HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-12-2017 Regular Joint Planning Commission and City Council Agenda Packet
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
6:00 PM
REGULAR JOINT
MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
AND CITY COUNCIL
Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
Agenda
Planning Commission and City Council
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda
will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development, 919 Palm Street, during normal
business hours.
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy
Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire and Mayor Heidi Harmon
Planning Commissioners Kim Bisheff, Hemalata Dandekar,
Ronald Malak, Scott Mann, Nicholas Osterbur, Vice Chairperson
John Fowler, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Carlyn Christianson
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AGENDA ITEMS ONLY
STUDY SESSION
1. STUDY SESSION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ZONING
REGULATIONS UPDATE (CODRON / DAVIDSON)
Recommendation
1. Receive a presentation on the status of the Zoning Regulations update; and
2. Review and receive a presentation on the Interview Summary Report, and provide
direction to staff regarding any additional issues to evaluate and consider during the
Zoning Regulations update process; and
3. Endorse the proposed update process and schedule.
San Luis Obispo Regular Joint Planning Commission and City Council Agenda April 12, 2017 Page 2
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs, and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at
6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPEALS: Any decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council
within 10 days of the action (Recommendations to the City Council cannot be appealed since they
are not a final action.). Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may file an appeal
with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available at the Community Development Department office,
City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $281,
and must accompany the appeal documentation.
Meeting Date: 4/12/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Douglas Davidson, Deputy Director, Community Development
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION WITH P LANNING COMMISSION FOR ZONING
REGULATIONS UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive a presentation on the status of the Zoning Regulations update; and
2. Review and receive a presentation on the Interview Summary Report (Attachment E), and
provide direction to staff regarding any additional issues to evaluate and consider during the
Zoning Regulations update process; and
3. Endorse the proposed update process and schedule (Attachment C).
BACKGROUND
In 2014, the City adopted a new General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE). The
Land Use Element sets direction for “the orderly development of land within the City’s planning
area” (Land Use Element, p. 1-11), and the Circulation Element “how transportation will be
provided in the community envisioned by the Land Use Element” (Circulation Element, p. 2-9).
The Zoning Regulations are the key tool used to achieve land use policy objectives, and to
support circulation objectives for mode shift by implementing standards related to parking
management, transit, bicycling, and pedestrian accommodation. Following adoption of the
LUCE, Planning staff began the process of identifying which land use policies would be most
effectively implemented via changes to the Zoning Regulations. That analysis identified the
policies listed in Attachment A.
In February of this year, the City entered into a contract with MIG, Inc. to assis t with the update
effort. The MIG team—which includes the subconsultant firms of Mintier Harnish (the firm that
was part of the LUCE update team) and Jacobson & Wack (a firm recognized throughout
California for its zoning-related work)—is supporting Planning staff with public engagement
activities and technical expertise, and will prepare the updated Zoning Regulations based on
input from staff, decision makers, and the community. The update program is anticipated to
extend through March, 2018, as illustrated in the schedule included as Attachment C. The work
program includes many opportunities for the community to weigh in, and for the Planning
Commission and City Council to provide direction on the preferred approaches to implement
LUCE policies and to address public concerns and comments.
Scope of Work
The scope of work for the Zoning Regulations is defined by the LUCE programs and includes
the following items:
Packet Pg 3
1
LUCE Implementation
Evaluate student housing preferences and consider revising development standards to
better meet them in multifamily housing near campus (Program 2.11.1)
Adopt special development standards for dwellings in downtown residential areas (Policy
2.8, Program 2.12)
Consider new regulations to address neighborhood compatibility for infill development
(Program 2.13)
Evaluate alternatives to the current maximum number of dwellings units and height,
parking, and setback standards, to regulate residential building intensity (Program 2.15)
Evaluate the potential to use portions of City-owned parking facilities for residents’
parking (Program 2.16)
Other Features of the Update (Technical Update, but could be far reaching – still under the
umbrella of the LUCE)
Reorganize the Zoning Regulations for simplicity and modernize for current and
emerging conditions, as well as State laws and conditions
Update Parking Standards (Table 6)
Update Land Use Table (Table 9)
Update Land Use Definitions
White Papers
The scope of work also includes five White Papers to provide additional focus on complex
issues:
Cannabis Regulations
Tiny Homes
Climate Action Plan implementation
Flexible density downtown
Edge conditions in the City and neighborhood compatibility
The first phase of the program looks to define: 1) how to implement LUCE goals and policie s
directly tied to the Zoning Regulations, 2) the updates to Title 17 required to address recent
changes to State law, and 3) issues and concerns that hinder effective implementation of the
Zoning Regulations. In subsequent phases, City staff and the consultant team will:
Draft a new, easier to use structure for the Zoning Regulations
Propose options for addressing policy direction
Prepare updated regulations that respond to the direction provided by the Council and
Commission and that reflect modern, forward-thinking development practices
Test the draft regulations with the public and decision makers
Complete required environmental review and public hearings on the updated Zoning
Regulations
Resident and Stakeholder Interviews
To initiate this comprehensive update program, City staff conducted a series of interviews with
residents and other community stakeholders to identify issues and concerns with the current
Zoning Regulations. On February 27 and 28 and the week of March 6, 2017, Planning staff
Packet Pg 4
1
interviewed more than 50 community members in both group and one-on-one sessions. The
group interviews were invitation events, with the groups consisting of neighborhoods,
developers, technology businesses, realtors, and homeowner associations. City staff also invited
anyone in the community to sign up for individual interviews at the Community Development
Department; notification of the interview opportunity was posted on the City’s website and News
Items of participation opportunities were also highlighted on the City’s website. Approximately
35 individuals signed up for and participated in the individual interviews.
The interviews allowed community members to respond to prepared questions (see Attachment
D) and to express any opinions and ideas they wished to share. City staff (and the MIG
representative attending the group interviews) took detailed notes at every interview. These
notes have been compiled in the Interview Summary Report included as Attachment E. The
summary report reflects all ideas shared without attributing comments directly to any
participating individual or group. The intent of the summary report is to provide the City
Council and Planning Commission with an overview of the diverse and sometimes conflicting
proposals the community has put forward to address the most pressing land use issues in San
Luis Obispo.
No particular themes emerged from the interviews, as the topics were wide-ranging and opinions
divergent on such topics as parking, downtown development, building height limitations, and
neighborhoods and districts requiring focused attention. General agreement was expressed,
however, about the need to provide more flexibility and clarity in the Zoning Regulations, to
craft regulations that facilitate housing development for all lifestyles and stages of life, simplify
the Code, and streamline the Advisory Body Review process, particularly to avoid parallel
approval paths for the same project.
At the April 12, 2017 joint study session with the City Council and Planning Commission, City
staff and representatives from the MIG team will make a short presentation summarizing the
interview outcomes, organized broadly around the following topics:
General comments regarding organization and clarity of the current Zoning Regulations
Land use regulations
Development standards and guidelines
Parking regulations
Code administration and permitting processes
Cal Poly
Downtown
The Planning Commission and Council should review the process/schedule, interviews
summary, and identify particular ideas and topics for consideration in the updated Zoning
Regulations that are not already identified in the scope of work.
The City will be holding community workshops in May to review the Zoning Regulations update
project and to receive focused input on the programs in the LUCE to be implemented. Two
workshops will be held (one workshop format held twice in different locations) to accommodate
the public’s schedules. The format for the workshop is being developed and may include
surveys, break-out sessions and/or interactive work stations to allow for small group discussions.
Packet Pg 5
1
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As this is a study session with no direction or action to be provided, environmental review is not
required.
FISCAL IMPACT
As this is a study session with no direction or action to be provided, no fiscal impact will occur.
FOCUS QUESTIONS FOR STUDY SESSION
Focus Questions for Study Session
Yes No
Is the consultative public outreach process, including resident/stakeholder
interviews, study sessions, and public workshops, appropriate for the Zoning
Regulations Update?
Are the process and schedule appropriate and timely?
Are the five planned White Paper topics valuable to inform the effort or are
there other topics you would like to see explored?
Should the review process be revised to combine architectural design and
use permit approval to avoid parallel entitlement paths and multiple appeals
on the same project?
Are there other topics you think should be considered in the Zoning
Regulations Update?
Attachments:
a - LUCE Policies
b - Other Issues to Address
c - Project Schedule
d - Interview Questions
e - Resident and Stakeholder Interview Summary
Packet Pg 6
1
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
LAND USE & CIRCULATION ELEMENT POLICIES
Policy Number Policy Statement
2.10. Updating & Enforcing Standards
2.10.1. Enforcing Standards. The City shall review, revise if deemed necessary, and actively enforce
noise, parking, and property development and property-maintenance standards.
2.10.2. Property Maintenance Standards. The City shall implement, and regularly review and update
property-maintenance regulations focused on proper enclosure of trash, appearance of yards and
buildings from the street, and storage of vehicles.
2.11. Multifamily Preferences and Standards
2.11.1. Preferences. The City shall evaluate student housing preferences and consider revising
development standards to better meet them in multifamily housing near campus.
2.11.2. Multifamily Open Space and Storage Standards. The City shall review, and revise, if deemed
desirable, its standards for multifamily housing so that apartments will provide usable open
space and storage similar to the requirements for condominiums.
2.12. Downtown Residential Development. The City shall adopt special development standards to
guide addition of dwellings within Downtown residential areas to implement Policy 2.8. The
following should be included when evaluating new standards for this area:
A. Requirements that new dwellings on lots with existing houses be above or behind the existing
houses, and that the added building area be modestly sized and of similar architecture in
comparison with the principal residences on the site and in the surrounding area;
B. Requiring new buildings to reflect the mass and spacing of existing, nearby buildings;
C. Requiring special parking and coverage standards;
D. Requiring minimum amounts of usable open space.
2.13. Neighborhood Compatibility. The City will consider new regulations, for Low-Density and
Medium-Density Residential areas, to require special review for (1) incompatibly large houses,
(2) replacement or infill homes in existing neighborhoods, and (3) accessory buildings with
plumbing facilities allowing easy conversion to illegal se cond dwellings. The City will
periodically update Community Design Guidelines for larger homes, infill housing and
accessory single-story buildings.
2.15. Residential Densities. The City will evaluate alternatives to the current maximum number of
dwelling units per acre (based on bedroom count) and height, parking, and setback standards, to
regulate residential building intensity, and bulk and mass. Floor area limits will be considered.
2.16. Use of Downtown Parking by Residents. The City shall evaluate the potential to use portions
of City-owned parking lots and structures for residents’ parking.
3.9. Zoning Regulations. The City shall amend its Zoning Regulations to implement the changes
included in the 2014 General Plan update program.
3.10. Noise Control. Zoning Regulations and Community Design Guidelines will include measures
such as the following to prevent unacceptable noise exposure for residential areas or other noise -
sensitive uses: location and shielding of mechanical equipment; location of truck loading, trash
collection areas, and loudspeakers; noise attenuation measures along property lines.
3.13. Zoning Update for Visitor Services Uses. The City shall review zoning regulations to consider
allowing visitor-service uses in office zones adjacent to community commercial zones in the
Downtown and adjacent to Monterey Street between Johnson and Santa Rosa.
3.14. Zoning Update for Emerging Technologies. The City will investigate emerging technologies
and trends to evaluate whether updates to zoning regulations are needed.
4.28. Allowing Efficiency Units and Variable Density in Downtown. The City shall modify zoning
regulations to allow efficiency units and variable density in the Downtown Core.
4.32. Use Permit Requirements. The City shall incorporate into its zoning regulations specific
criteria for evaluating use permits for bars/taverns, night clubs and late night drinking
establishments.
7.16. Airport Overlay Zone. The City shall create an Airport Overlay Zone to reflect the boundaries
of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan within the City limits. The
Packet Pg 7
1
Policy Number Policy Statement
purpose of the Airport Overlay Zone is to codify airport compa tibility criteria in areas for which
the City may override the Airport Land Use Commission determination to ensure compliance
with the requirements of the California State Aeronautics Act (Cal. Pub. Utilities Code, Section
21670, et. seq.) which establishes statewide requirements for airport land use compatibility
planning, guidance from the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, which is
published by the California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics to support
and amplify the State Aeronautics Act requirements, and other related federal and state
requirements relating to airport land use compatibility planning. Implementation of the
compatibility policies will be accomplished through the Zoning Code.
7.17. Airport Land Use and Zoning Code. The City shall update its Zoning Regulations to address
allowable uses and development standards for areas in which the City may override a
determination of inconsistency. Zoning regulations shall be consistent with the requirements of
the State Aeronautics Act, use guidance from the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
and comply with related state and federal requirements relating to airport land use compatibility.
These development standards will include, but not limited to, intensit y and density limitations,
identification of prohibited uses, infill development, height limitations, obstructions, and other
hazards to flight, noise insulation requirements, buyer awareness measures, nonconforming uses
and reconstruction and the process for airport compatibility criteria reviews by the City
consistent these development standards.
7.18. Review of Local General Plan and implementing Development Standards. Unless
previously referred and acted upon by the City, review of General and Specifi c Plans and
Amendments, Zoning ordinance or amendments, or Building code changes within the San Luis
Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan boundary (Figure 9) shall include referral to
the Airport Land Use Commission as specified in Section 21676(b) of the Public Utilities Code
for a determination of consistency with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan.
12.1. Zoning Regulations. Zoning Regulations consist of the zoning map, lists of uses allowed in
certain zones, property-development standards such as maximum building height and minimum
parking, and procedures intended to give the interests of development applicants and other
citizens fair consideration.
Packet Pg 8
1
San Luis Obispo
Zoning Regulations Update:
Issues to Address and “Fix It” List
City staff has developed the following list of issues to be addressed in the Zoning Regulations update
effort based on their daily use of the code. This list—which is additive to the list of revisions required to
address LUCE policies—has been provided to the consultant team and is a fluid list, with additions being
made as the work progresses. City staff and the consultant team met on January 31, 2017 to review and
discuss the initial list.
Development Standards and Zones
Mixed Use: Ground-floor commercial requirement
Mixed Use: Provide flexibility
Bike parking requirements
Parking – update Table 6
regulations generally and possible reductions
parking on flag lots
parking in yards
parking for building additions
interior garage dimensions
parking tied to bedroom count
Trip Reduction Plan Standards
Arbors and trellises in side yard setbacks
Decks and roof decks
Creek setback requirements
Use of interior space in single-family homes (to avoid conversion to bedrooms)
Energy efficiency incentives
Review S overlay: North Broad Street property
Community benefits tied to height increases
Setbacks along alleys
Yard requirements on corner lots and private streets
“Sea trains” used for onsite storage
Rounding of density
Inconsistency of BP zone in the Zoning Regulations and specific plans
Roof deck standards
Standards and process for sheds
Land Use Regulations
Investigate greater amount of staff-level review with AUPs and by-right zoning
C-S zone restrictions on office uses
Simplify regulation of office uses across all zones
Differentiate between convenience stores and neighborhood grocery markets (corner stores)
Day care
Packet Pg 9
1
Live/work versus work/live
Mixed use definitions and allowed uses
Principle versus accessory uses
Update Land Use Table (Table 9)
Tiny homes
Clear definitions for every use
Tattoo shops
Review and update Land Use Definitions
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Differentiate between ADUs and guest quarters
Remove requirement for Minor Architectural Review and any discretionary permit (per recent
State law changes)
ADUs on nonconforming lots
Clarify that primary use must be a single-family residence
Administrative Procedures
Evaluate process to avoid multiple appeals on same project
Evaluate proper decision maker for the various entitlements
Packet Pg 10
1
PU
B
L
I
C
E
N
G
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
2017
JAN/FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
2018
ZO
N
I
N
G
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
MA
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
A
N
D
S
U
P
P
O
R
T
CE
Q
A
CO
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
SLO process schedule
Kick-Off Meeting
and Tour
City Council
Hearings
Final Zoning
Regulations
Planning Council
HearingsStakeholder
Interviews
Community
Workshop #1:
Issues (x2)
Community
Workshop #2:
Draft Updated
Regulations (x2)
PC/CC Study
Session
PC/CC Study
Session
Zoning
Regulations
Diagnosis
Issues
“White Papers”
Draft Style
Sheet
Annotated
Outline
Public Hearing
Draft Zoning
Regulations
Public Review
Draft Zoning
Regulations
Prepare
Administrative
Draft Zoning
Regulations
Draft Sections for
Staff Review and
Discussion
NODDraft Project
Description
Prepare
Addendum
Revised
Scope
Monthly Team Meetings/Phone Calls
Short Weekly Check-in Calls
Diagnosis
Session with
Staff
City of San Luis Obispo
updates to the city’s zoning regulations
Prepare Staff
Report - PC
Prepare Staff
Report - CC
Packet Pg 11
1
RESIDENT AND STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ZONING CODE UPDATE
February, 2017
The following questions are a starting point for a dialogue about the current City of San Luis
Obispo’s Zoning Code’s strengths and weaknesses—issues and concerns that those
interviewed would like addressed in the update. These questions are not intended to limit the
scope of discussion. Comments and suggestions are completely confidential, and none of the
input received by City staff and the consultant team during the interviews will be specifically
attributed to individual interviewees.
1. How do you use the zoning code? Are you a resident, developer, property owner, or
business owner? Other?
2. What has the existing code been successful with? Where have good projects been built?
What types of development have the zoning regulations encouraged?
3. What have been the failures? Have projects been built that are not in character with a
neighborhood or location, or have projects or uses resulted in adverse impacts? Which
projects/uses, and why?
4. Are there specific standards or requirements that warrant attention (for example,
parking, building height, uses allowed)?
5. Are there issues associated with specific neighborhoods, business districts, or zoning
districts that need special attention during the update process?
6. Are the regulations responsive to local economic conditions and community needs?
7. Are application and review processes clearly articulated? Where might improvements be
made?
8. What areas of the City could evolve or transform over time with regulatory changes to
support community goals? What (general or specific) types of regulatory changes would
you like to see?
9. Share any additional comments you may have.
Packet Pg 12
1
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ZONING REGULATIONS UPDATE
stakeholder interview summary
March 20, 2017
537 S. Raymond Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91105
(626) 744-9872
www.migcom.com
Packet Pg 13
1
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg 14
1
MARCH 20, 2017
SAN LUIS OBISPO ZON ING REGULATIONS UPDA TE
stakeholder interview summary
i
table of contents
introduction and background ............................................................... 1
summary of participant comments ....................................................... 2
general comments .............................................................................. 2
land use regulations ........................................................................... 6
development standards and guidelines .................................................. 9
parking regulations ........................................................................... 14
code administration and permitting processes ...................................... 17
Cal Poly topics ................................................................................. 19
Downtown ....................................................................................... 19
Packet Pg 15
1
MARCH 20, 2017
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
Packet Pg 16
1
MARCH 20, 2017
SAN LUIS OBISPO ZONI NG REGULATIONS UPDAT E
stakeholder interview report
1
Introduction and Background
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO is currently engaged in updating the Zoning
Regulations (Title 17 of the Municipal Code). The focus of the Zoning
Regulations update is to implement policies and programs in the 2014 Land
Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE), which is one of eight elements of the
San Luis Obispo General Plan. The LUCE update was undertaken to respond to
changed and evolving conditions in the community, to incorporate policies and
programs that address sustainability and climate change, and to address
current State laws. Importantly, the program involved intensive community
engagement to reaffirm the values, vision, and goals for the physical
development of the city.
Updating zoning and subdivision standards is a critical implementation action
required by the General Plan and represents the translation of LUCE goals and
visions into specific regulations and standards. The Zoning Regulations
establish the detailed rules for how properties can be used and developed.
The Zoning Regulations also set forth application review processes and define
the overall administration of zoning in San Luis Obispo.
Over a two-week period in late February and early March of 2017, City staff
interviewed more than 50 residents and community stakeholders to help
inform the Zoning Regulations update process, and to identify land use and
development needs, opportunities, and issues. Interviews were conducted
with residents, neighborhood groups, architects, developers, real estate
brokers, technology groups, environmental groups, and representatives from
the Chamber of Commerce—people who regularly use the Zoning Regulations
or have a specific interest in zoning to implement the General Plan. The
interviewees were asked a series of questions regarding overarching concerns,
as well as specific topics. Participants were also given the opportunity to
discuss issues of significance to them not otherwise addressed in response to
specific questions.
Packet Pg 17
1
MARCH 20, 2017
2
Summary of Participant Comments
Comments and key themes mentioned during the interviews are presented in
this report. Due to the breadth of comments received, comments may
contradict each other, reflecting interviewees’ differences of opinion. Where
statements indicate direction to or considerations for City staff, those
statements reflect the verbatim comments of one or more participants.
Throughout this summary, “word clouds” are included from a March 2, 2017
workshop with the Chamber of Commerce. The word clouds—prepared by a
participant attending the Chamber of Commerce meeting—graphically
represent the most commonly spoken words during the meeting. Common
themes expressed in the word clouds also emerged during the group and
individual interviews, as shown in the summary notes presented in this report.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Participants agreed that the Zoning Regulations
are most useful when they provide clarity about
use limitations, development standards, and
entitlement processes, and when the regulations
simply and succinctly cover these topics. Many
people stated that the Zoning Regulations should
be user friendly and include illustrations.
Organization and Clarity
Currently the code has too much
ambiguity, particularly for nonresidential
uses. This creates difficulties for staff
interpretation and results in inconsistent responses.
Resolve inconsistencies and “hidden surprises” through reorganization
of the Zoning Regulations. An example given: the fact that limitations
on business hours are provided within the standards for mixed-use
projects.
Look at the overall organization and find ways to improve navigation
through the document.
Consistency
Remove density standards
Packet Pg 18
1
MARCH 20, 2017
SAN LUIS OBISPO ZONI NG REGULATIONS UPDAT E
stakeholder interview report
3
In general, providing more flexibility—with performance standards that
identify the appropriate circumstances to modify a requirement—is the
best practice for zoning. It is always better to include elements in a
project that can be allowed through regulations rather than looking at
the request as a variance or exception.
Clarify code intent language. “Must” should not be used; if a regulation
is required, use “shall.”
On the co-mingling of requirements versus guidelines, users need to
know the “shalls” first and be able to deal with that first. Then move
on to the “shoulds.” Readers can get bogged down with the “should,”
paying focused attention where it is not warranted.1
Update the purpose and interpretation statements to apply a direction
of duty to staff and decision makers.
Regulating Form and Design
A form-based code could help clarify the review processes. Each
neighborhood could have its own code.
The Downtown Concept Plan and Community Design Guidelines should
be codified.
Add an illustrated urban design section to the Zoning Regulations to
address site planning and how the visual character or setting should be
incorporated into new development projects, rather than using a form-
based code.
1 As a consideration moving forward, the consultant
team recommends not using “should” at all in the
Zoning Regulations given their regulatory nature.
Any provision involving subjective judgement is more
appropriate in design guidelines.
Packet Pg 19
1
MARCH 20, 2017
4
Code Update and Technology
Provide ready access to zoning information through the effective use of
current technologies. As an example, an electronic version of the
Zoning Regulations can incorporate hyperlinks from Table 9 (use table)
directly to corresponding definitions, or to related notes, to ease
navigation and information discovery. It would be especially helpful to
offer links to related “property-centric” information, such as special
development fees applicable to particular areas (e.g., Margarita Area
Specific Plan fees).
A portal to the website with parcel/owner information/permit history
would be great.
The Zoning Regulations are very text heavy. Consider using more
graphics and creating an interactive tool that both residents and
developers can use without having to read through all the text.
Specifically, consider a tool that allows a user to highlight a certain
area and then see what uses are allowed in that area. This can also be
used by residents who are interested in knowing what uses are allowed
in their neighborhoods and adjacent commercial districts.
Update Process
Include a summary of the major changes proposed to the code to help users
get familiar with the new document.
Packet Pg 20
1
MARCH 20, 2017
SAN LUIS OBISPO ZONI NG REGULATIONS UPDAT E
stakeholder interview report
5
Opportunity Areas
Participants discussed various areas around town that could be considered
“opportunity areas.” (These comments may not necessarily reflect current land
use designations and intensities allowed by the LUCE.)
South Broad Street (between Orcutt and Santa Barbara) – maximize
residential and commercial
Downtown
Mid and South Higuera
Foothill
Monterey Street from Santa Rosa to California
FoCho (Foothill Chorro) district (could increase density here to five- to
six-story buildings)
Places between Higuera and Marsh: perfect area for workforce housing
“Ring” around Downtown: three- to four-story residential and mixed
use
Orcutt Area Specific Plan: three- to five-story residential
Margarita-Prado Road Specific Plan: residential and mixed use
Increase density along transit corridors
Need for more housing near MindBody so employees can bike to work
Packet Pg 21
1
MARCH 20, 2017
6
LAND USE REGULATIONS
Participants discussed the current land use regulations and pointed out a need
to simplify land use categories and definitions to streamline review processes
and provide consistency.
General Land Use Comments
Consider how uses are changing and will continue to change (working
from home, shared work spaces, retail market shifts).
Consider a process similar to the administrative review process: allow
staff more leeway to place tenants in locations that make good
planning sense and offer positive benefits to the community as a
whole.
Encourage high-density mixed-use housing with less dependence on
vehicles. Encourage more public transportation and bike and
pedestrian access. This use would be ideal to encourage neighborhood
commercial type uses.
Protect prime agricultural land.
Encourage neighborhood preservation and stabilization of the
renter/owner ratio.
Consider operational characteristics and performance standards of
various uses and activities.
Commercial and Office Uses
The code has too many commercial zones: 11 zones with seven
different types of office uses. This could maybe be condensed to three
zones and one office use.
Offices do not need to be in just one centralized location; allow
professional offices to be dispersed.
Office uses generally should not require an Administrative Permit
because the requirement deters new users. The uses and impacts are
generally understood and therefore can be simplified.
Some office uses should be allowed in retail zones, but there is also a
concern to preserve retail zones for retail uses. Perhaps the code could
define a certain maximum percentage (20 percent +/-) of a retail zone
that could be office.
Packet Pg 22
1
MARCH 20, 2017
SAN LUIS OBISPO ZONI NG REGULATIONS UPDAT E
stakeholder interview report
7
Increase the uses allowed in commercial zones, adding flexibility so
that empty spaces can be occupied.
Consider how uses are regulated in the CS (Commercial Service), CT
(Tourist Commercial), and M (Manufacturing) zones; it seems arbitrary
which uses are permitted where.
Mixed Use
Participants had differing opinions on whether or not a specific percentage of
commercial square footage should be required in mixed-use projects. Some
felt a requirement should be prescribed, requiring a specific percentage of
ground-floor commercial, while others appreciated the flexibility and feel it is
necessary to support project development.
Mixed use should identify the intent of presence on street.
Consider requiring a certain percent of commercial to qualify for
parking reductions.
Consider allowing commercial component on an adjacent parcel
(horizontal mixed use).
Specific use restrictions for mixed-use projects have not proven to be
warranted. Compatibility of tenant mixes should be the responsibility
of the property owner through functional management and logical
tenant placement, not through land use restrictions.
Describe the factors that constitute use “compatibility.”
Add performance standards for mixed-use projects that include
residential, such as a requirement to disclose conditions of mixture of
uses (noise, hours of operation, solid waste collection, etc.)
The live/work and work/live section is confusing and complicated. The
format doesn’t really seem to work in San Luis Obispo. Such uses are
more appropriately described as a home office. Also, these types of
development are difficult to finance.
Residential
Interviewees indicated broad support for increasing local housing supply, but
the mechanisms to deliver this housing differed.
Consistent with new State Law (SB 1069), make it easier for people to
Packet Pg 23
1
MARCH 20, 2017
8
create units while still preserving neighborhood character.
The regulations should include clearer language about how a
guesthouse is not an accessory dwelling unit (also referred to as a
secondary unit or granny flat).
The State’s exceptions for affordable housing are too generous.
Encourage more affordable and workforce family housing.
Explore micro units for students and young professionals in the areas
of Foothill/Chorro or Downtown, with ground-floor amenities, shared
utilities, and shuttles to destinations.
There is concern about the rental/owner imbalance. Consider different
zoning regulations around Cal Poly.
Develop regulations to limit “offices” that are really bedrooms.
Other Specific Uses
Consider small hotel operations as a good way to repurpose old
buildings. Perhaps they can be their own use type.
Separately define and regulate imaging-type medical service facilities
due to the configuration and related parking demands (i.e., much of
the floor area is occupied by large equipment).
Limit the number of alcohol outlets concentrated in one location,
particularly Downtown. Consider a requirement for a finding of public
convenience or necessity. This is what the City of Montebello does.
One solution to some of the alcohol issues in Downtown is to require
that bars serve a minimum amount of food until they close.
Allow for real neighborhood commercial uses to reduce vehicle trips.
We need more definition regarding independent living, assisted living,
and convalescence. Simplify this or broaden it. If we want people to
age in place, we should consider some changes.
Consider allowing clusters of food trucks. Is there a way to have a
time-constrained beer license? (e.g., Bend, Oregon)
Address trends encouraging homestays and unstaffed lodging in
boutique hotels.
Zones
On Sacramento Drive, the east side of the street is zoned M
(Manufacturing) and the west side is zoned CS (Service Commercial).
Packet Pg 24
1
MARCH 20, 2017
SAN LUIS OBISPO ZONI NG REGULATIONS UPDAT E
stakeholder interview report
9
Lots of uses are allowed in both zones, and this area should be seen as
a district, not divided.
Consider the Manufacturing zone: it is important that some industrial
areas get preserved and are available for start-ups and innovation. We
have Cal Poly grads with amazing ideas and creativity, and they need
affordable places to do their work.
The S (Special Consideration) overlay zone confuses people and should
be eliminated.
Apply the S overlay on wildlife corridors and also over C-T (Tourist
Commercial) and C-D (Downtown Commercial) zones contiguous to
residential neighborhoods, specifically Dana Street and Lincoln Street.
Make sure the boundaries of Downtown are clear.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
All groups and individuals interviewed raised issues or opportunities about the
current development standards, design guidelines, and/or zoning.
San Luis Obispo is experiencing unsustainable population growth,
especially growth in new jobs, which is outpacing the housing supply.
Packet Pg 25
1
MARCH 20, 2017
10
Create incentive-based opportunities in pre-existing zoning categories.
We need clear incentives for density, parking variances, and land use
concessions.
Parking, FAR (floor area ratio), and landscape requirements have not
been brought up to speed to accommodate new uses.
Develop clear definitions, including neighborhood, concept, and scale.
Curb sprawl and avoid cookie-cutter tract houses like Los Angeles and
little “Lego” houses.
High tech/modern, rigid buildings do not seem to be in keeping with
the mission-type architecture that is predominant.
Consider implementing General Plan policies LUE 4.9 (Coordination of
Late Night Environment), LUE 9.10 (Urban Forest), and LUE 2.14
(Neighborhood Wellness Action Plans) as part of the Zoning
Regulations update.
Sustainability
Many participants noted the importance of sustainability in zoning.
Greater emphasis should be placed on climate change: carbon
sequestration, rooftop skylights, light colors, and solar panel arrays.
Incorporate sustainability standards, particularly as applied to site
design (tree preservation) and optimal solar orientation.
Consider modification to Ordinance 1544 to encourage tree
preservation.
Increase incentives for applicants that support the Climate Action Plan
and multimodal goals and policies.
Any new parking should be constructed on permeable paving.
Increase specifications in the code for more bike and pedestrian
requirements with development.
Packet Pg 26
1
MARCH 20, 2017
SAN LUIS OBISPO ZONI NG REGULATIONS UPDAT E
stakeholder interview report
11
Density
Allow smaller lots in both nonresidential and residential zones that are
suitable for mixed use, live-work, work-live, or some form of
commercial-residential.
The continuing trend of splitting lots in R-1 (Low-density Residential)
neighborhoods is turning these neighborhoods into R-2 (Medium-
density Residential) zones.
The Downtown maximum density should be increased to actually
provide housing there (80 units/acre).
The C-C (Community Commercial) density is too high at 36 units/acre.
Increase density for smaller units with shared common spaces and
amenities
Consider multifamily density by bedroom size or tenure.
Consider rounding up density to the nearest whole number to provide
flexibility.
Utilize FAR to limit stories in neighborhoods based on averages.
Explore a percent change in intensity of use of infill to ensure
compatibility.
Investigate how the required FARs affect projects. Consider FAR
instead of density.
Height
Building height was an issue discussed extensively during the interviews.
Participants were equally divided on whether taller buildings should be allowed
or existing scale should be maintained, particularly in Downtown. The
comments provided under the Downtown heading below expand on the
following comments.
The General Plan includes goals to maintain a compact urban form, but
requests for taller buildings do not get supported by the public, even in
Packet Pg 27
1
MARCH 20, 2017
12
the Downtown core. The City worked very diligently on the
performance standards to allow for taller buildings in the C-D zone
(Downtown Commercial). However, even though well crafted, the
regulations have not really accommodated many buildings above 50
feet in height.
A minimum height requirement may be appropriate in some areas.
Set clear criteria for higher building heights.
Consider height limits by stories in addition to feet.
Consider the use of temporary story poles on development sites so the
public can see how tall a building will be before it is approved.
There needs to be hillside viewshed protection: this is the character of
the city.
Compatibility is important and as such, higher stories should trigger
additional review.
Yards and Setbacks
Add street side yards to the residential zone sections. Provide
reference to the range of required yards, noting that they vary with
building height. Cite the applicable table. The information is in the
document but requires constant flipping between sections.
Provide more flexibility on setbacks for unusually shaped lots,
including upper-story step-backs.
Layout and setbacks should be changed to optimize solar access.
Fences and Walls
Add guidance about allowed fence heights in street yards. The graphic
is great to illustrate the concept that the fence height can be taller
farther back from the street but does not help a user identify what
height is allowed at certain distances from the street property line.
Packet Pg 28
1
MARCH 20, 2017
SAN LUIS OBISPO ZONI NG REGULATIONS UPDAT E
stakeholder interview report
13
Multi-Family Standards
Require more family amenities (open space and storage) so that new
developments do not become de facto student housing.
Unit size in affordable housing should reflect the needs of workforce
families (don’t just build studio units).
Transitions between Zones
Participants agreed that the Zoning Regulations should pay special attention to
transitions between zones, both lower-density residential to higher-density
residential, as well as commercial to residential.
Find ways to mitigate impacts of R-4 (High-density Residential)
development, such as articulation along the street front and entries
along the street that mimic single-family homes.
To provide compatibility for R-1 to R-2 transitions, require additional
setbacks on upper floors.
Occupancy
Consider how bedrooms will be used (large bedrooms will be shared).
In some areas, maybe bedroom count should be the only way of
calculating density.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Participants expressed general support for accessory dwelling units and tiny
homes. Stakeholders identified various locations where these should be
allowed/prioritized, including on existing golf courses, near the outer limits of
the city near green space, and as infill in existing neighborhoods. Some
interviewed indicated that ADUs should be owner occupied and include a
foundation. Others indicated that more flexibility for tiny homes and
recreational vehicles was preferred, with directives to be creative for ADUs
inside existing houses and provide incentives for more ADUs.
Packet Pg 29
1
MARCH 20, 2017
14
Adaptive Reuse
Encourage repurposed buildings, and provide the flexibility to establish new
uses in existing buildings, such as a provision for parking exceptions.
Planned Development
Reduce the size required for a planned development overlay to maybe
one-half acre or one-third acre.
Planned development (PD) standards need to be reviewed and firmed
up so as not to act as spot zoning. Mandatory project features should
include affordable housing, energy efficiency, protection of natural
features, or addition of public outdoor amenities. Findings should be
strong.
Open Space
Encourage public and semi-public open spaces in new projects.
San Luis Obispo has a need for more parks, especially in the North
Broad Street neighborhood.
Historic Resources
Ensure strict adherence to the City’s Historic Guidelines.
Consider requiring height reductions adjacent to historic resources.
Noise
Consider noise control measures for rooftop decks and balconies.
PARKING REGULATIONS
Participants had varying views on parking. For some,
parking reductions in areas where densification is
desired (largely Downtown) were noted as
opportunities. Others cited reductions in parking as
a negative that should be used sparingly.
There is a huge trade-off between livability
and parking; if you give people incentive to
park below ground, the space above
becomes more walkable and attractive.
Packet Pg 30
1
MARCH 20, 2017
SAN LUIS OBISPO ZONI NG REGULATIONS UPDAT E
stakeholder interview report
15
Parking needs will change. For the future, we need to plan for self-
driving cars, etc. Perhaps the maximum number of cars exists today.
Parking incentives/reductions should not be cumulative.
Parking reductions are too broadly applied and should be limited to
mixed use.
The process of parking exceptions is unclear and applied unequally.
Multiple exceptions that are additive are especially problematic and
may be resulting in reductions (especially in parking) to levels that
were not anticipated.
Incorporate transportation demand management (TDM) into the
development review process.
Establish a Downtown in-lieu parking district.
Consider basing parking standards on building square footage only,
rather than use. It will help fill empty spaces. Also clarify parking
calculations (occupancy and useable area).
Parking is a big challenge in developing, managing, and placing
tenants. Modern office uses have increased occupancy density to the
point that 3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area
(3/1,000) no longer works. Perhaps the appropriate standard is
2/1,000 until adequate alternative transportation is realized.
Parking reductions for shared parking (off-period use shifts) may not
be as effective today because people are leaving their cars at home
during the day more often. We have a car storage problem. The issue
is where to put your car when you are not using it.
Parking reduction for bike racks should be eliminated.
Bike offsets that work well include fix-it stations, bike shops, locked
bike parking, staked bike parking, and free bike tubes.
The calculation for restaurant parking is very complicated. In practice,
there has been inconsistency with calculations by different planners
and other users. Consider looking at a formula that is simpler and
more like the C-D calculation (X spaces/XX building square feet).
Restaurant outdoor dining should not be counted in the area
considered toward parking. There is inconsistency in implementation
Packet Pg 31
1
MARCH 20, 2017
16
because the code is not clear. Consider eliminating parking
requirements for outdoor dining.
Re-evaluate warehouse parking to simplify it, especially with regard to
outdoor storage yard. Consider using the County’s standard.
Section 17.16.060E: Suggest rewording sentence #2 to read: “The
applicant shall provide reasonable justification for the reduction
through a Transportation Demand Management Plan, which highlights
innovative design components and strategies to reduce single-
occupant vehicle travel to and from the site.” This would be consistent
with the City’s current practice.
Regional retail areas should be held to higher parking requirements,
and local retail area could use more flexibility.
Consider parking requirements based on area rather than uses.
Do more to incentivize alternative transportation options for
businesses.
Residential Parking
We are underserved for parking in the R-1 zones because people do
not use their garages for parking. Instead, they use garages for
storage, game rooms, etc.
Consider parking standards for residential by square footage rather
than bedrooms.
Clarify when reduced parking requirements for affordable housing
apply. Does the project need to be 100% affordable or exceed
inclusionary requirement? Do reduced standards apply to just the
affordable units in a project or the total parking requirement? How are
additional concessions considered/applied outside of State
requirements?
Is there a way to create residential zones that don’t require any
parking? Alternatively, allows parking reductions for building owners
who include provisions that restrict tenancy people who do not have
cars or have only one car. It could be outside the Downtown area.
Code provisions would limit residency to persons who do not own cars.
It would be hard to manage and would have to be monitored. It would
have to be in a walkable area with good transit connections. It seems
like we need density before we can get better public transportation.
Packet Pg 32
1
MARCH 20, 2017
SAN LUIS OBISPO ZONI NG REGULATIONS UPDAT E
stakeholder interview report
17
Parking requirements are too high. You cannot achieve multimodal
goals while retaining high parking requirements.
Allow for car share by right to achieve parking reductions.
Parking requirements are too low. Downtown does not have enough
parking for disabled and elderly citizens.
Garages should not be required. Just require off-street parking and let
the developer decide how to provide on-site parking.
Consider the future of parking in light of autonomous vehicles and
shared vehicles. Passenger loading areas may be more appropriate
than garages and spaces at some point in the future.
CODE ADMINISTRATION AND PERMITTING PROCESSES
Comments about code administration and permitting focused on three major
topics: the prevalence of appeals, the length of the approval process, and Use
Permits.
Timing and processing timeframes are more important in responding
to economic conditions than the form and content of the Zoning
Regulations themselves. Interviewees voiced frustration about the
length of review processes.
The review processes should be amended so that projects with
multiple entitlements should only have one decision body (i.e., don’t
have the Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission
on separate tracks).
There needs to be consistency in interpretation by advisory bodies and
how they apply the Community Design Guidelines.
The Architectural Review Commission puts too many conditions of
approval on projects, many of which are not enforceable. Projects get
caught between staff and Architectural Review Commission opinions.
The Zoning Regulations do not provide a clear enough picture of the
necessary entitlement processes and their timeframes. Code
provisions should be clearly written to better guide decisions.
Currently, negotiations seem drive the decision-making process.
The review processes need clearer criteria for submittal. Developers
think they have submitted everything and then the City asks for
something else.
Packet Pg 33
1
MARCH 20, 2017
18
The recent “completeness” process
seems to be onerous, time
consuming, and beyond the scope
of the application.
The variance process is
complicated. City staff should be
able to do more administrative
approvals.
Establish more administrative
(staff-level) approvals for projects
in general.
Craft clear regulations that use
consistent terminology. Make it
abundantly clear if a use requires
no Use Permit, an Administrative
Use Permit, or a Planning Commission Use Permit. Ensure consistency
between the permit application and what it says in the Zoning
Regulations.
Too many appeals occur.
The appeal process appears easy from the Code language but does not
reflect the work and cost involved in responding to the appeal. All
residential projects are getting appealed to the City Council. Perhaps
appeals should be based on cost recovery.
The section describing the appeal process could be much more
descriptive, laying out the limitations and responsibilities. This would
put appellants on notice about what they will need to present—and the
efforts that will be involved—and would discourage frivolous appeals.
Appeals of projects should be clear about the scope of the appeal and
the particular project components of concern.
Provide better signage for describing proposed developments (possibly
funded by the developer).
The agenda correspondence process could be improved (for advisory
bodies).
Consider reduced impact fees in areas the City wishes to see
developed.
Packet Pg 34
1
MARCH 20, 2017
SAN LUIS OBISPO ZONI NG REGULATIONS UPDAT E
stakeholder interview report
19
Consider a threshold for very large projects to have expanded
notification procedures.
CAL POLY TOPICS
Student housing was a comment topic discussed by multiple interviewees.
Concerns focused on noise, parking, trash, and what constitutes student/group
housing. The commenters noted a general feeling that the University
community did not recognize or take ownership of its impacts on the City with
regard to student housing and the University’s master plan for development.
The rental inspection program was discussed in terms of its immediate impact
on neighborhoods surrounding the University. Recommendations included
enforcing the number of occupants in a rental. Some participants indicated
that areas around the University should be rezoned to allow denser
development, as those areas already function as higher density, but within a
single-family form.
DOWNTOWN
Participants had diverse views about Downtown. Many recognized and
supported the General Plan policies to encourage a compact urban form. They
noted an inherent struggle to effect this policy while at the same time trying to
preserve what makes SLO special and unique and how best to maintain that
character.
We should build to the vision of what we want Downtown to be,
consistent with the General Plan vision.
Encourage residential development in Downtown and prioritize it over
commercial development.
Provide more senior housing in Downtown.
Allow for smaller dwelling units and tenant spaces for more options.
Consider expanding transfer of density credits. Re-examine the ability
for density transfers to noncontiguous properties within the Downtown
core.
Expand Downtown core policies up Monterey Street, Higuera, and
Marsh, past Santa Rosa Street.
Buildings that are four stories and built with little to no street setback
are good ideas Downtown and elsewhere.
Packet Pg 35
1
MARCH 20, 2017
20
Allow residential density increases so that three and four stories
(above first-floor commercial) are residences.
Allow height increases for buildings if the first story is used for stacked
parking and mechanical parking lift.
Include a height minimum requirement for Downtown to preclude one-
story structures.
Allow for rooftop uses on buildings used as public accesses spaces, not
just parks but businesses and coffee shops.
The Downtown height ordinance allows for additional height, but it has
been financially infeasible to provide the “wedding cake” stepped-back
floors with amenities.
Downtown buildings should be limited to two to three stories to
preserve SLO’s small town character. Infill development should occur
on surface parking lots.
Consider an urban design standard for Downtown that addresses
surrounding existing building heights and limits new adjacent buildings
to one to two stories higher. Taller heights should also be stepped
back from the ground floor.
Downtown height should be limited to 50 feet. Identify creative ways
to increase density without increasing height.
For buildings exceeding 50 feet in height, the City should get more
clearly defined benefits. Too much discretion is involved now.
Downtown height increases should require meeting at least three
policy objectives rather than two.
Consider the late-night environment of Downtown, and ensure safety.
Include provisions to implement Downtown Concept Plan goals of more
visual connections to the creek.
TRANSPORTATION
Some participants were concerned about traffic congestion and requested that
the City deny projects that contribute to traffic congestion. Multiple
interviewees discussed the need to enhance alternative transportation options
throughout town, including transit and bicycle routes. In particular:
Provide more Class 1 bike lanes, possibly connecting Foothill and
California Boulevard, and linking to the University.
Packet Pg 36
1
MARCH 20, 2017
SAN LUIS OBISPO ZONI NG REGULATIONS UPDAT E
stakeholder interview report
21
Develop a bike beltway around the city.
Better/more public transportation is needed, including better use of
Amtrak (i.e., Santa Barbara/Ventura model).
We need smaller buses or dial-a-ride vans.
We need buses off Ramona (and on Foothill).
OTHER
One participant provided an “Orchids and Onions” review of well done and
“stinker” developments around town. Some participants disagreed with these
characterizations. In particular, the projects which were identified as both
good and bad examples included 22 Chorro and the Mix at Monterey/Monterey
Place, among others.
Packet Pg 37
1
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 38
1