Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-2014 PC MinutesSPECIAL MEETING SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 18, 2014 CALL TO ORDER /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice - Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson John Larson Absent: Commissioner John Fowler Staff: Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Associate Planner Brian Leveille, Contract Planner Gary Kaiser, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: City -Wide. GPI /ER 15 -12: Continued review of the Draft Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) 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) Approve policy and program updates for Circulation Element Chapters 6 -10 & 12 -16; and (2) Approve changes to the Land Use Element diagram and associated Zoning updates. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Eugene Jud, SLO, stated that the South Hills Open Space should be expanded to preserve cultural heritage and archeological resources, and the proposed Prado Road extension should be a two -lane road that connects to Tank Farm Road. He asserted that promises made to the public that the City would come up with solutions to preserve open space, view sheds, and agricultural land have not been kept. He presented alternative ideas in a slide presentation and hand -out that included options for the years 2035 and 2050, and noted the need to consider all factors such as open space, cultural heritage, view sheds and prime agricultural land when planning for land use and circulation. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 2014 Page 2 Stephen Peck, SLO, representing the Avila Ranch Project requested that the Commission determine specific land uses, including the Special Focus overlay, for this property at this meeting to facilitate development. Commr. Draze noted that this is not on the agenda tonight and the Commission cannot make a recommendation on the zoning. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere stated that fulfilling Mr. Peck's request would require going back through the referral process with the Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of consistency. Mr. Peck stated that he disagrees with Attorney Ansolabehere's interpretation that this is something new that has not been analyzed but that he will withdraw his request if it means going back to the ALUC. Commr. Dandekar stated that when suggestions were brought forth at the LUCE Task Force and staff was providing some general ideas for that land, it was generally understood that the Specific Plan process would work out the details. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Multari stated he is concerned that the language in the new Chapter 17.53 will not resolve conflicts between the language in the General Plan and the language for each of the Special Plan Areas where the LUCE Task Force noted the need for additional flexibility. He stated that the idea of the Task Force was that the existing zoning was not the tool for these areas and, if it was, then they would not be special plan areas. Director Johnson stated that the last sentence in 17.53.030 provides the flexibility and discretion needed to deal with each Special Plan Area because each has its own circumstances and factors that will drive that flexibility. He suggested that this sentence be moved to 17.53.020. Commr. Larson explained that the whole point of the Land Use Update and identification of Special Focus Areas is to recognize that traditional zoning may not capture the desire of the City and community as to what to do in these areas. He stated that the last sentence in 17.53.030 is designed to deal with any conflicts. He agrees with Director Johnson that this sentence should perhaps be in 17.53.020. Commr. Multari agreed that this was his concern. Director Johnson stated that what is needed next is an update of zoning ordinances. Commr. Multari asked if the Commission would be recommending an ordinance change to the City Council. Director Johnson affirmed that this is correct. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 2014 Page 3 Commr. Riggs stated that he does not share Commr. Multari's concern and that staff has done the best job possible of marrying the LUCE intent with zoning. He added that he was comfortable making a recommendation to prioritize revising some of the zoning code as a separate motion. Commr. Draze stated that he agreed with moving the last sentence of 17.53.030 to 17.53.020. Commr. Multari stated he was harping on this because the LUCE Task Force belabored the Special Planning Areas with the idea of getting away from standard zoning districts. Commr. Dandekar stated that the maps surprised her because the Special Plans are clear and she had been confident that the intent of the LUCE would be actualized. She asked about the process for development of a property in a Special Plan Area. Associate Planner Leveille stated that it could vary significantly but would mostly likely involve architectural and subdivision approval with just a few steps in the process, and, if it was just one building at a time, it could just require architectural review. Commr. Multari stated that development in the Special Plan Areas should come to the Planning Commission in every case. He noted that there should be a list of things that must be done for any area with an SF designation. Commr. Dandekar stated that the LUCE Task Force spent a lot of time identifying the Special Plan Areas as crucial locations and is concerned about whether the intent of the Task Force could be achieved through the process described by Associate Planner Leveille. Director Johnson stated that changes could be made to reflect that development in these areas must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. He noted that this could be put in a table of the Special Plan Areas. Commr. Larson asked the Commission to think about whether it would be consistent with the intent to have review and interpretation done by the Planning Commission for these areas which are like miniature Specific Plan Areas. Commr. Dandekar stated she has heard tonight that there is potential to piecemeal these projects, which would be against the intent of the Task Force and that each of these areas need to be seen as a whole. Commr. Multari stated that he and Commr. Dandekar are on the same page, having served on the LUCE Task Force, which did not want these areas to have Specific Plans, but did want them to go through a review that is more careful and customized. He added that, if it is clear that flexibility is afforded via the language in 17.53, and there will be review by the Planning Commission, he is inching closer to a comfort level. Commr. Larson stated that the Commission is struggling with the nuts and bolts, the right words and direction for overview, with the recognition that an overhaul of the zoning code is coming soon. Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 2014 Page 4 Commr. Draze stated it would be necessary to take out the Community Development Director for review and adjust Table 9 to reflect having the Planning Commission do the reviews. Commr. Riggs asked why the City would want to impede single parcel owners and encourage parcel assembly. He added that this does not make things more flexible. Commr. Multari stated, as an example, that the Task Force had a long discussion about the Foothill /Santa Rosa Area which has taken a long time to redevelop. He explained that the idea was to avoid looking at each parcel apart from some kind of vision or comprehensive view for the entire area. He noted that, because of the special circumstances, in some cases there should be either more restrictions or more flexibility. He added that the LUCE Task Force looked at each area in detail, trying to capture what would be best for the community, and tried to encourage development of a comprehensive view before the individual parcels are developed. Commr. Riggs stated that he sees this as an impediment and asked what the incentives would be for development. Commr. Multari stated that this may be an impediment because it will require landowners to do some long range comprehensive planning involving properties they do not control, take circulation into account, and talk to their neighbors. Commr. Dandekar stated that these areas were seen as catalyst zones requiring action by the City. Commr. Riggs stated that he also sees these areas as catalyst areas that need change, not stagnation. Commr. Dandekar stated that this would help shape a direction for an area that people could collectively buy into. Commr. Malak asked, in reference to 17.53.020 and 17.53.030, if someone comes in with an idea that is not specifically Community Commercial, can the zoning be changed and how would it change. Director Johnson stated that it would be up to the Planning Commission which would look at the competing standards and apply them in a way to achieve the City's goals. Commr. Malak stated that he would like to see the Planning Commission implement the last sentence in 17.53.030. Commr. Larson stated that this would not involve changing the zoning but would be about finding consistency or interpreting uses and development standards, which is the function of the Planning Commission because only the City Council can change zoning. He noted that the zoning code gives some flexibility, and the key is how to use that flexibility in a manner that achieves the development objectives in the new updated General Plan. He noted that Commr. Multari is correct that someone could come in and Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 2014 Page 5 fit exactly the development standards in the zoning code and ignore the newer policies and objectives without these coming to the Planning Commission until the zoning code is completely updated. Commr. Dandekar stated that policy determines what you want outcomes to be and the job of the Planning Commission and other commissions is to see if objectives have been met. Commr. Riggs agreed with the catalyst statement and the idea of this being a period of transition before the zoning code update, but stated that, if specific requirements are met, he does not see why projects should have to come to the Commission, and he could see more decisions made by the Director, who could choose whether to refer projects to the Commission. He stated that requiring review by the Commission is adding bureaucracy. He added that policy is pretty clear about expectations and, if projects come to the Commission, the temptation will be to increase standards at the whim of the Commission which would create more vague interpretations of policy. Commr. Larson stated that the difficulty is developing criteria to stop a bad project that fails to embody the vision of a Special Focus Zone. Commr. Malak stated that he does not agree with Commr. Riggs because he would not like to see all that authority placed in one person's hands, and he wants transparency and public input. Commr. Draze stated he would tend to agree with Commr. Riggs if Chapter 8 were much more defined, but there is not enough detail for developers or even staff without a public hearing to get to where the Task Force was heading. He added that, if the zoning code is changed, 17.53.030 can be changed. Commr. Multari stated that there are really just five of the special plan areas that the Commission should review: Foothill /Santa Rosa, Caltrans Site, Madonna Inn Area, Sunset Drive -In Theater /Prado Road, LOVR Creekside. He proposed the following language for 17.53.020: "Where provisions of the underlying zone and the General Plan ...conflict, the Land Use Element shall have priority. Development objectives within the plan area shall be ... interpreted by the Community Development Director in order to achieve the development objectives in the special focus areas, ...except that Foothill Blvd. /Santa Rosa Area, Caltrans Site, Madonna Inn Area, Sunset Drive -In Theater /Prado Road Area, and 11 -LOVR Creekside Area shall be subject to Planning Commission Use permits which would require..." Commr. Riggs supported the proposed language. Commr. Dandekar stated that Commr. Multari's suggestion addresses the critical parcels that the Task Force was concerned about. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Commr. Multari seconded by Commr. Draze to recommend approval of the amendments to General Plan Land Use designations and zoning for Special Focus Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 2014 Page 6 Areas associated with the Uodate to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan; as well as the new Chapter 17.53 Special Focus Overlay zone section recommended by staff with PC recommended modifications. AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Larson, Malak, Multari, and Riggs NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Fowler The motion passed on a 6:0 vote COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 2. Staff a. Agenda Forecast by Director Johnson • Overview of the LUCE update at future City Council meetings • Deputy Director Davidson to send out an update of Commission meetings. 3. Commission — no comments ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Diane Clement Recording Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission on October 8, 2014. Lauri Thomas Administrative Assistant III