ranging that is reflected in the report. He would like the report to be more broad based and include incentives for mixed use, consideration of P-D use, and rezoning ideas. Commissioner Cooper moved to forward to the City Council recommendations 1-5 as indicated in the staff report with the addition that Council also address the issues having to do with expansion of the existing C-C zoning to adjacent C-R zones within and adiacent to the downtown core and that there be effort addressed in looking at Mixed Use and P-D designations and possible incentives for Mixed Use development, and an inventory of C-T and C-S zones with the additional concern that the Commission bring a larger constituency to this discussion in the form of a public workshop. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Peterson. Commissioner Ready asked that the motion be amended to reflect (1) that #1 be changed to delete the word "four" and replace "power centers" with "centers, such as by way of example," and (2) include a #6 addressing Commissioner Peterson issues raised regarding rezoning C-R to C-C. Commissioners Cooper and accepted the amendment to the motion. AYES: Commissioners Cooper, Peterson, Jeffrey, and Chairman Ready. NOES: None ABSTAIN: None 2-25 Planning Commission Workshop Minutes May 26, 1999 Page 7 ATTACHMENT The motion carried 4-0. Commissioners Whittlesey, Loh, and Senn were absent. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 2. Staff: A. Agenda Forecast.- June orecast:June 9 — Planning Commission Annual Retreat June 23 -- Central Coast Mall P-D Rezoning, DuVaul Ranch Project Subdivision, EI Capitan Tract Map Project, Street/Right-of-Way Abandonments 4. Commission: Commissioner Jeffrey distributed retreat agendas to the Commission. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. to the Planning Commission retreat scheduled for June 9, 1999, at 6:00 p.m. at the Butrone Abode, 466 Dana St., San Luis Obispo. Respectfully submitted, Leaha K. Magee Recording Secretary 2-26