HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-30-2014 PH1 LUCE UpdateCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared by: Gary Kaiser, Contract Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF CHAPTER 7 (AIRPORT) AND CHAPTER 8 (SPECIAL FOCUS
AREAS) OF THE DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT, CHAPTER 11 (AIRPORT)
OF THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND PROPOSED UPDATES TO
AIRPORT RELATED SECTIONS OF THE NOISE AND SAFETY
ELEMENTS; AND REVIEW OF PROPOSED AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE
PROVISIONS IN THE ZONING CODE.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Review and provide direction on updated policies and programs of Chapter 7 (Airport)
and Chapter 8 (Special Focus Areas) of the Land Use Element, Chapter 11 (Airport) of
the Circulation Element, and proposed updates to the airport-related sections of the Noise
and Safety Elements of the General Plan; and
2. Review and provide direction on Airport Overlay Zoning Regulations and Special Focus
Area updates to Title 17, Zoning Regulations.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The City Council is being presented with Planning Commission recommendations for certain
airport-related chapters of the Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) as well as minor edits
to the Safety and Noise Elements to maintain internal consistency of the elements of the General
Plan as required by law.1 While the Council briefly reviewed the draft changes to the LUCE
when considering transmittal of draft findings of potential overrule to Caltrans Division of
Aeronautics and the Airport Land Use Commission, the discussion was focused on the data
underlying the draft findings versus an in-depth review of the LUCE update. Tonight’s meeting
provides the opportunity for the Council to review and provide direction on the elements and the
proposed Airport Overlay Zone without having to take final action. Any comments and changes
to Land Use, Circulation Element, Airport Overlay Zone, and other Zoning Code changes will be
brought back for Council consideration for adoption at the October 21, 2014 meeting.
DISCUSSION
Background
The LUCE update project refines existing policies of the Land Use and Circulation Elements and
adds new policies to respond to legislative requirements and community vision. The update also
includes policy direction and performance standards to guide development in proposed areas of
1 California Government Code 65359. Any specific plan or other plan of the city or county that is applicable to the same areas or matters
affected by a general plan amendment shall be reviewed and amended as necessary to make the specific or other plan consistent with the
general plan.
9-30-14
PH1
PH1 - 1
LUCE – Airport Related Chapters and LUE Chapter 8 Page 2
“physical change” so that land use changes balance population growth with infrastructure
availability and community objectives. The “physical changes” include identifying locations and
establishing policy guidance for the formation of specific plans and special planning areas which
will outline future growth areas of the City.
In this second of four meetings for consideration of the LUCE update, the Council will review
and provide edits and direction on airport-related policy guidance and on policy direction and
development parameters associated with special focus areas. The Planning Commission
reviewed these areas on September 10th and 11th and recommended Council support with minor
changes (Attachment 1).
Proposed changes in Chapter 7 of the draft Land Use Element, Chapter 11 of the Circulation
Element, and the proposed changes to the zoning code are briefly described below. Please note
that the Table of Contents, figures and tables will be updated and all references will be updated
in the final version. The Council should review and provide direction to staff regarding changes
to the legislative draft documents. No final action is requested at this time.
1. Land Use Element - Chapter 7: Airport Area
The original chapter addressing the Airport Area focused on the need to develop a specific plan
for the area. In the intervening years since 1994, the City adopted, and is currently updating, the
Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP). Proposed changes to existing policy and program language
in the draft chapter reflect this updated information. New policies have been recommended to
address the compatibility report prepared by the City’s aviation consultant, Johnson Aviation,
and to reflect the larger geographic area of the city that is subject to airport influence beyond the
boundaries of the AASP. Edits reflect the desire to address appropriate noise and safety
constraints associated with existing and future airport operations to meet the intent of the State
Aeronautics Act.
The Council Resolution to retain the right to overrule the Airport Land Use Commission
supports the desire to have land use limitations based on “fact-based consideration of airport
noise and safety zones.” The updates proposed for Land Use Element Chapter 7 in combination
with the proposed Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) indicate how the City intends to comply with the
State Aeronautics Act.
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics provided comments as part of the EIR process that General
plans must include policies restricting the heights of structures to protect airport airspace.
Review processes and height restrictions supported through the LUCE and Airport Overlay Zone
require compliance with federal standards as stated in draft Land Use Element Program 7.3.12,
Airport Overlay Zone. The Draft LUCE update and associated implementation through an
Airport Overlay Zone reflect the Handbook guidance for the most recent Airport Master Plan.
However, to provide clarity regarding federal standards, an additional policy is recommended
and was endorsed for inclusion by the Planning Commission for Chapter 7 of the Land Use
Element to read as follows:
PH1 - 2
LUCE – Airport Related Chapters and LUE Chapter 8 Page 3
7.X Airspace Protection
The City shall use the Airport Master Plan Update and FAA airport design standards and
Part 77 surfaces to keep the airspace surrounding the airport free of objects where
required by the FAA or shall limit the height of objects as required by the FAA.
The City shall also ensure obstruction clearance is provided for all en route and terminal
(airport) instrument procedures as per the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument
Procedures (TERPS) to avert modifications to any planned or published instrument
approach or instrument departure procedures at SBP.
2. Circulation Element - Chapter 11: Air Transportation
Updates in this chapter remove references to land use and refers the reader to the Land Use
Element for related policies and programs. Updates are proposed to address air transportation
needs in light of the City’s role in those efforts and to remove a direct reference to the Airport
Land Use Plan. Two programs have been updated and two new programs are proposed.
Changes are offered to correctly assign responsibility for airport operations to the County instead
of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and to indicate the City’s desire to participate
with the Airport Land Use Commission as it updates the Airport Land Use Plan.
3. Title 17: Zoning Code – Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ)
If the Council determines an overrule of the ALUC determination is appropriate when a final
decision on the LUCE is being made, PUC §21676(b) requires the City to make findings that the
proposed action is consistent with the purposes of Public Utilities Code §21670 (State
Aeronautics Act). To demonstrate compliance with the State Aeronautics Act, policies and
programs in the LUCE would need to be supported by procedures and standards demonstrating
how the City would apply and implement on an ongoing basis, safety and noise considerations in
light of planned airport operations reflected in the Airport Master Plan. The proposed Airport
Overlay Zone, or AOZ, contains zoning standards that ensure compliance with the State
Aeronautics Act. The AOZ was developed after careful review of the California Airport Land
Use Planning Handbook, the Airport Land Use Compatibility Report prepared by Johnson
Aviation, and consideration of the airport’s local setting. Provisions to address procedures,
development standards and uses, overlay zones, airspace protection, noise, overflight notice and
open land objectives have been included.
The proposed regulations would only be applicable within the City limits and for areas
considered for development under the LUCE update. The proposed AOZ does not change
approved Specific Plans such as Margarita Area, and for proposed rezones that were not
considered as part of the LUCE update, separate referral to the Airport Land Use Commission
will still be required. The Council should review this proposed new section of Title 17 of the
Zoning Ordinance and provide direction. The proposed changes to Title 17 (Attachment 2) will
be introduced on October 21, 2014, at the time Council makes its final determination regarding
potential overrule to support the development concept contained in the LUCE update.
PH1 - 3
LUCE – Airport Related Chapters and LUE Chapter 8 Page 4
4. Noise and Safety Element Edits
Updates to the Noise and Safety Elements of the General Plan are included as part of the Council
consideration (Attachment 3) in order to address internal consistency issues within the General
Plan. References to the Airport Land Use Plan have been amended to reflect consistency with
state law, Handbook guidance, and federal regulations. This language does not conflict with the
Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) which must also comply with these regulations, but provides the
larger context of the overarching direction from these regulations.
5. Land Use Element Chapter 8 – Special Focus Areas
The Special Focus Areas of the Land Use Element provides policy direction for three future
specific plan areas – San Luis Ranch, Avila Ranch, and Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road - in
addition to several other sites that will not require specific plans, but could benefit from greater
policies that provide direction for urban design, broad uses, or compatibility with surrounding
areas.
The South Broad Street Area Plan is also included by reference in this Special Focus Area
chapter. This plan was recommended by Planning Commission and endorsed by the City
Council in September 2013 for inclusion in the LUCE update (Attachment 4). Both the
Commission and the City Council previously reviewed and provided updates to the language in
the area plan, so it is anticipated that the Council will not need to provide further updates to the
plan. Staff noted and the Planning Commission supported one revision needed for consistency to
support the LUCE update and it is shown in legislative draft below:
Medical services
To approve a Medical Service use in the C-S zone, the Hearing Officer must make the
following findings:
a. The proposed medical service is compatible with surrounding land uses.
b. The proposed medical service will not significantly increase traffic or create parking
impacts in residential neighborhoods.
c. The proposed medical service is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan.
dc. The project will not preclude service commercial uses in areas especially suited for
these uses when compared with medical services.
ed. The project site can accommodate the parking requirements of the proposed medical
service and will not result in other lease spaces being under-utilized because of a lack of
available parking.
Edits to Chapter 8 proposed by Planning Commission
The Planning Commission recommended edits to the several provisions in the Special Focus
Area chapter of the Land Use Element. There are three new Specific Plan areas proposed as part
of the LUCE update: Avila Ranch, San Luis Ranch, and Madonna at LOVR. Each of the
Specific Plans has performance standards that set an anticipated range of development. One of
the site proponents requested, and the Commission supported, addition of a footnote to each of
the respective performance standard tables that indicates minimums specified in the performance
PH1 - 4
LUCE – Airport Related Chapters and LUE Chapter 8 Page 5
standards may be reduced for reasons of environmental or physical constraints. This provision is
also included in language on page 102 of the draft Land Use Element, but the footnote provides
additional clarity regarding when reductions might be appropriate.
Pages 105, 106, and 107
Planning Commission recommended a footnote for the performance standards of all three
Specific Plans:
*There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or
environmental constraints.
The Planning Commission also had a focused discussion regarding the appropriateness of
considering open space to be provided off-site for the San Luis Ranch. The Commission voted
3-1 to recommend a footnote to the performance standards for this Specific Plan area to allow the
Council to consider a proposal for off-site satisfaction of open space requirements. The draft
language may be seen below.
Page 105 of Draft LUE
8.3.2.4 SP-2 San Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Specific Plan Area
Performance Standards: This specific plan shall meet the following performance
standards.
Type
Designations
Allowed % of Site Minimum* Maximum
Residential LDR
MDR
MHDR
HDR
350 units 500 units
Commercial NC
CC
50,000 SF 200,000 SF
Office/High
tech)
O 50,000 SF 150,000 SF
Hotel/Visitor-
serving
200 rooms
Parks PARK 5.8 ac
Open Space /
Agriculture
OS
AG
Minimum
50%1
65.5 ac No maximum
Public n/a
Infrastructure n/a
*There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental
constraints.
1 The City Council may consider allowing a portion of required open space to be met through off-site
dedication provided:
PH1 - 5
LUCE – Airport Related Chapters and LUE Chapter 8 Page 6
a) A substantial multiplier for the amount of open space is provided for the off-site property
exchanged to meet the on-site requirement; and
b) Off-site land is of similar agricultural and visual value to the community; and
c) Off-site land is protected through an easement, dedication or fee title in perpetuity for
agriculture/open space.
The Planning Commission also endorsed minor edits to three additional focus areas: Foothill
Boulevard/Santa Rosa area, Broad Street at Tank Farm area, and the Calfire/Cal Poly area on
Highway 1. Edits to these three areas were made in response to public comments offered
through the Draft EIR review process and are shown highlighted in yellow below:
Foothill/Santa Rosa (page 108 of the LUE):
As part of this project, the City will evaluate adjustments to parking requirements to
account for predominant pedestrian and bike access. Building height adjustments in this
area can also be considered with mixed use development. Redevelopment plans shall
include consideration of improving the existing complex intersections of
Foothill/Chorro/Broad, the desirability of modifying Boysen at and through the property
on the northeast corner of the area, and enhancement of pedestrian, bicycle and transit
connections across Foothill and Santa Rosa/Highway 1 and to the campus. Among other
possible incentives, building height adjustments on the North side of Foothill may be
considered with mixed use development.
LOVR Creekside (page 111 of the LUE)
This area is heavily constrained by flood potential along the western boundary as well as
limited circulation access to the site given its proximity to the proposed LOVR /
Highway 101 interchange and its limited frontage on LOVR. Flooding and access issues
must be resolved prior to developing Medium High Density Residential (in areas adjacent
to existing residential uses). Agricultural Designations must be maintained along the west
side of site. As part of future development, compatibility with adjacent residential areas
to the east will be required.
Permanent protection of the adjacent San Luis Obispo Creek will need to be addressed as
part of proposed development. The south side of the site will also need to accommodate
relocation of LOVR right-of-way and changes related to the planned Highway 101
interchange. As part of development, impacts of a new roadway connection in some form
from Los Osos Valley Road to Higuera shall be analyzed.
Broad Street at Tank Farm Road (page 111 of the LUE):
Located at the northwest corner of Broad Street and Tank Farm Road, this approximate
10 acre site will be used as a mixed use site, providing for a mix of uses as described
under the Community Commercial and Office designations and residential limited to
upper floors. The site will provide a strong commercial presence at the intersection.
Areas along the creek on the western edge of the site will be appropriately buffered to
provide creek protections. Attention to connectivity, safety and comfort of bicycle and
pedestrian circulation will be especially important in the development of this corner.
PH1 - 6
LUCE – Airport Related Chapters and LUE Chapter 8 Page 7
CalFire/Cal Poly property on Highway 1 (page 111 of the LUE):
The Cal Poly Master Plan currently designates this area for Faculty and Staff housing.
The City shall collaborate with Cal Poly in updating the Master Plan for development of
campus property. Master Plan direction for this property shall address sensitive visual
and habitat resources, circulation issues, impacts to City services, transition and potential
impacts to surrounding neighborhoods.
Finally, the Commission reviewed and recommended changes to the Zoning Ordinance
(Attachment 5) to develop an overlay (S-F) for special focus areas to indicate that policy
direction regarding these sites exists in the Land Use Element. The Commission recommended
that five of the sites should be subject to Planning Commission review so that development of
those sites achieves the intended objectives. The five sites include: Foothill Blvd./Santa Rosa;
Caltrans site; Madonna Inn Area; Sunset Drive-in/Prado Road Area; and LOVR/Creekside area.
Council should provide direction to staff on edits to provisions of Chapter 8 of the Land Use
Element: Special Focus Areas.
6. Next Steps
The City Council will complete review of the Planning Commission’s recommendations on draft
Land Use and Circulation Elements in October. The topics for Council consideration are shown
below:
October 7th
• Financial Report
• Land Use Element Chapters 1-6 & 9-12
• Circulation Element Chapters 1-10 & 12-16
October 21st
• LUCE adoption
• Potential Airport Overrule determination
• Airport Overlay Zone (dependent on item above)
• Zoning Regulations addition for S-F overlay zone
• Fiscal/PFFP
• EIR Addendum, as required
• Land Use Element diagram and Zoning Map
CONCURRENCES
The LUCE and DEIR were reviewed by all City departments and were distributed to various
California agencies for comment and made available for public review and comment.
FISCAL IMPACT
PH1 - 7
LUCE – Airport Related Chapters and LUE Chapter 8 Page 8
The LUCE Update was made possible by a Sustainable Communities grant in the amount of
$880,000 provided by the State of California Strategic Growth Council. Funding for the grant is
from the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal
Protection Act of 2006 (Proposition 84). General Funds in the amount of $467,500 were added
to the grant to fund the environmental review and additional support to address Public Works
and Fire Department staffing impacts.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the proposed public hearing schedule and direct staff to
provide additional information to the City Council at a future meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Planning Commission minutes from 9-10 and 9-11
2. Draft Airport Overlay Zone
3. Draft Noise and Safety Element updates
4. Council Resolution regarding South Broad Street Area Plan
5. Proposed Zoning Ordinance language
The Draft LUCE and Draft EIR are available for review and CDs area available at the
Community Development Department, 919 Palm Street. These documents can also be
downloaded here: http://www.slo2035.com
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
Full Copy of Draft EIR and appendices (5 Volumes)
T: T:\Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014-09-30 (Special Mtg)\LUCE Update (Johnson-Murry)\CAR LUCE Update (Airport Issues and
Chapter 8).docx
PH1 - 8
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 10, 2014
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, Ronald Malak,
William Riggs, and Chairperson John Larson
Absent: Commissioner John Fowler and Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari
Staff: Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Public Works
Deputy Director Tim Bochum, Traffic Operations Manager Jake
Hudson, Associate Planner Brian Leveille, Contract Planner Gary
Kaiser, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording
Secretary Diane Clement
Consultants: Nick Johnson, Johnson Aviation; Rick Rust, Matrix Design Group; and
Jeff Oliveira, Oliveira Environmental Consulting
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as amended. The Agenda Forecast was done first to
accommodate Commr. Draze who recused himself from consideration of the two items
on the agenda.
MINUTES:
Minutes of August 13, 2014, were approved as amended.
Minutes of August 27, 2014, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
Bob Hitchner, Nexus eWater, described his company's water recycling solutions for
homeowners and stated he is interested in working with staff to see how practical his
system would be for the City. He left copies of his company’s white paper and noted
that information can be downloaded from the company's website:
http://www.nexusewater.com.
There were no further comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. City-Wide. GPI/ER 15/12: Review of Draft Land Use Element (LUE) Chapter 7,
Circulation Element Chapter 11 of the General Plan, Proposed Airport Overlay
Zone, and associated changes to Noise and Safety Elements for consistency, City
of San Luis Obispo – Community Development Dept., applicant. (Continued from
August 27, 2014, meeting) (Gary Kaiser)
Attachment 1
PH1 - 9
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 2
Commr. Draze recused himself from hearing the two items on the agenda and left the
Council Chamber.
Contract Planner Kaiser presented the staff report, which recommends the Commission
review and recommend approval of the Draft Land Use Element Chapter 7, Circulation
Element Chapter 11, proposed Airport Overlay Zone, and amendments to airport-
related sections of the Noise and Safety Elements for consideration by the City Council.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Marilyn Reasoner, SLO, expressed concern about a change in airport landing patterns
that has commercial planes making a hard left turn over her home in Los Verdes. She
stated she made many calls to the airport resulting in short-term improvement followed
by the problem getting worse.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, SLO, stated that she is concerned about the safety of residents
and tourists on the ground and in the air if the safety zones surrounding the airport are
changed and urged the City to work with the Airport Land Use Commission. She stated
that the plans for the Chevron property should be considered. She expressed concern
that safety restrictions are being cast aside due to pressure from development interests.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Community Development Director Johnson stated that safety has been at the forefront
of all City recommendations and that the City also wants the airport to remain
economically viable. He noted that City policies ensure ongoing compliance with State
requirements and that the City will be working with the ALUC with the objective of
reaching consensus.
Commr. Dandekar stated that the safety and noise issues were discussed extensively at
the LUCE Task Force and that future safety issues in any of the special areas would
come to the Planning Commission.
Commr. Larson noted that a “buyer beware” notification for future residences that may
be subject to airport noise is the last solution to be considered and that first the City
should try to resolve airport noise problems. Having said that, he noted that the City
went through a very deliberate, thoughtful, and well-documented evaluation that
supports the LUCE development concept and addresses airport operational noise and
safety issues.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Dandekar, seconded by Commr. Malak, to approve the
Resolution recommending the City Council approve updates to Chapter 7 of the Land
Use Element and Chapter 11 of the Circulation Element and minor changes to the
Noise and Safety Elements to ensure internal consistency of the General Plan.
Attachment 1
PH1 - 10
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 3
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Larson, Malak, and Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Draze
ABSENT: Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Malak, seconded by Commr. Riggs, to adopt a Resolution
recommending the City Council approve zoning regulations amendments and adopt
Airport Overlay Zoning Regulations (Title 17 – Zoning Regulations) (GPI/ER 15-12)
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Larson, Malak, and Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Draze
ABSENT: Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
2. City-Wide. GPI/ER 15-12: Continued review of the Draft Land Use Element
(LUE) and associated Final Environmental Impact Report; City of San Luis Obispo,
Community Development Dept., applicant (Gary Kaiser)
Contract Planner Kaiser presented the staff report, recommending the City Council take
the following actions: (1) Certify the LUCE FEIR and associated documents; (2)
Approve policy and program updates to Land Use Element Chapters 1-6 and 8-12; and
(3) Approve policy and program updates for South Broad Street Area Plan; and (4)
Approve policy and program updates for Circulation Element Chapters 1-5.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Andrew Christie, SLO, director of the SLO Chapter of the Sierra Club, suggested
several recommendations for incorporation into the Land Use and Circulation Elements
to deal with impacts on air quality, the drought, and protection of the natural
environment, including rainwater percolation and water recycling systems for new
homes.
Steve DelMartini, SLO, stated that he disagreed with the requirement to have
residences only on the upper floors for property on the corner of Broad Street and Tank
Farm Road. He noted that there is little housing planned for that area but there are
many employees working near the airport who could benefit from nearby housing. He
added that putting in more housing would benefit the City's trip reduction goals.
Victor Montgomery, SLO, representing the 111-acre Madonna property south of Home
Depot, stated that the LUCE recommendations for this property should be retained to
give developers design flexibility.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, SLO, noted that there are inconsistencies in the description of
future portions of Prado Road; it is referred to as both a two-lane and a four-lane road in
Attachment 1
PH1 - 11
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 4
the Draft EIR. She referred to it as a four-lane truck highway and stated that developers
need to be informed of the cost of an overpass or interchange at Prado and Highway
101. She noted that the City has received letters from Cal Trans specifically stating that
an interchange is not desirable or feasible yet the LUCE update says there will be one.
She stated that this needs clarification. She added that an EIR is needed for the
proposed northern alignment of Prado and, if Prado is going to be a four-lane truck
road, there is a need to study the cumulative impacts and costs for future developers.
She stated that the LUCE update did not adequately address the drought or other
environmental impacts.
Marshall Ochylski, representing the San Luis Ranch property, stated that he would like
the minimums designated in the performance standards of Chapter 8 of the Land Use
Element either eliminated or be footnoted to indicate that the minimums are not required
if there are constraints that make it infeasible. He expressed concern that otherwise
applicants would be required to apply for a General Plan amendment if the minimums
cannot be met. He also supported retaining the possibility of meeting ten acres of the
open space requirement for the specific plan via an off-site mitigation.
Sarah Flickinger, SLO, representing the two Los Verdes Park HOAs, stated that
clarification is needed about the alternative rerouting of Los Osos Valley Road to the
south side of Los Verdes, known as the Buckley by-pass.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Dandekar stated that there was much discussion at the LUCE Task Force
about the San Luis Ranch property as a scenic entry to the City and concluded that
guidelines for development were needed.
Commr. Larson stated that the fundamental performance standard of 50% open space
for this property is in the table and the nuance that allows a portion to be met with off-
site mitigation is a controversial issue.
Commr. Malak suggested a footnote or modification to the minimum and maximum
space required for residential and commercial development.
Mr. Rust stated that, in light of sustainability, a minimum gives developers an idea of
what is expected but there could be a footnote stating that reductions are based on
physical and/or environmental constraints although the City would still expect
development to be close to the minimum requirements.
Commr. Dandekar stated that she has an issue with some requirements for the
Madonna at Los Osos Valley Road area. She noted that the Task Force came up with
minimum numbers based on the discrepancy between future housing plans and target
goals, and she thinks the range of 250-300 defeats that purpose.
Attachment 1
PH1 - 12
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 5
Mr. Rust stated that the smaller estimate of housing for the Madonna property included
moving housing away from the noise of Los Osos Valley Road.
Commr. Malak stated that he wants a general minimum that is not specific to one site.
Commr. Riggs stated that he does not understand the need for the footnote because
the Commission has discretion when development comes up for review.
Director Johnson explained that if development is less than the minimum, it might
trigger the need for a General Plan amendment, and the purpose of a footnote would be
to provide some discretion if site constraints prevented a development from meeting the
minimum performance standards.
Commr. Dandekar stated that the point was to get workforce housing that would reduce
traffic. She added that the Task Force saw a need for pockets of higher density where
young people could live near their work. She explained that there is a need to maintain
that principle and that the sites were not lightly identified by the Task Force.
Director Johnson stated that this policy and the table were the result of much discussion
in the community and with the Council. He added that off-site mitigation remains a
policy issue and not an EIR issue because staff did not have a specific site to evaluate.
Commr. Malak stated that he supports a footnote applicable to all development that
requires justification for going below the minimum because it would avoid the potential
need for a General Plan update.
Commr. Larson stated he had no problem with the footnote and Commr. Riggs stated
he was not comfortable with it.
Commr. Dandekar stated that the percentages generated by the Task Force were not
about nostalgia but were in recognition that this is a gateway to the City and there is an
aesthetic to protect. She added that even Cal Poly students have pointed out that these
corridors are important and she gave the example of how the British have preserved
much of the English countryside.
Commr. Riggs stated that a general policy of transferability of use is important.
Commr. Larson stated that the 50% open space requirement for the Dalidio property
has been a notable benchmark for many years and the possibility of meeting it with any
off-site consideration is a policy issue.
Mr. Oliveira read from the Draft EIR about guidance for off-site consideration which
noted that specific consideration is too speculative when there is no particular project to
evaluate.
Commr. Dandekar noted that this language takes care of the agricultural and open
space land. She stated that the ability to reduce open space in exchange for work force
housing is a principle.
Attachment 1
PH1 - 13
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 6
Director Johnson stated that he is not sure staff has set the stage for applying this to all
specific plan areas noted in the Land Use Element. He also noted that the Dalidio
property is not yet a part of the City and there is a long-standing policy of requiring 50%
open space when annexing property.
Commr. Malak stated he would like to remove the language for the Broad Street/Tank
Farm area that limits housing to upper floors.
Commr. Dandekar stated that the Task Force concluded it is very important to have
mixed use at this very significant corner and that this is no place for ground floor
residences.
Commr. Malak stated that this language ties the hands of developers.
Commr. Riggs stated that the actual corner is not mentioned in the statement and there
could be specific language about the corner.
Commr. Larson stated that it is a key intersection and he can picture commercial on the
corner with residential behind it.
Mr. Rust recommended this language: “The site will provide a strong commercial
presence at the intersection” which drops any reference to upper floor residences.
In response to a question from Commr. Larson, Public Works Deputy Director Bochum
read a letter from Cal Trans that does not preclude an interchange at Prado Road but
recommends that the City evaluate alternatives and establish a clear purpose and need.
Deputy Director Bochum noted that this will be a difficult project to get approved and will
probably happen in conjunction with the development of San Luis Ranch.
Traffic Operations Manager Hudson stated that the City had a legal agreement with Los
Verdes to consider a Buckley Road/Los Osos Valley Road bypass but that scoping did
not include closure of any portion of the current LOVR. He noted that the bypass on its
own improved access in and out of Los Verdes and some creekside properties, and
provided some relief to South Higuera. He added that when properties come up for
development, the City will deal with the bypass, however closure of a portion of the
existing road would need to be further considered through separate environmental
review.
A motion by Commr. Dandekar to continue until tomorrow received no second and was
withdrawn.
On motion by Commr. Malak , seconded by Commr. Dandekar, to approve the
recommendation that the City Council certify the final EIR prepared for the LUCE
Update Program. (Application #GPI/ER 15-12)
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Larson, Malak, and Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Draze
Attachment 1
PH1 - 14
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 7
ABSENT: Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Malak, to recommend the City
Council approve updates to Chapter 8 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
(GPI/ER 15-12)
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Larson, Malak, and Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Draze
ABSENT: Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Malak, to recommend the City
Council change the language in 8.3.3.12 of the Land Use Update to read “The site will
provide a strong commercial presence at the corner of Broad Street and Tank Farm
Road” and delete “residential limited to upper floors.”
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Larson, Malak, and Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Draze
ABSENT: Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
Commr. Riggs proposed, and Commr. Malak seconded, the motion below. In the
discussion that followed, Commr. Riggs stated that the City Council directed staff to look
into off-site open space and agricultural provisions for San Luis Ranch and staff found
that, while it was a good idea, the evaluation was inconclusive because there was no
specific off-site open space to consider.
Commr. Malak stated that when this was before the City Council, a number of residents
indicated that they did not want any off-site mitigation for open space.
Commr. Riggs stated that the Council gave direction to staff at that meeting to look at it,
so it is worthy of consideration.
Commr. Dandekar noted that in the LUCE Task Force discussions this was seen as a
way for the City to gain more acreage for open space.
Commr. Larson stated that, given what the community has said regarding the
importance of open space, he is not inclined to recommend tinkering with this provision
and he is not supporting the motion.
Director Johnson stated that the motion by Commr. Riggs is recommending that the
Council consider this principle with the details to be determined later and that it refers to
Attachment 1
PH1 - 15
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 8
a maximum ten acre off-site mitigation with the multiplier to be determined when there is
an actual proposal.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Malak, recommending that the City
Council consider the exploration of the off-site open space and agricultural provisions
for the San Luis Ranch project.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Malak, and Riggs
NOES: Commr. Larson
RECUSED: Commr. Draze
ABSENT: Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 3:1 vote.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Dandekar, to retain minimum
performance standards required as part of the specific plans listed in Chapter 8 of the
Land Use Element but add a footnote stating that reductions to the minimums may be
allowed based on physical and environmental constraints.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Larson, Malak, and Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Draze
ABSENT: Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
Commr. Riggs proposed, and Commr. Dandekar seconded, the motion below. In the
discussion that followed, Commr. Malak stated that he could anticipate situations where
developers will use that 30% reduction to simply build for more profit while reducing
open space.
Commr. Dandekar stated that this possibility of trading open space for housing is
important because the City has not been able to get developers to consider this kind of
housing.
Commr. Malak pointed out that very little affordable housing has been built or planned in
the Margarita area.
Commr. Dandekar responded that having a minimum plus an incentive takes the
developer beyond doing just the minimum which is what has been done at Margarita.
Commr. Malak stated that he sees the Commission as a gatekeeper of development
and that the City needs to tell developers to build to the needs of the City.
Commr. Riggs stated that this consideration for a reduction of open space is in addition
to a low market rate policy and is icing on top of that cake. He added that there is a real
need to incentivize workforce housing and this is the equivalent of a density bonus.
Attachment 1
PH1 - 16
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 9
Commr. Dandekar noted that the City does not have the tools to force development of
workforce housing.
Director Johnson noted that the question for consideration is whether to expand the
draft footnote to specific plan areas in addition to Avila Ranch and that the intent is not
to set up conflicts between community goals of housing with community goals of
acquiring open space.
Commr. Larson stated this is a controversial item for Avila Ranch with significant
opposition and that expanding this to the other specific plan areas is a non-starter.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Dandekar, to request that the City
Council explore a 30% reduction of open space where it is appropriate for specific plan
areas to accommodate affordable housing needs consistent with the Regional Housing
Needs Assessment.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar and Riggs
NOES: Commrs. Larson and Malak
RECUSED: Commr. Draze
ABSENT: Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion resulted in no action based on a 2:2 vote.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast by Director Johnson
Meetings on September 11, 17, and 18, 2014—LUCE Update
September 24, 2014—appeal of Director's decision for a nonconforming
structure
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary
Attachment 1
PH1 - 17
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 11, 2014
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, Ronald Malak,
William Riggs, and Chairperson John Larson
Absent: Commissioner John Fowler and Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari
Staff: Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Public Works
Deputy Director Tim Bochum, Traffic Operations Manager Jake
Hudson, Associate Planner Brian Leveille, Contract Planner Gary
Kaiser, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording
Secretary Diane Clement
Consultant: Rick Rust, Matrix Design Group
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:
Minutes of September 10, 2014, were continued.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. City-Wide. GPI/ER 15-12: Continued review of the Draft Land Use Element
(LUE) and associated Final Environmental Impact Report; City of San Luis Obispo,
Community Development Dept., applicant. (Gary Kaiser)
Focus for this meeting: Provide recommendation to City Council for Policies and
Programs in Chapters 1-6 and 9-12 of the draft Land Use Element and Policies
and Programs in Chapters 1-5 of the draft Circulation Element, as part of a City-
wide effort to update the Land Use and Circulation elements of the General Plan.
Contract planner Gary Kaiser presented the staff report and summarized how public
input and staff recommendations were reflected in the staff report attachments,
including a staff recommendation for a new policy regarding limits to provision of
recycled water outside the City limits.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Eugene Jud, SLO, thanked the City for reducing the vehicle share to 50% and
emphasizing multimodal transportation. He suggested the addition of a new
transportation goal in the Circulation Element to project the image of the City as a
Attachment 1
PH1 - 18
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2014
Page 2
known non-car city to continue the legacy of the City as a pioneer, such as with no
smoking and no drive-through service ordinances. He also suggested that transit
access be required with development like utilities such as water and electricity. He
gave several examples of how transportation is handled in Zurich, Switzerland.
Myron Amerine, SLO, stated that he hoped the City and the County will add protected
bikeways with buffer zones as provided for in the new State law.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, SLO, expressed concern that the piecemeal development of
Prado Road as a truck highway is for the benefit of developers and that no
comprehensive EIR has been planned. She supported Class 1 bicycle lanes but stated
that the 800,000 square feet planned for development on the Chevron property should
be reduced by half. She noted that the San Luis Ranch is one of only one 100 parcels
classified as prime agricultural land and development on this land is in conflict with the
LUE which calls for preservation. She expressed concern about tall hotel development
on lots zoned for one-story car dealerships and noted that this view shed is a gateway
to the City. She added that she agrees with Mr. Jud and the letter from the Sierra Club.
Blayne Morgan, SLO, supported the modal split objectives and suggested Higuera be
closed to vehicles for short periods, and a study be done of the resulting impacts.
Eric Meyer, SLO, stated that as a private citizen he is proud of the LUCE document and
the advocates on various issues who came to Task Force meetings time after time and
how everyone worked together.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Land Use Element--Chapter 1
Commr. Draze stated that he supports the language in 1.13 about consideration of a
range of financing options for calculating the fair share of costs for new development.
Commr. Larson stated that the concept of fair share payment by new development has
been tested and is in statutory language. He added that the City has some limitations
on what they can impose on new development. He stated that staff has done a good
job in the way this has been addressed in policy.
Commr. Dandekar noted that the rationale for annexation of all or part of the Cal Poly
property is not included in 1.12.3.
Director Johnson stated that studying the benefits and costs of annexing Cal Poly would
be done at the direction of the City Council at some future time.
Commr. Dandekar stated that this seems expansionist and there should be a definition
of what parts of the campus are being considered for annexation.
Attachment 1
PH1 - 19
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2014
Page 3
Commr. Larson stated that this is the first time he has seen this policy in writing but he
noted that the concept has been discussed for decades.
Director Johnson stated that counting Cal Poly in demographics could be beneficial to
the City.
Land Use Element--Chapter 4
Commr. Larson stated that the reference to “A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's
Center” in the Introduction helps for clarity when considering new projects.
Commr. Riggs suggested adding “parklets” to the new policy about downtown green
space between 4.0.6 and 4.0.7 on page 67 so it reads as follows: “including pocket
parks and parklets, as the number of people living Downtown increases.”
Land Use Element--Chapter 9
Commr. Riggs commended staff, the City Council and the public for including a new
program about renewal of the urban forest.
Commr. Malak recommended inclusion in 9.3.7 encouragement for building solar-ready
homes and solar canopies, such as the solar panel arrays in local school parking lots.
Commr. Larson supported this as providing more details for sustainability.
Mr. Rust recommended language to read “The City shall encourage….”
Comm. Riggs wanted to include a description of the term solar canopies.
Commr. Draze stated he was happy to see that grey water is included under Plumbing
in 9.3.7D.
Mr. Rust pointed out that on page PC 2-43 of the Staff Report, staff has recommended
adding “and encourage new homes to be constructed grey water ready ” to 9.3.7D.
Commr. Draze stated he likes “encourage” because requiring this could be a deal
breaker for some types of housing.
Commr. Malak stated he prefers “where appropriate” instead of “encourage.”
Commr. Draze stated that he favors “encourage” until the City has more experience
dealing with grey water.
Commr. Larson stated “encourage” is appropriate. This was acceptable to Commr.
Malak.
Commr. Dandekar supported the staff addition of a new incentive program for
sustainable design features as it sets a direction for the future.
Attachment 1
PH1 - 20
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2014
Page 4
Land Use Element--Chapter 10
Commissioner Draze asked how the City would support healthy food retailers as part of
supporting sustainable local food systems.
Commr. Riggs stated that in in West Oakland there is a city-supported back-to-work
program at a food retailer. He added that keeping the language flexible is important.
Land Use Element--Chapter 12
Commr. Draze commended the language in 12.3.12 Interagency Communication as
being much better and more sensible than the original wording.
Circulation Element--Chapter 1
Commr. Larson stated that the revised Table 1 Modal Split Objectives shows the most
important change in the update and illustrates the City's significant commitment.
Commr. Riggs thanked Mr. Jud for his comments and suggested adding “creative
transportation demand management” after “strategies” and before “telecommuting” in
1.5.1 Transportation Goals, #8. He noted that he appreciates Mr. Jud's request for a
non-car goal but prefers the intent of 1.5.1 as a fair plan that speaks to all people.
Commr. Draze stated that he agrees with this change and noted that the beauty of the
short two-column Table 1 is that it emphasizes the modal split.
Circulation Element--Chapter 3
Commr. Riggs suggested adding “The City shall encourage transit accessibility” to 3.0.7
Transit Service Access just before the sentence that begins “New development....” The
other Commissioners agreed.
Circulation Element--Chapter 4
Commr. Larson noted that, in reference to 4.0.4 New Development and 6.0.4 Defining
Significant Circulation Impact, the State has released new draft CEQA requirements
that involve measuring traffic impacts by Vehicle Miles Traveled, rather than Level of
Service, because it tells more about emissions, energy consumption and the adverse
effects of vehicles. He suggested that the City should try to reconcile its language with
this, even though continuing to use LOS may be allowed by legislation.
Traffic Operations Manager Hudson responded that staff is struggling with this right now
because new State language is not yet approved. He added that the City will continue
to use LOS to identify impacts but will override that when necessary.
Commr. Draze stated that not all impacts rise to the level of CEQA, and he prefers to
leave the current language in place to cover these other kinds of impacts.
Attachment 1
PH1 - 21
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2014
Page 5
Mr. Rust stated that there was agreement to add “and maintaining” just after
“expanding” in 4.1.9 Bicycle Licensing.
Commr. Riggs stated that he sees no reason to move 4.1.1 from Chapter 4 to the Traffic
Reduction section as recommended by the Task Force. He added that he would like
this statement to be stronger and to directly incentivize cycling.
Commr. Larson recommended moving this language to the Traffic Reduction section
and keeping a copy of the same language in 4.1.1 but substituting “bicycling” for
“alternative forms of transportation.”
Commr. Dandekar supported this modification.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
Chair Larson reopened Public Comment at this time.
Eric Meyer, SLO, noted that the recycling symbol shows up randomly throughout the
document but is not explained or defined until page 11 in Chapter 2 of the Circulation
Element. He suggested that this should be at the end of the Table of Contents.
Myron Amerine, SLO, asked if there is a goal to establish a pedestrian/bicycle advisory
commission that is separate from the bicycle advisory groups. He stated that maybe
there should be a multimodal coordinator.
Traffic Operations Manager Hudson stated that a letter was received asking that
consolidation of the transit advisory bodies be considered, which will be done after the
policies and programs are finalized.
Director Johnson added that staff will get direction from the City Council about whether
the organizational structure in place can support this paradigm shift.
Mr. Jud stated that Chapter 3 Transit Service should have language making transit a
prerequisite for new development.
Traffic Operations Manager Hudson stated that new development triggers an impact
study that includes transit and, if there is no transit, the LOS grade would be F.
Mr. Jud asked if there is a standard for walking from an advocacy group like there is for
biking. He stated that the City should set a walking goal.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre stated she would like to see consideration for light rail, perhaps
with a route from the airport to San Luis Obispo High School to Cal Poly.
Commr. Larson responded that this would have to be done through SLOCOG and it
would be about improving intra-county use of current rail lines, not light rail.
There were no further comments made from the public.
Attachment 1
PH1 - 22
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2014
Page 6
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Draze asked that staff present an explanation of LOS at a future meeting.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Dandekar, recommending the City
Council approve updates to Chapters 1-6 and 9-12 of the Land Use Element and
Chapters 1-5 of the Circulation Element including all changes made by staff and the
following changes:
a. LUE new policy between 4.0.6 and 4.0.7 to read: “including pocket parks
and parklets,..”
b. LUE 9.3.7: add “H. The City shall encourage the building of solar-ready
homes.” and “I. The City shall encourage the building of solar canopies.”
c. CE 1.5.1.8: insert “creative transportation demand management” after
“strategies” and before “telecommuting.”
d. CE 3.0.7: insert “The City shall encourage transit accessibility” before the
sentence that begins “New development....”
e. CE 4.1.1: move the language in 4.1.1 from Chapter 4 to the Traffic
Reduction section and keep a copy of the same language in 4.1.1 but
substitute “bicycling” for “alternative forms of transportation.”
f. CE 4.1.9: add “and maintaining” just after “expanding.”
g. Policy recommendations provided in the policy matrix attachment as noted
during the presentation.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Larson, Malak, and Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast by Director Johnson
Wednesday, September 17, 2014—LUCE Update
Thursday, September 18, 2014—LUCE Update
September 24, 2014—appeal of Director's decision for a nonconforming
structure
3. Commission
a. Commr. Malak encouraged Commrs. Riggs and Dandekar to have their
students to do short presentations at Commission meetings. Commr.
Dandekar stated that this was a very kind invitation which she will use
judiciously. Commr. Riggs stated that he has students doing an open space
study for Natural Resources Manager Hill about accessibility, who uses natural
spaces, how to steward open spaces better and interfaces with the public.
Attachment 1
PH1 - 23
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2014
Page 7
Students have been interviewing individuals about their experiences with
natural spaces.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary
Attachment 1
PH1 - 24
Chapter 17.22: Use Regulation
Section:
17.22.010 Uses allowed by zones.
17.22.010 Uses allowed by zones.
A. Status of Uses. Uses within zones shall be as provided in Table 9, subject to parts B through IJ.
below. In Table 9, symbols shall have these meanings:
A The use is allowed;
D If the director approves an administrative use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through
17.58.080, the use may be established;
PC If the planning commission approves a use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through
17.58.080, the use may be established;
A/D The use is allowed above the ground floor. If the director approves an administrative use
permit, it may be established on the ground floor.
Special notes affecting the status of uses, indicated by number in Table 9, may be found at the end of
the table.
B. Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ). Uses within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) as shown in Figure 10 are
subject to requirements of Chapter 17.57. See Table 10 to verify allowed uses and special restrictions
including density, overflight safety, and notification. Most areas within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ)
are located within Specific Plan areas. Areas within the AOZ which are located in Specific Plans
designated with SP zoning shall follow regulations within their respective Specific Plans.
BC. Interpretation of Use Listing. These regulations are intended to permit similar types of uses within
each zone. The director, subject to the appeal procedures of Chapter 17.66, shall determine whether
uses which are not listed shall be deemed allowed or allowed subject to use permit approval in a
certain zone. This interpretation procedure shall not be used as a substitute for the amendment D.
CD. Principal and Accessory Uses. Listed uses are principal uses. Accessory uses are allowed with
principal uses.
DE. Production and Sales. Where manufacturing is allowed, incidental sale of items made on the
premises is allowed. When sale of a particular type of item is allowed, craftsman-type production of
such an item for sale on the premises is allowed.
EF Public School Uses. See Section 17.36.030 concerning uses which may be established within
public schools.
FG. Prohibition of Drive-through Facilities. Drive-through facilities are not allowed in any zone.
GH. Prohibition of Vacation Rentals. Vacation rentals are not allowed in any zone.
HI. Prohibition of Mineral Extraction. Commercial mining is prohibited in City limits. (Ord. 1365 (2000
series)(part)
IJ. Specific Plan Consistency. Some land subject to City zoning is also subject to one of several
Specific Plans, which are intended to provide additional direction for the development of those areas.
Land within Specific Plans, designated by the SP zoning, may be subject to further restrictions. The
list of uses and permit requirements in the Specific Plan shall prevail.
ATTACHMENT 2
PH1 - 25
J. Airport Land Use Plan Consistency. Some land subject to City zoning is also subject to the
Airport Land Use Plan, which is adopted and amended from time to time by the San Luis Obispo
County Airport Land Use Commission. The Airport Land Use Plan establishes additional limitations
on uses, which do not apply to City-adopted zones outside the area subject to the Airport Land Use
Plan. Table 9 is to be applied consistently with the Airport Land Use Plan on land subject to that
plan.
1. Prohibited Uses. The following are examples of prohibited uses. The uses and requirements of
the Airport Land Use Plan shall prevail. No use shall be established which:
a. Entails installation, construction, or enlargement of a structure that would constitute an
obstruction to air navigation, as defined in the Airport Land Use Plan, except as may be
approved by the Airport Land Use Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration;
b. Entails a risk of physical injury to operators or occupants of aircraft (such as outdoor laser
light shows);
c. Causes smoke or vapors, lighting, illumination, or reflective glare, or an electromagnetic
disturbance that would interfere with aircraft navigation or communication;
d. Attracts birds to the extent of creating a significant hazard of bird strikes (examples are
outdoor storage or disposal of food or grain, or large, artificial water features; this provision is
not intended to prevent enhancement or protection of existing wetlands or the mitigation of
wetlands impacts);
e. Is not allowed by the Airport Safety Areas and associated safety policies, subject to modified
provisions for the Margarita Specific Plan Area;
f. Is not allowed by the Airport Land Use Plan Noise Policies;
2. Notwithstanding section 17.22.010G. above, the provisions of this section are not intended to
supersede the provisions of Article 3.5 of the Public Utilities Code commencing with section
21670.
3. Avigation easements will be recorded for all properties involved in the proposed development.
4. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters), and potential
occupants (whether as owners or renters) will receive full and accurate disclosure concerning the
noise, safety, or overflight impacts associated with airport operations prior to entering any
contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or otherwise occupy any property or properties
within the airport area.
A. Right to Continue Existing Non-Residential Uses. Legal, conforming non-residential uses shall
have the right to continue operation, subject to compliance with applicable Zoning Regulations when
established prior to the development of housing on adjacent or nearby sites. City approvals of
housing developments adjacent to or within 300 feet of such uses shall include a condition requiring
written notice to new home buyers and/or renters of possible characteristics associated with non-
residential uses, such as noise, odors, vibration, and lighting.
ATTACHMENT 2
PH1 - 26
Figure 10 Airport Overlay Zone Boundary
0.5 0 0.50.25 Miles
City Limits
Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) Boundary
Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) Boundary
Tank Farm Rd.
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
.
S. H
i
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
.
£¤101
Buckley Rd.
Lo
s
O
s
o
s
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
.
South St.
AASP
Downtown
ATTACHMENT 2
PH1 - 27
City of San Luis Obispo
December 2013 Zoning Regulations
TABLE 9 - USES ALLOWED BY ZONE
Areas within AOZ shall comply with 17.57 & Table 10 or applicable Specific Plan
Permit Requirement by Zoning District Specific use
Land Use AG C/OS R1 R2 R3 R4 PF O (1)C-N C-C C-D C-R C-T C-S M BP Regulations
AGRICULTURE
Crop production A A A D D
Grazing A A
Greenhouse/Plant Nursery, commercial PC PC
Community Gardens D D D D D
Livestock feed lot PC PC
INDUSTRY, MANUFACTURING & PROCESSING, WHOLESALING
Bakery, wholesale A A PC
D A
Industrial research and development PC D D
PC A A A A
Laundry, dry cleaning plant A A
Manufacturing - Heavy PC PC
Manufacturing - Light D A A
Petroleum product storage and distribution D
Photo and film processing lab A A
Printing and publishing A A A
D
D
Recycling facilities - Small collection facility D D D A
Storage - Personal storage facility A A
Storage yard D A
Warehousing, indoor storage A A PC
Wholesaling and distribution A A PC
LODGING
Bed and breakfast inn D PC PC A A A
Homeless shelter PC PC A PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC 17.08.110
Hostel PC PC A A A
Hotel, motel A A A PC
Recreational vehicle (RV) park accessory to hotel, motel PC
Vacation Rental 17.22.G
Key:A = Allowed D = Director's Use Permit approval required PC = Planning Commission Use Permit approval required
A/D = Director's approval on ground floor, allowed on second floor or above
Note:Footnotes affecting specific land uses follow the table.
Furniture and fixtures manufacturing, cabinet
shop
Laboratory - Medical, analytical, research,
testing
Recycling facilities - Collection and processing
facility
Recycling facilities - Scrap and dismantling yard
ATTACHMENT 2
PH1 - 28
Page 95
City of San Luis Obispo
Zoning Regulations December 2013
TABLE 9 - USES ALLOWED BY ZONE - Continued
Areas within AOZ shall comply with 17.57 & Table 10 or applicable Specific Plan
Permit Requirement by Zoning District Specific use
Land Use AG C/OS R1 R2 R3 R4 PF O (1)C-N C-C C-D C-R C-T C-S M BP Regulations
RECREATION, EDUCATION, & PUBLIC ASSEMBLY USES
Club, lodge, private meeting hall D D A D A/D D D D
Commercial recreation facility - Indoor PC D D D D D(12)PC D 17.08.060
Commercial recreation facility - Outdoor PC PC
Educational conferences D D D D 17.08.010.C.6
Fitness/health facility D A D D PC A A D
Golf Course PC
Library, museum PC D D D D
Library, branch facility D D D D
Night club D D D D D D Chapter 17.95
Park, playground D D A A A A D D A A A
Public assembly facility PC D D D D PC
Religious facility PC D D D D A D D D A D(7)D(7)D(7)
PC PC
School - College, university campus PC
School - Elementary, middle, secondary PC PC D D PC D
School - Specialized education/training PC A/D A/D A A A
Special event D D D D D D D D D 17.08.010
Sports and active recreation facility PC PC PC PC
Sports and entertainment assembly facility PC PC
Studio - Art, dance, martial arts, music, etc.D D A/D A/D A PC A
Theater PC(8)D D D D Chapter 17.95
Theater - Drive-in PC PC
RESIDENTIAL USES
Boarding/rooming house, dormitory PC D D D Chapter 17.20
Caretaker quarters A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A D
Convents and monasteries PC A A D
Fraternity, sorority PC PC
High occupancy residential use D D
Home occupation H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 17.08.090
Live/work units A A A A A 17.08.120
Mixed-use project A A A A A A PC PC 17.08.072
A A A A A A A A
Mobile home park A A A A
Multi-family dwellings A A A A D D
A A A A A A A/D A/D A/D D
A A A A A D A/D A/D D
Residential hospice facility PC PC D PC PC D
Rest home A A A A A D A/D A/D D
Single-family dwellings A A A(2)A A A A D D
Secondary dwelling units A A A A A Chapter 17.21
Work/live units D D 17.08.120
Key:A = Allowed D = Director's Use Permit approval required PC = Planning Commission Use Permit approval required
A/D = Director's approval on ground floor, allowed on second floor or above H = Home Occupation Permit required
Note:Footnotes affecting specific land uses follow the table.
Page 96
Mobile home as temporary residence at
building site
Residential care facilities - 6 or fewer residents
Residential care facilities - 7 or more residents
School - Boarding school, elementary, middle,
secondary
School - College, university - Satellite
classroom facility
ATTACHMENT 2
PH1 - 29
City of San Luis Obispo
December 2013 Zoning Regulations
TABLE 9 - USES ALLOWED BY ZONE - Continued
Areas within AOZ shall comply with 17.57 & Table 10 or applicable Specific Plan
Permit Requirement by Zoning District Specific use
Land Use AG C/OS R1 R2 R3 R4 PF O (1)C-N C-C C-D C-R C-T C-S M BP Regulations
RETAIL SALES
Auto and vehicle sales and rental D A PC
Auto parts sales, with installation D(5)A A
Auto parts sales, without installation A D A A A
Bakery, retail A A A A A D D
Bar/Tavern D D D D D D
Building and landscape materials sales, indoor A A A A A
D D A A A
D D
Convenience store D D D A A A A A D D D 17.08.095
Extended hour retail D D D D D D D D
Farm supply and feed store PC A A
Fuel dealer (propane, etc)D A
Furniture, furnishings, and appliance stores A A A A
General retail - 2,000 sf or less A(3)A A A A
D(3)D A A
D A A D
D A A
PC PC PC
Groceries, liquor, specialty foods A(10)A A A PC
Mobile home, RV, and boat sales A PC
Office-supporting retail, 2,000 sf or less A A A A A D
D D A A D
Wine tasting room - off site D D D D D D D
Outdoor temporary and/or seasonal sales See Section 17.08.020 17.08.020
Produce stand D D A A A A
Restaurant A A A A A D D
Outdoor BBQ/Grill, accessory to restaurant D D D D D D D
Service station (see also "vehicle services")D D D D A 17.08.030
Vending machine See Section 17.08.050 17.08.050
Warehouse stores - 45,000 sf or less gfa D D D
Warehouse stores - more than 45,000 sf gfa PC PC PC
Key:A = Allowed D = Director's Use Permit approval required PC = Planning Commission Use Permit approval required
A/D = Director's approval on ground floor, allowed on second floor or above
Note:Footnotes affecting specific land uses follow the table.
Building and landscape materials sales, outoor
General retail - More than 60,000 sf, up to
140,000 sf
General retail - More than 45,000 sf, up to
60,000 sf
Office-supporting retail, More than 2,000, up to
5,000 sf
Construction and heavy equipment sales and
rental
General retail - More than 2,000 sf, up to
15,000 sf
General retail - More than 15,000 sf, up to
45,000 sf
ATTACHMENT 2
PH1 - 30
Page 97
City of San Luis Obispo
Zoning Regulations December 2013
TABLE 9 - USES ALLOWED BY ZONE - Continued
Areas within AOZ shall comply with 17.57 & Table 10 or applicable Specific Plan
Permit Requirement by Zoning District Specific use
Land Use AG C/OS R1 R2 R3 R4 PF O (1)C-N C-C C-D C-R C-T C-S M BP Regulations
SERVICES - BUSINESS, FINANCIAL & PROFESSIONAL
ATMs A A A A A A A A A
Banks and financial services A A A A D(4)D(4)D
Business support services A A A/D A A A A
D D D A D(11)D(11)
Medical service - Doctor office A A/D A/D A D(11)D(11)
Medical service - Extended care PC PC D PC PC D
Medical service - Hospital PC PC
Convalescent hospital PC PC
Office - Accessory A A A A A A A A
Office - Business and service A A A/D A D (4)D(4)D
Office - Government D PC A A PC
Office - Processing D D D D(4)D(4)A
Office - Production and administrative A A/D A/D A D(4)D(4)A
Office - Professional A A/D A/D A D
Office - Temporary See Section 17.08.010.C
Photographer, photographic studio A A/D A PC A
SERVICES - GENERAL
Catering service D D A D A A
Cemetery, mausoleum, columbarium PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
Copying and Quick Printer Service A A A A A A A A
Day care - Day care center (child/adult)D(9)D(9)D(9)D(9)D(9)A A A A/D A D(9)D(9)D(9)D 17.08.100
Day care - Family day care home (small/large)A A A A A A A A A A A A 17.08.100
Equipment rental A A D
D D
Maintenance service, client site services A A PC
Mortuary, funeral home D D A D
Personal services A A A A D A D
Personal services - Restricted D D
Public safety facilities PC PC
Public utility facilities PC A A 17.08.080
A A D
Residential Support Services A A A A
Social service organization D A D A A A D D D
A A D
PC D A A D
Vehicle services - Carwash D D PC D D
PC PC D D
D D A A/D A A
D
Key:A = Allowed D = Director's Use Permit approval required PC = Planning Commission Use Permit approval required
A/D = Director's approval on ground floor, allowed on second floor or above
Note:Footnotes affecting specific land uses follow the table.
Veterinary clinic/hospital, boarding, small
animal, indoor
Medical service - Clinic, laboratory, urgent care
Vehicle services - Repair and maintenance -
Major
Food bank/packaged food distribution center
Veterinary clinic/hospital, boarding, small
animal, outdoor
Veterinary clinic/hospital, boarding, large animal
Vehicle services - Repair and maintenance -
Minor
Repair service - Equipment, large appliances,
etc.
ATTACHMENT 2
PH1 - 31
Page 98
City of San Luis Obispo
December 2013 Zoning Regulations
TABLE 9 - USES ALLOWED BY ZONE - Continued
Areas within AOZ shall comply with 17.57 & Table 10 or applicable Specific Plan
Permit Requirement by Zoning District Specific use
Land Use AG C/OS R1 R2 R3 R4 PF O (1)C-N C-C C-D C-R C-T C-S M BP Regulations
TRANSPORTATION & COMMUNICATIONS
Airport PC PC PC D
A D D
Antennas and telecommunications facilities D D D D D D D D D D D 17.16.120
Media Production - Broadcast studio A A/D A A A A
D D D
Heliport PC PC PC
Parking facility PC(6)PC(6)PC(6)D(6)D(6)D(6)
Parking facility - Multi-level PC(6)PC(6)PC(6)PC(6)PC(6)PC(6)
Parking facility - Temporary PC D D D D D D D D 17.08.010
Railroad facilities D A
Transit station or terminal PC PC PC D A
Transit stop A A A A A A A A
Truck or freight terminal A A D
PC PC
Key:A = Allowed D = Director's Use Permit approval required PC = Planning Commission Use Permit approval required
A/D = Director's approval on ground floor, allowed on second floor or above
Note:Footnotes affecting specific land uses follow the table.
Page 99
Water and wastewater treatment plants and
services
Media Production - Backlots/outdoor facilities
and soundstages
Ambulance, taxi, and/or limousine dispatch
facility
ATTACHMENT 2
PH1 - 32
Chapter 17.57: Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ)
Sections:
17.57.010 Purpose and Intent.
17.57.020 Applicability
17.57.030 Procedures
17.57.040 Development Standards and Uses
17.57.050 Overlay Zones
17.57.060 Airspace protection
17.57.070 Noise
17.57.080 Overflight Notice
17.57.090 Open Land
17.57.010 Purpose and intent.
The purpose and intent of the Airport Overlay Zoning District is to:
A. Implement the City’s General Plan policies to ensure that all land uses within the Airport Overlay
Zone (AOZ) are consistent with the State Aeronautics Act, State Law, Federal Aviation
Administration Regulations, and the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines.
B. Ensure that land uses and development within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) are compatible
with existing and future airport operations.
C. Prohibit the establishment of incompatible uses and further expansion of incompatible uses which
could detrimentally affect long term economic vitality of the airport; and to avoid or minimize
exposure of persons to potential hazards associated with current and future airport operations.
D. Prohibit development, uses, or any installations or activities which could represent a hazard to
existing and future flight operations.
E. Recognize unique constraints and considerations which apply to properties which could be
affected by airport operations by establishing regulations and review criteria for land use and
development which apply specifically to properties within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ).
17.57.020 Applicability
Regulations in this Chapter shall apply to all uses, activities, and existing and proposed development on
properties within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) as shown on Figure 10, Chapter 17.22, Use
Regulations.
A. Specific Plans. For properties located within the AOZ which also are located within specific
plans, development regulations, standards, and policies shall be followed per respective specific
plans. In cases where policies or standards are not provided within the specific plan, the policies
and standards within this Chapter will apply in addition to other applicable Zoning Regulations,
General Plan, or other standards and regulations which apply to the project or land use. In no
case will a land use, activity, or development be allowed to violate Airspace Protection Standards
of 17.57.060.
B. Existing Development and Land Uses. Notwithstanding 17.57.060, these requirements apply to
new development and land uses within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ). Non-conforming uses
and structures shall comply with Airspace Protection Standards of 17.57.060 which prohibit any
activities that pose a risk to flight operations within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ). Existing land
ALL NEW SECTION
ATTACHMENT 2
PH1 - 33
uses that are not consistent with the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) are non-conforming uses and
may continue. Existing land uses may not expand more than 10% beyond the permitted project
size at the time of adoption of the AOZ. No increase in density for non-conforming residential land
uses is permitted. Non-conforming uses shall comply with Zoning Regulations Chapters 17.10
and 17.14 (Non-conforming uses and Non-conforming structures) provisions for expiration of non-
conforming status and proposed changes in land use which do not conform to the AOZ. In Zone
4, Non-conforming dwellings may be replaced or reconstructed provided density does not
increase. Related residential uses such as work/live units, residential care, may be established in
existing dwellings in Zone 4 if allowed in the underlying zone.
Development or land uses shall be considered “existing” if one of the following conditions is met:
1. A vesting tentative map has been approved and has not expired or all discretionary
approvals have been obtained and have not expired.
2. Building permits have been issued and have not expired.
3. The structures and site development have been legally established and physically exist.
17.57.030 Procedures
A. Approval. All ministerial and discretionary actions within the Airport Overlay Zoning District
(AOZ) shall be reviewed for consistency with this Chapter prior to approval.
B. Mandatory findings for approval. When a project or activity is subject to discretionary actions
requiring a public hearing or notice, the applicable review authority shall make all of the following
findings, as applicable:
1. The project or use complies with the noise compatibility policies of the Airport Overlay
Zone (AOZ).
2. The project or use complies with residential and non-residential density standards of the
Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ).
3. The project or use complies with compatibility policies of the applicable Airport Overlay
Zone.
4. The project or use complies with the airspace protection policies of the Airport Overlay
Zone.
5. The project or use complies with the overflight policies of the Airport Overlay Zone.
C. Amendments. Other than General Plan, Specific Plan, or Zoning Code changes addressed
through a previous referral to the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC), proposed general plan land use amendments, zoning amendments, and
specific plan amendments that impact density or intensity of development within the Airport
Overlay Zone (AOZ) shall be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of
compatibility with requirements of the State of California Department of Transportation Division of
Aeronautics and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements.
D. Overrule Provisions. Should the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
update the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo shall review the updated ALUCP and either make
changes to applicable General Plan sections, Zoning, and implementing ordinances, or the City
Council may, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b), overrule the ALUC.
ATTACHMENT 2
PH1 - 34
17.57.040 Development Standards and Uses.
Land use compatibility standards are intended to minimize the risk to people and property on the ground
as well as to people in an aircraft in the event of an accident or emergency landing occurring outside the
airport boundary.
A. Allowable Uses & Non-Residential Density. Table 10 lists the uses that are appropriate in
the respectively numbered Airport Overlay Zoning District 1-6. Proposed uses and development
shall also comply with compatibility policies for Airport Overlay Zones per 17.57.050. Table 10
includes maximum density standards for each Airport Overlay Zoning District which shall be
calculated in accordance with the following method:
1. Non-residential density calculation. Calculations of non-residential density shall be
based on requirements of SLOMC 17.16.060. Parking Space Requirements with the
assumption of 1.3 occupants per space and gross parcel size including adjacent roads to
centerline of right-of-way. Non-residential density shall be calculated prior to reductions for
shared use, trip reduction, bicycle, etc. In determining allowed persons per acre, all
fractions shall be rounded to the nearest whole number.
Example - Proposed Development: Two office buildings, each two stories and containing
20,000 square feet of floor area per building. Site size is 3.0 net acres. Counting the
adjacent road to centerline of the right-of-way, 3.5 acres gross. The number of people on
the property is assumed to equal 1.3 times the number of parking spaces.
The average usage intensity would therefore be calculated as follows:
(1) 40,000 sq. ft. floor area x 1.0 parking space per 300 sq. ft. = 134
(2) 134 parking spaces x 1.3 persons per space = 174 persons per acre.
(3) 174 persons/3.5 acres gross site size = 50 persons per acre average for the site.
2. Exceptions. Subject to approval of an administrative use permit, the Community
Development Director may determine another method of density calculation is appropriate
based on the particular characteristics of the proposed use and/or development. The
method of calculation shall remain consistent with recommended methodologies of
Appendix “G” of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
B. Interpretation of use listing. The director, subject to the appeal procedures of Chapter 17.66,
shall determine whether uses which are not listed shall be deemed allowed or allowed subject to
use permit approval in a certain zone. This interpretation procedure shall not be used as a
substitute for the amendment procedure as a means of adding new types of uses to an Airport
Overlay zone.
ATTACHMENT 2
PH1 - 35
City of San Luis Obispo
December 2013 Zoning Regulations
TABLE 10 - AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE (AOZ) - MAXIMUM ALLOWED PERSONS
(Areas within AOZ and outside Specific Plan areas - 17.22.010.B.)
Maximum Allowed Persons per Acre (Overlay
Zones - Figure 13)
Specific Use & Noise
Regulations
Land Use 1 2 3 4 5 6
AGRICULTURE
Crop production FAA 80 150 200 150 UZ
Grazing FAA 80 150 200 150 UZ
Greenhouse/Plant Nursery, commercial 80 150 200 150 UZ
Community Gardens 80 150 200 150 UZ
Livestock feed lot 80 150 200 150 UZ
INDUSTRY, MANUFACTURING & PROCESSING, WHOLESALING
Bakery, wholesale 80 150 200 150 UZ
80 150 200 150 UZ
Industrial research and development 80 150 200 150 UZ
80 150 200 150 UZ
Laundry, dry cleaning plant 80 150 200 150 UZ
Manufacturing - Heavy 80 150 200 150 UZ
Manufacturing - Light 80 150 200 150 UZ
Petroleum product storage and distribution 200 UZ Hazardous materials - 17.57.050
Photo and film processing lab 80 150 200 150 UZ
Printing and publishing 80 150 200 150 UZ
80 150 200 150 UZ
80 150 200 150 UZ
Recycling facilities - Small collection facility 80 150 200 150 UZ
Storage - Personal storage facility 80 150 200 150 UZ
Storage yard 80 150 200 150 UZ Hazardous materials - 17.57.050
Warehousing, indoor storage 80 150 200 150 UZ
Wholesaling and distribution 80 150 200 150 UZ
LODGING
Bed and breakfast inn 200 UZ NSLU
Homeless shelter 200 UZ NSLU
Hostel 200 UZ NSLU
Hotel, motel 150 200 150 UZ NSLU
Recreational vehicle (RV) park accessory to hotel, motel 200 UZ NSLU
Vacation Rental 17.22.G
Key:NSLU = Noise Sensitive Land Use (if within 60 db CNEL contour - Figure 15 - See requirements of 17.57.070)
FAA = Use subject to FAA standards and criteria UZ = as allowed in underlying Zone or Specific Plan
Furniture and fixtures manufacturing, cabinet
shop
Laboratory - Medical, analytical, research,
testing
Recycling facilities - Collection and processing
facility
Recycling facilities - Scrap and dismantling yard
ATTACHMENT 2
PH1 - 36
City of San Luis Obispo
Zoning Regulations
TABLE 10 - AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE (AOZ) - MAXIMUM ALLOWED PERSONS
(Areas within AOZ and outside Specific Plan areas - 17.22.010.B.)
Maximum Allowed Persons per Acre (Overlay Zones -
Figure 13)Specific Use & Noise Regulations
Land Use 1 2 3 4 5 6
RECREATION, EDUCATION, & PUBLIC ASSEMBLY USES
Club, lodge, private meeting hall 200 UZ NSLU
Commercial recreation facility - Indoor UZ
Commercial recreation facility - Outdoor UZ
Educational conferences 200 UZ
Fitness/health facility 200 UZ
Golf Course 80 150 200 150 UZ
Library, museum 200 UZ
Library, branch facility 200 UZ
Night club 200 UZ
Park, playground 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU
Public assembly facility 200 UZ NSLU
Religious facility 200 UZ NSLU
UZ NSLU
School - College, university campus 200 UZ NSLU
200 UZ NSLU
School - Elementary, middle, secondary UZ NSLU
School - Specialized education/training 200 UZ NSLU
Special event 200 UZ NSLU
Sports and active recreation facility 200 UZ NSLU
Sports and entertainment assembly facility UZ
Studio - Art, dance, martial arts, music, etc.200 UZ NSLU
Theater UZ
Theater - Drive-in UZ
RESIDENTIAL USES
Boarding/rooming house, dormitory UZ NSLU
Caretaker quarters UZ NSLU
Convents and monasteries UZ NSLU
Fraternity, sorority UZ NSLU
High occupancy residential use UZ NSLU
Home occupation UZ NSLU
Live/work units UZ NSLU
Mixed-use project UZ NSLU
UZ NSLU - 17.57.020.B.
Mobile home park UZ NSLU
Multi-family dwellings UZ NSLU - 17.57.020.B.
UZ NSLU
UZ NSLU
Residential hospice facility UZ NSLU
Rest home UZ NSLU
Single-family dwellings UZ NSLU - 17.57.020.B.
Secondary dwelling units UZ NSLU
Work/live units UZ NSLU
Key:NSLU = Noise Sensitive Land Use (if within 60 db CNEL contour - Figure 15 - See requirements of 17.57.060)
FAA = Use subject to FAA standards and criteria UZ = as allowed in underlying Zone or Specific Plan
Residential care facilities - 6 or fewer residents
Residential care facilities - 7 or more residents
School - Boarding school, elementary, middle,
secondary
School - College, university - Satellite
classroom facility
Mobile home as temporary residence at building
site
ATTACHMENT 2
PH1 - 37
City of San Luis Obispo
December 2013 Zoning Regulations
TABLE 10 - AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE (AOZ) - MAXIMUM ALLOWED PERSONS
(Areas within AOZ and outside Specific Plan areas - 17.22.010.B.)
Maximum Allowed Persons per Acre (Overlay
Zones - Figure 13)Specific Use & Noise Regulations
Land Use 1 2 3 4 5 6
RETAIL SALES
Auto and vehicle sales and rental 150 200 150 UZ
Auto parts sales, with installation 200 UZ
Auto parts sales, without installation 200 UZ
Bakery, retail 200 UZ
Bar/Tavern 200 UZ
Building and landscape materials sales, indoor 150 200 UZ
150 200 150 UZ
150 200 150 UZ
Convenience store 200 UZ
Extended hour retail 200 UZ
Farm supply and feed store 200 UZ
Fuel dealer (propane, etc)150 200 150 UZ Hazardous materials - 17.57.050
Furniture, furnishings, and appliance stores 200 UZ
General retail - 2,000 sf or less 200 UZ
200 UZ 17.57.050.C
200 UZ 17.57.050.C
200 UZ 17.57.050.C
200 UZ 17.57.050.C
Groceries, liquor, specialty foods 200 UZ 17.57.050.C
Mobile home, RV, and boat sales 150 200 150 UZ
Office-supporting retail, 2,000 sf or less 200 UZ
200 UZ
Wine tasting room - off site 200 UZ
Outdoor temporary and/or seasonal sales 150 200 150 UZ
Produce stand 150 200 150 UZ
Restaurant 200 UZ
Outdoor BBQ/Grill, accessory to restaurant 200 UZ
Service station (see also "vehicle services")200 UZ
Vending machine 150 200 150 UZ
Warehouse stores - 45,000 sf or less gfa 200 UZ
Warehouse stores - more than 45,000 sf gfa 200 UZ
Key:NSLU = Noise Sensitive Land Use (if within 60 db CNEL contour - Figure 15 - See requirements of 17.57.060)
FAA = Use subject to FAA standards and criteria UZ = as allowed in underlying Zone or Specific Plan
Office-supporting retail, More than 2,000, up to
5,000 sf
Construction and heavy equipment sales and
rental
General retail - More than 2,000 sf, up to
15,000 sf
General retail - More than 15,000 sf, up to
45,000 sf
Building and landscape materials sales, outoor
General retail - More than 60,000 sf, up to
140,000 sf
General retail - More than 45,000 sf, up to
60,000 sf
ATTACHMENT 2
PH1 - 38
City of San Luis Obispo
Zoning Regulations
TABLE 10 - AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE (AOZ) - MAXIMUM ALLOWED PERSONS
(Areas within AOZ and outside Specific Plan areas - 17.22.010.B.)
Maximum Allowed Persons per Acre (Overlay
Zones - Figure 13)Specific use & Noise Regulations
Land Use 1 2 3 4 5 6
SERVICES - BUSINESS, FINANCIAL & PROFESSIONAL
ATMs 80 150 200 150 UZ
Banks and financial services 150 200 150 UZ NSLU
Business support services 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU
150 200 150 UZ NSLU
Medical service - Doctor office 150 200 150 UZ NSLU
Medical service - Extended care UZ NSLU
Medical service - Hospital UZ NSLU
Convalescent hospital UZ NSLU
Office - Accessory 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU - 175.57.050.C.
Office - Business and service 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU - 175.57.050.C.
Office - Government 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU - 175.57.050.C.
Office - Processing 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU - 175.57.050.C.
Office - Production and administrative 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU - 175.57.050.C.
Office - Professional 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU - 175.57.050.C.
Office - Temporary 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU - 175.57.050.C.
Photographer, photographic studio 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU
SERVICES - GENERAL
Catering service 80 150 200 150 UZ
Cemetery, mausoleum, columbarium 80 150 200 150 UZ 17.57.070.2.c.
Copying and Quick Printer Service 80 150 200 150 UZ
Day care - Day care center (child/adult)UZ NSLU
Day care - Family day care home (small/large)UZ NSLU
Equipment rental 80 150 200 150 UZ
80 150 200 150 UZ
Maintenance service, client site services 80 150 200 150 UZ
Mortuary, funeral home 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU
Personal services 80 150 200 150 UZ
Personal services - Restricted 80 150 200 150 UZ
Public safety facilities 80 150 200 150 UZ
Public utility facilities 80 150 200 150 UZ
80 150 200 150 UZ
Residential Support Services 80 150 200 150 UZ
Social service organization 200 UZ
80 150 200 150 UZ
80 150 200 150 UZ
Vehicle services - Carwash 80 150 200 150 UZ
200 UZ NSLU
200 UZ NSLU
200 UZ NSLU
Key:NSLU = Noise Sensitive Land Use (if within 60 db CNEL contour - Figure 15 - See requirements of 17.57.060)
FAA = Use subject to FAA standards and criteria UZ = as allowed in underlying Zone or Specific Plan
Veterinary clinic/hospital, boarding, large animal
Vehicle services - Repair and maintenance -
Minor
Repair service - Equipment, large appliances,
etc.
Veterinary clinic/hospital, boarding, small
animal, indoor
Medical service - Clinic, laboratory, urgent care
Vehicle services - Repair and maintenance -
Major
Food bank/packaged food distribution center
Veterinary clinic/hospital, boarding, small
animal, outdoor
ATTACHMENT 2
PH1 - 39
City of San Luis Obispo
December 2013 Zoning Regulations
TABLE 10 - AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE (AOZ) - MAXIMUM ALLOWED PERSONS
(Areas within AOZ and outside Specific Plan areas - 17.22.010.B.)
Maximum Allowed Persons per Acre (Overlay
Zones - Figure 13)Specific Use & Noise Regulations
Land Use 1 2 3 4 5 6
TRANSPORTATION & COMMUNICATIONS
Airport FAA FAA FAA FAA FAA FAA
80 150 200 150 UZ
Antennas and telecommunications facilities FAA FAA FAA UZ Airspace Protection 17.57.070
Media Production - Broadcast studio 80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU
80 150 200 150 UZ NSLU
Heliport FAA FAA FAA FAA FAA FAA
Parking facility 80 150 200 150 UZ
Parking facility - Multi-level 80 150 200 150 UZ
Parking facility - Temporary 80 150 200 150 UZ
Railroad facilities 80 150 200 150 UZ
Transit station or terminal 80 150 200 150 UZ
Transit stop 80 150 200 150 UZ
Truck or freight terminal 80 150 200 150 UZ
80 150 200 150 UZ
Key:NSLU = Noise Sensitive Land Use (if within 60 db CNEL contour - Figure 15 - See requirements of 17.57.060)
FAA = Use subject to FAA standards and criteria UZ = as allowed in underlying Zone or Specific Plan
Ambulance, taxi, and/or limousine dispatch
facility
Water and wastewater treatment plants and
services
Media Production - Backlots/outdoor facilities
and soundstages
ATTACHMENT 2
PH1 - 40
17.57.050 Airport Overlay Zones
The designation of Airport Overlay Zones as identified in Figure 13 is consistent with California Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook Guidelines intended to minimize the risk to people and property on the
ground as well as to people in an aircraft in the event of an accident or emergency landing occurring
within, or in proximity of the airport boundary. The Airport Overlay Zone is based on the application of
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook Safety Zones for an airport with similar characteristics to
San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP). The AOZ contains six overlay zones each with
respective maximum non-residential intensity restrictions, maximum residential densities, and
compatibility policies. Land uses which conform to standards for overlay zones in Table 10 shall also
comply with compatibility policies in this section.
A. Overlay Zone 1 – Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). Overlay Zone 1 is a very high risk area
with aircraft on very close final approach or departure. No uses or buildings should be allowed
in this area with the exception of the following uses which are subject to FAA standards and
criteria: agricultural activities, roads, and automobile parking.
Prohibit: Non-residential uses except if very low intensity in character and confined to the outer
sides. Parking lots streets and roads. Residential uses are prohibited.
B. Overlay Zone 2 – Inner Approach/Departure Zone. Overlay Zone 2 involves aircraft flying at
low altitudes on final approach and straight out departures and is a high risk area.
Special Restrictions. Office buildings shall be limited to single-story structures and non-
residential activities limited to activities that attract few people.
Prohibit: Residential uses except as infill in developed areas; theatres, meeting halls and other
assembly uses; office buildings greater than 3 stories, labor intensive industrial uses,
Children’s schools, large daycare centers, hospitals, nursing homes, stadiums, group
recreational uses, hazardous storage or uses (e.g. above ground bulk fuel storage).
C. Overlay Zone 3 – Inner Turning Zone. Overlay Zone 3 is a moderate to high risk safety area
used by aircraft (especially smaller piston powered aircraft) for final turning for landing
approach or for initiating turns to en route direction on departure.
Special Restrictions: Buildings may not exceed three above ground habitable floors.
Prohibit: Commercial and other non-residential uses with higher usage intensities including:
Major shopping centers, theaters, meeting halls, and other assembly facilities; children’s
schools, large daycare centers, hospitals, nursing rooms.
D. Overlay Zone 4 – Outer Approach/Departure Zone. Overlay Zone 4 is a moderate risk area
with approaching aircraft usually less than traffic pattern altitude. Used for straight-in
instrument approaches and straight-out flight paths.
Special Restrictions: High Intensity retail or office buildings shall be avoided. Consider
potential airspace protection hazards of certain energy/industrial projects.
Prohibit: Children’s schools, large daycare centers, hospitals, nursing homes, stadiums, group
recreational uses.
E. Overlay Zone 5 – Sideline Zone. Overlay Zone 5 is a low to moderate risk level area and is
typically not overflown. The primary risk is with aircraft losing directional control on takeoff,
excessive crosswind, gusts or engine torque.
Special Restrictions: Avoid high intensity non-residential uses and residential uses since noise
is normally a factor. Consider height limitations for airspace protection.
Prohibit: Stadiums, group recreational uses, children’s schools, large daycare centers,
ATTACHMENT 2
PH1 - 41
hospitals, nursing homes.
F. Overlay Zone 6 – Traffic Pattern Zone. Overlay Zone 6 is a low risk area with aircraft using
the zone for regular traffic pattern and pattern entry routes.
Special Restrictions: Limit processing and storage of bulk quantities of highly hazardous
materials. Outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities should be avoided.
Prohibit: None.
17.57.060 Airspace Protection
Airspace Protection. Airspace protection standards are intended to reduce the risk of harm to people
and property resulting from an aircraft accident by preventing the creation of land use features and
prohibition of any activities that can pose hazards to the airspace used by aircraft in flight.
1. Objects affecting navigable airspace. Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR Part 77) and Public
Utility Code (PUC) Section 21659 require that structures not penetrate the airspace protection
surfaces of the airport without a permit from the California Department of Transportation or a
determination by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that the object does not constitute a
hazard to air navigation or would not create an unsafe condition for air navigation. The airspace
surrounding an airport is divided into segments called “imaginary surfaces,” which identify height
limits for objects that require further study by the FAA to avoid creating hazards to air navigation .
Structures that have the potential to be considered an obstruction by the FAA shall be subject to
the provisions listed in a-c below:
a. Proponents of a project shall file a Notice of Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) with the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) if a proposed structure is more than 200 feet above
ground level or may exceed one foot in height for every 100 feet from the edge of the nearest
point on the runway for a distance up to 20,000 feet. Filing Form 7460-1 with the FAA will
initiate an aeronautical study that will ensure a proposed structure does not constitute a
hazard to air navigation or would not create an unsafe condition for air navigation, including
impeding any en route or terminal (airport) instrument procedures as per the United States
Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) described in FAA Order 8260.3B
(Code of Federal Regulations §77.29 Evaluating Aeronautical Effect).
b. Approvals for such projects may include the requirement for an avigation easement, marking
or lighting of the structure, or modifications to the structure. The avigation easement shall be
consistent with the form and content of Exhibit H1 in appendix H of the California Airport Land
Use Planning Handbook.
c. Building permits shall not be issued for a project until a Determination of No Hazard has been
issued by the FAA and any conditions in that Determination are met.
2. Other Flight Hazards Prohibited. Any activities within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) which
could pose a hazard to flight operations including but not limited to the following:
a. Glare or distracting lights that could be mistaken for airport lights;
b. Sources of dust, heat, steam, or smoke that may impair pilot vision, or light shows, or laser
shows or spotlights;
c. Any emissions that may cause thermal plumes or other forms of unstable air that generate
turbulence within the flight path;
d. Sources of electrical interference with aircraft communications or navigation; and
e. Features that create an increased attraction for wildlife that may be hazardous to airport
ATTACHMENT 2
PH1 - 42
operations such as attraction of birds to the extent of creating a significant hazard of bird
strikes (examples are outdoor storage or disposal of food or grain, or large, artificial water
features; this provision is not intended to prevent enhancement or protection of existing
wetlands or the mitigation of wetlands impacts). Features which may pose these risks shall
be reviewed for consistency with the FAA’s Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, Hazardous
Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports.
f. Entails installation, construction, or enlargement of a structure that constitutes an obstruction
to air navigation through penetration of FAA Part 77 surfaces except as may be approved by
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
17.57.070 Noise
A. Airport Related Noise. Noise compatibility standards are intended to prevent the establishment of
noise - sensitive land uses in portions of the airport environ that are exposed to significant levels of
aircraft noise. Where permitted within the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ), the following noise - sensitive
land uses shall comply with applicable noise exposure criteria.
1. Noise analysis from the Airport Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (2006) shall be used
for mapping of the long term noise impact of the airport’s aviation activity which includes future
planned facilities development depicted in the FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan. These noise
contours are shown in Figure 15.
New Residential Development. New residential uses within the 60 db CNEL contour as depicted
in Figure 15, shall demonstrate consistency with maximum noise levels by providing noise
analysis, construction details, or other information deemed necessary by the Community
Development Director to verify conformance with maximum interior noise levels.
2. Interior Noise Levels not to exceed 45db CNEL. For the following noise - sensitive land uses,
aircraft -related, interior noise levels shall not exceed 45dB CNEL (with windows closed):
a. Living or sleeping areas of single or multi -family residences;
b. Hotels and motels;
c. Hospitals and nursing homes;
d. Place of Worship, meeting halls, and mortuaries; and
e. Schools, libraries and museums.
3. Interior Noise Levels not to Exceed 50 dB CNEL. For the following noise - sensitive land
uses, aircraft-related, interior noise levels shall not exceed 50dB CNEL (with windows closed):
a. Office environments;
b. Eating and drinking establishments; and
c. Other miscellaneous commercial facilities.
17.57.080 Overflight Notice
A. Aircraft Overflight. Aircraft overflight standards are intended to provide overflight notification for land
uses near the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. It shall be the responsibility of all owners of
property offered for -sale or for -lease within the Airport Overlay Zoning District (AOZ) to provide the
following disclosure prior to selling or leasing property in San Luis Obispo.
NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY
Ordinance # XX of the City of San Luis Obispo identifies a San Luis Obispo County Regional
Airport “Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ)”. Properties in this area are routinely subject to overflights by
aircraft using this public-use airport and, as a result, residents may experience inconvenience,
ATTACHMENT 2
PH1 - 43
annoyance, or discomfort arising from the noise of such operations. State Law (Public Utilities
Code Section 21670 et seq.) established the importance of public-use airports to protection of the
public interest of the people of the state of California. Residents of property near such airports
should therefore be prepared to accept the inconvenience, annoyance, or discomfort from normal
aircraft operations. Residents also should be aware that the current volume of aircraft activity
may increase in the future in response to San Luis Obispo County and City population and
economic growth. Any subsequent deed conveying this parcel of subdivisions thereof shall
contain a statement in substantially this form.
All discretionary actions shall include a condition of approval requiring all owners of property offered for -
sale or for -lease within the Airport Overlay Zoning District to provide the aforementioned disclosure prior
to selling or leasing property. For new residential land uses, the overflight notification shall be recorded
and appear with the property deed.
17.57.090 Open Land
A. Open land. Open land areas are intended to increase the chances of a pilot successfully landing an
aircraft in an emergency situation where they are unable to reach the runway. The City has
identified properties to contain open land areas as follows:
1. Airport Area Specific Plan: 250 acres on the Chevron property with two areas specifically
improved to meet ALUC standards; and a 300’ wide strip adjacent to Buckley Road (24
acres) on the Avila Ranch site. AOZ areas 1,2,3, and 6)
2. Margarita Area Specific Plan: two open land areas amid clustered development. AOZ
areas 2, 3, and 6
3. Laguna Lake public park open area. Outside of AOZ but within the approach surface.
4. Brughelli property easement south of Buckley Road. AOZ areas 3, 4, and 6.
5. San Luis Ranch Specific Plan area, west of Highway 101 and south of Dalidio Drive.
AOZ areas 4 and 6.
6. City open space areas within the Airport Overlay Zone. AOZ area 6.
Where open space or conservation easements have been obtained and the topography supports it, the
City shall not allow uses to be established that conflict with their availability to be used as a landing option
in the event of an emergency. Where easements have yet to be obtained, the City shall incorporate the
requirement for open land as part of the discretionary approval process. The following table provides the
desired amount of open areas by safety zone consistent with the California Land Use Planning
Handbook.
Airport Safety Zone Open Land Objectives
AO1 Maintain all undeveloped land clear of objects in accordance with FAA
standards
AO2
Seek to preserve 25-30% of the overall area as usable open land. Preserve
as much open land possible in locations close to the extended runway
centerline.
AO3 At least 15-20% of the zone should remain as open land.
AO4
Seek to preserve 15-20% of the overall area as usable open land. Preserve
as much open land possible in locations close to the extended runway
centerline.
AO5 Seek to preserve 25-30% of the overall area as usable open land.
AO6 Seek to preserve open land approximately 100 ft by 300 ft in size every ½
mile.
ATTACHMENT 2
PH1 - 44
Figure 13 Airport Overlay Zones
0.5 0 0.50.25 Miles
City Limits
Airport Overlay Zones
Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) Boundary
Tank Farm Rd.
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
.
S. H
i
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
.
£¤101
Buckley Rd.
L
O
V
R
South St.
Prado Rd.
Orcutt Rd.
Or
c
u
t
t
R
d
.
AO-6
AO-6
AO-4
AO-2
AO-3 AO-1
AO-4 AO-4
AO-5
AO-1AO-1AO-2 AO-2
AO-3
AO-3
AO-3
AO-3
AO-5
AO-1
ATTACHMENT 2
PH1 - 45
ATTACHMENT 2
PH1 - 46
Figure 15
0.5 0 0.50.25 Miles
Noise Contours (CNEL)55 60 65 70 75
Prado Rd.
Buckley Rd.
Tank Farm Rd.
£¤101
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
.
S. H
i
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
.
Margarita Ave.
Tank Far
m
R
d
.
Suburban Rd.
Orcutt Rd.
")55
")60
")65
")70
75
(from Airport Master Plan EIR)
City Limits
Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) Boundary
Noise Contours
ATTACHMENT 2
PH1 - 47
AIRPORT HAZARDS
The San Luis Obispo County Airport provides commuter, charter, and private service to the area (Figure
7). The primary hazard associated with the airport is the risk of aircraft crashing on approach and take-off
Aircraft flight operations are determined largely by the physical layout of the airport and rules of the
Federal Aviation Administration. Activities on the airport property are managed by the County.
In April 1998, a private plane made an emergency landing on Los Osos Valley Road west of Foothill
Boulevard, narrowly missing power lines and cars.
Existing land uses under the approach and take-off paths include agriculture and businesses close to the
airport, and shopping centers, dwellings, and schools at greater distances. State law requires the
independent, countywide Airport Land Use Commission to adopt an Airport Land Use Plan for each
airport. This plan establishes zones based on flight patterns, with the aim of having future development
be compatible with airport operations, considering safety and noise exposure. State and County policies
encourage future development to be consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan.
The City’s General Plan Land Use Element designates land-use categories that are meant to be
consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. When the City comprehensively updated its Land Use Element
in 1994, the Airport Land Use Commission was preparing an update of the Airport Land Use Plan. When
this Safety Element was adopted in 2000, the Airport Land Use Plan update had not been completed. The
Airport Land Use Plan was last amended in 2005 and is in process of being updated again.There were
some discrepancies between the City’s Land Use Element and the Airport Land Use Plan, mainly
affecting potential residential development in the Margarita Specific Plan Area. Changes to one or both of
the plans will be needed to resolve the inconsistencies. With the most recent update to the Land Use and
Circulation Elements, the City went through an exhaustive process to evaluate safety, hazard,
obstruction, and noise concerns associated with the current and future operation of the airport. Proposed
development associated with the Land Use and Circulation Elements update is consistent with direction in
the State Aeronautics Act, the FAA regulations concerning obstructions and notification, and guidance
provided in the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The City will
continue to work with the Airport Land Use Commission as it updates the Airport Land Use Plan for San
Luis Obispo County Regional Airport to strive to achieve consistency between the Airport Land Use Plan
and the City’s General Plan.
8.0 Policy: Uses in the Airport Land Use Plan Area
Development should be permitted only if it is consistent with the requirements of the California State
Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code §21670, et. seq.), the California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook, and other related federal and state requirements relating to airport land use compatibility
planning.San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. Prospective buyers of property that is subject to
airport influence should be so informed.
ATTACHMENT 3
PH1 - 48
Figure 7: Airport Hazards
ATTACHMENT 3
PH1 - 49
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
3
PH1 - 50
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
3
PH1 - 51
ATTACHMENT 4
PH1 - 52
ATTACHMENT 4
PH1 - 53
ATTACHMENT 5
Zoning – Chapter 17.53: Special Focus Area (S-F) Overlay Zone
17.53.010 Purpose and application.
The SF Overlay Zone is intended to translate the provisions of General Plan Land Use Element
Chapter 8 (Special Focus Areas) into regulations for the subsequent development of land. It will
be applied to areas identified in Chapter 8 as Special Planning Areas, where the General Plan
Land Use Element calls for special design concepts.
17.53.020 Allowed uses and development standards.
All development within the Special Planning Areas shall adhere to the requirements of the
underlying zone district and the provisions for each of the respective Special Planning Areas, as
described in Chapter 8 of the Land Use Element. In addition, development objectives within
each of the Special Planning Areas shall be interpreted by the Community Development
Director or applicable advisory body or commission in order to achieve the development
objectives of the Special Focus Areas. Where provisions of the underlying zone and Land Use
Element Chapter 8 conflict, LUE policies shall take precedence. Planning Commission review
and approval is required for the following Special Focus Areas: Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa,
Cal Trans Site, Madonna Inn Area, Sunset Drive-in Theater/Prado Road Area, LOVR Creekside
Area.
17.53.030 Subsequent Amendments.
Minor adjustments to internal zone district boundaries within each of the Special Planning Areas
may be proposed or required during development review based on physical site conditions,
environmental impacts and other factors, as deemed appropriate in order to best implement
policies and programs contained in the General Plan.
PH1 - 54