HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-17-2015 PH1 TedoneSubject: FW: Hotel Monterey COUNCIL MEETING: 2-1-1 - I S
Attachments: Ordinance 1130 Backround.pdf ITEM NO.: 1,y I
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Bob Tedone Finai Ito: btedone(cD.charter. net
l
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 8:33 PM
To: Mejia, Anthony
Subject: Hotel Monterey
Dear Mr. Mejia,
RECE
FEB 10 2015
At the December 10, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, the question of the origin of Ordinance 1130 came up. Present
was Mike Multari, vice -chair of the PC, who, as it happens, was the SLO City Planning Director 25 years ago when the
ordinance was framed and ratified by City Council. He was asked to provide his recollections, which he did in some detail.
The applicants in their appeal to the PC's decision, used Multari's modest characterization of his recollections as "vague ",
to imply that they might well be inaccurate.
To test this, I went into the history of the origin of Ordinance 1130. 1 pulled up the 1989 Agenda Report, also written by
Mr. Multari, and also interviewed people in the neighborhood who were involved in the early history. These I have weaved
into a history for your review which is the attachment to this e-mail.
This e-mail has two parts - in PDF form: 1) a summary and a full report of that history (pages 1 -5), and 2) and "appendix"
which includes a transcription of Commissioner Multari's testimony at the December 10 meeting of the Planning
Commission(pages 6 -7), a transcription of neighbor Bonnie Garritano's recollections which expands the history further to
1975(pages 8 -9), and a copy of the 1989 agenda report for the City Council meeting, prepared by Mr. Multari when he
was Planning Director (the third page begins the Council Agenda Report which is where 1130 is discussed).
These will demonstrate that there has been a consistent theme running in the dialogue between the neighborhood and the
city over the years that focuses on the need to modulate the building on the creekside of Upper Monterey Street to
recognize the delicate balance between commercial interests and neighborhood integrity. In the past, final decisions have
consistently favored and supported neighborhood values.
I realize this is a lot to go through but I hope you can find the time to do so.
Thank you,
Bob Tedone
ORDINANCE 1130
Summary of Implementation
1975 First indication of Monterey Street commercial development impacting the San
Luis Drive neighborhood with the noise and parking proximity issues associated
with the 1865 Restaurant. Residents voiced concerns but zoning laws in place
limited success.
1984 Owners of Apple Farm propose expansion. San Luis Drive residents worked with
City Staff, owners, and the architect to mitigate problems, i.e. changing windows,
building design,and parking. In particular mitigations were done to reduce the
appearance of mass (three story structure), parking was relocated between
buildings and Monterey St.
1988 Motel 8, now Super 8 Motel, was approved by the ARC. Residents appealed the
decision and were granted concessions by City Council.
1988 Drawing from the Motel 8 experience, residents proposed ordinance guidelines to
City Staff, with the assistance of consultant Ned Rogoway. The proposal was
forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration.
1989 City Council unanimously passed Ordinance 1130. Recognizing the potential of
future commercial development, the impact on the environment and the unique
juxtaposition of an R -1 (primarily owner occupied) neighborhood, residents
requested that:
"Guidelines be adopted as part of the S designation which would direct future tourist
commercial development in a manner that minimized the adverse impacts on the
adjoining residences."
The proposed design criteria for the "S" designation would:
Restrict building height as a function of distance from the creek,
Minimize building openings facing the creek and require screening between the
creek and buildings which includes, at a minimum, restoration and enhancement of
creekside vegetation;
Require the Planning Commission to make specific findings that new uses
established will not adversely affect the adjoining residential neighborhood.
Page 1
1989 City Council sided with residents on the Motel 8 proposal, mitigations were
required concerning windows, landscaping, and fencing.
1996 City -wide Creek Setback Ordinance passed, July 1996.
Subsequent Activity Related to Implementation of Ordinance 1130
1999 Morgan's Mansions (San Luis Creek Lodge) required to redesign balconies, decks
across the creek facing building to comply with requirements of Ordinance 1130.
2000 Motel Inn expansion proposal placed on hold. Ordinance 1130 implications.
2009 Hyatt Place at 1865 Monterey proposed and denied, failing to comply with
Ordinance 1130. Plans dropped.
2014 -Hotel Monterey proposed for 1845 -1865 Monterey. San Luis Drive residents
appeai...
2015 - for non - compliance with Ordinance 1130. Appeal denied by ARC, subsequently
granted by Planning Commission. Applicant appealed to City Council.
Page 2
Ordinance 1130
Note: This document brings together the recollections of Bonnie Garritano who is one of the San Luis
Drive residents that instigated Ordinance 1130 and Michael Multari who at the time was the San Luis
Community Development Director and is now a Planning Commissioner. He made his remarks at the
December 2014 Planning Commission meeting. In addition text from the City Council Agenda Report
from February 7, 1989 when 1130 was adopted is included. Mr. Multari's recollections that evening are
supported by Mrs. Garritano and the 1989 Agenda Report.
As Mr. Multari noted at last month's meeting, "...it became obvious that this was indeed a special area
that required special regulations because of the creek and the proximity to the San Luis Drive
neighborhood behind."
These records show that there was and is a need to protect the SL Drive neighborhood with a special
designation, the "S" overlay, from commercial development on the opposite side of the San Luis Creek.
The businesses in the Upper Monterey area are primarily restaurants andlor lodging thus differentiating
the area from ones with ordinary retail establishments. Restaurants and lodging bring potential privacy,
safety, noise, and visual impacts to the homes bordering the creek and throughout the neighborhood.
Bonnie Garritano wrote a very detailed history of 1130 as she was one of the residents who instrumental
in its implementation. Her condensed remarks are below. All are her words except as noted. Included are
recollections made by Mr. Multari. There is also text from the City Council Agenda Report that was
presented at the City Council February 7, 1989 meeting. The material is presented in chronological order.
1975— Garritano: "Several San Luis Drive residents, including Ernie & Alice Werbel, spent time and money trying
to mitigate the effects of the 1865 Restaurant. The zoning laws in place at that time limited their success, but we all
learned that parking lots extending to the top of creek bank were highly undesirable!"
1984 — Garritano: "Alice Werbel, Jane Anderson and I appealed the development of the Apple Farm Expansion,
which included a convention/banquet center in the Mill House. Negotiations with city staff, owner Bob Davis, and
the architect over the next years resulted in windows being clustered in window wells in the main motel building to
minimize overlook problems. A green shingled hip -roof (mansard roof ?) was added to mitigate the 3 story height.
The Mill House was reconfigured to have a luxury suite upstairs, with a snack bar downstairs, which had
several limitations placed on it. All parking was placed between the buildings and Monterey St., which has worked
very well over the years (we hear more car alarms, slamming doors and revving motors from properties further
down the creek, including the former 1865!) Bob Davis and the architect, Greg Wilhelm, were both neighbors at
that time, so they did agree to work with us to this extent."
1984 - 1988 — Garritano: "In working closely with city staff on the Apple Farm, we learned that we could change the
existing zoning laws, as well as add our input to the next General Plan Update, especially concerning walking trails
along the top of the creek bank."
1986 — Garritano: "Quality Suites was built without encroaching on the creek, in the way that Apple Farm had
planned."
1988 — April— Garritano: "Motel 8 ", now called the Super 8, was approved by the ARC. We neighbors appealed the
decision, and won some concessions by appealing all the way to the City Council (May 1989). We were coming to
the realization that we needed some guidelines with teeth, instead of just showing up as NIMBYs. By September,
we had begun the process of adding an "S" overlay to the CT Zone backing our neighborhood.
Multari: "Out of those concerns it became obvious that this was indeed a special area that required special
regulations because of the creek and the proximity to the San Luis Drive neighborhood behind."
1988— Oct — Garritano: "Our first neighborhood meeting was advertised by flyers delivered door to door to discuss
the proposed guidelines we had worked out with city staff, with help from our hired consultant, Ned Rogoway. Our
Page 3
Ordinance 1130
goal was to present a petition and a united front to the Planning Commission hearing on Oct. 12, 1988. The
beginning of Ordinance 1130."
1989— Feb — Garritano: "The infamous Ordinance 1130 is passed by the City Council, taking effect in March 1989.
With several proposed remodels /expansions of the existing mom & pop motels that backed up to our residential
neighborhood, we now had some rules that could be enforced. We knew that modernization was coming, we just
wanted it to be sensitive to the environment and the unique juxtaposition of an idyllic R -1 neighborhood. We did not
want restaurants /hotels hanging over cement foundations all along the commercial side, nor did we want a walking
trail, especially since many of us own both sides of the creek. We tried to eliminate all balconies, large windows,
and all doors facing the creek, but were advised that the best we could do would be to require minimal openings,
hence, the word `minimize'. "
Multari: "When the ordinance talks about minimizing openings in the rear it envisioned... the theory was
sort of those end of the long narrow motel and the last room having a window. It did not envision facing balconies
towards the creek. There's a tremendous temptation, there was at that time, and I think there still is, to orient rooms
toward the back of the lot looking into the creek. That was something we were trying to avoid I believe in 1130. And
I think that was one of the points of minimizing. If you minimize something you get very close to zero. I don't think
frankly the project that we have before us comes anywhere near close to that."
Multari: "So I do think that, a couple of other points, the intent was to keep the parking away from the
back, away from the creek. This project, while heroically tries to block them with walls now that they've been
reconfigured_ and certainly the walls are thicker and higher. and relocated, it still wasn't the point. The point was to
take those out of the back of the lots and move them more towards the street and then to somehow buffer them using
the buildings if possible and those buildings would not have balconies that would look out onto the creek."
City Council Minutes, February 7, 1989:
From the Council Agenda Report by Michael Multari, Community Development Director and David Moran,
Assistant Planner:
"As part of the public comment period at its August 2, 1988 meeting, the City Council received a letter signed by
the residents of the San Luis Drive neighborhood expressing concern with the adverse impact recent tourist
commercial development along Monterey Street was having on their neighborhood." The residents asked that:
"Guidelines be adopted as part of the "S" designation which would direct future tourist commercial development in
a manner that minimized the adverse impacts on the adjoining residences." (from page 1)
"The proposed design criteria for the "S" designation would:
• Restrict building height as a function of distance from the creek;
• Minimize building openings facing the creek and require screening between the creek and buildings which
includes, at a minimum, restoration and enhancement of creekside vegetation;
• Require the Planning Commission to make specific findings that new uses established will not adversely affect
the adjoining residential neighborhood." (from page 3)
The Planning Commission adopted the items listed in the present 1130 ordinance. One item concerning pedestrian
access to the creek was omitted. There was a proposal floating at that time to have a type of creek walkway but that
idea was nixed due to objections of creekside landowners. It should be noted that Rob Strong in a letter to the
Council wanted this change, "Building openings (doors, balconies, etc.) facing the creek shall be minimized to
discourage outdoor access which would be in close proximity to residential properties. Windows may be oriented to
enable visual enjoyment of the creek as a backdrop but avoid intrusion on the residential properties." The Council
did not agree and instead used the wording in the original PC document that was ultimately passed, "Building
openings (doors, windows, balconies, etc.) facing the creek shall be minimized."
The City Council voted unanimously for the ordinance.
Page 4
Ordinance 1130
1989 — May — Garritano: "City Council sides with Neighborhood on the "Motel 8" project, and mitigations were
required re windows, landscaping and fencing."
Fast forward to see the effect of 1130 on other developments.
1999 — Feb — Garritano: "'Morgan's Mansions', now called the San Luis Creek Lodge, was proposed with balconies
and decks all across the creek facing building. After zoning hearings, and several ARC meetings which the
neighbors attended, mitigations were required in Aug 1999 to meet the requirements of Ordinance 1130."
2000 - Feb — Garritano: "John King & Rob Rossi, new owners of the historic Motel Inn, present preliminary plans to
the ARC regarding expansion & renovation. Many residents of San Luis Drive attend. After several meetings, by
Aug of 2000 the plans were put on hold, and remain on hold today."
2009 —April — Garritano: "ARC meeting re the Hyatt Place at 1865 Monterey Street. HanaAlonzo led
a neighborhood contingent which protested the lack of adherence to the Ordinance 1130. The plans were dropped."
The above document was shared with residents Gene Goldschmidt, Neil Thom, Ben Edmonson, and Dave Garth.
They saw it as complete and had nothing to add.
Bob Tedone
February 9, 2015
Page 5
Transcript of Planning Commissioner Michael Multari's comments at the December 10, 2014 Planning
Commission meeting.
Multari: Purpose was to deal with compatibility between residential district and commercial district.
Specifics of how it evolved was fuzzy. The genesis, from what I can recall was a couple of projects.
One was the Super 8. That generated a lot of meeting with the applicants and the neighbors over that.
The Apple Farm extension was also part of that too when they did the water wheel and the three story
thing in the back of the property. That generated a lot of controversy at the time as well. So somehow,
and I don't remember the details, out of those concerns it became obvious that this was indeed a
special area that required special regulations because of the creek and the proximity to the San Luis
Drive neighborhood behind.
The staff, one of their problems was trying to differentiate was the ARC jurisdictions and the Planning
Commission and they've suggested that we not consider scale and mass. I think that's wrong. The
driving motivation behind this special designation was to ensure compatibility in this particular case
between commercial and residential. And so compatibility is a broad notion and it encompasses all
these elements including the size of the building, where it is located, and scale and mass. I think that is
a legitimate part of the analysis of compatibility.
When the ordinance talks about minimizing openings in the rear it envisioned, if I could be wrong, but I
think, the theory was sort of those end of the long narrow motel and the last room having a window. It
rim not anvicinn farina hnlrnniac tnminrrlc thin rraak Thara'_c n tramanrini is tamntntinn thara wac at that
.................I ..,.... .y ............... .............. ...— —'--.e. ... —._ — - _._..._..�--�— --' 'r------- o ... —'— .. --- --- -- ---
time, and I think there still is, to orient rooms toward the back of the lot looking into the creek. It's
beautiful and then there's the hills behind there. That was something we were trying to avoid I believe in
1130. And I think that was one of the points of minimizing. If you minimize something you get very close
to zero. I don't think frankly the project that we have before us comes anywhere near close to that.
So I do think that, a couple of other points, the intent was to keep the parking away from the back, away
from the creek. This project, while heroically tries to block them with walls now that they've been
reconfigured, and certainly the walls are thicker and higher, and relocated, it still wasn't the point. The
point was to take those out of the back of the lots and move them more towards the street and then to
somehow buffer them using the buildings if possible and those buildings would not have balconies that
would look out onto the creek.
This is my interpretation based on fuzzy memory. Maybe someone can call out the tape from those
days. They probably don't exist and maybe I'm wrong but I think this is what we were talking about
then.
So I do think it's important that we consider reducing the height, the number of rooms, relocating the
parking, reducing the number of parking.
I think the point that this is precedent setting is a very good one. While we were looking at the LUCE
update there were a couple of things that we talked about particularly when we talked about upper
Monterey there was a discussion about the importance of compatibility between the residential and the
commercial and that maybe that required a re -look at 1130 to bring it more up to date a quarter of a
century later. That the intent, if anything, was stronger in protecting the residential character, not
weakening it in any way. I would point out that in the precedent setting is important. I think there is
going to redevelopment in upper Monterey and I think having new design guidelines for that area is
imperative.
I also think that the maximums- set in this ordinance are maximums and that the judgment about
compatibility does not give any property owner a right of maximum. Those are just that, maximums.
And something smaller than that, lower than that, can be regulated to meet the intent of compatibility.
And in this case topography is an important variable that accentuates the height of these buildings.
Page 6
I think the overlook and the impact on the Julia Morgan building and the Monday Club, is a tremendous
resource and I think it has to be respected.
And I do think that just a few weeks ago or a month ago when we looked at the housing element we
debated whether the policy in the housing element about protecting residential neighborhoods and
when commercial development butted up against it did it have to preserve that character and we
decided that we would recommend to the city council that we had to respect it. Respect is another
subjective word. I would argue that this particular development while it has many attractive features and
I would like to see some redevelopment on this site does not respect the residential neighborhood.
Lastly, in terms of the noise I think Dr. D? analysis is very professional. I'm sure that in may respects, in
all respects, his conclusions about complying with our noise ordinance is correct. But there was one
thing that struck me reading appendix A and that was that I asked Clint Pearce from Madonna
Enterprises about the frequency of complaints about guest noise, reports about regular? and about one
incident per night. He says that typically it's about ten minutes between the time the guests receives the
complaint and the staff quiets the problem. With those balconies in the back, facing the creek, in the
middle of the night, I think that the opportunity for disturbances for the residential area is significant and
that I don't think any of us would like to have to wait ten minutes for the noise to be resolved particularly
if kids were trying to sleep and go to school the next day and we had to get up to go to work. Things like
that. That was the reason that S designation was put on there to be especially sensitive to those kinds
of issues.
So, in summary, my opinion is that the appeal should be upheld and I'm sure that the applicants will, if
that's what the majority opinion is here, that they will appeal it to the City Council. The CC can deal with
the ARC and the Planning Commission items, all at once perhaps. I think this appeal should be upheld
and that project as much as think we should encourage hotel type development there, some specialty
type stuff would be particularly wonderful, but the way that it's designed, the size of it, the parking
where it's located, all the things that I articulated I think would argue that this is not the proper project.
Page 7
E -mail from Bonnie Garritano to Bob Tedone
January 29, 2015
Dear Bob,
At long last, I have researched my dusty old files and come up with these answers for you, in somewhat of a timeline
form:
1975 -- several San Luis Drive residents, including Ernie & Alice Werbel, spent time and money trying to mitigate the
effects of the 1865 Restaurant. The zoning laws in place at that time limited their success, but we all learned that
parking lots extending to the top of creek bank were highly undesirable!
1984- -Alice Werbel, Jane Anderson and I appealed the development of the Apple Farm Expansion, which included
a convention /banquet center in the Mill House. Negotiations with city staff, owner Bob Davis, and the architect
over the next years resulted in windows being clustered in window wells in the main motel building to minimize
overlook problems. A green shingled hip -roof (mansard roof ?) was added to mitigate the 3 story height. The Mill
House was reconfigured to have a luxury suite upstairs, with a snack bar downstairs, which had several limitations
placed on it. All parking was placed between the buildings and Monterey St., which has worked very well over the
years ( we hear more car alarms, slamming doors and revving motors from properties further down the creek,
including the former 1865!) Bob Davis and the architect, Greg Wilhelm, were both neighbors at that time, so they
did agree to work with us to this extent.
1984 - 1988 - -In workine closely with city staff on the Apple Farm, we learned that we could change the existing
zoning laws, as well as add our input to the next General Plan Update, especially concerning walking trails along the
top of the creek bank.
1986 -- Quality Suites was built without encroaching on the creek, in the way that Apple Farm had planned.
1988 - -Seven creekside neighbors decide to organize a neighborhood group, with help from Penny Rappa and Peg
Pinard, who organized the Old Town Neighborhood. (I knew both women, since they had children in school with
my son at the time). The seven were: Alice Werbel, Joan Roberts, Jane Anderson, JoAnne Edmondson, Maxine
Baker, Duane Young and myself. Of those, 3 are deceased and 3 no longer live here. I am the only one left.
1988 -- April -- "Motel 8 ", now called the Super 8, was approved by the ARC. We neighbors appealed the decision,
and won some concessions by appealing all the way to the City Council (May 1989). We were coming to the
realization that we needed some guidelines with teeth, instead of just showing up as NIMBYs. By September, we
had begun the process of adding an "S" overlay to the CT Zone backing our neighborhood.
1988 -- Oct - -our first neighborhood meeting was advertised by flyers delivered door to door to discuss the
proposed guidelines we had worked out with city staff, with help from our hired consultant, Ned Rogoway. Our
goal was to present a petition and a united front to the Planning Commission hearing on Oct. 12, 1988. The
beginning of Ordinance 1130.
1989 -- Feb- -the infamous Ordinance 1130 is passed by the City Council, taking effect in March 1989. With several
proposed remodels /expansions of the existing mom & pop motels that backed up to our residential neighborhood,
we now had some rules that could be enforced. We knew that modernization was coming, we just wanted it to be
sensitive to the environment and the unique juxtaposition of an idyllic R -1 neighborhood. We did not want our
section of San Luis Creek to be a "biological sacrifice zone" as it was throughout the downtown area. We did not
want restaurants /hotels hanging over cement foundations all along the commercial side, nor did we want a walking
trail, especially since many of us own both sides of the creek. We tried to eliminate all balconies, large windows,
and all doors facing the creek, but were advised that the best we could do would be to require minimal openings,
hence, the word "minimize ".
1989 -- May - -City Council sides with Neighborhood on the "Motel 8" project, and mitigations were required re
windows, landscaping and fencing.
Page 8
E -mail from Bonnie Garritano to Bob Tedone
January 29, 2015
1989 -- Aug -- neighbors begin working with city planner, Randy Rossi, re the next update to the General Plan,
specifically with regards to the proposed creekside trails.
1989- -Nov 5th- -First Neighborhood Block Party held at Neil & Carol Thom's backyard -- nearly 150 people came,
even though we charged $5.00 per person! A tradition is born!
1990 - -July 1st -- Second annual Block Party, held once agin at Neil & Carol Thom's, charging $8.00 adults, $5.00
seniors & $2.50 for children under 10. Neighbors begin working with Jan DiLeo, city planner assigned to the
Creekside ordinance update to the General Plan. Paul Ready, a creekside neighbor volunteers to be on her committee
and to represent our interests.
1990 - -Sept 15th- -First Annual Neighborhood Garage Sale
1991 - -Sept 8th - -3rd Annual Block Party held at the Alisal Cul -de -Sac.
1991- -Dec 20th - -First Annual Neighborhood Christmas Caroling, hosted by John & Sharon Dobson. This tradition
continues today under the longtime leadership of Bob & Wendy Lucas. ( since 1997, I think)
1992 -- August 23rd - -4th Annual block Party moves to "El Centro ". a location which has stood the test of time.
1995- 1996 -- Several neighbors attended meetings and worked on the final version of City -Wide Creek Setback
Ordinance, finally passed in July 1996.
1999 -- Feb-- "Morgan's Mansions ", now called the San Luis Creek Lodge, was proposed with balconies and decks all
across the creek facing building. After zoning hearings, and several ARC meetings which the neighbors attended,
mitigations were required in Aug 1999 to meet the requirements of Ordinance 1130.
2000- Feb - -John King & Rob Rossi, new owners of the historic Motel Inn, present preliminary plans to the ARC
regarding expansion & renovation. Many residents of San Luis Drive attend, with our neighbor, Hana (Novak)
Alonzo as our spokesperson. Hana was a city planner before she became a consultant. After several meetings, by
Aug of 2000 the plans were put on hold, and remain on hold today.
2005- -some city planners were working to have creekside trails added to the next update of the Open Space
Conservation Element of the General Plan. Hana & Mark Alonzo led the neighborhood contingent in heading off
this disaster with just one meeting of the Planning Commission!
2009 -- April - -ARC meeting re the Hyatt Place at 1865 Monterey Street. Hana Alonzo led a neighborhood contingent
which protested the lack of adherence to the Ordinance 1130. The plans were dropped.
2014 -- 2015- -New plans for development at 1865 are currently being vigorously opposed by the neighborhood.
Sorry, this is more than you asked for, but it is good to have the whole history and to share it with our newer
neighbors.
Thanks for taking over the newsletter, it is an important part of keeping us united as a community!
Best regards,
Bonnie
Page 9
Council Agenda February 7, 1989
C -6 LAGUNA LAKE PARK COMMEMORATIVE GROVE (ROMERO /887)
Consideration of a commemorative grove in Laguna Lake Park and
development /implementation of a tree - planting program for donors.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the grove proposal and direct staff to
proceed with plans for dedication as recommended.
RomVw* FINAL ACTION: Grove propoaat approved and ataii- dixected to proceed
with ptana 6or dedication as recommended.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. MONTEREY STREET REZONING (MULTARI /463 - 20 min.)
Public hearing to consider a Planning Commission recommendation to
amond the 7nninv map to adiust the boundary line between tourist -
commercial (C -T) and conservation /open space -5 acre minimum (C /OS -5).
and consideration of development criteria as part of the "S"
designation; 1631 through 2223 (odd) Monterey Street.
RECOMMENDATION: Introduce ordinance to print amending the zoning map
as recommended.
MuX,tan i. ** FINAL ACTION: Ordinance No. 1130 introduced to print amending the zoning
vogea ** map with amendment to Condition 13 reZated to variances, dee.eti.on ob
Condition 6 concvusi.ng deli ca icon of a. ped ut i.an access, and addition
to Condition 14 regarding recordation of C -OS.
BUSINESS ITEM
2. SAFE ANNUAL YIELD (HETLAND /943 - 15 min.)
Consideration of the Coordinated Operations Study for the Salinas and
Whale Rock Reservoirs.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file report and direct staff to continue
its efforts in maximizing the yield of our supplies and request the
Whale Rock Commission to begin studies to increase the pumping
capacity of its conveyance system. Staff also recommends that no
adjustments to the City's safe annual yield be made at this time.
Neteand* FINAL ACTION: Repott nece_.ved and J ed. Staij ducected to continue .cts
e�6ort6 in maximizing the yei.td o6 the City'b buppZies and whate Rock
Comm.iszi,on tequuted to begin studies to .inctwe the pumping capacity o6
.itz conveyance sy-6 tw. No adjurt ent to the C.c ty'.s aabe annual yield to be
made at this time. The City's Whafe Rack Commiza.ion repreaentativu ditected
not to 6uppo, t any request Srom the City of Morro Bay jot .loan oS addit onae
water.
Page 3 of 4
Council Agenda February 7, 1989
C -6 LAGUNA LAKE, PARK COMMEMORATIVE GROVL (ROMERO /887)
Consideration of a commemorative grove in Laguna Lake Park and
development /implementation of a tree - planting program for donors.
RECOMMFNDAT1ON: Approve the grove proposal and direct staff to
proceed with plans for dedication as recommended.
PUBLIC HEARIN(',
1. MONTEREY STREET REZONING (Ml)LTARI /463 -- 20 min.)
Public hearing to consider a Planning Commission recommendation to
amend the zoning map to adjust the hoclndary .fine between tourist-
commercial (C -T) and r_onservaI ion /alien sp.rc:e - :i acre. minimum (C /OS -a)
and consideration of development criteria as part of the "S"
designation: 1631 through 2223 ( odd) Monterey Street.
RECOMMENDATION: Introduce ordinance to print amending the zoning map
its recommended.
195o 5-1,0, Do.'
.2011L Z-L-0
1d"1'2. � ,L,l�, inn •+u. �t� �� �� � �� .. � �'...�
BI;SI \ESS ITEM
2. SAFE ANNUAL YIELD (HETLAND!943 - 15 min.)
Consideration oi' the Coordinated Operations Study for• th(.- Salinas and
Whale Rock Reservoirs.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and f i l e report and direct s taf (' to con t i nuc
its efforts in maximizing the yield of our supplies and request the
Whale Rock Commission to begin studies to increase the pumping
capacity of its conveyance system. Staff also recommends that no
adjustments to the City's safe annual yield be Made at this time.
Cpl 1�•�.7����1�� �..� �.�+„ V�']� t.on
1L UL) �\ .A /
Page 3 of 4
MEETWG DATE
city Of San LUIS OBISPO 2 -7 -89
mii% ITEM NUM
Michael Multari Community Development Director; By: David Moran Assistant Planner
SUBJECT:Rezoning of an area bounded by Monterey Street, San Luis Creek and northerly of
Grove Street from C -T, tourist commercial, to C -T -S, tourist commercial with
special considerations and amending the boundary between the C -T zone and
conservation /open space zoning along the north side of San Luis Creek.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Introduce the attached ordinance to approve a negative declaration on environmental
impact, amend the zoning map to add the "S" designation to the north Monterey Street
tourist commercial area, adopt the proposed design criteria, and relocate the boundary
between the C -T zone and the C /OS -5 zone as shown on Exhibit "A ".
INTRODUCTION
As part of the public comment period at its August 2, 1988 meeting, the City Council
received a letter signed by residents of the San Luis Drive neighborhood (see attached)
expressing concern with the adverse impact recent tourist commercial development along
Monterey Street was having on their neighborhood. In summary, the residents asked that:
1. The zoning along Monterey Street be changed to add the "S ", special considerations
overlay which would require Planning Commission review of all new projects;
2. Additional notification of future projects be provided the residents;
An evaluation of the cumulative impacts from expanded tourist commercial development
be undertaken; and
4. Guidelines be adopted as part of the "S" designation which would direct future
tourist commercial development in a manner that minimized the adverse impacts on the
adjoining residences.
Staff proceeded with the rezoning through the Planning Commission. The draft ordinance
attached to this report reflects the consensus of the Planning Commission.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The initial environmental study (attached) did not identify any significant adverse
environmental impacts which would result from this rezoning. Potential adverse impacts
relating to loss of privacy, light and glare and noise resulting from new development
could be significantly reduced if the proposed design guidelines are adopted.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING ACTION
If the Council does not approve the proposed rezoning, the concerns of the residents of
San Luis Drive would be addressed through the architectural review and environmental
review processes and would be exclusive of specific design guidelines for new
development.
►11xp 111111MIJ city Of San ► A S OBI SPO
aiis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
CR 1405
Page 2
Data Summary
Address: 1603 to 2223 Monterey Street
Applicant: City Of San Luis Obispo
Zoning: C -T, C -T -S and C /OS -5
General Plan: Tourist commercial
Environmental Status: The Director approved a negative declaration on environmental
impact on October 26, 1988.
Site Descriotion
The proposed rezoning area consists of approximately 23 acres along an important
visitor - serving corridor in the city. The lots in the study area are relatively deep (400
to 500 feet) and are improved with motels of up to three stories in height; several of
the lots are underdeveloped or have significant redevelopment potential. Surrounding land
uses include restaurants and transient lodging uses as well as single family residences
on the south side of San Luis Creek which forms a natural boundary between the two land
uses.
San Luis Creek is one of the four major waterways running through the city. In the
proposed rezoning area, the creek channel varies in depth from 15 - 20 feet and in width
from 50 - 100 feet and is lined with mature riparian vegetation. The northern creek bank
is approximately 25 - 30 feet higher in elevation than the southerly bank; the top of the
creek bank is not as well defined along the northerly side as on the southerly side of
the creek.
The southerly portion of the rezoning area (the Quality Suites and Standard Motors
properties) is currently zoned C -T -S. The "S" designation was applied to this property
during the citywide rezoning when the property was under one ownership. The adopting
ordinance does not explicitly specify the concerns to be addressed under the "special
considerations" review. However, the site is adjacent to the creek and the adjoining
single family residential neighborhood as well as office zoned land to the southwest. The
site also contains a large nonconforming use (Standard Motors). These properties are
being included in the subject rezoning so that uniform design guidelines of the "S"
designation can be applied to all C -T zoned properties bounded by Monterey Street and San
Luis Creek. The creek itself is zoned C /OS.- 5, conservation open space with a five acre
minimum parcel size which was also applied at the time of the citywide rezoning.
Evaluation
Rezoning Strategy, The "S" Designation and Proposed Design Criteria -- The
residents of San Luis Drive are concerned that continued expansion of commercial
development on the south side of Monterey Street will detract from the residential
character of their neighborhood, particularly as it relates to privacy, and the
generation of additional noise, light and glare. To help mitigate these potential
impacts from future commercial development and to further other city goals relating
to creek preservation, enhancement and public access, staff recommended that the
Planning Commission establish a more restrictive creek setback (and setback reference
point) and adopt specific design criteria to be applied to new projects under the "S"
designation which requires Planning Commission review. The proposed creek setback and
design criteria resulted from numerous discussions with the property owners, a field
investigation of the creek and an evaluation of various alternatives to establishing /�
a creek setback for new development. [
,I'�� Cl1y OF SdT1 IuIS OBISpO
�i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
CR 1405
Page 3
The proposed design criteria for the "S" designation is attached and is also included
in the draft ordinance. In summary, the proposed design criteria would:
-- Keep new development farther from the creek;
-- Restrict building height as a function of distance from the creek;
-- Minimize building openings facing the creek and require screening between the
creek and buildings which includes, at a minimum, restoration and enhancement of
creekside vegetation;
-- Require irrevocable offers of dedication for a pedestrian access easement for
every new commercial use 'or expansion of existing use and dedication of an open
space easement over that portion of commercial property zoned C /OS -5.
— Require the Planning Commission to make specific findings that new uses
established will not adversely affect the adjoining residential neighborhood.
The design criteria would also allow the Planning Commission to vary the setback and
height standards, under special circumstances. In such cases, the burden will be on
the property owner /developer to justify an exception based on circumstances relating
to the site and /or development.
The Council may wish to consider other requirements for inclusion as criteria under
the "S" designation, such as:
-- Requiring more strict enforcement of cleanup after construction has finished.
-- Requiring mandatory tree preservation bonds on all new projects.
-- Restricting building materials and colors.
-- Establishing a minimum landscaping requirement.
It should be noted that some of these requirements are currently part of the
municipal code or now come under the purview of the Architectural Review Commission.
The Council may also wish to consider revised wording for the design criteria as
suggested by the representative of several of the commercial property owners
(attached). Staff generally has no problem with the revised wording for numbers 2 and
8, but would recommend retaining the original (Planning Commission) version of
numbers 1, 6, and 12 as they relate to what may occupy the proposed creek setback
area, pedestrian access and offers of dedication for the urban trail, respectively.
(For a more thorough discussion of issues relating to the urban trail, see part
3.Urban Trail System). The suggested change to Criteria No. 1 relates to the
desire of some of the commercial property owners to allow parking to occupy the
proposed creek setback area.
City Of SdYI L..IS OBISp0
NiiN COUNCIL AC3ENDA REPORT
CR 1405
Page 4
There was also sentiment expressed by the Planning Commission that several of the
proposed design criteria were equally applicable to the residential side of San Luis
Creek, and that the goals of creek protection, preservation and enhancement would be
best served by applying appropriate new setbacks and design criteria to the
residential side as well. A thorough evaluation of these alternatives will be
forthcoming from the Parks and Open Space element update; the residents of San Luis
Drive and other concerned citizens will be encouraged to participate in that process.
2. Proposed Creek Setback and Revised C /OS -5 Boundary -- The creek provides an
important habitat for riparian plants and animals which is an attractive yet
sensitive amenity for both the residential and commercial properties. The most
commonly employed tool to protect the riparian environment, allow access for
maintenance and to insure buildings are kept away from potential hazards such as
flooding and erosion is to require a minimum setback from the creek. Creek setbacks
are also used to minimize privacy and overlook impacts onto adjacent lots,
particularly where the creek forms the interface between residential and commercial
zoning.
Creek setbacks for buildings are not clearly defined in the zoning ordinance and in
most cases are determined on a case -by -case basis within the context of site specific
constraints. Part of the inherent problem in applying a consistent creek setback for
buildings lies in the various definitions and interpretations of the "top of bank"
for the creek, graphically illustrated by the creek section drawings on Figures 2, 3
and 4, attached. There are essentially three approaches to the problem currently in
use by the city:
I. Flood Control Maintenance And Access Approach -- The municipal code defines a
20 foot setback from "top of bank" for creek maintenance and flood control
purposes as,
.- that point on either bank which represents the water level at full
capacity of the waterway without flooding or overflowing on either side of
the waterway. The twenty foot distance shall be measured horizontally from
the aforesaid point and perpendicularly to the waterway.
This approach works well for determining where an access point should be
established for creek maintenance purposes. However, in the case of a creek
channel with a higher bank on one side such as the section of San Luis Creek
near the Standard Motors property, the "top of bank" by this definition occurs
well inside the creek channel itself. A 20 foot setback from this reference
point would clearly not be restrictive enough to achieve the desired goals of
protecting the creek and maximizing separation between commercial and
residential land uses.
II. Physical Top -Of -Bank Approach -- Recently, the Planning Commission has required
a minimum 20 foot setback from the "top of bank" for creekside projects. In this
case, the top of bank is interpreted on a case -by -case basis but is usually
considered the highest physical point measured vertically from the creek along
the project creek frontage. The problem with this approach is that the irregular
form of the creek channel can make a consistent "top of bank" determination
difficult. Another problem is that it may not be restrictive enough to afford
sufficient protection of prime riparian habitat or adequately mitigate privacy /
and overlook concerns. /
city of san tuts osispo
nii:i COUNCIL AiC3ENDA REPORT
CR 1405
Page 5
III. 100 Year Floodplain Approach -- An alternative to the top of bank reference
point is to use the 100 year flood plain and establish a setback from this
elevation. While this would, in some cases, be a larger setback than 20 feet
from the top of bank, in this section of the creek the 100 year flood is
contained almost entirely within the creek channel itself.
Furthermore, a 20 foot setback from this line would not likely include most of
the sensitive riparian habitat or keep development far enough away from the
creek bank. In such cases, the city would again be establishing creek setbacks
on a case -by -case basis.
To alleviate these problem, staff recommended to the Planning Commission that a new
creek setback be established along the commercial side of the creek by relocating the
boundary between the C /OS -5 and C -T zoning districts for use as the new reference
point. This approach was chosen for three primary reasons:
-- It appeared to be the best tool available to keep new development away from the
sensitive creek environment and, hence, the adjacent residences on San Luis
Drive.
-- It could be established with relative ease on an aerial photograph and be
referenced by property owners, city staff and the public, thereby avoiding a
case -by -case (and sometimes arbitrary) creek setback determination for new
development.
-- The relocated zoning boundary would also afford a better opportunity for
establishing a creekside trail.
The proposed zoning district boundary and 20 foot setback line appear on the enclosed
aerial photographs (Exhibit "A ") which are intended 'to be adopted as an exhibit with
the ordinance establishing the "S" designation for this area. In most cases, the new
boundary was located at the edge of existing streamside vegetation, based on a field
survey. Where existing development occurs at the edge of the creek vegetation, the
line has been drawn to coincide with a prominent physical feature (ie, a parking Iot,
wall or face of building) which can be readily identified in the field.
The biggest concern of the commercial property owners with respect to moving the zone
boundary and establishing a new, more restrictive setback is whether or not this
Would render existing development nonconforming, and hence jeopardize financing and
insurance obligations. It was the intent of staff to make the new setback and design
criteria applicable only to development which occurs after the adoption of this
ordinance. To that end, the design guidelines state specifically that new projects
must conform to -the setback as it appears on the enclosed aerial photographs if
approved after adoption of this ordinance. Conversely -- and perhaps most importantly
to the commercial property owners -- those projects which appear on the aerial
photographs retain whatever conformity status they now enjoy. It should also be
pointed out that the proposed setback and design criteria apply only to the
commercial properties and not the residential properties which cross the creek.
City Of San L-AS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
CR 1405
Page 6
3. Urban Trail System -- During the course of Planning Commission review the
property owners on both sides of the creek were alerted to the prospect of fulfilling
the general plan goal of extending the. urban trail system along this stretch of San
Luis Creek. The Parks and Recreation element of the general plan says:
-- As part of the development review process or in separate city actions, the
city will attempt to secure access rights needed to carry out the Urban Trail
System. The city will continue to refine the urban trail plan and develop
precise design standards that can control the type of access to and use of
specific sections of the trail system.
-- The city will work on improving access to existing city recreation facilities
such as the creation of creekside trails to connect housing areas with schools
and parks.
These goals would be furthered by requiring offers of dedication for pedestrian
access on a project -by- project basis as part of the "S" designation criteria. Note
that the design criteria state that the offers should not be accepted by the city
until the Open Space element is updated and a plan has been approved which calls for
public access in this area.
It should be noted that the introduction of pedestrian trails along the creek raises
similar privacy and nuisance concerns as new development, and for these reasons, the
residents of San Luis Drive vigorously oppose such a plan. While the general plan
recognizes the importance of the creek as an amenity to be enjoyed by the city as a
whole, it provides little direction regarding how best to balance the use of this
resource with the potential adverse impacts on adjacent properties. In the study
area, for example, the creekside trail could most readily be established on the
commercial side of the creek through the dedication of access rights with new
projects. While this arrangement maximizes the separation of trail users from the
residences, it conflicts with the desire of the residential property owners to
maintain rear yard privacy.
Clearly, the design and location of any creekside trail system will require
sensitivity to these concerns. The "S" designation could establish general guidelines
for creek trail development in this area; however, the overall trail system should be
done in a comprehensive manner. For this reason, the "S" designation should require
offers of dedication for pedestrian access easements to the city along the creek. The
actual design and location of the trail should await the Parks and Recreation element
update. The property owners in the study area will have an opportunity to participate
in this process to make sure that these concerns are addressed.
As a compromise between requiring an irrevocable offer of dedication (staff and
Planning Commission position) and the elimination of the requirement altogether, the
Council may wish to consider attaching an appropriate time limit, or "sunset clause",
to the requirement for the offer of dedication. In this way, the onus would be on the
city to perform the necessary work on the Parks and Recreation element in a timely
manner to determine the suitability of this section of the creek for the urban trail
system. The applicant's representative has suggested January 1, 1995 as a deadline
for the city to decide whether a public access trail will be established along this
stretch of creek (item no. 6 of suggested design criteria). While the language of the
proposed alternative is much less forceful than that proposed by staff and approved
ul
city Of Sdfl LI.iS OBISpO
�;i COUNCIL AGENa4 REPORT
CR 1405
Page 7
by the Planning Commission, a time limit would be acceptable to staff. The Council
may want to consider a longer timeframe; perhaps to the year 2000.
4. Cumulative Impacts -- As mentioned above, several of the commercial properties
have substantial expansion and /or redevelopment potential. The residential
neighborhood expressed concern over cumulative impacts from expanded development on
these properties, particularly as it relates to additional traffic, noise, light and
glare.
It is expected that the potential project- specific impacts relating to drainage,
grading, noise, light and glare would be effectively mitigated by the design criteria
outlined above. With respect to traffic, potential cumulative impacts were examined
in some detail when the Monterey Street plan line was considered in 1984. The
conclusion of the environmental impact report done for that project was that existing
and expected future traffic levels could be accommodated with a satisfactory level of
service without widening the right -of -way. Further study of cumulative traffic
impacts on the area, and the need for future street widening, is being completed at
MIN tirnc as part oc tue update of the city °s circulation element. it is possibie,
however, that through the adoption of more restrictive design and use standards for
this area, the actual cumulative trip generation may be less than expected.
To help mitigate conflicts from increased turning movements into and out of the
motels along Monterey Street, it is recommended that common driveways be employed
whenever possible and that they align with existing driveways on the north side of
Monterey Street.
There was some concern expressed by members of the public and the Planning Commission
that a more comprehensive approach was needed to address the many complex issues
resulting from the continued development of this important tourist commercial area,
and questioned whether such an analysis could be included as part of the Land Use
Element update. Given the citywide scope of the Land Use Element, the Planning
Commission concluded that the appropriate mechanism for this evaluation would be
through a specific plan process after the Land Use Element and Circulation Elements
are updated.
5. Public Notice Procedure -- The residential neighborhood expressed a desire to
expand the level of public notice for projects in the study area as part of this
rezoning. Council recently adopted a policy of sending written notice to all property
owners within 300 feet for use permits and ARC projects when commercial uses abut
residential ones. (This policy is reiterated in Section 4 of the draft ordinance.)
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council can adopt the ordinance approving the rezoning to add the "S" designation
and relocated C /OS -5 boundary as shown on Exhibits "A" and "B" and with the design
criteria recommended by the Planning Commission, the property owner's representative,
or others of your choosing.
2. The Council can adopt the the "S" designation without the design guidelines or
revised C /OS -5 zone boundary.
3. The Council can continue review of this item to a later date. Staff asks the council
to give soccific direction to staff as to changes mailested
city Of Sdil As OBISpO
� COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
CR 1405
Page 8
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
The Planning Commission held hearings on the proposed rezoning on October 12, November 9,
and November 30, 1988. Public testimony centered around the wording of the proposed
design guidelines, the possibility of an urban trail along the creek and the
applicability of the guidelines to existing and future development on the residential and
commercial sides of the creek. Specific concerns of the public and Planning Commission
have been incorporated into the body of this report.
Several owners of commercial property as well as members and representatives of the San
Luis Drive Neighborhood Association provided input at all three meetings and worked with
staff to develop the proposed design criteria which were approved by the Planning
Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
Introduce the attached ordinance to approve a negative declaration on environmental
impact, amend the zoning map to add the "S" designation to the north Monterey Street
tourist commercial area, adopt the proposed design guidelines, and relocate the boundary
between the C -T zone and the C /OS -5 zone as shown on Exhibit "A ".
Attachments: vicinity map
draft design criteria as adopted by the Planning Commission
draft criteria as suggested by the property owner's representative
draft ordinance
initial study
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
letter from San Luis Drive Neighborhood Association
Enclosed: Exhibit "A" (aerial photographs with revised C /OS -5 boundary)
ORDINANCE NO. (1988 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING
THE OFFICIAL ZONE MAP FROM C -T TO C -T -S FOR PROPERTIES
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MONTEREY STREET BETWEEN 1603 AND 2223, INCLUSIVE,
AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONE MAP TO EXPAND THE C /OS -5 ZONE
ALONG SAN LUIS CREEK BETWEEN MONTEREY STREET
AND SAN LUIS DRIVE AS DEPICTED ON THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A"
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings to
consider amending the zoning regulations in accordance with Section 65800 et. seq. of the
Government Code, and Chapter 17.62 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed zoning is consistent with the
general plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning promotes the public health, safety, and general
welfare; and
and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning will not have a significant affect on the environment;
WHEREAS, the proposed "S" (Special Considerations) designation is to address land
use compatibility concerns applicable to the surrounding area and particularly between
commercial and residential land uses adjacent to San Luis Creek.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. That the area shown on the map attached hereto marked Exhibit "B" and
included herein by reference be reclassified from C -T (Tourist Commercial) to C -T -S
(Tourist - Commercial- Special Considerations).
SECTION 2. That the boundary between Tourist Commercial and Conservation Open Space
(5 acre minimum) be modified in accordance with the aerial photographs attached hereto
marked Exhibit "A" and included herein by reference.
/- 9
Ordinance No. (1988 Series)
CR 1405
Page 2
SECTION 3. That existing development depicted on the aerial photographs attached
hereto and marked Exhibit "A" and included herein by'reference shall retain the zoning
conformity status enjoyed as of the effective date of this ordinance.
SECTION 4. The City will provide written notification to all property owners within
300 feet of any new development or use or expansion of existing development or use
subject to Planning Commission review under the "S" designation or subject to review by
the Architectural Review Commission, in addition to posting a sign on the property and
published notice in the newspaper:
SECTION 5. That any new development or use or expansion of any existing development
or use approved after the effective date of this ordinance shall be subject to the
following design criteria:
1. All new structures approved after adoption of this ordinance shall be setback a
minimum 20 feet from the relocated C /OS - 5 boundary. The setback area may be
occupied by landscaping, fencing, and pedestrian walkways and like features as
determined by the Planning Commission. No new facilities for parking, active
recreation or noise generating equipment may occupy the creek setback area.
2. Building openings (doors, windows, balconies, etc.) facing the creek shall be
minimized.
3. Screening shall be provided between the buildings and the creek which may include
fencing, decorative walls and landscaped berms, but shall at a minimum include
restoration and enhancement of the creekside vegetation.
4. Lighting between the buildings and the creek shall be limited in intensity and scale
necessary for security and identification and shall be designed to not shine
offsite.
5. The expansion or redevelopment of properties shall make maximum use of common
driveways.
6. Irrevocable offers of dedication of a pedestrian access easement shall be required
to be recorded as a condition of every new use established or expansion of existing
use. The city should not accept such offers of dedication until the Open Space
Element is updated and a plan has been approved which calls for public access in
this area.
/-/0
Ordinance NO. (1988 Series)
CR 1405
Page 3
7. All new uses must be found by the Planning Commission to be compatible with the
riparian habitat and adjacent residential uses, considering such variables as light
and glare, privacy, noise and traffic. In all cases, uses shall be adequately
buffered from the creek and adjacent residences in a manner which mitigates
potential offsite impacts.
8. Noise generating uses such as parking and active outdoor recreation uses should be
located on the interior of the site, using buildings as a buffer.
9. All drainage to the creek shall be directed in a manner which does not erode the
creekbank, harm the creekside vegetation or degrade the quality of the creek and its
riparian habitat. This may include the use of debris and rubbish screens, oil and
grease traps and erosion control /energy dissipaters subject to the approval of the
City Engineer and State Department of Fish and Game.
10. Building height shall be restricted as follows:
Within 50 feet of the revised C /OS -5 boundary, maximum height shall be 25 feet.
Beyond 50 feet from the revised C /OS -5 boundary, maximum height shall be 45 feet.
11. Grading within the creek setback area shall be limited to that necessary to
stabilize the creekbank and to accommodate landscaping, and shall be done in a
manner which does not increase erosion of the creekbank or result in the removal of
creekside vegetation.
12. As a condition of every new use established or expansion of existing use, that
portion of a commercial lot which lies within the C /OS -5 zone shall be dedicated as
a perpetual open space easement.
13. The height and setback standards established by this ordinance may be varied by the
Planning Commission in special circumstances.
SECTION 5. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together
with the ayes and noes, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final
passage in the Telegram- Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said city, and
the same shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its said final
passage. A copy of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file in the office of the
City Clerk on and after the date following introduction and passage to print and shall be
available to any interested member of the public.
Ordinance No. (1988 Series)
CR 1405
Page 4
INTRODUCED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, at its meeting held on
the day of . 1987, on motion of
seconded° by a and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City A ministrative Officer
City"A rney
/Z44a&-ld't J
Community Development Director
a I T:,,.V• 71h
...
P.N
•
It
I 17 r �
i * i •' y
.. yy - .. '.. •�� tip.. �� �' •�'
�`��� -• -�`�./�►�►�� ail
0[/
•
It
I 17 r �
i * i •' y
.. yy - .. '.. •�� tip.. �� �' •�'
�`��� -• -�`�./�►�►�� ail
0[/
Draft Design Criteria
Adopted By The Planning Commission
1. All new structures approved after adoption of this ordinance shall be setback a
minimum 20 feet from the relocated C /OS - 5 boundary. The setback area may be
occupied by landscaping, fencing, and pedestrian walkways and like features as
determined by the Planning Commission. No new facilities for parking, active
recreation or noise generating equipment may occupy the creek setback area.
2. Building openings (doors, windows, balconies, e1c.) facing the creek shall be.
minimized.
3. Screening shall be provided between the buildings and the creek which may include
fencing, decorative walls and landscaped berms, but shall at a minimum include
restoration and enhancement of the creekside vegetation.
4. Lighting between the buildings and the creek shall be limited in intensity and scale
necessary for security and identification and shall be designed to not shine offsite.
J. A nc cxpausiuu yr rcucrciupmcuL vi pruperiics snau make maximum use of common
driveways.
6. Irrevocable offers of dedication of a pedestrian access easement shall be required to
be recorded as a condition of every new use established or expansion of existing use.
The city should not accept such offers of dedication until the Open Space Element is
updated and a plan has been approved which calls for public access in this area.
7. All new uses must be found by the Planning Commission to be compatible with the
riparian habitat and adjacent residential uses, considering such variables as light
and glare, privacy, noise and traffic. In all cases, uses shall be adequately
buffered from the creek and adjacent residences in a manner which mitigates potential
offsite impacts.
8. Noise generating uses such as parking and active outdoor recreation uses should be
located on the interior of the site, using buildings as a buffer.
9. All drainage to the creek shall be directed in a manner which does not erode the
creekbank, harm the creekside vegetation or degrade the quality of the creek and its
riparian habitat. This may include the use of debris and rubbish screens, oil and
grease traps and erosion control /energy dissipaters subject to the approval of the
City Engineer and State Department of Fish and Game.
10. Building height shall be restricted as follows:
Within 50 feet of the revised C /OS -5 boundary, maximum height shall be 25 feet.
Beyond 50 feet from the revised C /OS -5 boundary, maximum height shall be 45 feet.
11. Grading within the creek setback area shall be limited .to that necessary to stabilize
the creekbank and to accommodate landscaping, and shall be done in a manner which
does not increase erosion of the creekbank or result in the removal of creekside
vegetation.
R 1405
Draft Design Criteria (cont'd)
12. As a condition of every new use established or expansion of existing use, that
portion of a ,commercial lot which lies within the C /OS -5 zone shall be dedicated as a
perpetual open space easement.
13. The height and setback standards established by this ordinance may be varied by the
Planning Commission in special circumstances.
® KENNING
MILL
Mayor and City Council Members
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
City Hall, 990.Palm Street
San Luis Obispo. Ca. 93401
ONE BUBdA VISTA ROB STRONG
SAN WE O91SPO A.LC.P.
CAL IFOFUQ^ 93401 (8051 543 -9560
December 28,
Subject: 'C -T -S design criteria, North Monterey Street:
Attention: Mr. Mike Multari, Community Development Dire
Dear Mayor Dunin and City Council Members:
* Denotes action by Lead Person
Respond by:
ncd
U,eAn
0 Oh+ aN•
C-clEr9
After representing a majority of the commercial property owners
at the last planning commission hearing regarding the above item,
I contacted the representatives of the San Luis Drive homeowners
group to discuss further concerns. The intent, if possible was to
find mutually acceptable proposals or minimize conflicts which
the City Council would have to resolve. I am pleased to report
that we appear to have drafted a few refinements to the planning
,...a�a ,.. nAi +;r%na which are more acceptable to
COIIlrI11551vu 1 cbvunucaau�.+ -- - -- - -- -- - -
both groups.
Essentially, we request minor but important refinements to items
1, 2, 8, and 12, as more specifically outlined on the attached
exhibit. In particular, the changes to # 1 and # 8 enable
consideration of parking in the setback area adjoining the C /09-5
zone, provided it is adequately screened and buffered by physical
barriers. Provision # 2 would allow windows along the creek but
discourage doors or balconies which might intrude on residential
properties. Provision # 12 would refer to # 6, discussed below.
Most important to both the residents and commercial owners is the
deletion of' item 6 regarding the requirement for irrevocable
offers of dedication for a pedestrian access easement as a
condition of every new use or expansion of oxisting use. We feel
this proposal to be unrelated and contrary to the objective of
reducina residential and commercial interface problems. Further
it opens possible issues of "taking "-*and adverse environmental
impacts without sufficient study or justification. We suggest
that the Council defer" this future trail concept until it can be
specifically and separately considered, after pending revision of
the general plan and reevaluation of alternatives'as part of
the park and rPcr -anon element update.
l
I hope to present theca compromise prop's =;a n to the Council on
behalf of both the residential and commercial interests along the
segment of San Luis Obispo Creek between north Monterey Street
and San Luis Drive at the January 17th Council meeting. If you
have questions prior to that hearing, please call me at 5439560.
Sincerely, RECEIVEC
.^.ob Strong, A . I . C . I' . JAH S 1989
CC: Res ide;nt: ; a'. and C01Ttnier-c i -'A l pr(,pe*_' `y owners represent,,t Ives ptrcam
SM Lw6088P0.CA
1-17
,
Proposed C T -S Special Considerations: North Monterey Street
1) All new structures approved after adoption of this ordinance
shall be set back a minimum 20 feet from the relocated C /OS -5
boundary.: The setback area may be occupied by landscaping,
pedestrian walkways, fencing and like features determined by the
Planning'Commission. No new facilities for active recreation or
noise generating equipment may occupy the creek setback area.
(Also see # 13.)
2) Building openings (doors, balconies, etc.) facing the creek
shall be minimized to discourage outdoor access which would be in
close proximity to residential properties. Windows may be
oriented to enable visual-enjoyment of the-creek as a backdrop
but avoid intrusion on the residential properties.
:3) No change from Planning Commission recommendation.
4) No change from Planning Commission recommendation.
5) "No change from Planning Commission recommendation.
6) PREFERRED: Request entire condition be deleted at this time.
ALTERNATE: Offers of dedication of pedestrian access easement
may be considered as a condition of any new use or expansion of
existing use along this,segment of creek, subject to acceptance
or cancellation not later than January 1, 1995. Until the park
and recreation and open space elements are amended and a plan has
been adopted which provides for public access trails along this
segment of creek, the City shall not accept such offers of
dedication nor introduce public pedestrian access in this area.
7) No change from Planning Commission recommendation.
8) Noise generating uses which have the probability to become
nuisances; such as amplified music, trash enclosures, active
outdoor recreation and group activities, shall be located on the
interior of the site using bu.ildings or other physical barriers
to buffer sound from the residential properties and creek area.
9) No change from Planning Commission recommendation:
10) No change from Planning Commission recommendation.
11) No change from Planning Commission recommendation.
12) As a condition of every new use established or expansion of
existing use, that portion of a commercial lot which lies within
the C /OS -5 zone shall be dedicated as a perpetual open space
easement for drainage, landscaping and creek maintenance (not
public pedestrian access) purposes. (Related to * 6.)
13) No change from Planning Commission recommendation.
Prepared by Rob Strong, The Planning Mill, December 28, 1988. ./ �y
city of san tuts oBispo
�li fii °
MENG -
.INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION Area bounded by Monterey Street and San Luis Creek APPLICATION NO. ER 53 -88
PROJECT DESCRIPTION zoning to add the "S°• designation and relocation of boundary between
C -T and C /OS -5 zoning along the creek to mitigate land use compatibility impacts from
expansion of tourist commercial development.
APPLICANT City of San Luis Obispo '
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
% NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPAREDBY n- ��p_�sfaEy�yE F�e� DATE 10/26/88
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE 10 -26 -88
Negative Declaration
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
II. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW
POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A.
COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS .................. ............................... .
X-00 i
B.
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH ........... ...............................
None.
None.*
C.
LAND USE ........................................ ...............................
0.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ...... ............................... _ ........
None.
E.
PUBLIC SERVICES ................................. ...............................
None.
F.
UTILITIES .......................................... ...............................
None.
G.
NOISE LEVELS .................................... ...............................
None.
H.
GEOLOGIC & SEISMIC HAZARDS & TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS ....... . ............
None.
I.
AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS ................. . . . ...........................
None.
J.
SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ..............................................
None.
K
PLANT LIFE ....................................... ...............................
None.
L
ANIMAL LIFE ...................................... ...............................
None.
M.
ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL .................... ...............................
None.
N.
AESTHETIC ...................... !...............................................
None.
0.
ENERGVRESOURCEUSE ......................... . ................. I .............
None.
P.
OTHER ......... ................................... ...............................
None.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Negative Declaration
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT
Initial Study ER 53 -88
Page 2
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Project Description
In response to neighborhood concerns, the city has initiated the rezoning a 23 acre area
bounded by Monterey Street, San Luis Creek and northerly of Grove Street (refer to
attached map) from C -T, tourist commercial, to C -T -S, tourist commercial with special
considerations, and to enlarge the C /OS -5 zoning designation along the northerly side of
the creek. The "S" designation will require Planning Commission approval for all new
projects and will include design criteria intended to mitigate potential near -term and
cumulative land use compatibility impacts on the adjoining residential neighborhood
resulting from the expansion and redevelopment of the tourist commercial land fronting
Monterey Street. The relocated boundary between the C -T and C /OS -5 designations is
intended to help preserve the riparian vegetation as well as afford maximum separation
between future commercial development and the adjoining residences.
Setting
The area to be rezoned consists of approximately 23 acres. The majority of properties are
improved with motels of various sizes; several of the lots are underdeveloped or have
significant redevelopment potential. Surrounding land uses include single family
residential on the south side of the creek and tourist commercial uses on the north side
of Monterey Street.
The area to be rezoned is traversed by San Luis Creek (zoned C /OS -5), one of the four
major waterways running through the city. This section of the creek channel varies in
depth from 15 - 20 feet and is 50 - I00 feet wide. The creekbanks are lined by a
well - developed riparian environment with very few man -made channel improvements. The
northern creek bank is approximately 25 - 30 feet higher in elevation than the southerly
bank; the top of the creek bank is not as well defined along the northern side as on the
southern side of the creek.
Most of this stretch of the creek is contained entirely on the adjoining residential
properties, however a short stretch of the creek in the 1800 block of Monterey Street is
contained on the commercial properties.
The southerly portion of the study area (the Quality Inn and Standard Motors properties)
is currently zoned C -T -S. The "S" designation was applied to this property during the
citywide rezoning when the property was under one ownership. The adopting ordinance does
not explicitly specify the concerns to be addressed under the "special considerations"
review. However, the site is adjacent to the creek and the adjoining single family
residential neighborhood as well as office zoned land to the southwest. The site also
contains a large nonconforming use (Standard Motors). This area is being included in the
subject rezoning so that uniform design guidelines of the "S" designation can be applied
to all C -T zoned properties bounded by Monterey Street and San Luis Creek. As mentioned
above, the creek itself is zoned C /OS - 5, conservation open space with a five 'acre
minimum parcel size which was also applied at the time of the citywide rezoning.
/ _C1z 0
ER 53 -88
Page 3
II. POTENTIAL IMPACT OVERVIEW
A. Community Plans and Goals
Land Use Element
The Land Use Element says:
-- Properties within the interface of existing and future tourist commercial uses
with residential districts shall be designated 'sensitive sites'. Architectural
review and site planning shall insure the compatibility between tourist
commercial and residential uses where they directly abut.
-- The city should encourage the expansion of tourist- oriented facilities by
restructuring and intensification of existing tourist commercial areas.
Roeide"#;'VI a.ninLJ. L. 4. wL....l J L- -- -1 !_____ .•. .
�•... �. •.r .6 /.VV / /aVV4J Jrav aaau
VC javu /uscu Drum lacumpacivle nonresidential
land uses and buffered from major circulation facilities. Residential areas
should be protected from encroachment by detrimental commercial activities and
existing incompatible uses should be abated or mitigated.
-- All residential development proposals should be designed to achieve full use
of special site potentials such as natural terrain, views. vegetation. creek
environs or other features. They should be compatible with present and potential
adjacent land uses.
The general plan says that existing tourist commercial lands should be expanded
before new land is designated for this use. It also says that such expansion and
development should be done in a manner which minimizes adverse impacts on
residential neighborhoods. The adoption of site design criteria for this C -T
area which helps mitigate the potential impacts on adjacent residential
properties would further these general plan goals by providing another level of
discretionary review to focus on the special considerations outlined above.
Evaluation: Not Significant.
.Parks and Recreation Element
The Parks and Recreation element says:
-- As part of the development review process or in separate city actions. the
city will attempt to secure access rights needed to carry out the Urban Trail
System. The city will continue to refine the urban trail plan and develop
precise design standards that control the type of access to and use of specific
sections of the trail system.
-- The city will work on improving access to existing city recreation facilities
such as the creation of creek -side trails to connect housing areas with schools
and parks.
/ a/
ER 53 -88
Page 4
These goals would be furthered by evaluating opportunities for the establishment of
creek -side trails on a project -by- project basis as a `special consideration' under
the new zoning. Evaluation: Not Significant.
C. Land Use
Compatibility Issues
The relocation of the boundary between the C -T and C /OS -5 zoning and the adoption of
design guidelines for this area are intended to mitigate the potential impacts on the
adjacent residential neighborhood resulting from continued expansion and
redevelopment of the tourist commercial properties fronting Monterey Street. In this
context, the rezoning will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts.
Instead the rezoning is expected to result in a net benefit with respect to potential
land use compatibility impacts. Evaluation: Not Significant
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Negative declaration.
/ -ate
FIGURE 1
U.S. I-flamwxy Na. 101
C/Os-s C/05-5. C/O&4
C:3
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3 4
P
P-0 sr
FIGURE 4 06 1 -T 10
"tl
`� a'S1 4� . _ - f', - �`,� � .O O 1 GAO . .
r
r
A 1�
0
(D 0 0
R- o
000.
A
GAT
411,
COCO -oo
R-1 . lo. , .. . I
Z".
o ol 0 6
1% 1
R I
c Fill Q yo
C4
I-As
FIGURE 2
gm • EXISTING C /OS-5 BOUNDARY
—�— PROPOSED C /OS-5 BOUNDARY (approx }
---- 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN BOUNDARY
SCALE, 1" ■ 100'
a
I te
4
c 0
1
Q
0 1
0
RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM
ALLOWED HEIGHTS PROPOSED C /OS-5 BOUNDARY ( approx. )
45' EXISTING EXISTING C /OS-5 BOUNDARY
s
TOP OF BANK
25 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN BOUNDARY
i
PUBLIC WORKS FLOOD LINE
SD xcr
SCALE 1 "= 50' SECTION A -A
FIGURE
e
3 ,� f
�j
wwoR ewreL
C �T
p r,
•,r 40
O
wt �
C
RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM ALLOWED HEIGHTS PROPOSED C /OS-5 BOUNDARY (approx.)
45' SAN LUIS-1 NN EXISTING C /OS-5 BOUNDARY
TOP OF BAN K
_ 25' i00-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN BOUNDARY'
PUBLIC WORKS FLOOD LINE
zo
s�
SCALE 1" • 50' � SECTION B -B
f�
FIGURE 4
L
RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM
ALLOWED HEIGHTS
45'
[+-- so'
SCALE. 1" = 50'
EXISTING C /OS"5 BOUNDARY
-- PROPOSED C /OS-5 BOUNDARY (appro
- -- 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN BOUNDARY
SCALE- 1" • 100'
PROPOSED C /OS-5 BOUNDARY (approx. )
EXISTING C /OS-5 BOUNDARY
-TOP OF BANK
100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN BOUNDARY
PUBLIC WORKS FLOOD LINF
OCTOBER 11, 1988
We the undersigned members or the SAN LUIS DRIVE
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, do hereby support tthe attached
guidelines for the "S" overlay on the Commercial - Tourist
one along .the creek:si de of Monterey Street.
o:• 1� .� �o . • 1.J y, x,9,...51.,, l $1 ?. 5�,.�� . 5 (p
4 — aor8 Sa. Lis Zr d•t.
Sam - ljwS
ri cw ��Gy s� u,�.S sr�., �,�s oM'% sib
1511 wol 2-0
/ , . �' � q O o Sa �► Lc� � s i� Y ,
/a• �. �- � . �� � � � � S.L. � r. �, � .� o
4*44 Q. .
�� C � ��" % ..{•' _ � �G� ���� � � 3 L• SQL � �� � r � �. G��
� ��1•�jf -Z, G ��.'./ L^I' . [ / %eC"� �•s ,7l•/�CI�, /� ��� ��� �� 1 ��Q..�1 � ��T�./4 �f
/-d.7
AULILISt : , 19L=t8
TO: The City COUnci 1
FROM: San Luis Drive Neighborhood
Dear- i cunci l members:
h rr- rpertv owners in L`e Sari Lui. <._ Drive neighbor•tivtIc.
wcitl L: