HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/21/1997, 1 - AMENDMENTS TO VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT POLICIES OF THE 1994 LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (TA 79- 96 & TA 121-96).MeeGeff Date
council 7-21-91
j acEnaa 12Epoizt hem Nmhe+
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director 0
Prepared By: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager
SUBJECT: Amendments to various sections of the Zoning Regulations in order to
implement policies of the 1994 Land use Element of the General Plan (TA 79-
96 & TA 121 -96).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Reintroduce Ordinance No. 1310 to print implementing certain policies of the 1994 Land Use
Element of the General Plan with amendments to the Zoning Regulations.
DISCUSSION
Background: Staff initiated a series of zoning text amendments in May of last year with the
purpose of implementing the 1994 Land Use Element (LUE) update to the City's General Plan.
Text changes to several sections of the Zoning Regulations were needed in order to maintain
consistency with newly adopted LUE policies.
The amendment package was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 12m and
continued to August 14' in order to obtain additional community input. At their hearing of
August 14'h, the Commission took the following action:
1. Directed staff to prepare an amendment to the LUE that would continue to allow
contractors, engineers, architects, and utility company administrative offices within the
City's Services and Manufacturing areas;
2. Directed staff to separate out from the initial amendment package, the parking ratio for
warehouse stores and the land use category of "retail sales - groceries, liquor and
specialized foods" for further discussion; and
3. Recommended City Council adoption of the remaining implementation amendments.
The Council first reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations on September 17'D, and
approved the ordinance changes with some minor modifications. At the Council's October 1'
meeting, Ordinance No. 1310 (1996 Series) was pulled from consent for further input by business
groups. Their concerns centered on the proposed elimination of certain retail uses from the City's
Service Commercial (C -S) zoning district as well as the reduction of the building height limit in
the Retail Commercial (C -R) zoning district to 35 feet. The matter was initially continued to
November 19m and then subsequently changed to January 21'.
/- I
Council Agenda Report - Zoning Regulations Amendments (TA 79 -96 & TA 121 -96)
Page 2
While the Council was reviewing the ordinance amendments, staff prepared and the Planning
Commission reviewed the above referenced General Plan amendment that would once again allow
engineering, architects, contractors, and utility company offices in the City's C -S zoning district.
This LUE amendment is scheduled to be heard by the Council at this same meeting. Staff also
prepared and the Commission reviewed a second package of zoning text amendments that
addressed warehouse store parking and convenience shopping. For ease of discussion, these
additional zoning ordinance implementation amendments are addressed in this report and are
included in the attached draft ordinance.
Analys : As mentioned in previous staff reports and presentations, the City is required to maintain
consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Regulations. The whole premise behind the
ordinance changes are the policies that were adopted as part of the City's LUE update process.
These policies form the basis of how this City is to develop and grow in the future. If the
planning principles behind the policies are valid, then the policies need to be implemented.
Should they no longer reflect the community's values, then they need to be changed.
Based on past hearings, staff believes there are only three controversial areas remaining with the
amendment package. The first, is the proposed elimination of "retail sales of general merchandise
(drug, discount, department, and variety stores)" from the C -S zoning district. The second, is the
proposed elimination of "retail sales of groceries, liquor and specialized foods" from the C -S
zoning district. The third, is the lowering of the maximum building height in the C -R zoning
district from 45 feet to 35 feet.
The Chamber of Commerce's Land Use Committee has reviewed the proposed amendments and
has stated (see November 13, 1996 correspondence, attached) that they would like to have drug,
discount, and variety stores remain as conditionally allowed uses in the C -S zoning district. They
feel that the current use permit process is sufficient to regulate where these uses locate in the City.
In addition, the Chamber believes that the limitation of buildings to 35 feet in the C -R zoning
district will reduce the architectural quality of buildings and will work against the goal of a
compact urban form.
The Planning Commission in their review, believes that the current LUE policies regarding the
siting of commercial land uses are appropriate. Those policies attempt to preserve the services
and manufacturing areas for limited retail uses, repair services, light manufacturing, and research
and development. Retail uses of a neighborhood (grocery and drug stores) or general retail
(discount, department, and variety stores) nature are more appropriately located in the
Neighborhood Commercial and General Retail areas of the City. The Commission is
recommending that the Council uphold those General Plan policies by eliminating certain retail
uses from the C -S zoning district.
It is important to note that the Commission does feel that certain "convenience shopping"
opportunities need to be provided in the C -S district consistent with General Plan policies. The
Commission is therefore recommending the inclusion of branch banks and convenience markets
(with a maximum floor area of 4,500 square feet) in the C -S district.
l-
Council Agenda Report - Zoning Regulations Amendments (TA 79 -96 & TA 121 -96)
Page 3
As for the building height issue, the Council has heard from local architects and the business
community that the ARC process is sufficient to ensure that buildings in the C -R district are
appropriately sized and preserve scenic views from surrounding properties. The Commission, at
their meeting of December 11"', reaffirmed their earlier recommendation that the maximum
building height limit in the C -R zoning district should be 35 feet.
ALTERNATIVES
As discussed in earlier staff reports, a variety of options are available to the Council. The key
point to remember is that the Zoning Regulations and General Plan must be consistent. For
instance, maintaining certain conditionally permitted retail uses within the C -S district as
recommended in the Chamber of Commerce letter, would be inconsistent with the General Plan.
If it is the intent of the Council to retain more flexibility in the C -S zoning district, then this
flexibility must be written into the General plan If however, the Council believes the commercial
siting policies established in General Plan reflect how this community should develop in the
future, then the Zoning Regulations must be amended accordingly.
Attachments
Ordinance No. 1310 (as amended)
Legislative draft of proposed changes
Planning Commission Staff Report (TA 121 -96)
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (TA 121 -96)
Background Material
/-3
ORDINANCE NO. 1310 (1996 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS IN ORDER TO
EMPLEMENT POLICIES OF THE 1994 LAND USE ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN
(TA 79 -96 & TA 121 -96)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on June 12" August 14'h,
and December 11m, 1996, and recommended approval of certain amendments to the City's Zoning
Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted public hearings on September 171, 1996 and
January 21', 1997, and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning
Commission hearings and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed provisions are consistent with the
General Plan and other applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the EIR for the Land Use and Circulation
Elements of the General Plan (Certified on August 23, 1994) and staff's determination that these
implementation amendments constitute a secondary phase of the "project" evaluated by that EIR;
and
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the EIR for the Land Use and
Circulation Element of the General Plan addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of
the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Regulations, and reflects the independent judgement
of the City Council. The Council hereby determines that no further environmental review is required.
SECTION 2. Sections 17.04.085, 17.16.010, 17.16.060, 17.22.010, 17.40.020, and
17.50.010 are hereby amended to read as follows:
17.04.085 Convenience Store.
Any retail establishment with not more than 4,500 square feet of gross floor area, offering for sale
Prepackaged food products, household items, newspapers and magazines, and sandwiches and other
freshly prepared foods, such as salads, for off -site consumption.
17.16.010 Density.
A. Determination of Allowed Development.
-Al
Ordinance No. 1310 (1996 Series)
Page 2
1- "Density" is the number of dwelling units per net acre. In the C /OS and R -1 zones, each dwelling
counts as one unit. In the other zones, different size dwellings have unit values as follows:
a. Studio apartment, 0.50 unit;
b. One - bedroom dwelling, 0.66 unit;
C. Two- bedroom dwelling, 1.00 unit;
d. Three- bedroom dwelling, 1.50 units;
e. Dwelling with four or more bedrooms, 2.00 units.
2. The following procedure shall be used to determine the maximum development allowed on a given
lot or land area:
a. Determine the Average Cross -slope of the Site. "Average cross - slope" is the ratio, expressed as
a percentage of the difference in elevation to the horizontal distance between two points on the
perimeter of the area for which slope is being determined. The line along which the slope is measured
shall run essentially perpendicular to the contours.
L Where a site does not slope uniformly, average cross -slope is to be determined by proportional
weighting of the cross - slopes of uniformly sloping subareas, as determined by the Community
Development Director.
ii. Cross -slope determinations shall be based on the existing topography of the net site area after
accounting for any approved on -site grading necessary to accommodate right -of -way improvements,
and before grading for other proposed on -site improvements.
iii. Cross -slope shall be calculated only for the "net area" as defined in Subsection Alb below.
iv. When the calculation of cross slope results in a fractional number, it shall be rounded to the next
highest whole number if the fraction is one -half or more; otherwise it shall be rounded down to the
next lowest whole number.
v. No slope -rated density reduction is required in the C /OS, C -R, C -C or PF zones.
Ordinance No. 1310 (1996 Series)
Page 3
vi. The maximum development allowed for each average cross -slope category is as follows:
TABLE 1
MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR
CROSS -SLOPE CATEGORIES
% Average Maximum Density
Cross Slope (units per net acre)
By approving an administrative use permit, the Director may grant exceptions to the reduction of
density with slope where the parcel in question is essentially surrounded by development at least as
dense as the proposed development. The exception shall not authorize density greater than that
allowed for the category of less than 15% slope for the appropriate zone. (See also Section
17.12.020.D, Nonconforming Lots = Regulations.)
b. Determine the Net Area of the Site. "Net area" is all the area within the property lines of the
development site excluding the following:
Street right -of -way dedicated to the City;
2. Area between the tops of banks of creeks shown on the Open Space Element "Creeks
Map;ff
3. Habitat occupied by species listed as "endangered" or "threatened" by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service or the California Department of Fish and Game, or as "plants of
highest priority" by the California Native Plant Society,
4. Area within the drip line of "heritage trees" designated by the City.
c. Multiply the resulting area (n whole and fractional acres) by the maximum density allowed (in units
per acre) according to the table in subsection A. La. of this section.
d. The resulting number (in dwelling units, carried out to the nearest one - hundredth unit) will be the
maximum residential development potential. Any combination of dwelling types and numbers may
/r%o
R -1
R -2, 0
R -3
R -4
C -R &
C -N, C -T
C -C
0 -15
7
12
18
24
36
16 -20
4
6
9
12
36
21 -25
2
4
6
8
36
26+
1
2
3
4
36
By approving an administrative use permit, the Director may grant exceptions to the reduction of
density with slope where the parcel in question is essentially surrounded by development at least as
dense as the proposed development. The exception shall not authorize density greater than that
allowed for the category of less than 15% slope for the appropriate zone. (See also Section
17.12.020.D, Nonconforming Lots = Regulations.)
b. Determine the Net Area of the Site. "Net area" is all the area within the property lines of the
development site excluding the following:
Street right -of -way dedicated to the City;
2. Area between the tops of banks of creeks shown on the Open Space Element "Creeks
Map;ff
3. Habitat occupied by species listed as "endangered" or "threatened" by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service or the California Department of Fish and Game, or as "plants of
highest priority" by the California Native Plant Society,
4. Area within the drip line of "heritage trees" designated by the City.
c. Multiply the resulting area (n whole and fractional acres) by the maximum density allowed (in units
per acre) according to the table in subsection A. La. of this section.
d. The resulting number (in dwelling units, carried out to the nearest one - hundredth unit) will be the
maximum residential development potential. Any combination of dwelling types and numbers may
/r%o
Ordinance No. 1310 (1996 Series)
Page 4
be developed, so long as their combined unit values do not exceed the maximum potential.
17. 16.060 Parking space requirements.
Table 6 - Parking Requirements by Use is hereby amended as follows:
Type of Use Number of Off - Street Parking Spaces Required
Research and development One space per 300 square feet office or laboratory area, plus
one space per 500 square feet indoor assembly or fabrication
area, plus one space per 1,500 square feet outdoor work area
or indoor warehouse area.
Retail sales - convenience markets One space per 200 square feet gross floor area.
Warehouse store One space per 200 square feet gross floor area.
17.22.010 Uses allowed by zones.
Table 9 - Uses Allowed by Zone is hereby amended as follows:
Table 9- Uses Allowed b Zone
R -1
R -2
R-3
F4
C /OS
0"
PF
C -N
C -C
C -R
C -T
C -S
M
Banks and savin s and loans
A
A'
A
Research and development -
A
services, software, consumer
A/D
A
A
A
products. instruments, office
equipment and similar items, and
related fight chemical processing
Research and development -
transportation equipment,
PC
D
weapons, metals, chemicals,
building materials, and similar
items
Retail sales - convenience stores
A
A
A
A
D
D
Retail sales - indoor sales of
A°
building materials and gardening
A
A
A
A
supplies (bardware, floor and wall
coverings, Paint, glass stores, etc.)
Retail sales - groceries, liquor and
A
A
specialised foods (bakery, meats.
A
PC
dairy items, etc.)
1 -7
Ordinance No. 1310 (1996 Series)
Page 5
Table 9 - Uses Allowed by Zone
R -1
R -2
R -3
R4
C /OS
O"
PF
C -N
I C-C
C-R
C -T
CS
M
Retail sales - general merchandise
(drug, discount, department and
variety stores) (see also "Retail
sales - warehouse stores")
- 15,000 square feet or less gross
floor area per establishment
A
A
A
- 15,001 to 60,000 square feet
gross floor area per establishment
PC
A
A
- more than 60,000 square feet
gross floor area per establishment
PC
D
Retail sales - warehouse stores
- 45,000 square feet or less gross
PC
D
D
floor area per establishment
- more than 45,000 square feet
PC
PC
PC
gross floor area per establishment.
Social services and charitable
A
D
D
A
A
agencies (see also
"organizations")
A - The use is allowed;
D - If the Director approves an administrative use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.080, the use may be established;
PC - If the Planning Commission approves a use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.080, the use may be established;
AM - The use is allowed above the ground floor. If the Director approves an administrative use permit, it may be established on the ground floor.
Notes:
In the C-N, C-S, and M zones, only branches of banks are allowed - no headquarters.
10. Large professional office buildings which can include multiple tenants but with no single tenant space less than 2,500 square feet
may be established in the C -S and M zones subject to the approval of a Planned Development (PD) zoning application and
compliance with findings specified in Section 17.62.040 C. However, this provision notwithstanding, the following types of
office - related uses are prohibited in PDs approved for C-S and M zones: Non -branch banking services, real estate offices,
financial institutions, medical clinics, doctor's offices, and lawyer's offices.
17.40.020 Property development standards.
The property development standards for the C -R zone are as follows:
A. Maximum density: 36 units per net acre for all dwelling, including dwelling units in hotels and
motels, but not including other hotel or motel units (see also Section 17.16.010).
13. Maximum street and other yards: See Section 17.16.020.
/1
Ordinance No. 1310 (1996 Series)
Page 6
C. Maximum height: 35 feet (see also Section 17.16.020 and 17.16.040).
D. Maximum coverage: 100%
E. Parking requirements: See Section 17.16.060.
17.50.010 Purpose and application.
The planned development zone is intended to encourage imaginative development and effective use
of sites. It does this by allowing more variation in project design than normal standards would allow.
Such variation from normal standards should provide benefits to the project occupants or to the
community as a whole which could not be provided under conventional regulations. PD rezoning
must occur simultaneously with approval of a specific project. In the C -N, C -C, C -R, C -T, C -S, and
M zones, the PD zone may be applied to any parcel. In all other zones, the PD zone may be applied
to any parcel or contiguous parcels of at least one acre.
SECTION 3. Sections 17.04.328, 17.04.455, are hereby added to read as follows:
17.04.328 Research and development.
"Research and development" means a facility where basic scientific, marketing, or similar types of
research are conducted, or where new products or services are designed, or prototypes are produced
or tested, excluding retail sales and production -run manufacturing.
17.04.455 Warehouse store.
Warehouse store means a retail or wholesale store which sells items primarily in bulk quantities or
containers, and which has minimal range of brands and minimal display space that is separate from
storage areas.
SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members
voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the
Telegram- Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into
effect at the expiration of thirty (3 0) days after its final passage.
Ordinance No. 1310 (1996 Series)
Page 7
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
at its meeting held on the day of , 1997, on a motion of
_, seconded by , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Bonnie Gawf, City Clerk
APPROVED:
/o,.0 /�,
� _
Mayor Allen Settle
l •Io
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT OF ORDINANCE CHANGES
Strilceot:t represents text to be removed
[iletl represents text to be added
17.04.085 Convenience Store.
17.16.010 Density.
A. Determination of Allowed Development.
1. "Density" is the number of the dwelling units per net acre. In the C /OS and R -1 zones, each
dwelling counts as one unit. In the other zones, different size dwellings have unit values as follows:
a. Studio apartment, 0.50 unit;
b. One - bedroom dwelling, 0.66 unit;
C. Two- bedroom dwelling, 1.00 unit;
d. Three- bedroom dwelling, 1.50 units;
e. Dwelling with four or more bedrooms, 2.00 units.
2. The following procedure shall be used to determine the maximum development allowed on a given
lot or land area:
a. Determine the Average Cross -slope of the Site. "Average cross - slope" is the ratio, expressed as
a percentage of the difference in elevation to the horizontal distance between two points on the
perimeter of the area for which slope is being determined. The line along which the slope is measured
shall run essentially perpendicular to the contours. -
9rdinarnce-j
i. Where a site does not slope uniformly, average cross -slope is to be determined by proportional
weighting of the cross - slopes of uniformly sloping subareas, as determined by the Community
Development Director.
ii. Cross -slope determinations shall be based on the existing topography of the net site area after
accounting for any approved on -site grading necessary to accommodate right -of -way improvements,
and before grading for other proposed on -site improvements.
iii. Cross -slope shall be calculated Only for the "net site area' as defined m Subsection .A2b below
exclusive of jight-of-way mid creek areas.
�'AAI1V 71I.10 i'1- 1 -II��I b1 S�J�LV �1L114t�/11
I
v. No slope -rated density reduction is required in the C /OS, C -R, C -C or PF zones.
vi. The maximum development allowed for each average cross -slope category is as follows:
TABLE I
MA)OMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR
CROSS -SLOPE CATEGORIES
% Average
Maximum Density
Cross Slope
(units per net acre)
R -1
R -22 O R -3
R-4
.................
C -N, C -T
0 -15
7
12 18
245
16 -20
4
6 9
12
3;5.
21 -25
2
4 6
8
36
26+
1
2 3
4
36
By approving an administrative use permit, the Director may grant exceptions to the reduction of
density with slope where the parcel in question is essentially surrounded by development at least as
dense as the proposed development. The exception shall not authorize density greater than that
allowed for the category of less than 15% slope for the appropriate zone. (See also Section
17.12.020.D, Nonconforming Lots - Regulations.)
b. Determine the Net Area of the Site. "Net area" inclades is all the area within the property lines of
the development site 116ILaS StICCt light-Of-Way -
occupied by ailomed nuinesidential uses. eXcl d if" £ to '
:: < <Ehe .
1> treetr 'Ekt.a# ±a`'edcated_ o.........0 .,
3
3`
4,
Area withui the,drip lme of "her► #age. tries" designat6 ..;by the Ctty;;
2
c. Multiply the resulting area (in whole and fractional acres) by the maximum density allowed (in units
per acre) according to the table in subsection A.l.a. of this section.
d. The resulting number (in dwelling units, carried out to the nearest one - hundredth unit) will be the
maximum residential development potential. Any combination of dwelling types and numbers may
be developed, so long as their combined unit values do not exceed the maximum potential.
17.16.060 Parking space requirements.
Table 6 - Parking Requirements by Use is hereby amended as follows:
Type of Use Number of Off - Street Parking Spaces Required
tesearc)t>M eve op ent
O:ne space per 2QQ square';feet gro §s floor area:;
.W Stpre One space: per : square `feet gross flgor,area'
17.22.010 Uses allowed by zones.
Table 9 - Uses Allowed by Zone is hereby amended as follows:
Table 9 -Uses Allowed by Zone R -1 R -2 R -3 R-4 C /OS 1 O" PF C -N I C-C C -R C -T C-S I M
Banks and savings and loans A A' A A Dt DI
csgarcltanilrtevelopinegE_ A A7D A i4 A
seires� s'jftvare ;cotsainef
fiw 05
�gtuE�.0m.... MIMIaz iUe and
:::.::...:.............:...
ceCatedfl„ °ttlseaiccai' dcessin
Recapd�#eti�lopm�ut[� ri
spNttoriequipmen
1C! CSp0t1S�Fi12 '�jSa;C)t'ttHC9:I5y......
S.W:Idrng itat:[ia3_!K8iti# >' .=T?.t
3tCIfIS
Cta1]S'C013Veuce_so [ eS A A x)
Retail sales - indoor sales of As A A A A
building materials and gardening
supplies (}asiiWae floor and wall
coverings, paint, glass stores, etc.)
Retail sales - groceries, liquor and A A A PC 0
specialized foods (bakery, meats,
dairy items, etc.)
K
1 -13
Table 9- Uses Allowed by Zone I R -1 I R -2 I R -3 I R4 I C /OS 1 O" 1 PF I C -N I C -C I C -R I C -T I CS I M
Retail sales - general merchandise
(drug, Imrdvrare, discount,
department and variety stores)
s.. s
' ! "slgres5
- 15,000 square feet or less gross A A A PG
floor area per establishment
- 15,001 to 60,000 square feet PC A A P6
gross floor area per establishment
- more than 60,000 square feet PC D PC-
gross floor area per establishment.
!SfJtld sluet"eetaressgross
oar r.M.10rslayGslunett
Social services and charitable
agencies (see also
"o gru = tioi
'°m��I
PC I VC I I PC
A - The use is allowed;
D - If the Director approves an administrative use pennit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.080, the use may be established;
PC - If the Planning Commission approves a use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.080, the use may be established;
A/D - The use is allowed above the ground floor. If the Director approves an adiinistrative use permit, it may be established on the ground floor.
Notes:
1. In the C -N' CSa an`lv1 zones, only branches of banks are allowed - no headquarters
10. La oe professional office buildings which can include multiple tenants but with no single tenant space less than 2,500 square feet
may be established in the C -S and M zones subject to the approval of a Planned Development (PD) zoning application and
compliance with findings specified in Section 17.62.040 C. However, this provision notwithstanding, the following types of office -
........................................................
related uses are prohibited in PDs approved for CS and M zones: Banks N..a - biartch bi i�I iijg:sitivices, real estate offices, financial
institutions, medical clinics, doctor's offices, and lawyer's offices.
17.40.020 Property development standards.
The property development standards for the C -R zone are as follows:
A. Maximum density: 36 units per net acre for all dwelling, including dwelling units in hotels and
motels, but not including other hotel or motel units (see also Section 17.16.010).
B. Maximum street and other yards: See Section 17.16.020.
C. Maximum height: 4535 feet (see also Section 17.16.020 and 17.16.040).
4
D. Maximum coverage: 100%
E. Parking requirements: See Section 17.16.060.
17.50.010 Purpose and application.
The planned development zone is intended to encourage imaginative development and effective use
of sites. It does this by allowing more variation in project design than normal standards would allow.
Such variation from normal standards should provide benefits to the project occupants or to the
community as a whole which could not be provided under conventional regulations. PD rezoning
a
OT
must occur simultaneous) with approval of a specific project. In the C -C <
k::anc1
zone&, the PD zone may be applied to any parcel. In all other zones, the PD zone may be applied
to any parcel or contiguous parcels of at least one acre.
SECTION 3. Sections 17.04.328, 17.04.455, are hereby added to read as follows:
7 04455
l �l�
A _ a
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM l 4
BY: Ronald Whisenand, MEETING DATE: December 11, 1996
Development Review Manag
FILE NUMBER: TA 121 -96
PROJECT ADDRESS: City-Wide
SUBJECT: Further amendments to various sections of the Zoning Regulations in order to
implement policies of the 1994 Land Use Element of the General Plan.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Recommend adoption of the changes, with our without
modification, to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
On August 14, 1996, the Planning Commission acted on a series of zoning text amendments that
would implement portions of the 1994 Land Use Element update to City's the General Plan. In
summary, the Commission recommended Council approval of an ordinance that:
1. created a definition, parking calculation, and zoning matrix reference for "bed and
breakfast inns;"
2. created a definition, parking calculation, and zoning matrix reference for "research
and development uses;"
3. created a definition and zoning matrix reference for "warehouse stores ";
4. moved hardware stores from "retail sales of general merchandise" to "retail sales
of indoor sales of building materials and gardening supplies;"
5. modified the density provisions contained in Section 17.16.010 to exclude sensitive
resource areas from the calculation of "net site area;"
6. lowered the height limit in the C -R zoning district from 45 feet to 35 feet; and
7. allowed planned developments on commercial and industrial parcels of less than
one acre.
The Commission also directed General Plan and additional Zoning Regulations clean-up
amendments back to staff for analysis. These clean-up amendments include:
1. changes to the Land Use Element to include policy language that supports the
continued use of the City's Services and Manufacturing areas for architects,
engineers, and contractors offices as well as professional organizations, offices,
and meeting rooms;
2. further review of the "retail sales - groceries, liquor and specialized foods" land use
category including a definition of "convenience markets;" and
3. establishment of a parking ratio for "warehouse stores" and "convenience markets."
/r•
X I
This report will address those additional Zoning Regulations amendments identified above. A
separate report has been prepared by the Long Range Planning Division that addresses the General
Plan amendment component.
EVALUATION
As pointed out in earlier staff reports, the Land Use Element (LUE) of the City's General Plan
no longer supports grocery stores in the Services and Manufacturing areas of the City.
Specifically, Policy 3.5.3 states:
`New specialty stores, department stores, or neighborhood commercial centers
should not be developed in Service and Manufacturing areas. However, existing
uses such as supermarkets and drugstores may be expanded if.•
A. They are compatible with nearby uses;
B. The expanded use will not divert trade from other general- retail or
neighborhood commercial areas which are better located to serve the
expected market area"
The LUE intends for grocery stores to locate in General Retail and Neighborhood Commercial
areas of the City. Specifically, LUE Policy 3.2.1 states:
'The City should have areas for Neighborhood Commercial uses to meet the
frequent shopping demands of people living nearby. Neighborhood Commercial
uses include grocery stores, laundromats, and drug and hardware stores... "
As stated in earlier staff reports and at the public hearings, the purpose behind the above
referenced General Plan policies is that grocery stores should be located close to the residents that
they are intended to serve. In addition, if a wider range of retail uses could be developed in the
C -S zone, they might occupy land that would otherwise be available for desired industrial or
service commercial uses.
Although it is a goal of the General Plan to have sufficient area reserved for "service and
manufacturing" uses, Policies 3.5.1 and 3.6.2 do provide noteworthy exceptions. Specifically,
Policy 3.5.1 encourages development of "convenience restaurants and other activities primarily
serving area workers" in service and manufacturing areas. In addition Policy 3.6.2 states:
`Convenience facilities serving daily needs, such as small food stores, branch
banks, and child and elder care, and amenities such as picnic areas, will be
allowed in centers of employment. Space for such amenities may be required
within large commercial and industrial developments. "
1�1T
E , Z -
The purpose for these policies is to provide area workers with some of the same services (on a
smaller scale) that are already provided to residential neighborhoods. "Restaurants, sandwich
shops, and take-out food, etc." are currently listed as allowed uses in the C -S and M districts with
an Administrative Use Permit. Similarly, "day care centers" can be established in these zones
under our current regulations. Grocery stores and branch banks however, are either proposed to
be eliminated or are currently prohibited from C -S and M zoning districts.
During the Commission's discussion on eliminating grocery stores from the C -S zoning districts,
the idea of "convenience stores" was presented as a way of making the distinction between large
super markets (which are no longer allowed), and convenience facilities that are called for in the
General Plan. The City currently has a definition for "convenience stores" (Sec. 17.04.085) that
is not very descriptive. Staff therefore recommends a new definition along with the addition of
a land use category to be contained in the zoning matrix (Table 9).
The key issue in coming up with a new definition is a determination as to the floor area at which
a "convenience market" becomes a "grocery store." Current convenience shopping opportunities
within San Luis Obispo include:
1. Circle K (2600 Broad St.) at 1,500 square feet
2. Circle K (158 Higuera St.) at 3,180 square feet
3. Muzio's (870 Monterey St.) at 2,300 square feet
4. San Luis Family Market (486 Broad St.) at 2,000 square feet
5. Trader Joes (237 Higuera St.) at 7,600 square feet
6. Kaneys Market (1285 Laurel Ln.) at 8,640 square feet
At the Planning Commission's August 14'b meeting, Commissioner Senn recommended
considering a maximum square footage of 20,000 square feet. For the sake of comparison,
20,000 square feet would be approximately two thirds the size of Scolari's grocery store. A 1993
planning text book titled "Development Definitions" by Harvey S. Moskowitz and Carl G.
Lindbloom states "most experts agree that an appropriate maximum size for such stores is 3,500
square feet and that the size limitation should appear in the body of the ordinance." Based on the
above examples and input from Commissioner Senn on market forces with this form of retail use,
staff would like to start the discussion at 12,000 square feet.
The Commission did not direct staff to address the issue of branch banks. However, since the
above policies identify the need for banking facilities in the services and manufacturing areas of
the City, the Commission may want to make further changes to the "banks and savings and loans"
category in Table 9. If so, it will be important to ensure that banking be limited to "branch
offices" rather than "bank headquarters" similar to the restrictions for banks in the C -N zoning
district (see footnote 1; Table 9). In addition, modification to footnote 10 will also be needed in
order to eliminate the prohibition of banks in C -S and M planned developments.
The initial series of Zoning Text Amendments presented to the Planning Commission established
a parking ratio for warehouse stores ( "big box" retail centers) at one space per 500 square feet of
/'/O
gross floor area. The Commission was concerned that this parking ratio would be insufficient to
meet the parking needs of these unique retail facilities. Staff has done some research with other
communities within the State that have previously tackled this unique parking issue. Warehouse
store parking ratios in these communities generally ranged from 1 space per 200 to 250 square feet
of floor area. We specifically included Santa Maria in our survey who utilized a 1/200 square
foot ratio for Costco and 1/300 square foot ratio for Home Base. Knowing that parking is
available but not overly abundant during busy times at the Santa Maria location, staff feels
comfortable with establishing a minimum parking ratio of 1/200.
As far as parking for convenience stores, staff does not see any difference in parking
characteristics with that for "retail sales - groceries, liquor and specialized foods (bakery, meats,
dairy items, etc.)." Parking for these uses is presently established at 1 space per 200 square feet
of gross floor area. Staff is proposing the same ratio for convenience stores.
As was the case with the first set of implementation amendments, the attached changes to the
Zoning Regulations do not require separate environmental review. The policies and programs
being implemented with this ordinance were given thorough environmental review during the
General Plan Amendment process, which culminated in the certification of a "project" EkR on
August 23', 1994. Since these implementing amendments are called for by that General Plan,
they can be considered a sub -phase of that project.
ALTERNATIVES
Staff s recommendation for approval of these amendments is based on the objective that zoning
must be in conformance with the General Plan. If the Commission feels that the LUE policies that
staff intend to implement no longer reflect the community's values, then you need to recommend
that the City Council amend the General Plan.
Attached:
Legislative Draft Ordinance
L•\ZOUP2.WPD
Af
ORDINANCE NO. (1997 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FURTHER
AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS IN ORDER TO
DIPLEIVIENT POLICIES OF THE 1994 LAND USE ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN
(TA 121 -96)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on December 11, 1996
and recommended approval of certain amendments to the City's Zoning Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on , 1997, and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed provisions are consistent with the
General Plan and other applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the EIR for the Land Use and Circulation
Elements of the General Plan (Certified on August 23, 1994) and staff's determination that these
implementation amendments constitute a secondary phase of the "project" evaluated by that EIR;
and
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the EIR for the Land Use and
Circulation Element of the General Plan addresses the potential significant environmental impacts
of the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Regulations, and reflects the independent
judgement of the City Council. The Council hereby determines that no further environmental
review is required.
SECTION 2. Sections 17.04.085, 17.16.060 and 17.22.010 of the Zoning Regulations
are hereby amended to read as follows:
-iAo
Ordinance No. (1997 Series)
Page 2
17.04.085 Convenience Store.
17.16.060 Parking space requirements.
Table 6 - Parking Requirements by Use is hereby amended as follows:
Type of Use Number of Off - Street Parking Spaces Required
�espac�per;�sgt�al'e ee :.gloss;: oa:::: ea,
17.22.010 Uses allowed by zones.
Table 9 - Uses Allowed by Zone is hereby amended as follows:
Table 9 - Uses Mowed by Zone
I R -1
R -2
R -3
R4
C/OS
O"
PF
C -N I
C-C
I C -R
I C -T
C-S
M
eYailsa«titinuetcea4ae9
A
A3
D
Retail sales - groceries, liquor and
A
A
A
PC
a
specialized foods (bakery, meats.
dairy items, etc.)
A - The use is allowed;
D - If the Director approves an administrative use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.080, the use may be established;
PC - If the Planning Commission approves a use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.080, the use may be established;
A/D - The uses allowed above the ground floor. If the Director approves an administrative use permit, it may be established on the ground floor.
SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members
voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the
Telegram- Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into
effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
l "J/
Ordinance No. (1997 Series)
Page 3
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo at its meeting held on the day of
, seconded by
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Bonnie Gawf, City Clerk
APPROVED:
City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen
1997, on a motion of
and on the following roll call
/ -,2Z
Draft
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 1996
Page 10
The motion carried.
3.
1518 for the Villa Rosa
R -3 -PD Zone; Mid -State
Commissioner Veesart moved
seconded by Commissioner K<
Commissioners Senn, Ready, and
potential conflicts of interest.
A39-96 1: Amendment to the Planned Development
ment to remove the affordable housing requirement;
applicant.
continued Item #3 to January 8, 1997. The motion was
AYES:
Commissioners Veesart, Kot
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
REFRAIN:
Commissioners Senn, Ready,
The motion passed.
int refrained from participating due to
Whittlesey, and Jeffrey
Chairman Karleskint
4. Citywide: (TA 121 -96): Zoning Text Amendment to develop parking standards for
warehouse store and land use regulations for convenience grocery stores and markets;
City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Development Review Manager Whisenand presented the staff report and recommended
the Commission forward a recommendation to the Council asking for adoption of the
changes, with or without modification.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no public comments made.
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS:
Commissioner Senn played an audio tape for the Commission of a message from Mr.
Cainey.
( wd�— 3
Draft
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 1996
Page 11
Commissioner Veesart asked if the 12,000 s.f recommendation for the maximum size of
convenience markets is tentative.
Development Review Manager %isenand replied yes.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked staff if there is any distinction between free - standing or stores
within other stores.
Development Review Manager Whisenand replied no.
Commissioner Senn stated there may be a concern for setting a floor area limitation for
convenience markets that's too small, we may be limiting the prospect of future
competition.
Commissioner Veesart doesn't view Cainey's store as a convenience store. It is a market.
He doesn't see Trader Joe's as being a convenience store either. When he thinks of
convenience stores, it is something like a Circle K or something along these lines. He feels
Sidewalk Market and Gus' Grocery are convenience stores.
Commissioner Veesart would set the limit at smaller than 12,000 s.f. He doesn't feel there
is much market demand for 10,000 s.f grocery stores in the City anymore.
Commissioner Kourakis stated we are talking about convenience stores in the C -S. She
assume the stores were really meant to service the people working in C -S Zones. She
feels this speaks to a small store. Larger grocery stores could be handled by other zones.
If Scolari's is 30,000 s.f and we go down to 20,000 s.f., all they have to do is ask for an
exception. What we're doing here is providing convenient food service in C -S areas. She
feels strongly about preserving these C -S areas.
Commissioner Jeffrey believes one of the last convenience stores is the Sidewalk Market.
He asked the square footage.
Commissioner Senn replied approximately 3,000 s.f.
Commissioner Whittlesey doesn't feel convenience stores need to be larger than this in the
C -Z Zone. She feels 12,000 s.f is too large. The reason it "s in a C -S Zone is because it's
serving the population that is there and not attracting more of a draw.
Commissioner Veesart moved to recommend that convenience stores should be no larger
that 3,500 s.f. in the C -S Zone. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kourakis.
/-07-`f
Draft
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 1996
Page 12
Commissioner Senn said that he didn't see anything in the staff report about other
convenience store operators in the city being contacted. He feels the Commission is trying
to make a decision without input from anybody else which he feels is illogical. He feels
any number the Commission picks is subjective. He feels he is hearing the goal as being
we need to say what kind of food service we want to provide in the C -S Zoned property.
He would like to know what sized stores can effectively compete to provide this degree of
service. He doesn't want to put a constraint on whatever size is determined appropriate
to a point where it prohibits a person from competing.
Commissioner Whittlesey feels General Plan policy talks about why we want food service
in the C -S Zone. Food service is appropriate if it's serving the immediate population and
employees in the area as a convenience.
Commissioner Senn doesn't feel all C -S properties are the same. If we take anything less
than 12,000 s.f., we're going to make some businesses nonconforming.
Chairman Karleskint doesn't feel stores over 12,000 s.f belong in the C -S Zone.
Commissioner Ready is concerned that we may be saying that all convenience stores will
be Circle Ks. He feels a little more should be offered to the people working in the C -S
Zones. The C -S Zone is a whole different aspect than the downtown with respect to foot
traffic. He feels he doesn't have enough information to support the motion.
Chairman Karleskint is concerned with the 3,500 s.f being too small.
Commissioner Kourakis stated considering the range of existing markets, she doesn't feel
3,500 s.f would be limiting.
Commissioner Jeffrey feels peak hours of operation needs to be looked at in the C -S Zone.
He feels 3,500 s.f. may be too restrictive.
Commissioner Veesart amended his motion to 4,500 s.f. Commissioner Kourakis
accepted the amendment to the motion.
Commissioner Senn is concern about creating nonconforming uses. He asked if this will
become allowed as a matter of right of the Zoning Matrix.
Development Review Manager Whisenand replied this will be allowed in the C -S with a
Director's use permit.
AYES: Commissioners Veesart, Kourakis, Whittlesey, Jeffrey, and Chairman
Karleskint
l -dam
Draft
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 1996
Page 13
NOES: Commissioner Senn and Ready
ABSTAIN: None
The motion passed.
Development Review Manager Whisenand presented a staff report.
Commissioner Ready moved recommending to Council the parking space requirements as
set forth in the staff report of the ordinance on Page 2. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Whittlesey.
Commissioner Senn feels different warehouse stores have different customer demands.
Not all warehouse stores are the same.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated there is flexibility in the permit process.
Commissioner Kourakis feels exceptions can be asked for
AYES: Commissioners Ready, Whittlesey, Veesart, Kourakis, Senn, Jeffrey, and
Chairman Karleskint
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Development Review Manager Whisenand discussed the General Plan policies that
encouraged branch banking services in the C -S and M zones.
Commissioner Senn is comfortable with a Director's use permit for branch banking in the
C -S and M Zones.
Commissioner Senn moved to recommend to the City Council that branch banks be a
permitted use in the C -S and M Zones with a Director's use permit. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Ready.
AYES: Commissioners Senn, Ready, Veesart, Kourakis, Whittlesey, Jeffrey, and
Chairman Karleskint
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried.
Development Review Manager Whisenand discussed the pending issue of whether grocery
stores should be excluded from the C -S zone as called for by General Plan policies.
/ -a4
Draft
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 1996
Page 14
Commissioner Jeffrey moved to recommend to the Council that Retail Sales -- groceries,
liquor, and specialized foods not be allowed in the C -S zoning district as shown on Page 2
of Table 9. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kourakis.
AYES: Commissioners Jeffrey, Kourakis, Veesart, Whittlesey, and Chairman
Karleskint
NOES: Commissioners Senn and Ready
ABSTAIN: None
The motion passed.
5. Citywide: (GP 115 -96): General Plan
offices and bakeries in the Services and 1
height limits, near the downtown core; City,
nd se Element text amendment concerning
aacturing Zone, and commercial building
San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Associate Planner Matteson presented the sta
support for the adoption of the changes, with or
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no public comments made.
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS:
Commissioner Veesart feels reluctant to reopen the
zoning district. He feels the Commission made a recon
Commissioner Seen cannot support staff
Commissioner Wbittlesey asked if the policy only
and recommended Commission
modification, to the City Council.
of height limits in the C -R
Ltion to Council previously.
of 35' height limit.
to the downtown.
Associate Planner Matteson stated this applies to t C -R areas in the downtown and is
made to limit commercial buildings in this area to a main height. The basic question to
look at is should buildings in this area be two stories an bout 35' or should they be taller.
Commissioner Veesart asked if the line of reasoning is as you drop away from the
commercial core, you want building heights to drop away also so they weren't towering
over adjacent residential neighborhoods.
/-C� 7
Council M..fiagDa.
j aGEnoa izEpout �N..
C I T Y O F SAN LUIS O B 1 S P 0
0
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 1310 (1996 Series); amending various sections of the Zoning
Regulations in order to implement policies of the 1994 Land Use Element of the
General Plan (TA 79 -96).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Direct the matter back to staff for scheduling a new public hearing before the Council in order to
re- introduce ths ordinance.
DISCUSSION
On September 17, 1996, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 1310, which will implement
various Land Use Element policies of the City's General Plan. Minor modifications to the
ordinance were made; including calculation of cross -slope density and the level of review for
various sizes of warehouse stores. The ordinance was then scheduled for adoption as a consent
item on October 1, 1996.
At the October 1" meeting, the matter was pulled from consent for further discussion and
ultimately continued by the Council to the meeting of November 19'". Concerns from business
groups related to the proposed elimination of grocery, liquor, and specialized food stores as well
as retail sales of "general merchandise" (drug, discount, department, and variety stores) from the
City's C -S zoning district as called for by General Plan policies.
Since the October meeting, the Chamber of Commerce's Land Use Committee has held several
fact finding meetings to discuss the General Plan policies and proposed zoning changes. Staff has
not received their final report but we expect that it will be made available before the Council
meeting on this item.
The Planning Commission has also had some lengthy discussions on the proposed amendments
as well as the minutes from their meeting of August 14' 1996. On November 6m, the Commission
adopted minutes from the August 14" meeting as well as made two clarifying motions to forward
on to the Council. The minutes from both Commission meetings are attached to this report.
The key point of clarification made by the Planning Commission was their desire for the whole
category of retail sales of groceries, liquor, and specialized foods to be pulled from Council draft
ordinance until staff could come back with a definition of convenience markets. Staff had
/ _ _21?
TA 79 -96
Page 2
misinterpreted the Commission's action and forwarded a recommendation to the Council that
included prohibition of all grocery, liquor, and specialized food stores from the C -S district. This
action was taken with the understanding that staff would return to the Commission and Council
in the future with a new definition for "convenience markets" which would be allowed in the C -S
district consistent with General Plan policies.
Since removal of the grocery store land use category from Ordinance 1310 would constitute a
significant change, the ordinance will need to be re- introduced. Since this action by Council
would require a new public hearing, staff would recommend that the matter be referred back to
staff for processing to Council after the first of the year. It is important to note that should the
Council disagree with the Commission's recommendation that the land use category of "retail sales
of groceries, liquor and specialized foods" be pulled from consideration at this time, and if no
other changes are required, you could still grant final passage to the ordinance as introduced on
September 17, 1996. Staff would still process a second amendment that will allow "convenience
shopping" (including markets) in the C -S zoning district consistent with General Plan policies.
Attachments
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 14`, and November 6'h
Original Ordinance as introduced by City Council action of September 17'
/of f
council Meal,
j aGEnoa Report ''. " °T6'
C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O
D
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director�f
Prepared By: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manage
SUBJECT: Amendment to various sections of the Zoning regulations in order to implement
policies of the 1994 Land Use Element of the General Plan (TA 79 -96).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an ordinance to print amending the Zoning Regulations in order to implement policies of
the 1994 Land Use Element of the General Plan.
DISCUSSION
Background
On August 231', 1994, the City Council adopted the Land Use Element (LUE) of the General Plan.
Policy 10.1 of the LUE calls for amendments to the Zoning Regulations in order to implement
General Plan policies related to allowable uses and development standards. This packet of zoning
text amendments accomplishes this task and brings required consistency between the General Plan
and the Zoning Regulations.
The amendment package was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 12'h and
continued to August 14' for further community input and staff analysis. Copies of the Planning
Commission staff reports, meeting minutes, and community input are attached for your review.
At their hearing of August 14', the Commission recommended Council adoption of the amendments
as modified. The Commission dropped from consideration, proposed changes that would have
prohibited certain office uses from the City's Service Commercial (C -S) zoning districts. Rather than
amending the Zoning Regulations to resolve the inconsistency with the General Plan, the Commission
directed staffto independently process an LUE amendment that would allow these office uses in the
Services and Manufacturing areas of the City. All other ordinance changes have been forwarded for
Council consideration in the attached ordinance.
Analysis
As discussed above and in the attached Planning Commission staff reports, the City is required to
maintain consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Regulations. There were several areas
where the 1994 LUE update either called for change in Zoning Regulations or where staff had
identified inconsistency needing correction. Specific areas that require change include:
• definition, parking, and zoning chart changes for bed and breakfast inns;
1-30
• definition, parking, and zoning chart addition for research and development uses;
• definition, parking, and zoning chart addition for warehouse stores;
• revisions to density provisions to clarify "net" area available for development;
• modification to the planned development regulations allowing smaller commercial sites to
take advantage of PD benefits;
• lowering the height Emit in the Retail Commercial (C -R) zoning district from 45 to 35 feet;
and
• limiting certain office and retail uses presently allowed in the City's C -S zoning districts.
The majority of the Commission discussion focused on the final two items on the above list. The
remaining matters were forwarded onto the Council with minor change.
With regards to the issue of building heights in the C -R zoning district, the Commission sided with
General Plan policies that specify that retail commercial properties surrounding the Central
Commercial core should have lower overall building heights which provide a transition to the
surrounding residential neighborhoods. This recommendation was made despite the fact that the
City's Downtown Physical Concept Plan allows buildings within the plan boundaries (which contain
both C-C and C -R zoned properties) to be "two to three stories." A three story commercial building
is difficult to construct within the 35 foot height limit.
The Commission's primary focus during their two hearings was on the issue of allowable C -S uses.
The attached staff reports contain analysis of the existing conflict between General Plan policies and
the Zoning Matrix as well as the planning principles that went into the current LUE policies. After
extensive public input, the Commission voted to eliminate certain retail uses from the C -S zoning
district that are no longer allowed by the General Plan. Specifically, the Commission agreed with
General Plan policies stating that grocery (large non - convenience supermarkets), liquor, drug,
discount, variety, and department stores are more appropriate in the retail, and in come cases,
neighborhood centers of the City. Numerous other retail uses that are desired and appropriate in the
C -S district, such as hardware stores, nurseries, furniture stores, sporting goods stores, etc, would
be unaffected by the proposed changes.
Recognizing that there is a need for convenience shopping for employees working in the City's
services and manufacturing areas, the Commission directed staff to create a definition and new land
use category of "convenience markets" which would be allowed in the C -S district consistent with
General Plan policies. This amendment will be processed separately.
There was extensive input received by the Commission on staffs recommendation to implement
General Plan policies limiting office development to the City's downtown and surrounding Office (0)
zones. The Commission felt that engineers, architects, contractors, and utility company
administrative offices are appropriate in the C -S district. They felt the General Plan policy that
grouped them with other professional offices no longer reflected the community values or was
perhaps established in error. The Commission therefore directed staff to eliminate the office use
changes from this text amendment packet and process a separate General Plan amendment that would
include them as allowed uses in the Services and Manufacturing land use designations of the City.
l -J /
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may adopt an ordinance in a modified format or direct staff to process amendments to
the General Plan provided General Plan and zoning consistency is achieved.
Attachments
Draft Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission
Planning Commission Staff Reports
Community Correspondence
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
/-3�
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1996
Page 2
1. 1020 Railroad Avenue: O 36-96: Rey
property; C -R -S -H Zone; Saro Rizzo,
Development Review Manager Wt
disposition of surplus City property
from the California Environmental (
There were no questions asked of
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
a,
Plan determination for surplus of City
3 presented the staff report, recommending finding the
tent with policies of the City's General Plan and exempt
Act.
this time.
Steven Puglisi, 226 Encanto Ave., Shell Beach,)vresenting the Rizzo family, stated they have
reviewed the staff report and agree with it. He urged'�he Commission to follow the staff report and
offered to answer any questions.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public.lomment session was closed.
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS:
Commissioner Ready made a motion to find the
policies of the City's General Plan and exempt I
motion was seconded by Commissioner Vee4
osition of surplus City property consistent with
the California Environmental Quality Act. The
AYES: Commissioners Ready, V ,Senn, Whittlesey, and Chairman Karleskint
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Kourakis and Jeffrey
2. Citywide: TA 79 -96: Review of amendment of the Zoning Regulations to implement the
Land Use Element General Plan; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Development Review Manager Whisenand presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the
changes, with or without modification, to the City Council.
Commissioner Veesart asked if there is an issue of running out of appropriately zoned land for
manufacturing if the current allowable uses in the C -S Zoning are allowed to continue.
/4.5
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1996
Page 3
Development Review Manager Whisenand displayed an overhead transparency and stated we are
running out of vacant C -S land.
Commissioner Senn asked if Trader Joe's came in now and asked to located where they are, would
they be turned down.
Development Review Manager Whisenand replied yes.
Commissioner Senn asked if Smart and Final would be turned down today.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated that as a warehouse store, it would be allowed.
Commissioner Senn asked if the Circle K on Higuera and South would be allowed.
Development Review Manager Whisenand answered no.
No further questions were asked of staff at this time.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Bill Thoma, Thoma Electric, representing the Chamber and himself, stated this has been a very
confusing issue. He went to every Council, study session, and Commission hearing and the resulting
zoning ordinance that would take away uses in the C -S Zone was never discussed. To take anything
out of the C -S Zone when we have a zone that works very well is not right. He applauds the efforts
of staff to include such uses as research and development, warehouse stores, and additional uses. To
take uses away when there isn't a problem becomes subject to interpretation down the road.
Mr. Thoma stated there was a comment in the original staff report that the language did not survive
the General Plan, therefore the original language didn't survive in the update. The update of the
General Plan was a complete rewrite. If something was left out, it was an oversight.
Mr. Thoma feels this may be detrimental to the community. It is bad for business to further limit uses
in a zone that's worked very well. There haven't been any demonstrated problems. The consistency
should be made by changing the General Plan back to the way it was. We don't have a problem. Let's
not fix it. A 35' high building will not permit an three -story building.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the General Plan does mention two stories and 35'.
Commissioner Senn asked where in the two story/35' is in the General Plan.
/ -3'/
r .4
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1996
Page 4
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated policy + 4.18.
Commissioner Senn asked if the building he works in at 444 Higuera was approved under the
previous General Plan.
Development Review Manager Whisenand answered yes.
Commissioner Senn asked when three story to two story change in downtown took place.
Mr. Thoma stated it was a previous Council action.
John Belsher stated the San Luis Obispo Business Coalition formed a couple of years ago with a
couple of purposes in mind, including promotion of economic vitality for the community. They have
only taken united action on a couple of items. They have joined together to sign a letter opposing
the proposed zoning changes. He distributed this letter to the Commission and staff. He also
distributed a letter from Ron McCormick to the Commission and staff.
Mr. Belsher stated creating a large number of nonconforming uses is a really serious matter and
should be discouraged. There is money and time involved in a P -D amendment and has discretionary
approval and has an arbitrary and capricious standard of review. It can be denied for any reason. A
P -D is not an answer to solving people's desire to locate in the C -S Zone. The Commission has a lot
of authority to interpret the General Plan and to recommend amendments. The Commissioner must
exercise good planning.
Steve Barasch, 225 Prado Rd., Suite H, stated he is the Government Affairs Director of the
A.I.A.C.C.C.C., a property owner and real estate developer within the C -S Zone, property owner
along Tank Farm Rd., and a real estate advisor to Union Oil, Union Land and Development
Company, which is a subsidiary of Union Oil of California.
As a representative of A.I.A., Mr. Barasch stated they sent the Commission a letter dated August 6.
He feels there may be economic impacts of this possible action.
Mr. Barasch has developed multi- tenant office and commercial properties within the C -S Zone that
respect both the current C -S zoning requirements and the Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan.
He has invested additional money to be in the Higuera Commerce Park. He has adhered to additional
setbacks, height requirements, and signage, which are over and above the normal C -S Zone. They
presently have nine different uses within this C -S Zone property. Under the proposed text
amendment, seven of the nine uses would not be allowed and considered nonconforming uses. Of
the seven, four of the uses are owners because they have an air -space subdivision. Each of the
owners is concerned because it may affect the reselling, reevaluation, or refinancing of their property.
/ -3.45�
bk
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1996
Page 5
He feels there could be a significant diminishing of the values of the properties. Half of his office is
designated as an architect's office and the other half is a construction yard. The proposed use
modification in the C -S Zone is punitive because some people have invested a great deal of resources,
time, and money in creating a product that will now be considered nonconforming. If a new height
limit is imposed, it would penalize a land owner. He feels he could be penalized for the improvements
he has made, for the releasing of the units, resale of the units.
Mr. Barasch urged the Commission to reevaluate the Land Use Element of the General Plan in order
to remove any perceived or actual inconsistencies in the City's present Zoning Ordinance. In the
event it is deems impractical to revisit the Land Use Element of the General Plan, he recommends the
Commission consider subdividing the C -S Zone further into sub- zones, based on present and potential
intensity of land uses. This would preserve present and future property owners' investments and
encourage further capital investments in terms of inventory improvements to the existing businesses.
He quoted Peter Drucker, "Nothing is less productive then to make more efficient what should not
be done at all."
Commissioner Senn asked which of Mr. Barasch's tenants would be considered nonconforming.
Mr. Barasch stated the American Red Cross, the engineering offices Lampman and Smith, half of his
own office, and some of the clerical support uses. Seven out of the nine occupants would be affected.
This would also have an economic ripple effect in the community.
Lauren Brown, 7 Chuparosa Dr., stated he is representing the Manufacturers' Association and Maggie
Cox. He cited and distributed Ms. Cox's letter to the Commission.
Mr. Brown stated he would like to address the Commission representing three business entities, JBL
Scientific, Granada Associates, and Strasbaugh Associates. He stated Table 17.16.060 in the
category of research and development, there are some guidelines for calculating parking space. They
are real sensitive to this. He requested that the third category be modified to read one space per
1,500 square foot, and this would apply to outdoor work area or indoor warehouse area. The biggest
concern that JBL Scientific has is in Table 9. He requested clarification of the wording in category
6. He would like assurance that their business, as it operates now, is an allowed use in the C -S Zone.
He proposed category 6 to read: Research and development and services, light chemical processing.
JBL is regulated by numerous governmental agencies relative to public safety. They are inspected
on a regular basis. He would also like to encourage a 45' height limit. JBL Scientific uses several
engineering firms in the area and the employees frequent the delis also located in the area. This
closeness also saves unnecessary automobile trips.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated delis would still be allowed and encouraged in this
area.
/-36
Planning Commission Mmutes
August 14, 1996
Page 6
Mike Cannon, residing in Atascadero, stated he has two pieces of property in the C -S Zone on Pacific
St. He is strongly of the opinion that subtracting or restricting any of the allowed uses would result
in the considerable reduction in the value of C -S property. It would pose a financial burden on the
business and land owners. This would pose a long -term drastic reduction in the actual property in
the event of refinancing and reselling. It is not easy to do business in this city because of.the
economic precariousness of the area. Requiring P -D approval on the uses that are listed in the staff
report poses significant impediment on the part of the business owner or entrepreneur who wants to
start a business in the area. A P -D costs $2,500 for a permit, expenses to prepare the plans, and
$3,000 to $6,000 in holding costs. He questions the wisdom of encouraging one business activity
over and at the expense of marry others. He supports the addition of the uses proposed by staff. He
suggests changing the General Plan to conform with the Land Use Element.
Ned Rogoway stated he is a planner and has an office in San Luis Obispo. He has over 20 years
experience administering zoning ordinances in this county. Creating nonconforming uses is a very
serious matter for property owners. He has served a number of years on Chamber committees dealing
with land use issues through the course of the update. He has worked with the City and the County
consultants in the preparation of the first drafts of the Airport Concept Plan. He has found the staff
to be receptive to enhancing economic development programs. He feels the staff is reading literal
meaning into details of the General Plan, which were first proposed by the Environmental Quality
Task Force. During the General Plan update process, it seems as though the study was moving in
a good direction until the Environmental Quality Task Force draft came to the Council.
Unfortunately the Council adopted some of the policies that were very harmful to the prospect of
healthy economic growth, and now they're being translated into reality in this proposal. The idea of
restricting others to a minimum of 2,500 square foot starves out many critical land uses which need
to locate in semi - industrial environments. These uses are the heart of the import-export functions of
.this county and they generate much of the dollar flow which supports this area. He feels Footnote
10 on Table 9 should be changed. He feels the 2,500 square foot standard should be kept, but allow
the planning director to approve offices in this zone. The General Plan says that convenience sales
should be located in close proximity to the workers, and yet this excludes retail sales in this draft.
Retail sales should be allowed in this zone with Planning Commission approval.
Mat Quaglino stated he is a multiple property owner in the C -S Zone and a multiple business owner
who would be affected by this change. The staff report points out the need to accommodate industry
in the C -S Zone because of inventory not being there to support additional research and development
and warehouse -type stores. The City lacks adequate space for this type of use. Maybe they should
consider getting the airport area for this type of development. The staff report stated they don't
believe amendments to the Zoning Ordinance will lower property values. Mr. Quaglino believes
property values will be affected. Hardware stores will not be allowed under the new ordinance. Staff
feels Mr. Quaglino's store may be a home improvement store, but that's open to interpretation. The
location of his store is suitable for a hardware store. He believes it is not a suitable location for a
/ -37
z7-_ ti
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1996
Page 7
weapons facility. There needs to be some definite interpretation. He questions some of the proposed
excluded uses. He feels something is trying to be fixed that is not broken. He also has land out in
the airport area which may be reclassified and become nonconforming.
Chuck Botsner, 738 E Higuera, stated he is concerned about bringing the General Plan and the
Zoning Ordinance into alignment. With regard to certain office uses, he agrees with the comments
made by previous speakers. The ambiguity needs clearing up. He is concerned about the height
issue. He struggled with the Downtown Concept Plan in trying to create descriptive standards for
creating building mass, bulk, and form. He read a statement from the Downtown Concept Plan to
the Commission He would hate to see a limit on height based on the number of feet or stories. He
supports the staff recommendation to process the amendment to 4.18 to change the height to three
stories. The Anderson building is approximately 75' and it is not offensive. There should be a general
concept with ARC approval.
Tom Freedman, 1012 Vista Del Colados, stated it appears a flawed General Plan has come into
conflict with the real world. He feels the way to resolve this issue is to go back to the General Plan
and revise it in such a way that no existing use presently legal in the C -S zone would become
nonconforming. Words are easier to change than businesses.
Mike Spangler, San Luis Obispo resident, stated he owns property in the C -C and C -S Zones. He
supports the Chamber's position on this issue. He believes that the intent of this change is to force
certain developments into the C -C and C -R Zones. He supports this intent as a good planning tool.
He feels by further restricting certain businesses to particular locations in town will discourage
businesses from locating here.
Tom Swem, real estate broker, 570 Marsh, stated he is in favor and would encourage staff to work
towards amending the General Plan to meet what is actually functioning nicely in the community in
terns of the uses that are in the C -S Zone. In terms of vacancy or the need for space, it is hard to
find floor spaces of less than 2,500 square foot Downtown office space is more expensive and it is
a tremendous difference in economics for a small businesses working out of 1,500 square foot and
are trying to make a living. There is a negative impact of a nonconforming status. He asked the
Commission to encourage staff to look at leaving things the way it is currently.
John French, 3942 Hollyhock, stated he is familiar with the problems that are associated with P -Ds.
He does not think that would be a solution to this problem. He concurs with the previous speakers.
The reason there is such a reaction to a seemingly small change is that the C -S Zone a very
entrepreneurial zone in this community. Making even small adjustments in the C -S Zone is going to
get a very strong reaction from the business community. There needs to be more C -S area. There
are two ways to create more C -S area. One is to start pushing people into another zone. The only
way to expand the office zone in to push it into the affordable housing zone in downtown. He shares
/-3�
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1996
Page 8
staffs concerns with the availability of C -S Zones. The solution is not to restrict the number of uses
that can be put in the C -S Zone, but more should be created and the uses should be broadened.
Bob Burke, representing PG&E and their property at 4325 S. I- Eguera, stated their property is in the
County currently and in the airport annexation area. They oppose the proposed changes to the C -S
Zone. They have been at this property for 40 years and it is the center of their utility operation in this
area They feel that these changes would negatively affect them and possibly jeopardize their ability
to continue to conduct their operations. They feel they may have a problem if they want to expand
their operations or add new offices in the future. He asked the Commission to reconsider the
proposed changes and look at changing the General Plan rather than the zoning changes that are
proposed.
Dave Garth, 2046 San Luis Dr. Executive Director for the San Luis Chamber of Commerce, stated
the Chamber's approach is that regulations are needed when other systems don't work. We've had
this current zoning for six years and it's worked. It's very hard to find downtown office space. There
has not been a flooding in the C -S Zone for smaller offices. A regulatory approach is not in the best
interest of anybody and businesses could move to another area. There are businesses that don't want,
can't afford, or don't have a need to be located downtown. The goal is being met and the system is
working without a heavy -handed regulatory approach.
Dave Prado, property owner of 110 -158 S. Higuera, stated he will be directly affected by a change.
He feels in making these proposed changes, he will be penalized by becoming nonconforming. He
concurs with the previous speakers. He would like to see the uses in the C -S Zone expanded. He
would like to see the General Plan amended.
Al McVey, Vmtage Properties, stated he supports the Chamber's position and would like to
discourage the Commission from creating a large number of nonconforming uses in the C -S Zone.
He has not received notice relative to any of these meetings. He feels the inconsistency was create
by oversight in the adoption of the Land Use Element. He would like this problem to be solved by
amending the Land Use Element. He concurs with the previous speakers. It works, don't fix it.
Mr. Brooks, 863 W. Foothill Rd., stated he own a furniture store which was started in 1965. His
business draws customers from up and down the coast. When his customers come to town, they are
also spending money elsewhere in the City. He has restrictions from OSHA and the Air Quality
Control Board. He does not want the City to implement more restrictions. There are a lot of family
owned businesses in the C -S Zone.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated Mr. Brooks' furniture store and other commercial
buildings in the vicinity would continue to be allowed in the C -S Zone.
1-31
e°
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1996
Page 9
Dolores Estrata, Archer St., stated her family has lived in the same house for 37 years. She does
support small family businesses in her area. It is important to see the small entrepreneurs continue
to grow. He father is 79 years old and is able to walk to local stores for groceries.
The public comment session was closed.
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS:
Commissioner Senn asked how the number of 12 rooms was arrived at in referring to the definition
of bed and breakfast inns.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated he didn't know that answer.
Commissioner Senn asked if staff had an objection to raising the number to 15.
Development Review Manager stated that the larger the bed and breakfast inns become, the finer the
line is going to be with a motel or hotel.
Commissioner Senn stated there are two bed and breakfast inns in town. If one of these inns wanted
to increase the number of rooms, this would provide the ability for a modest expansion without it
becoming nonconforming.
The Planning Commission agreed to increase the number of rooms in a bed and breakfast inn to 15.
Chairman Karleskint asked for a definition of a warehouse store.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated that can be found on Page 14 of the staff report.
Commissioner Senn stated he is concerned about an inadequate parking ratio for warehouse stores.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated he would feel more comfortable if staff contacted
warehouse stores in other communities and do some more background research on this.
Community Development Director Jonas suggested more study on this issue.
Commissioner Senn stated he would be comfortable having this determined by the Director.
The Planning Commission referred the determination of the number of parking spaces back to staff
for further study.
/ -7 w
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1996
Page 10
Commissioner Veesart stated he would like to see building heights stay as it is proposed in the staff
report and recommended in the General Plan update.
Commissioner Senn asked if the Downtown Concept Plan was completed when the General Plan
Amendment was completed or did it follow.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the Downtown Concept Plan was completed first.
Chairman Karleskint asked if the height maximum is limited to approximately 35' is the limit in the
C -R zone designation.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the General Plan says two stories or about 35' in
general retail.
Commissioner Senn feels the vision of the downtown scenario is a retail usage on the ground floor,
offices on the second, and a residential component on the third.
Commissioner Whittlesey feels comfortable with 35'. It has not created a problem.
The Commissioner reached consensus to accept staffs recommendation of a 35' height maximum.
Commissioner Veesart suggested defining "large" relative to 17.04.455.
Development Review Manager Whisenand suggested dropping the word "large" from 17.04.455.
Commissioner Ready expressed a concern regarding Table 9, Offices (contractors) and Retail
sales - warehouse stores.
Commissioner Senn stated Table 9, Social services and charitable agencies seems to be of issue.
Commissioner Veesart stated he is not happy with warehouse stores, but does not want to reopen the
issue.
Commissioner Ready suggested adding "and related light chemical processing" to Table 9, under
Research and development.
Commissioner Veesart questioned the square footage of retail sales.
Commissioner Senn stated 20,000 square feet is an average number that he's seen in his experience
for general merchandise.
1-4/
1 _ IN.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1996
Page 11
Development Review Manager Whisenand suggested creating a new category for retail sales for
convenience stores.
Commissioners Veesart and Whittlesey would like to see retail sales - general merchandise restricted
to C -R zones and agreed that these uses should not be allowed in the C -S zone.
Commissioner Senn disagreed and stated most are relatively large users. There is not an inventory
of properly zoned land providing these uses in the C -S zone effectively determining that these uses
are not going to be allowed in San Luis Obispo because there is not an inventory of C -R land..
Commissioner Ready concurred with Commissioner Senn.
Commissioner Veesart believes hardware stores are appropriate uses in the C -S Zone.
Commissioner Senn feels department and variety stores should be primarily, but not exclusively, in
the downtown area or in one of the primary shopping areas.
Commissioner Ready concurred with Commissioner Senn.
Commissioner Ready stated "specialty store" needs to be defined.
The Planning Commission agreed to move hardware to retail sales, indoor sales and building
materials. Hardware would be an allowable use.
Commissioner Senn does not agree with the deletion of drug and discount stores because it effectively
eliminates these uses. Commissioner Ready concurred.
Commissioner Veesart made a motion to recommend the adoption of the ordinance as amended with
the exception of 17.22.010, Table 9, Offices (contractors) -all types of general and special building
contractor's offices; Offices (engineering) engineers, architects, and industrial design; Organizations
(professional, religious, political, labor, fraternal, trade, youth, etc.) offices and meeting rooms;
Secretarial and related services (court reporting, stenography, typing, telephone answering, etc.);
Utility companies; Engineering and administration offices. These items are directed back to staff for
preparation of a recommendation to the City Council for amendment to the LUE, including revised
policy language and the analysis necessary to support the requested changes. The Commission also
requested the staff to bring back warehouse parking requirements, and retail sales of groceries, liquor,
specialized foods and convenience stores. Deletion of retail sales of general merchandise (drug,
discount, department and variety stores) was approved on a 3 -2 vote with Commissioner Senn and
Ready voting no.
-Alz
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1996
Page 12
Development Review Manager Whisenand asked if the motion included indoor warehouse area under
research and development, 1,500 square foot parking requirement for parking areas, 15 rooms for
bed and breakfast inn, and light chemical processing.
Commissioner Veesart replied yes.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ready.
AYES: Commissioners Veesart, Whittlesey, Karleskint, Senn, and Ready
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Kourakis and Jeffrey
The motion passed.
3. 3897 South Hi era Street: MS 74 -96 SP 4-96 and ER 74 -96: Review of minor
subdivision of four lots from two (MS 96 -05 ) and review of a specific plan amendment
allowing smaller than four -acre lots and add' tonal uses in the southern end of the Higuera
Commerce Park; M -SP Zone, R. Howard rasbaugh, Inc., applicant.
Chairman Karleskint refrained from participating due a potential conflict of interest
Commissioner Senn was designated as Acting Chairman.
Associate Planner MCIlvaine presented the staff report, recom ending that the Commission
recommend that City Council, by resolution, approve a miti ted negative declaration of
environmental impact and the requested amendment based on dings outlined in the staff
recommendation.
Commissioner Veesart asked if this is currently two parcels.
Associate Planner MCIlvaine stated it is one parcel. There ' an approved tentative map. She
displayed an overhead of the parcel map (MS 91 -152) to the ommission.
Commissioner Ready asked when the vesting tentative tract p expires.
Associate Planner McIlvaine deferred the question to the appli t.
�- �3
ACL
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
November 6, 1996
Page I
3. City -Wide: TA 79 -96: Review of amendment of the Zoning Regulations to implement the
Land Use Element General Plan; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
The Commission discussed listening to the tapes of the August 14, 1996 meeting and corrected the
minutes accordingly. Commissioner Senn made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ready to
accept the minutes of August 14, 1996 as amended.
AYES: Commrs. Senn, Ready, Karleskint, and Veesart
NOES: None
REFRAIN: Commrs. Kourakis and Jeffrey
ABSENT: Commr. Whittlesey
The motion passed.
Commissioner Senn then moved and Commissioner Ready seconded the motion to support
Commissioner Veesart's motion on item number two of August 14th, 1996 with the exception that
the Commission asked that the Table 9 land use category of retail sales of groceries, liquor, and
specialized foods come back to the Commission in the future along with a definition of convenience
stores as recognized by the City's General Plan. Commissioners Jeffrey and Kourakis refrained from
participating on the vote since they were absent on August 14, 1996.
AYES: Commrs. Senn, Ready, Karleskint, and Veesart
NOES: None
REFRAIN: Commrs. Kourakis and Jeffrey
ABSENT: Commr. Whittlesey
The motion passed.
Commissioner Senn then moved and Commr. Veesart seconded that the minutes from August 14,
1996 should reflect that Commissioner Veesart, Karleskint, . and Whittlesey recommend the
elimination of retail sales of general merchandise (drug, discount, department and variety stores) from
the City's C -S zoning district and that Commissioner Senn and ready felt that they should be retained.
AYES: Commrs. Senn, Veesart, Ready, and Karleskint
NOES: None
Ae-
Draft Minates
Planning Commission
November 6, 1996
Page '2
REFRAIN: Commrs. Kourakis and Jeffrey
ABSENT: Commr. Whittlesey
The motion.passed.
Draft Minates
Planning Commission
November 6, 1996
Page '2
REFRAIN: Commrs. Kourakis and Jeffrey
ABSENT: Commr. Whittlesey
The motion.passed.
, %
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM u
BY: Ronald Whisenand,
Development Review Manager
FILE NUMBER: TA 79 -96
PROJECT ADDRESS: City-Wide
MEETING DATE: August 14, 1996
SUBJECT: Amendment to various sections of the Zoning Regulations in order to implement
policies of the 1994 Land Use Element of the General Plan.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Recommend adoption of the changes, with or without
modification, to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
The amendment package was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 12" and directed
back to staff for further analysis and community input. Specifically, the Commission asked for:
a. more time for further input from business groups, and Jane McVey, the City's new Economic
Development Manager;
b. additional legislative history and background on the General Plan policies in question.; and
C. notice of this hearing to be sent to all property owners within the Service Commercial (C -S)
zoning district.
EVALUATION
A. Summary of Key Issues and Decisions Requiring Commission Action
Staff has presented the Commission with a packet of text changes that provide consistency between
the City's Land Use Element (LUE) and the Zoning Regulations. The amendments cover a variety
of issue areas, some of which were the focus of attention at the June 12' Planning Commission
meeting. Staff heard no discussion at that meeting of the proposed definition changes, density
modifications, parking requirements, and changes to the area limitations for commercial planned
developments. Although still a key component of this amendment package, they will not be discussed
in this report. The Commission should refer to the earlier staff report for more information and
analysis of those changes.
The Commission's discussion previously focused on General Plan policies that limit certain uses in
the areas of the City designated as Services and Manufacturing, as well as those that call for a
reduction in the allowable height limits in General Retail areas. This report will address these two
main issues and should form the framework for the Commission's deliberation on August 14'.
As pointed out in the earlier staff report, the Commission must determine whether the proposed
zoning text amendments would achieve conformance with existing General Plan policy. If the
Commission majority finds sufficient grounds that the General Plan policies no longer reflect
/'76
I r` At
"community values," then the Commission should recommend to the City Council, appropriate
amendments to existing General Plan policies. The current inconsistency between land use
regulations must be corrected.
B. Land Use Element History
The Commission has asked for additional legislative history on how the policies in question got
adopted and what the planning principles were that motivated them. Staff has researched our records
from the LUE update process and were unable to find where the discussion of appropriate uses for
the Services and Manufacturing land use designation was included in the minutes of the Planning
Commission or City Council. However, staff who were present at those meetings and were involved
in the update of the LUE from the beginning, remember some of the principles that went into
development of the policies.
The Zoning Regulations have developed and evolved over the years with expansion of allowable C -S
uses. This process has tended to create a district that has become somewhat "catch all" in nature and
has presumably lost it's original intended purpose.
The August 1994 LUE attempted to take a closer look at the various land use districts in the City and
control the character of those districts by applying policies that logically relate uses to specific areas
or zones within the City. As a result, in the Services and Manufacturing category, fewer types of new
retail stores and new, small offices could be developed. On the other hand, the update added the
categories "warehouse stores" and "research and development" to the allowable uses. The update
did not change the allowance for "planned developments" accommodating office tenant spaces larger
than 2,500 square feet.
The C -S zoning district is seen as being strongly instrumental in implementing the services and
manufacturing principles of the General Plan. The LUE saw the areas designated for Services and
Manufacturing as a potential resource for the desired "clean industry" uses that would provide solid
economic growth for the Community (i.e. research and development). Since it was thought there
would be special requirements and unique issues associated with these industries (such as larger
development areas, suitable parking, neighborhood compatibility, etc.) that may not similarly apply
to smaller office and specialty retail uses, it was felt that the City needed to reserve sufficient land
area to accommodate these types of uses.
Several of the office and retail uses allowable in C -S are also allowed in zones created primarily for
those uses (Office, Retail Commercial, and Neighborhood Commercial). On the other hand,
manufacturing uses are not allowed in zones other than C -S and M. If a wide range of retail and
office uses could be developed in the C -S zone, they might occupy the limited land resource that
otherwise would be available for desired industrial or service commercial uses. The concern was that
other uses allowed in other zoning districts could perhaps reduce the amount of land that would be
available for these other more specialized uses.
The General Plan policies also recognize the value of the downtown as a resource needing land use
protection. To reinforce the vitality of downtown, and to take advantage of proximity to government
services and transit, offices should continue to be a key part of the commercial core and its immediate
surroundings. However, some large offices — especially those that do not have substantial public
visits— would be appropriate in outlying areas with a PD overlay, and would be compatible with light
1' ,�7
A r
industrial uses.
rA
Statements made at the last hearing and in letters attached to this report, indicate that the C -S district
needs to remain flexible in order to attract a diverse range of potential industries. Attracting a diverse
economic base is in fact a key theme of several of the Community Goals contained in the introductory
sections of the LUE. The issue however comes down to where should these uses locate or
concentrate. It was envisioned that office and speciality retail uses should be located in areas closer
to the downtown core and that service and research and development industries should be reserved
for the C -S zoning district. Should the Commission feel that keeping the C -S district open to other
uses is important to the economic growth of San Luis, then they should direct staff to re- evaluate
LUE policies for the Services and Manufacturing land use district.
As far as the height issue is concerned, the goal of Policy 4.18 is to have the pattern of development
in the retail commercial areas match that in the downtown commercial core. The policy calls for
building heights not to exceed two stories (not three as mentioned in attached correspondence). The
height limit is currently 45 feet in the C -R district and is proposed to be reduced to 35 feet consistent
with this LUE policy.
The Downtown Physical Concept Plan calls for the preservation of the "existing building height
patterns of two and three stories" in the downtown core. Although the Downtown Physical Concept
Plan does not have the same status as the LUE, the goals contained in it may reflect a desire for
building heights of three stories in the downtown and surrounding areas. Should the Commission feel
that this is the case, staff should be directed to process an amendment to Policy 4.18 changing the
height to "three stories (about 45 feet in height)." If this occurs, no amendment to the Zoning
Regulations would be necessary.
C. C -S Changes and Devaluation of Pro pert
Several comments made at the last hearing or contained in letters attached to this report, state that
changes in C -S zoning will de -value property because the range of potential buyers or tenants will
be limited. Staff does not believe that this is the case. The C -S district is currently one of the most
generous zoning districts and allows over 90 "use categories." Limiting office development in the
C -S district to PDs and removing certain retail uses will have no significant effect on the extensive
listing of service commercial uses that will continue to be allowed in the C -S district.
With such an extensive range of C -S uses remaining, there would be no "takings" as a result of
adoption of the proposed changes. Neither component of the two prong test applied in Agins v. City
of Tiburon, can be made. It was a finding in this key land use case that a general zoning law becomes
a taking if the ordinance either (I) "does not substantially advance legitimate state interests" or (2)
"denies an owner economically viable use of his land."
D. Input From the City's Economic Development Manger
Jane McVey, the City's new Economic Development Manager has reviewed the proposed changes
along with minutes from the June 12' Planning Commission meeting. Jane's comments are attached
to this report. In summary, she feels that while we should make sure that we have property available
for new research and development industries, we can not forget the economic importance of
supporting growth and expansion of our existing businesses. Jane has outlined several options for
!' To
� P /
Planning Commission consideration.
E. Alternatives
Staffs recommendation is based on our role to implement Council policy. This policy has been set
forth in the General Plan update. We have identified some legitimate planning principles justifying
the policies in question in the above analysis. If the Commission feels that the policies no longer
reflect community values, then you have the task of directing the matter back to staff to for
preparation of a recommendation to the City Council for amendment to the LUE including revised
policy language and the analysis necessary to support the requested changes.
Attached:
A. Legislative Draft Ordinance
B. Memo From Jane McVey, Economic Development Manager
C. Letters
A
ORDINANCE NO. — (1996 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS IN ORDER TO
IMPLEMENT POLICIES OF THE 1994 LAND USE ELEMENT
(TA 79-96)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on June 12", and August
le, 1996, and recommended approval of certain amendments to the City's Zoning Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on —, 1996, and has considered
testimony of other interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and
WHEREAS„ the City Council has considered the EIR for the Land Use and Circulation
Elements 4the on A giAt 23. 1994) and stff s:determination that these
implementation amendments constitute a secondary phase of the "project" evaluated by that EIR; and
.BF,--IT,O-RDA1NED by the Council of the City of San:Lui.%.Obispo as follows::
X,
X.,
.. . ... ......
. ......... .... . . ....
S..
N.:
9ECTI.ON:::i,�l�:�- �kTh�..C�.itv�..CouitiI findf.4rid diftermin6 that the ElR far ..the Land. Use and
.1 NN
........
J .. .. .... .
..... .......... .
Circulation Element of the General Plan addressesUp.:.p6tential significant environmental impacts of
the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Regulations, and reflects the independent judgement
of the City Council. The Council hereby determines that no further environmental review is required.
SECTION 2. Sections 17.04.030, 17.16.010, 17.16.060, 17.22.010, 17.40.020, and
17.50.010 are hereby amended to read as follows:
17.04.030 Bed and:%fiBreakfast.l.h......
i A.
17.16.010 Density.
A Determination of Allowed Development.
1. "Density" is the number of the dwelling units per net acre. In the C /OS and R -I zones, each
dwelling counts as one unit. In the other zones, different size dwellings have unit values as follows:
a. Studio apartment, 0.50 unit;
b. One - bedroom dwelling, 0.66 unit;
C. Two - bedroom dwelling, 1.00 unit;
d. Three- bedroom dwelling, 1.50 units;
e. Dwelling with four or more bedrooms, 2.00 units.
2. The following procedure shall be used to determine the maximum development allowed on a given
lot or land area:
a. Determine the Average Cross -slope of the Site. "Average cross - slope" is the ratio, expressed as
a percentage of the diff erence in elevation to the horizontal distance between two points on the
perimeter of the area for which slope is being detfi ned ; The line iion hi'eh the slope is measured
shall run essentially pei endicutar ; o Cbe contours. : - i a
.......... ...
6rdinance.)
iv. Slopes calculated to the nearest 0.5 percent shall be rounded up.
v. No slope -rated density reduction is required in the C /OS, C -R, C -C or PF zones.
vi. The maximum development allowed for each average cross -slope category is as follows:
1� r
r
A,.
TABLE 1
MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR
CROSS -SLOPE CATEGORIES
% Average Maximum Density
Cross Slope (units per net acre)
.................
.................
R -1 R -2, 0 R -3 R4 R
A.
C -N, C -T -C
0-15 7 12 18 24 .36
16 -20 4 6 9 12 36
21 -25 2 4 6 8 36:
26+ 1 2 3 4;6.
By approving an administrative . use permit, the Director rp4y grant exceptions to the reduction of
density with slope wher the parcel in question is essentially surrounded by development at least as
dense as the proposed eue #opnent The exception shall not authorise tJensity greater than that
allowed for the catego:.. of ley' than; t5✓n slbp6 fot thy! appropriatie °zone. (See also Section
17.12.020.1, NonconforRUng I o s = tt .gulafio.n.s.
b. Determine tthe.Net Area of the Site. "Net area" includes is all the area within the property lines of
the develootnent site - .- .
L Uy...I.aLIUWGU 11V 111 GJIUCl11141 LLJVJ. .VAVILLLLIaI llaV :.avaly rr 111
1. Street right of way dedicated to :the City;
x Area withutthe dnp hne of "henfage trees" designated by the Citjt; %
c. Multiply the resulting area (in whole and fractional acres) by the maximum density allowed (in units
per acre) according to the table in subsection A. La. of this section.
d. The resulting number (n dwelling units, carried out to the nearest one - hundredth unit) will be the
maximum residential development potential. Any combination of dwelling types and numbers may
be developed, so long as their combined unit values do not exceed the maximum potential.
17.16.060 Parking space requirements.
Table 6 - Parking Requirements by Use is hereby amended as follows:
f/0502-
x* I ;x A10 10
.. ..... .. ...
Offices (engineeri#�' .......
I 0�
architects, and ind4'9
... ... ... Organizations (prdissio
10
religious, political, labor, . ..........
fraternal, trade, youth, etc.)
AM IA I I A
'C 0
. . ......
...... .... ............ . . ...
Retail sales - groceries, liquor and A A A PC
specialized foods (bakery, meats,
dairy items, etc.)
1-.53
r.
Table 9- Uses Allowed by Zone
R -1
R -2
R -3
RA
C /OS
0"
PF
C -N
C -C
I C -R
I C -T
I C-S
M
Retail sales - general merchandise
(drug, hardware, discount,
department and variety stores)
(Sft : 5t `RIO, 4 saf s'`
- 15,000 square feet or less gross
A
A
A
PE
floor area per establishment
- 15,001 to 60,000 square feet
PC
A
A
PE
gross floor area per establishment
- more than 60,000 square feet
PC
D
PQ-
gross floor area per establishment.
etti►sales:waetiorse ' es
PC
1)
E
Secretarial and related services
A
A/D
A
D.W
10
(court reporting, stenography,
typing, telephone answering, etc.)
al services and charitable
Social
S
A
1..
L1:
A
A
agencies `sei also
IU
...
Utility companies
- Corporation yards
fi..:...
PC
A
A
- Customer account seMces (bill
A
D
A > :
D
paying and inquiries
- Distribution and transmission
facilities - see Section 17.08.050
Fngineering and oraministration ._ ..
.::.
A
. .
D
AM
A. ....
..
RIO RIO
I0
offices
Payment drop pj:" , :: „
. ' ., ,,, ,
,
..
A
iD.:
A
A
A
A - The use is allowed,
D - If the Director approves an administrative use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.080, the use may be established:
PC - If the Planning Commission approves a use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.080, the use may be established;
A/D - The use is allowed above the ground floor. If the Director approves an administrative use pennit, it maybe established on the ground floor.
17.40.020 Property development standards.
The property development standards for the C -R zone are as follows:
A. Maximum density: 36 units per net acre for all dwelling, including dwelling units in hotels and
motels, but not including other hotel or motel units (see also Section 17.16.010).
B. Maximum street and other yards: See Section 17.16.020.
C. Maximum height: 45.3 feet (see also Section 17.16.020 and 17.16.040).
D. Maximum coverage: 100%
E. Parking requirements: See Section 17.16.060.
17.50.010 Purpose and application.
The planned development zone is intended to encourage imaginative development and effective
use of sites. It does this by allowing more variation in project design than normal standards would
allow. Such variation from normal standards should provide benefits to the project occupants or
to the community as a whole which could not be provided under conventional regulations. PD
rezoning must occur simultaneously with approval of a specific project. In the Q; K C -C:y 0R :
U zones, the PD zone may be applied to any parcel. In all other zones, the PD
zone may be applied to any parcel or contiguous parcels of at least one acre.
SECTION 3. Sections 17.04.328, 17.04.455, are hereby added to read as follows:
1:7., 455 :'Guarel ouseMore ...
SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together;withahe names of Council members
voting for and against„ shall be published at least five (5) days prior `to its final passage, in the
Telegram- Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into
effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
at its meeting held on the day of , 1996 , on a motion of
_, seconded by , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
/—S.45,
Mayor
ATTEST:
Bonnie Gawf, City Clerk
APPROVED:
... . .... .. . ....
. . .... .. ... ...
mm:
.M=4
/'5(0
.. .. . .. ......
yvj
.... ... ... ...
-1. ..........
. . ..... ......
/'5(0
ZING AGENDA
,►� DATE 17-19- 26 ITEM #
yob
40 San Luis 0 poop ber of Commerce
1039 Cl orr het IQ%1s Obispo, California 93401 -3278
� 05)01.2777 • FAX (805) 5431255
'
e-mail: slo chamber((i?slonet.org
David E. Garth. Executive Director
November 13,1996
Mayor Allen Settle and Members of the City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Honorable Mayor Settle and Council Members:
' OUNCIL
L-irl..
a'EAO
❑ FiN Uirl
37CCA0
O FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY
❑ PW DIR
CLER! 10RIG
O POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM
❑ REC DIR
❑ C�R�pp, FILE
❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PEES 7 %C
_.
q)
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce would like to provide further input to your decision
making process on C -S and C -R zone issues. As you recall, we have been very active in this
process as it has applied to office uses in the C -S zone. We would now like to clarify our position
on retail uses in the zone, as well as reiterate our position on height requirements in the C -R zone.
Our Chamber continues to be sympathetic with staff concerns regarding a possible
overabundance of retail uses in the C -S zone. We also recognize, however, that without
adequately zoned space for these types of uses to locate, eliminating them from the C -S zone will
effectively drive them from San Luis Obispo. Glancing at a land use map reveals how small our
available inventory of non-CS zone land is for these uses, especially larger ones.
With regard to the Retail Sales - General Merchandise category, we feel that staff's recommendation
to limit department stores in the C -S zone makes sense. It is unlikely that department stores
would choose to locate in the C -S zone in any case, but we feel that limiting these uses to the
downtown and the Madonna Road regional mall area is more appropriate. With regard to drug,
discount, and variety stores, however, we feel that the current Planning Commission review
process is adequate to avoid an overabundance of these types of stores, while still granting
enough flexibility to allow the City to capture those retail uses it feels are most appropriate.
Again, we feel that the alternative, restricting these uses completely within the C -S zone, will
only drive all of these stores outside the city limits.
One of the most confusing issues regarding allowable land uses in the C -S zone for all parties has
been the difficulty of adequately defining what the use categories mean. As an example, it was
debated at length during the last City Council meeting on this subject whether Smart and Final
was a grocery store or a warehouse store. The triggering factor that first opened the C -S zone
debate centered around the TK Annexation area, and whether Food For Less is a
neighborhood or warehouse store. a
The Chamber feels that with many of the recent changes in the retail marketplace, many
traditional definitions of type are growing increasingly obsolete. In order to avoid
RE C. .:� �' RECEIVED LN
NOV ACCREDITED
NOV CM�YBEY
I O, CWENEnt[
wo
CITY CLERK OI fY DpUNCIL / C �J
4AW • :�E,�ann ! a
December 11, 1996
City of San Luis Obispo
Planning Department
To Whom It May Concern,
You have classified Kaney's Market as a convenience store but the industry still
classes me as a supermarket, although a small one.
The thought of being regulated to the confines of a 12,000 sq. ft. limit in growth is
rather disheartening. In order for Kaney's Market to compete in the future we will have to
expand to a minimum of 20,000 sq. ft.
We are the last remaining independent non -chain supermarket left in San Luis
Obispo. I know the chains have raised the expectations of everyone by building bigger
stores, that's why they close stores like Von's Foothill. Remember your Economics Class
in college and raising the entry barriers? In order to continue to grow we can not be
restricted to 12,000 sq. ft..
We have a fresh in -store bakery (yes, it is small), a full compliment of produce, a
full service deli, a self -serve deli, frozen foods, a complete meat department (with meat cut
here in San Luis Obispo), and a complete line of groceries. We have a complete line of
health and beauty supplies, greeting cards, magazines, household products (hammers,
nails, string, rope, light bulbs) and cooking equipment, not exactly a convenience store.
K we wish to expand into a larger specialty store in the future we will need to add
additional services to compete with the chains. Modern specialty stores are adding
restaurants, banks, floral departments, liquor departments and household supplies.
I might add that you seem to have forgotten what has happened in the business
community. The consumers expectations are for larger and larger stores. As a small
independent the average consumer assumes rm higher just because we are small, but I
buy from the same suppliers as Food For Less or Scolari's. Yes, when Foster Farms backs
up to the door I only buy 40 cases when the larger store buys 150 cases but that's not a
significant difference in average order size. The consumer says if its a larger store, the
prices are cheaper, not so! The consumer says that a bigger store has a larger selection but
when they can't find something they come to me.
Don't regulate your independent business out just because you want us to be
cute.
Sincerely,
RECEIVED x James M. Kaney
DEC t 1 19%
cm of 5M ura 0WK
1-SO
Pipatterson
October 9. 1996
To City Council:
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 149-1- 9ZITEM # (-.
OCT 1 1996
.rry of SAN r_uls
rh,p lNm• nn2� naw�
RE: Removing retail sales of groceries, liquor, specialized foods, general
merchandise, drug, discount, department, and variety stores from CS zoning.
To remove these uses from the CS zoning matrix is a mistake for the following
reasons:
Numerous businesses will become nonconforming. Examples are Trader
Joes, Weber Bread, Circle K, and Cuesta Food Coop:
Numerous new businesses will be unable to find locations because of a
lack of suitably zoned property.
Existing businesses will be unable to relocate or expand.
Most vacant commercial property is zoned CS. To delete the above uses
unfairly decreases land value.
Various kinds of potential businesses are effectively prohibited from
locating in SLO.
Owners of CR, CC, and CN properties receive a bonanza and owners of
CS property are unjustly penalized.
The current matrix requires a planning commission use permit for most of
the above uses in CS areas. This is an effective safeguard yet allows these
uses where appropriate.
Future use of the old Vons Store on Broad Street is severely impacted.
Foods for the Family may be prohibited from relocating to its land at Broad
and Orcuitt.
Hairsplitting and complicated zoning decisions are unwise.
Creating numerous nonconforming uses is poor planning.
It is recommended that the removal of the retail uses be further analyzed.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles L. enn
V.ZV. �UNCIL
l rCDD DIR `
O
❑ FIN DIR
VAO
❑ FIRE CHIEF
C40
j VRNEy
❑ PW DIR
CLERV IG
D POLICE CHF
D MGMTTEAM
❑ REC DIR
❑ C READ FILE
❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PERS DIR •'
444 Higuera Street, P.O. Box 1224 • Saa Luis Obispo, CA 93406
(805) 544 -8662 • Fax (805) 544 -2837
Ad
4&E1VED
OCT 1 1996
h," •JG AGENDA
DATE =6 ITEM #
/ °wn+N'uls Is
San Luis Obispo Aber of Commerce
1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401 -3278
(805) 781 -2777 • FAX (805) 543 -1255
e-mail: sio-chamber@slonet.org
David E. Garth, Executive Director
September 30, 1996
Mayor Allen Settle and Members of the City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
dCOUNCIL
CDD DIR
e" CAO
❑ FIN DIR
Cf 'GAO
❑ FIRE CHIEF
G ATTORNEY
❑ PW DIR
IZ CLERWORIG
13 POLICE CHI
❑ MGMT TEAM
❑ REC DIR
❑ FILE ❑ LIM DIR
r� ❑ PERS DIR
RECEIVED%
OCT 1 1996
CITY COUNCIL
RAN I - nOISP0. eA
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce would like to request that item C6 on your October
agenda be continued to a future date.
As you know, there was some confusion on the part of the business community as of the last City
Council meeting when the changes proposed in item C6 were discussed and passed to print.
Since that meeting, the Chamber has engaged in several conversations with city staff, and they
have very effectively cleared up our confusion. We have been making strong progress with staff
in reaching a flexible compromise that best serves our community as well as business needs, and
would like for this item to be continued so that some issues that we failed to properly address at
the last Council meeting and which we are in the process of resolving with staff can come to light.
We apologize for the necessity of requesting this continuance but feel that this zoning change is
such an important issue that the entire community's best interests will be served by allowing
additional discussion to take place.
Most of the issues that we have been working on with staff revolve around the proposed
restrictions on retail uses in the C -S zone. After much discussion, we are convinced that from a
policy standpoint, eliminating these retail uses from the C -S zone makes sense because the C -S
zone can be more effective with other identified uses, such as R &D or office uses.
From a practical standpoint, however, the proposed changes would make it very difficult for these
uses to find a place in the city where they could locate. A good example is the Marigold center,
as Councilmember Romero pointed out at the last meeting. If uses like the Marigold center are
restricted from locating in the C -S zone, there is currently a lack of available land on which they
could locate.
An option that we are currently exploring with staff that may help resolve this conflict
between policy and practicality is the removal of large retail uses from the C -S zone as
currently expressed'in the revised ordinance, coupled with a rezoning of certain areas
so that these important retail uses have somewhere to go.
ACCREDITED
/I �a
August 14, 1996
Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo, CA
Members of the Planning Commission:
This letter regards the proposed changes to the City Zoning Ordinance that
would impact the C -S Zone. I would like to offer up some observations that I
believe should be considered in making this important decision.
As I understand the proposal, various uses would be eliminated under these
proposed changes. Among these uses would be engineer and contractor
offices as well as other related types of office uses. From a common sense
perspective as well as a planning and market derived standpoint, this just
does not make sense. These types of users often desire to be in areas that are
C -S zoned, including such locations as Commerce Park, etc. Indeed, over the
years, these types of users have developed offices in these C -S zoned areas.
This has part of the development of a viable suburban office market. These
users have coexisted with various other types of users to their mutual benefit,
quite often.
It makes good sense from an economic standpoint for these users to be located
away from the downtown where they fit in well and rents are lower than in
the downtown Office zoned areas. With limited parking in the downtown
area, these office users have thrived in the C -S zones where parking is
generally more plentiful. These users have chosen to develop in the C -S
zones rather than locate in other cities. Downzoning would cause these users
to look to other cities to locate their businesses in the future.
While it is quite difficult to estimate the value impact on C -S zoned
properties if the downzoning is approved, it will certainly cause values to
drop. My 20+ years of appraisal experience tells me that future sales under
this proposed scenario will demonstrate possible substantial decreases in
values. Certainly, limiting the number of possible users in the C -S Zones will
have a downward effect on land values as well as improved properties. This
could be viewed as a taking of property by the City.
1-41
The C-S zoned areas in the 'city have, for the most part; developed successfully
and continue to upgrade. They represent some of the. most successful
economic development areas in the city.
The. zoning as it has stood in the past makes good sense for the city from -a
plannhig as well as economic basis. I implore the City to leave the zoning
alpne=it haj functioned well in the past and will continue. to serve the rieeds
of the city in the future.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sihcerely,
C
Rollie McCormick; NW
W
August 13, 1996
Ph=ing Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8112
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 -8112
Ift 04
40C
D
Y►YpF� "�D
�M...
Due to health concerns, unfortunately I cannot attend the meeting tonight, but I would
I&e to express my opinion concerning the proposed changes for the area of 265 Pacific
Street.
I have owned the property for over twenty years; it is zoned C -S, and for the past 20 years
uses have gradually become more and more restrictive. Now you are considering maEug
them even more restrictive. I protest!
My small parcel is certainly not going to appeal to the kind of tenants that Mr. .
Whisenand told me the City wishes to attract to C -S zoning. As for naming out of C -S
zoned property, when you annex the Airport property, it can be Zoned any way you wish.
-ac more unreasonable restrictions you place on properties, such as mine, the more you
devalue them , and the harder you make it for us to ford new terkants when vacancies
occur.
I would appreciate any consideration the Cow wssion could give me and the ofher
landlords in the area.
Wff_.'�
Kenneth G. Hams
nuh
FAX 781 -7173
-EEI yc v r4-6
�a k' kIA)95' YO C/ C-Ovi: -.a 'h- F -ZQ!vim
1 -/3
I.,uis Obispo
r 11
S..( r) '.. i: .;:.spo, Ca 93401 IINQ
Attu- M :>(,,nald Whi.senand
-'s W ;-.zve to ccrfit-11i ?:?(.,ent -1*:,fjoV:1c.,;ation
--.ir building at )61 .11-�•ll .n your
wl,e fia�• f.;,, ':ited and retncdo.le<.i :._h* buil<11.og and have
be-par; actv. v soliciting I C:SSek'S) f 0r thdL .--.Pace for
t-l'o 1 ,7.SL - r months wit:h(-L.3t
W , ?e the planninq -Ytmmissio
ollw,-h f 1= % - lity as poss ikile se- that
4hiz; :..;ece of property. ; t* has
pusl_ i.r. r years as a warehr-,ij!';f-_ for
disz-i-ml.t.;torship with appropriite
ta, ; ar,
succ=essfully
be_.•fi jsed for the
o-jr : :,cal electri-
..-)rl space-
Vve Wo:A.) K to have the max imule -or. the C-S
!'r.i hoth the prope2tie:i located .,4.. .61 and 169 High St.
INIanx Yn;: - ;r bringing our r-: :.;j t.(:i plant,ing
commL-aslor.. and please advise zlin Z F I C,�.: 1.1 170vide any
fu-tnar : .-.-,rmation. %
d
.Y any Corr es pondt.?11 " f. Lo Ole
S.itic (,, mi.,;teray, calirntnia 0040.
SALHAS (408) 422-47!10
PAX (41?�)
rA C.1VZ (4001 4�6•64(34.
FAX (4031, 426 UZI D
!'ours,
..;tN LUIS OBtSPO (8014) b4zs -315 -
FAX 1.805) 543-6161
VAL l= EJO (1077) ",A. 77-14
FAX (707) 6.4e_jjC.S
50 Hartnell St.,
PAIRkPi.7. ..,ik7) 479-0611
-A, 011) 429,02'4
• =ASO A";13: x,.05)236 -6522
7-A> -1ADS) 258.4176
I
.NAPA (707) 252-1937
FAX (707) 252-2429
/-0
August 14, 1996
Honorable Chairman Karlskint
& Members of the Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Proposed Amendment to Zoning Regulations
Dear Chairman Karlskint and Commission Members:
After receiving the staff report prepared for the June 12. 1996 meeting of the Planning
Commission, I would lice to take this opportunity, to voice my concerns and objections to the
recommendations of your staff on this issue.
I personally attended nearly every Plaaning Commission hearing, Study Session and City Council
Meeting during the update of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. I have studied the
language possibly in more depth than any other citizen in this community. During my involvement
and attendance at meetings, I assure you that the outcome of any language placed in the updated
General Plan in no wav was understood to result in eliminating uses within the current C -S zoning.
I can recall no discussion, debate, or the slightest suggestion that anything like the proposed zoning
regulation changes would be the result. Had it been discussed or had such an outcome been
described, this issue would have been dealt with long ago. I recognize that the zoning regulations
must be consistent with the General Plan, but this is an example of the decision makers at the time,
changing something and not knowing the results of their innocent language changes. These are
extremely technical issues that were never discussed in detail and therefore not understood. I am
convinced that an action as recommended in the original staff report would not be in the best
interest of the community. The fact that the original language did not survive the update is due to
the fact that staff did not simply "update" or "revise" the language, they completely re-wrote the
document.
There is nothing wrong with the current C -S zoning which allows for the office uses now being
proposed to be deleted. It is working quite well as it is. The suggested added uses such as research
and development in C -S zone and Bed and Breakfast in residential and retail areas are good ideas.
But to delete existing uses that are not creating land use conflicts is not "business friendly ". The
business I and my brother own is located in the C -S zone. We are specifically a use that will be
eliminated and we become non-confbnnmg in our own building. Therefore although we get
"grandf Wwred ", we are prevented from doing any kind of "significant" expansion or renovation
within the zoning we where approved.
ELECTRICAL ENGO90MG - ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION • UTILITY UNE CONSTRUCTION - DATA COMMUNICATIONS - SERVICE
3562 EMPLEO ST, SURE C - P.O. BOX 1167 - SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93406 (805)5433850 - FAX (805)5433829
INTERNET - THOMAELCOTHOMAELEC.COM / /z
/i
Our construction business and our business options are being taken away from us. We also own
property in the airport area that is likely to be zoned C -S if annexed If this re -zoning (down zoning)
is enacted, we could be prevented from moving our operation to this site should we chose to expand.
If this occurs, I for one, will fight against the very annexation I have promoted over the years.
Although the community will benefit from the annexation, we would be penalized and could be
expected to move somewhere else. The investment in our business's firture and its expansion are now
in question. We are small business owners. We don't have deep corporate pockets nor do 90% of all
of the existing C -S property owners. We can't buy and sell property as the political winds in the
community change. Your city policy to prioritize, retain, expand and nurture existing businesses
rather than recruiting new ones, doesn't fit with this proposed suggestion. The negative economic
impact and the negative message sew to existing businesses choosing to expand will drive them
away. I for one (and I've been supported in my feeling by many other C -S property owners) am
extremely upset at the recommendation to you.
I strongly urge you to direct staff to initiate a General Plan amendment to obtain the necessary
consistencies (if in fact an inconsistency exists). Although it may take longer to do so, it is the
proper course of action. It is my belief that the council majority does not support the staff position.
In the mean time this should in no way hamper existing businesses trying to expand or locate in this
zone.
It has been said before but it is very appropriate to say again "If it isn't broken don't fix it ".
Please hear our pleaH Revise the General Plan, not the zoning ordinance. The city need not waste
it's time defending law suits from property owners and or tenants. Thank you for your thoughtfid
consideration
S' rely,
< t
William A. Thoma
Thoma Electric, Inc.
MzW%.a«.
cc: Mayor Allen Settle & Members of the City Council
John Dunn, City Administrative Office
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Jane McVay, Economic Development Director
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING - ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION - UTILITY LINE CONSTRUCTION - DATA C OWAUNICATIONS - SERVICE
3562 EMPLEO ST, SUITE C - P.O. BOX 1167 - SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA 93008 (805)5433850 - FAX (805)5433829
INTERNET - THOANIELC @THOAMELEC.COM /-6/0
-1r
19
277 Granada Driver
[-
San Luis Obispo, California 93401 -7396 USA
TELEX II: 910 -351 -5809, JBL SALU
�y
Phone 805/5448524
S01-1\71,1--C, it \L.
FAX 805 - 5431531
A Subsidiary of Genic. Inc.
August 14, 1996
Honorable Chairman Karleskint and Members of the Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo 900 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Chairman Karleskint and Commision Members:
Thank you for the notification that the agenda for Aug. 14 will include a review of
proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations to implement the Land Use Element of
the General Plan. I wish to offer several comments that reflect the concerns of three
business entities: JBL Scientific, Inc. and two related real estate partnerships with
interests in the Lower Higuera Commercial Park (zoned C -S), namely Granada Associates
and Sueldo Associates. Several of the proposed changes may affect the ability of JBL
Scientific to expand in the future, as described below:
• Table 17.16.060 (Parking Space Requirements) cites the category Research and
Development. The proposed the guidelines are as follows:
1 space/300 sq. ft. office or laboratory area
1 space /500 sq. ft. indoor assembly or fabrication area
1 space /1,500 sq. ft. outdoor work area
We recommend theat the last category be modified to read:
1 space/1,500 sq. ft. outdoor work area or indoor warehouse
area
This change would follow the guidelines that were used in calculating the parking
requirements for our present building and would ensure a reasonable number of
parking spaces. Our experience has been that the current parking standard assures
sufficient parking
• Table # 9 outlines a number of revisions to Uses allowed in each Zone. The sixth
category is one allowed in the C -S zone (e.g. Lower Higuera Commerce Park) and is
described as "Research and Development & services, software, consumer products,
instruments, office equipment and similar items ". However, the seventh category
requires Planning Commision approval and is described as "Research and
development, transportation equipment, weapons, metals, chemicals, building
materials and similar items." We request a clarification in definition or wording that
establishes that JBL Scientific's business has been and will continue to be a permitted
activity for the C -S Zone. This was the position of the city when we chose to remain
in San Luis Obispo and relocated our facility from Capitolio Way to Granada Drive
approximately 10 years ago. At that point a Planning Commision hearing was not
deemed necessary. We have expected that the same approach would be taken when
1-107
I Mkk `- i
and if our company elects to build a second building on lot # 40 in the Lower Higuera
Commerce Park. The clarification is requested because JBL Scientific is not only a
Research and Development company. Certainly we emphasize the R & D function
and, as a result, scientists at our company have invented and developed new chemicals
that are being used in highly sensitive detection systems vital to the Human Genome
project and in more sensitive blood testing procedures. We have also worked closely
with our parent company, Genta, Inc. to develop a revolutionary treatment for
follicular lymphoma (cancer). This candidate drug is presently in clinical trials in
England. In addition to such research and development activities at JBL Scientific,
we also manufacture these chemicals which we developed. It is vital to our company
that we continue to have the capability to perform both functions if we are to be able
to sustain our business in San Luis Obispo. We propose that Table 9 item # 6 be an
allowed use in the C -S Zone and read as follows:
Research and Development and services, light chemical
processing, software, consumer products, instruments, office
equipment and similar items
We recognize the legitimate requirement on the part of the city that our company's
operations be safe for our employees and our community. However, quite a number
of governmental agencies (city, state and federal), which mission it is to protect public
health and safety, already closely regulate these activities. These agencies review and
approve any remodeling or expansion plans. They also periodically review on -going
operations. We believe that the nature of our business is already well -known in the
community and we have demonstrated a conscientious compliance with the
appropriate guidelines of the city regulations. An additional review by the Planning
Commission would not enhance the process of protecting public health and safety. At
the same time. we are concerned that a lengthy and costly process could ensue every
time JBL Scientific wished to do anything requiring a building permit, even for fairly
simple tasks such as an internal remodel. As a consequence, we request that the
requirement for Planning Commision review not be an added hurdle each time JBL
Scientific wishes to remodel or expand.
• In section 17.40.020 (Property Development standards), section C the maximum
height has been changed from 45 ft. to 35 ft for C -R Zone. Not shown in this
document is any change for height restrictions in the C -S Zone. In the case of our
company it is necessary that each floor have relatively high ceilings. In order to be
able to construct a 3 -story building with the necessary parapets, etc. it would not be
possible to achieve such a design goal with a 35 ft. height limit. If the 45 ft. or higher
limit in the C -S Zone is not allowed already, we request that you make that
modification. I expect that other companies would have similar concerns in the C -R
Zone.
• Section 17.04.328 defines the category Research and Development and specifically
excludes manufacturing. As explained above, we request that this definition be
/-6g
0
A9
modified to include light chemical processing as well as research and development so
that JBL Scientific's business would be a fully allowed activity in the C -S zone.
I would also like to express some general concerns on behalf of other businesses in
the area. Quite a number of business categories are being excluded from the C -S Zone in
the new proposals. As I understand it, the general purpose is to reserve some area in the
city for the allowed Commercial/Services functions because there is little or no other
property in the city zoned appropriately for these purposes. On the other hand, the
excluded types of businesses could find acceptably zoned locations in a number of other
areas of the city. While this underlying purpose is understandable, the proposed revisions
place restrictions that seem unnecessary and even counter - productive for the city and its
business community. For example, engineering is presently allowed, but is proposed to
have some kind of restricted designation (IO) in the future. In the past we have utilized
the engineering services of an air conditioning firm and an electrical design firm located in
the Lower Eguera Commerce Park. There is synergy when such firms are included in the
C -S zone and the city would be well-served by avoiding such restrictions. I could make
the same comment about the retail outlet associated with San Luis Sourdough or the deli
located down the street on Granada Drive. Clearly, our employees appreciate these kinds
of activities in the neighborhood and often patronize them at lunch time. The presence in
close physical proximity of diverse, compatible enhances efficiency and saves numerous
unnecessary automobile trips. In general, I would support implementing as few restrictions
here as possible and allowing the marketplace to dictate the actual mix of companies that
wish to locate in the C -S zone.
Thank you for the opportunity to express these views to the Planning Commission.
Sincerely yours,
Lauren R. Brown, Ph.D.
President, JBL Scientific
Partner, Granada Associates
Partner, Sueldo Associates
copies to:
Mayor Allen Settle and Members of the City Council
John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
1 �4
N
-Ae .
Sea Lois China Chamber af cep
San rain asispe ?rapstty timers Aooeigtian
son rats aoiepe Association of e_ltam
9saiaese Assaciatisa
Swonfaemsaam to d WAt= ,••t= ,eeoai tim
m.s,w;M =aChstzy ANNO.iatian of the central coast
CLLJI..nLa Central Coast Chapter Movie= iastitote of ACCUteets
P. O. Box 12924, San Luis Obispc,CA 93406
(805)541 -7667
July 29, 1996
Arnold Jonas, Director of Community Dev.
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Dept.
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. Jonas:
The Business Coalition strongly urges the City not to reduce
the allowable uses in the C -S Zone. The Coalition believes the
proposed reductions in allowable uses will have a significant
adverse impact on property values, economic development and the
ability of the City to retain existing businesses. The Coalition
urges the City to amend its General Plan to clear up any
ambiguities there may exist in this regard.
Sincerely
Association of Manufacturers and
Distributors
S.L.O. Association of Realtors
S.L.O. Business Improvement
Association
CCCCAIA
California Central Coast Chapter
American Institute of Architects
BIACO
Building Industry Association of
the Central Coast
S.L.O. Chamber of Commerce
S.L.O. Property Owners Assoc.
/40
r°
A
Bit Bash GEMG Dasn88 COMM22 M
aso Im" Obispo mombee at Cmms�
ass 70da Obispo pXUpMLS a.ra+ asse:ietlaa
a.a 2nis Obispo >..eM.eioa at anitmm
iaiaaes npaaniont aeeeelation
Na ad nlatclaet� Amaeatatl
m•"Ung Moftnew aeem{oLiae ae the COMUIL meet
cal"Graia central Coast Chapter American Zaautate at Asebitaets
P. O. Box 12924, San LUia obiapo,CA 93406
(905)S41 -7667
July 29, 1996
Arnold Jonas, Director of Community Dev.
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Dept.
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. Jonas:
The Business Coalition strongly urges the City not to reduce
the allowable uses in the C -S Zone. The Coalition believes the
proposed reductions in allowable uses will have a significant
adverse impact on property values, economic development and the
ability of the City to retain existing businesses. The Coalition
urges the City to amend its General Plan to clear up any
ambiguities there may exist in this regard.
Sincerely,
Association of Manufacturers and
Distrib ors
S.L.O. Associa ion of Realtors
S.L.O. Business Improvement
Association
CCCCAIA
California Central Coast Chapter
American Institute of Architects
BrACO
Building Irdustry Association of
the Central Coast
S.L.O. Chamber of Commerce
S.L.O. Property Owners Assoc.
TOTAL P 01
r1
v
Wn 082M � CON==
sm zm" able" chamber as a�
W tats atsapo saI@ v errs h@9wLALL=
W 2ML0 aN.r 0oaNldi4• a! Inafto"
nmla In i/aaOtMLOR
s.aotoataaaae od mama mn a..aoks"M
s.0 tw l•Wr+s a..00is"M 09 Un ostml omae
CLLLSozx L& Camel CC"% 426&~ Waio" Luti=" of asabITAMO
P. O. Bolt 12924, "a Lui6 obispo.cl 93406
(BOS)S41 -7667
July 29, 1996
Arnold Jonas, Director of Community Dev.
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Dept.
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. Jonas:
The Business Coalition strongly urges the City not to reduce
the allowable uses in the C -S Zone. The Coalition believes the
proposed reductions in allowable uses will have a significant
adverse impact on property values, economic development and the
ability of the City to retain existing businesses. The Coalition
urges the City to amend its General Plan to clear up any
ambiguities there may exist in this regard.
Sincerely,
Association of Manufacturers and BIACO .
Distributors Building Industry Association of
the Central Coast
S.L.O. Association of Realtors S.L.O. Chamber of Commerce
.L. Business Improvement S.L.O. Property Owners Assoc.
Association
CCCCAIA
California Central Coast Chapter
American Institute of Architects
/- 7�Z
W
c
✓ FAx 7D: 16w1V 0crs,1%1
C Afti ae d Arr,Fcrc
asst rA= Gkim RgB3 sus ca ua2m
eo ,.d. m,ps Chamber at tea,
san za" M AMM 7reo.rtt awar, aaaamue<ea
am YA" OC"pe a or lashes.
,aai:~. z.e..,t a..anf tiara
. oe9,..a m.tribata,ea aaaom.tl.
ft,Mi" rte." ,aae,s Uaa 09 tam antra: Coast
CaliLarais COBtral Coast Chapter hlarloaa zastituta at %Cahtta to
P. O. Box 12924, San Luie Obiepo,eA 93406
(804)541 -7667 1/
July 29, 1996
Arnold Jonas, Director of Community Dev.
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Dept.
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. Jonas:
The Business Coalition strongly urges the City not to reduce
the allowable uses in the C -S Zone. The Coalition believes the
proposed reductions in allowable uses will have a significant
adverse impact on property values, economic development and the
ability of the City to retain existing businesses. The Coalition
urges the City to amend its General Plan to clear up any
ambiguities there may exist in this regard.
Sincerely,
Association of Manufacturers and BIACO
Distributors Building Industry Association of
the Central Coast
S.L.O. Association of Realtors
S.L.O. Business Improvement
Association
e� 13��tsJ-of a�f�
California Central Coast Chapter
American Institute of Architects
To - d
S.L.O. Chamber of Commerce
S.L.O. Property Owners Assoc.
£Z: 9 3f11 96- 9£- 11"12'
�`aI �r ul -2s -96 04:38P
It-ft ."'
f I P. as
v !m team Cowad
am Amu mum 006W of ammm
ao 1"F /YLoso saooaLOLM of taaata
sti.saw UWawWWt aaaaoaa" s
mwwkww� ar aaatraamaaaa baaLaauao
2"ift" naaaaa alaadatim 09 tin CNtaL an"
taulam" C&S&M. Caaaa mm"W aaaaleaa laautaea el a.ohataata
P. O. sox 12924, Ban Luis Obiapo,CL 93606
(903)541 -7667
July 290 1996
Arnold Jonas, Director of Community Dev.
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Dept.
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. Jonast
The Business Coalition strongly urges the City not to educe
the allowable uses in the C -S Zone. The Coalition believes the
proposed reductions in allowable uses will have a significant
adverse impact on property values, economic development and the
ability of the City to retain existing businesses. The Coalition
urges the City to amend its General Plan to clear up any
ambiguities there may exist in this regard.
Sincerely,
Association of Manufacturers and HIACO -6 46d2o
Distributors Building Industry Adociation of
the Central Coast
S.L.O. Association of Realtors
S.L.O. Business Improvement
Association
C M M 11LIA,
California Central Coast Chapter
American Institute of Architects
S.L.O. Chamber of Commerce
S.L.O. Property Owners Assoc.
1-7/'
Jul-!-251-99 U46 G1rr;ri Sicl:L.nu HOTELS
,I- C
iii ma am a a� =sum=
a irla•a aam die as maaaav
an lW awl"s aMOMM 0• A.aaalaela.
sa+a aiNM aa.ENAMesa■ ai aaatto
atilaa.. MMMMM M AMORL alas
Ed •alaat&bzta aOaaalESAM
aai an — . 3 aaamfaUM as tan a t=L a n
4014#•••••" do..A. CCNI" eagaae d• -I--- S4d"tatt at ARROMAJAC"
P•. o. box 12924. San Luis obiepo,C& 93406.
• (805)541 -7667
July 29, 1996
Arnold Jonas, Director of Community Dev.
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development. Dept.
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
Dear Mr. Jonas:
7— 1 P.06
The Business. Coalition strongly urges the City. not to reduce
the allowable uses in the C -S Zone. The Coalition believes the
proposed reductions in allowable uses will have a significant
adverse impact on property values, economic development and the
ability of the-City to retain existing businesses. The Coalition
urges the City to amend its General Plan to clear up any
amhiguities there may exist in this regard.
sincerely,
Association of Manufacturers and SIACO
Distributors Building Industry Association of
the Central Coast
S.L.O. Association of Realtors
S.L.O. Chamber Commerce
S.L.O. HnaineIIS Improvemeat S.L. Property Owners Assoc.
Association
CMN
California Central Coast Chapter
American Institute of Architects
1-75'
a 0 0
Ae
August 14, 1996
Honorable Chairman Karleskint
and Members of the Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Chairman Karleskint and Commission Members:
As one of the largest non -profit businesses in San Luis Obispo, with a sizable staff (approximately
30-40) we have had difficulty in finding a location to provide space for our activities. Fortunately,
as you may already know, we are currently under construction on a new 4,000+ square foot office
building in a C -S zone off lower Higuera. Our longevity in the community (26 years), our primary
role of providing affordable housing, and a need for a fairly large amount of space led us on a
multiple year (5 +) search throughout the community for a suitable site. Given the amount of space
needed, parking requirements (city code) etc., the C -S zone became our sanctuary. The combined
nature of our business allowed us to "fit" into the current guidelines of the C -S zone.
Our monetary expenditure on this site and building has led us to give close attention to the proposed
zoning/general plan amendments that may have an impact on our business operations now or in the
future. The concerns and nature of our inquiry are:
1) As a "Grandfathered" business in the C -S zone, what would be the potential for any
expansion or remodel of our facilities?
2) Zoning restrictions on use flexibility by us, or any potential future users (i.e. new owners)
if we ever sold our facilities?
We can say with a large degree of certainty that larger office space is a scarce commodity in the City
of San Luis Obispo and a very scarce commodity in the downtown core. In the spirit of community
we would ask that you think the elements of this proposal through very carefully, given the nature
of a "clean industry" base that the City of San Luis Obispo now enjoys and the difficulty in keeping
growing businesses as viable economic entities in a fairly restricted urban setting. With the fast -
paced hi -tech development of the business world, the ability to change and adapt your business needs
and organizational format become the key to survival at critical times. Flexibility rather than
categorical restriction may be the best assurance for business survival in San Luis Obispo.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Z th
Director of Programs
Peoples' Self -Help Housing Corp.
1411 Marsh Street, Suite 103
San Luis Obispo, California 93401 �' �4
TEL: (805) 544 -5717
FAX: (805) 544 -1901
August 12,1996
J.W. LLJIGN & CONSTRUCTION, INC.
P.O. (lox 1154
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
(805) 544 -3130
Uc. No. 554910
r
''T►'c�c �y%b
Honorable Chairman Karleskint and Members of the Planning Commission �I �'PIS
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Amendment to various sections of the zoning regulations in order to implement policies of the 1994 Land
Use Element of the General Plan.
Dear Chairman Karleskint and Commission Members:
I would like to express my concerns for the proposed Text Amendment for property zoned C -S, (TA 79 -96). My
company has been doing business in the City of San Luis Obispo for over twenty years and currently employs
between 15 to 20 people with annual sales of 5 to 10 million. In 1985 we purchased property in the Higuera
Commerce Park at 3563 Sueldo for the purpose of developing our office and related contractor uses. In 1994 the
adjoining space became available and we purchased and expanded our office and support facilities by over 100 %.
We made this decision based on the current zoning regulations and the current allowable office uses.
For our involvement there are two large concerns. First, that my property under the Text Amendment would become
a non - conforming use with the number of allowable uses being reduced as well as our own classification being
eliminated, under these circumstances the value of the property can only go down. The second conce! n e:eP, the
inability to expand our business facilities without the discretion of city approval. I have sons who me,, - :rant 'r.
continue on in this business or start their own and the downtown area, frankly, is not appropriate or c.ri:ai.ie ;.-,r
contractors office.
We have built the majority of structures in the Higuera Commerce Park and feel we are in touch with the pul _s;, ji 'die
area. It has been a compatible, harmonious place to do business. Why are we attempting to change Fomethir? 'hit i�
working so well.
Please reconsider the Text Amendment and instead implement the simple language change to il
would make the existing zoning regulations compatible.
Sincerely,
1 -71
/ e
SAN LUIS OBISPO ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC.
19 443 MARSH STREET / SAN LUIS OBISPO / CALIFORNIA 93401 / (805) 541 -2282 / M# (805) 544 -2813 ll
J00 0
REALTORe 'Ty 1 • �AL
�9
August 12, 1996
Honorable Chairman Karlskint & Members of the Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: Opposition to staff proposed elimination of existing 'CS' zone uses.
Dear Chairman Karlskint & Commission Members:
This letter is to urge your denial of the staff proposals for the elimination of numerous existing uses in the
'CS' zone and lowering of the building height limit to 35 ft. Had the business community been informed .
that these changes would be the result of the revised land use element of the general plan adopted by city
council in 1994, our opposition would have been heard much earlier.
When hearing comment on the staff recommendations, you are asked to consider the following:
1. The existing 'CS' zone is one of the more successful zones in the general plan. We are unaware of the
public complaints related to the proposed deleted uses.
2. Down zoning creates non-conforming uses and administrative headaches.
3. With the primary charge of our new development manager to encourage the retention and expansion of
existing business, these changes have exactly the opposite effect; encouraging the exodus of existing
business in search for an allowed use of the ability to expand.
4. Downzoning, in terms of the use and building height, will adversely affect land values and may be
considered a taking.
5. The office and commercial zones downtown are not large enough or affordable enough to be attractive
to the removed uses. Many tax paying businesses may be lost
As an alternative to use deletions, it may be prudent to revisit the land use element so that existing uses
are conforming to the general plan (if in fact they are shown to be otherwise, and that seems to be a
questionable conclusion).
Your commission has difficult choices to make. We are thankful for such a capable group of dedicated
citizens giving balance to our municipal government
—Sincerely,
Don Hubbard
President
1- 78
LAW OFFICES
LYON & CARMEL
ROGER LYON' 1104 PALM STREET
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL POST OFFICE BOX 922
.w w.conwww *pow SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93406
August 14, 1996
Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Paim Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
TELEPHONE
(805) 541 -2560
TELECOPIER
(805) 5433857
�tLtIVEV
AUG 1 1996
:m OF sale LUIS OBlspo
� ^11 MIT • nom. �1 ^MM'S•
Re: August 14, 1996, Agenda Item 2 — Amendment of C -S Zoning Regulations
Dear Honorable Commissioners:
This firm represents Roger Morf and Jim Richard, owners of C -S zoned property on Santa
Barbara Street where the Pacific Home Do-It Center is located. Our clients appreciated the
Planning Commission's notice of consideration of proposed amendments to the C -S zone.
Unfortunately, they received no notice before the 1994 Land Use Element (LUE) amendments
were adopted which precipitated the proposed zone change.
Our clients' property is subject to a long term lease and they do not have any immediate
alternative uses. However, there is concern with the potential significant reduction in market
value that the proposed restrictions will cause. Also of concern are the potential limitations on
expansion or modification of the existing use by the tenant.
We would join the Chamber of Commerce and others requesting that the Planning Commission
recommend that instead of restricting the uses in the C -S zone, the general plan be considered for
amendment to allow the uses that were eliminated or restricted in the 1994 general plan
amendments. We would also ask that mailed notice of such general plan amendments be provided
to all affected property owners.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
7 & CARMEL
R4ogerL
RL:ar
cc: Roger Morf
Jim Richard
�- 79
August 13, 1996
Planning Commission
Via Mr. John Mandeville
Long -Range Planning Manager
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401 -3249
-1 t t,?
aus >gyb
?mOFSaru
Re: August 14, 1996, "C -S ZONING DISTRICT USE AMENDMENTS
Applies City -wide In Service Commercial Zones, San Luis Obispo
Dear Commissioners:
We are the owners of properties located on Broad Street near Orcutt Road that may be
affected by the proposed amendments before the Commission. Please accept this
testimony on my behalf as I am out of town on business.
Our concern is the prohibition on architectural, engineering, building contractors and
other consulting and professional services that may be applied to this zone. Our
interest in these properties is to provide these services in a future development of
these sites, and we would request that the Commission take no action to preclude
these allowable uses under the present 'C-S District regulations.
Thank you for taking these thoughts into consideration. We look forward to an
opportunity to expand upon these thoughts if the Commission wishes, and we
appreciate your time on this matter.
Sin erely,
J n . King
King Ventures 290 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805 544 -4444 805 544 -5637 FAX /— 0
THOMAS & MARGRETHE FRIEDMAN
P.O. Box 5036
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Phone: (805) 5442247
FAX: (805) 544 -7356
August 13, 1996
Honorable Chairman Sarleskint & members of the Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California
R8: Proposed text amendment: TA 79 -96 for property zoned C -S
Dear Chairman Rarleskint and Commission members
As owners of C -S zoned property in Sueldo Commerce Park, a portion of Higuera
Commerce Park, we seriously question the intent of the proposed text
amendment, which would modify Table 9, Section 17.22.010, Zoning Regulations.
This amendment could affect presently allowable uses in a number of
categories, among them:
offices (contractors) all types... Offices(engineering) ..... ;
Organizations (professional) .... ;Secretarial and related services...
There are certain ambiguities here which require resolution before any
implementation. Are the proposed changes meant to apply only to the issuance
of new building permits in the C -S zone? If so maybe not too bad. The
developers would know their market restrictions in advance of construction.
However, if the changes are meant to apply as well to all existing uses and
the issuance of new business permits for these spaces the results could be
disastrous. There are many existing business in the C -S zone which would
immediately become non - conforming. The owners of such properties could find it
difficult to sell or re -lease their spaces in the future. Today there are many
smaller businesses in San Luis Obispo•s C -S zones which occupy between 1,000
and 2,500 square feet in structures which definitely are not "large
professional buildings The right to continue to use all existing C -S zone
spaces for future uses as currently defined in the Zoning Regulations must be
preserved indefinitely.
Question: How are the small business entrepreneurs, who make up a large
segment of the San Luis Obispo business community, going to make a living
paying for twice as much space as they need, thus making their overhead
prohibitive? Already some small business owners have had to downsize because
the "big boys" have moved into town, making competition very stiff.
Is this amendment a way of chasing small businesses out of town?
Please reject this proposed zoning change. Thank you.
Sincerely,
J.W. :SIGN & CONSTRUCTION, INC.
P.O. Box 1154
Son Luis Obispo, CA 93406
(805)544.3190
Ur- No. 554910
August 12, 1996
Honorable Chairman Karlesldnt and Members of the Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Amendment to various sections of the zoning regulations in order to implement policies of the 1994 Land
Use Element of the General Plan.
Dear Chairman Karleskint and Commission Members:
I would like to express my concerns for the proposed Text Amendment for property zoned C -S. (TA 79 -96). My
company has been doing business in the City of San Luis Obispo for over twenty years and currently employs
between 15 to 20 people with annual sales of 5 to 10 million. In 1985 we purchased property in the Higuera
Commerce Park at 3563 Sueldo for the purpose of developing our office and related contractor uses. In 1994 the
adjoining space became available and we purchased and expanded our office and support facilities by over 100 %.
We made this decision based on the current zoning regulations and the current allowable office uses.
For our involvement there are two large concerns. First, that my property under the Text Amendment would become
a note- conforming use with the number of allowable uses being reduced as well as our own classification being
eliminated, under these circumstances the value of the property can only go down. The second concern being the
inability to expand our business facilities without the discretion of city approval. I have sons who may want to
continue on in this business or start their own and the downtown area, frankly, is not appropriate or suitable for a
contractors office.
We have built the majority of structures in the Higuera Commerce Park and feel we are in touch with the pulse of the
area. It has been a compatible, harmonious place to do business. Why are we attempting to change something that is
working so well.
Please reconsider the Text Amendment and instead implement the simple language change to the General Plan that
would make the existing zoning regulations compatible.
Sincerely,
-8a
P
d
SUELDO COMMERCE PARK OWNERS ASSOCIATION
3563 SUELDO STREET, # U
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401
August 12, 1996
Honorable Chairman Rarleskint & Members of the Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California
RE: Proposed text amendment TA 79 -96 for property zoned C -S
Dear Chairman Rarleskint and Commission Members
It A.
466`
�mh°x /9
The Board of Directors of Sueldo Commerce Park Owners Association, (whose
property is located in the C -S) zone) hereby strenuously objects to the
proposed text amendment, which would modify Table 9, Section 17.22.010,
Zoning Regulations. This amendment would seriously affect presently allowable
uses in a number of categories, among them:
Offices (contractors) all types ........
Offices (engineering) engineers.....
Organizations (professional) ..........
secretarial and related services...
For these and certain other uses the proposed amendment deletes Symbols A
or D (Allowed use and Director's approval required, respectively) from the
table and for some uses replaces these symbols with Note 10, with its
requirement for no single tenant space of less than 2500 square feet in a
"large professional building~. (Emphasis added).
Such a restriction seems completely unnecessary, and could adversely affect
property values in the C -S Zone. Might it be that the "large building- note
was inserted in the past for the benefit of a few large property owners? What
is the justification for its continued inclusion in the zoning regulations?
The most equitable approach to resolving this issue would appear to be that
the Planning Commi sion recommend to the City Council that they revisit the
General Plan, and revise it to provide the flexibility required to serve all
business interests in the community - both large and small- without a
diminishment of existing property values.
Please do not act on these proposed changes at this time. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sueldo Commerce Park Owners
0
Gary Dove, President
Associa ' n
/ �3
Chairman and Planning Commissioners
August 9, 1996
Page 2
We ask that you modify the General Plan rather than change the Zoning Ordinance in
your ef�fpeto-rreate consistency between the two documents.
cc: Mayor Allen Settle, City of SLO \J
John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Jane McVey, Economic Development Manager
Members of SLO City Council
;�:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
August 9, 1996
Los Padres Division Dennis Hennessy
4325 S. Higuera Street Manager
P.O. Box 8592
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 -8592
805/546 -3864
Barry Karleskint, Chairman and Planning Commissioners
Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Honorable Chairman and Planning Commissioners:
We have a major concern with the zoning amendments being considered at the upcoming
Planning Commission meeting on August 14, 1996. Our concern is with proposed
changes to the C -S zoning classification. While we recognize the need for consistency
between the General Plan and zoning regulations, we believe the changes proposed will
substantially reduce our ability to use the property as the center of our electric utility
operations.
PG &E's Service Center located at 4325 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, is currently within
the County, but still within the airport annexation area and zoned C -S. We have owned
this property for over 40 years and have used it in a similar manner as we do today.
Currently we have field operations, engineering, planning, administration, fleet services,
support services, and customer contact personnel that utilize the facility. Our industry is
constantly changing requiring us to continually refine our work areas. It is quite possible
that in the future we will need to add new buildings or upgrade existing ones. Our fear is
that these zoning amendments will greatly limit our ability to make the physical changes
necessary to our facility and at the same time continue using the facility for the same
intended purpose.
Over the past year we have worked closely with City staff exploring the possibility of
annexation separate from the larger airport area. Until now we felt that annexation of this
property would be a good business decision. Because of the restrictions stated in the
zoning amendments we feel our ability to continue our engineering and administration
functions at this site will be in jeopardy. If you approve the amendments to the C -S zone
we will have no interest in annexation now or in the future..
8.S
■• w D u l a o■ i a v o
z.
AUOel�llee sl Yenul�eWnn Olelrleulen
ti1 .-u v �-,
979 OSOS STREET • SUITE F • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 • (805) 545.8887 • Fax (805) 545 -0660
August 9, 1996
?< -L6' 4
Honorable Chairman Karleskint and Members of the Planning Commission
�o� G
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
�".U,
' a
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Chairman Karleskint and Commission Members:
The San Luis Obispo Association of Manufacturers apd Distributors adds its voice to those of other local business groups
opposing the pending City action that would reduce allowable uses in the C -S Zone.
Less than a month ago our association hosted an enthusiastic meeting with Jane McVey, members of the City Council and
several City department heads. The meeting was marked by a sense of forward motion and appreciation for the City's
support for business. It is discouraging that while we discuss the desire for business retention and expansion and the role
played by manufacturing and technology businesses in this effort, the City is at the same time considering actions that
would absolutely undermine these programs — and in the absence of any apparent problem.
Businesses in San Luis Obispo are being asked to reduce auto traffic to their establishments — a laudable goal. The airport
area planning discussions include many references to businesses supporting businesses in an area — pushing for the
synergy that arises by clustering businesses. Policy after policy supports the idea of creating business areas that work
together as units. Now comes an effort which would eliminate logical office uses, food services, support services, and
other clear partners to businesses operating in CS zones. Areas like Higuera Commerce Park are acknowledged as places
of successful business operation, yet new policies would sweepingly change the allowable uses. At the very minimum,
we have to assume that this policy will force employees and business owners into their cars in search of services needed
to conduct business.
There are dozens of examples of problems that will arise with the implementation of the proposed change, and any one of
our member companies can cite individual concerns. As a group, our message is that this action is punitive to business,
flies in the face of stated policies, and gives SLO -based businesses another opportunity to consider friendlier locations
outside the city.
Please take a closer look at the proposed changes and consider their devastating effects on business and their
inconsistency with adopted economic development policies. We appreciate your time and consideration and hope you
will help maintain SLO as a city supportive of business.
Best. .Iregards,
aggle le Cox Cox
, 40
Association Coordinator
cc: Mayor Allen Settle & SLO City Council
John Dunn
1—O
2083Partnership
August 12,1996
City of San Luis Obispo
Planning Commission
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,Ca. 93401 -3249
Ronald Whisenand:
IEGtIVEU
AUG 1 ;1996
•m OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
• .. n mu..... —. T, .....,r..
In response to the letter, received August 2,1996, of the imposing zoning
regulation change and upon further clarification, including corresponding telephone
calls to Ronald Whisenand. The change of the zoning regulations are not acceptable to
US.
It took eight years to get our parcel annexed into the city. During that
annexation process we negotiated the current C -S zone based on our future plans for
the parcel. We must have the same uses available that are currently available in
today's C -S zone.
We will take all action available to us to ensure that the uses currently
available to us will remain in affect. If the city would like to rezone our parcel to a
commercial - retail (C -R) zone we would consider this, as an acceptable option. If you
wish to discuss this I can be reached at (805) 543 -2682.
Sinc ly ,
G er II
Managing Partner
2083 Partnership
3592 Broad Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
(805) 543 -2682, Fax (805) 5434447
P .
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278
(805) 781 -2777 • FAX (805) 543 -1255
August 13, 1996 e-mail: slo- chamberpslonet.org
David E. Garth, Executive Director
Mr. Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Dear Ron:
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce would like to officially request copies of any audiocassette
tapes that pertain to discussion of the C -S zone during the LUE update of the General Plan.
According to the staff report for the August 14, 1996 Planning Commission hearings, staff was "unable to
find where the discussion of appropriate uses for the Services and Manufacturing land use designation was
included in the minutes of the Planning Commission or City Council." The staff report continues to state,
however, that staff members who were present at those hearings "remember the principles that went into
development of the policies" and continues on to outline these principles according to the recollection of staff.
The recollection of staff is this regard differs significantly from that of Chamber representatives who also
were present at the LUE update hearings. As an example, many of our members who were present at the
hearings have stated that there was no discussion of issues surrounding the impact of changes on the C -S
zone prior to the alleged "community values" regarding the zone being adopted. Conversely, our members
recall that allowing office uses in the C -S zone was discussed by Council and seen as an important element of
flexibility for the zone, rather than an example of how the zone has "lost its original purpose" as the current
staff report alleges.
We must formally request that transcripts from the relevant Planning Commission and City Council
hearings be presented alongside the staff recollections of these hearings. We feel that this clarification is
essential because staff recollections are being presented both as statements of fact and as rationale for the
current decision making process. Because these statements do not agree with our recollection on the issue, we
must ask that they be verified.
Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter.
Yours very truly,
TEN TEARS
Robert L. Griffin
President
cc: San Luis Obispo City Council, San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
ACCACCREDITED
or cortex[
o• .oa
r
E lk
ear wn Gazwo 008zr comznan
"a ZmU Cblapo Chebar of Co w
eaa in" ablapo p:cparty Cwaara aaaadauon
aaa'ln" Cho ASS. —iAti® of analta=
aoaiasaa Iaptn�nt Aaamiatdea
xa t- aat=un and Diattlbstowa aaaoatation
Sanding lndaatry aaaaalatlm of tba Canttnl Coot
California CGntsal Coat Chaptar aaerioao za@titata Of Arehitaata
P. o. Box 12924, San Luis obiepo,cA 93406
(805)541 -7667
July 29, 1996
To: Members of the Business Coalition and Other Interested
Members of the SLO Business Community
From: SLO Property Owners Association
John W. Belsher
Date: July 26, 1996
Subject: Proposed Downzoning in C -S Zones
City staff has proposed several significant text changes to
the City's Zoning Ordinance which have dramatic impacts on the C -S
(Commercial Service) Zone. Basing the need for the Ordinance
amendment on the newly revised Land Use Element of the General Plan
adopted by the City Council in 1994, staff has proposed eliminating
numerous uses from the C -S Zone, including:
Engineers, contractors and architects offices,
engineering and administration offices of utilities,
travel and ticket agencies, secretarial services, some
retail sales, food related services, drug, hardware,
discount and variety stores, liquor stores and bakeries.
A number of other interpreted uses would also no longer be
permitted in the C -S Zone.
The C -S Zone covers large areas of particularly successful
economic development in the City, including areas in or adjacent to
the Siguera Commerce Park (Granada Drive), Broad Street, South
Street, the industrial area of Sacramento /Capitolia, Industrial
Way, Tank Farm Road, Zaca Lane, the west end of Pacific Street,
Parker Street and a number of other vital areas of the City.
/ -i'9
Proposed Downzoning in C -S Zones
July 29, 1996
Page 2
k
1. The C -S Zone cnange creates numerous non- Cull"LAIlnCl LLlfe03.
There are presently scores of uses in the C -S Zone which will
become non - conforming. This means there ability to expand is in
jeopardy. It is generally bad planning to create the nightmare of
large numbers of non - conforming uses. Businesses in such
situations are obviously reluctant (or even prohibited) from
expansion.
2. All Undeveloped Properties in the C -S Zone are Devalued.
Obviously if fewer uses are permitted in the C -S Zone, undeveloped
properties are devalued since there are fewer potential buyers for
each parcel.
3. The Downzoning May be A Taking or Developea rroperties in
the C -S Zone. Those property owners with non - conforming uses may
have such a substantial loss of value as to constitute a "taking"
of their property by the City. The State and U.S. Constitution
protects reasonable investment- backed expectations of property
owners. It does not appear reasonable to make existing property
owners or pre - conforming tenants in our C -S Zones non - conforming
uses. At the very least, properties developed with non - conforming
uses will be substantially devalued.
4. The City is Already Driving Away rrosnecr.ive wenant.s.
Owners or Prospective Purchasers. We have been informed that the
City Staff is now advising prospective tenants, owners or buyers in
the C -S Zone of the General Plan limitations on development in the
C -S Zone, as interpreted by Staff and reflected in the proposed
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. It appears this has already
had an impact on economic development in the City. In effect this
specter of the zone change has created a moratorium on certain
development in the C -S Zone, without the moratorium procedures
being followed, as set forth in State law.
5. The C -S Zone Changes Will Thwart Tne Unty Truiv
Successful Areas of Economic Development in the City. In the last
few years, what little success the City has achieved in economic
development has largely taken place in the C -S Zones. Many local
businesses have located in the C -S Zone rather than move to
outlying communities. Many industries, such as architectural
businesses and engineering firms, cannot find suitable space in the
downtown area.
/� O
Proposed Downzoning in C -S Zones
July 29, 1996
Page 3
6.
Balance. City staff interprets the General Plan's intent is to
push the uses proposed to be eliminated from the C -S Zone into the
downtown office and retail areas. Unfortunately, there is a
scarcity of space downtown, much less space large enough for many
types of professional offices. It is difficult to imagine large
engineering firms or non - profits fitting into the crowded and high
rent downtown.
7. The Mix of Uses Presently Existing in the u -b Lone nas
been a Success. Presently the C -S Zone has developed with a mix of
uses that has reduced vehicle traffic, particularly from long -
distance commuters who might have to otherwise enter the congested
downtown, and contributed to economic vitality by creating a
synergistic effect. Small retail operations serve large employers.
The Contractors Association serves contractor's offices and yards.
Employees and businesses are able to find suppliers and other needs
within walking distance. It is hard to imagine how this is not the
preferred planning approach.
The City Planning Commission will hear the C -S Zoning changes
on August 14, 1996. You are encouraged to appear and voice your
concerns. It is suggested the zone change be opposed and the City
institute General Plan changes necessary to keep the status quo in
the C -S Zones. If the City wants to add big -box uses to the C -S
Zone, that is something the business community will likely support,
but should be left up to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
/- f/
Fax Cover Page
SUBJECT:
EMPORTANT LEGISLATIVE ISSUE ALERT
Please take a moment to read the attached letter from the
Chamber to the SLO Planning Commission.
On August 14, at 7:00 p.m., in the Library Community
Room, the Planning Commission will meet to discuss the
proposed changes in the C -S zone ordinance.
It is the Chamber's belief that these changes will result in
declining property values, unnecessary restrictions on land
uses, . and additional pressure against business expansion.
This will be a very controversial issue, and it is important
that the business community be present in force to voice
your viewpoint. I strongly encourage you to attend this
meeting and make a statement of your views.
If you would like any additional information, please call me
at 781 -2673. Thank you!
-Scott Gregory
To: Deborah Holley IFrom : Scott Gregory
For Information Call: 781-2673
At: San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
[ R.
July 19, 1996
COPY
Honorable Chairman Karleskint and Members of the Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Dear Chairman Karleskint and Commission Members:
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce would like to express its serious concerns with
proposed zoning changes that will come before you at your August 14 meeting. Our concerns lie
primarily in proposed changes to the C -S zoning classification, although we would like to
comment on certain other zone changes as well.
We were disappointed that proper notice had not been sent to property owners that could be
affected by these proposed changes prior to your discussion of this issue last month, and we would
like to thank you for correcting this error and postponing discussion until City staff could notify
these property owners and other interested parties.
For our part, the Chamber is gravely concerned with certain recommendations in the staff report
you received last month (TA 79 -96). Although we agree that there must be consistency between
our General Plan and land use ordinances, we do not believe that the recommended method to
bring these policies into conformance does service to property owners, businesses, city
government, or most importantly, the citizens of our community.
The staff report's recommendation to eliminate several important uses in the C -S zone will make
many local businesses non - conforming in their present locations. Although the report suggests
that existing businesses would be protected through grandfathering, such protection would not
apply when these businesses desire to expand or remodel.
These restrictions would add to the cost of doing business in San Luis Obispo, discourage good
development such as that seers in the Commerce Park business park, would prolong the permit
process for expansion, and would fly directly in the face of the City's number one priority for
economic development — business retention and expansion. Furthermore, f the pro would zone
restrictions would have the effect of reducing property
diminish property tax revenues to the City in future years.
We must ask why the City would voluntarily choose such a solution when no problem
has been proven to exist. When the Planning Commission first discussed this issue, there
were no examples given of problem properties under current zoning ordinances. In the
words of Commissioner Senn, "If it is not .broken, why do we need to fix it ?"
� -�3
I''=: Sco-t weya,y ,� I. —I --
e
In summary, we agree that uses such as research and development that are recommended in the
staff report would be a welcome addition in the C -S zone, but strongly disagree that currently
allowed uses need to be eliminated in order to accommodate these new land uses. We wonder
why the City would desire, for example, to force a company's research & development and office
functions to locate in different areas of the city, thereby creating sprawl and violating the concept
of compact urban form?
The Chamber is also concerned with the proposed reduction in maximum height allowances from
45 to 35 feet in the C -R zone. Given the required mechanical, fire, electrical and structural
requirements of buildings, it is virtually impossible to construct a three -story commercial building
in 35 feet or less. Reducing the allowable height of commercial buildings would therefore
significantly reduce development intensity, forcing development to sprawl into pristine areas.
Again, this is counter to a compact urban form philosophy, and will result in greater pressure on
open space areas, reducing the quality of life of our community.
Again, the Chamber would like to reiterate that our community's zoning ordinances and General
Plan must be consistent. We therefore strongly recommend that the city amend the General Plan
to achieve conformance with the current, non - problematic zoning ordinances mentioned above. In
addition, the new uses mentioned in the staff report, such as research and development, should be
allowed in C -S zones. Finally, we recommend that the City amend the General Plan to allow
buildings of three stories in C -R zones and not limit height to the rigid 35 foot standard.
The inconsistencies between the General Plan and zoning ordinances that are currently before you
were not foreseen or discussed when the General Plan was being updated- There was no debate
by Council, nor was staff given specific direction in this matter when the General Plan update took-
place. It is therefore our firm belief that amending the General Plan according to the above
recommendations in no way violates the intent of the General Plan.
A very united business community would like to thank you for your leadership on this extremely
important issue. Please recommend that the General Plan be amended rather than imposing
debilitating restrictions on property owners and businesses or placing further pressure on our
compact urban form.
Please let me know if there is any additional information that you require, or if there is any
assistance that the Chamber can provide to you.
Yours very truly,
COPY
Robert L. Griffin
President
cc: Mayor Allen Settle and Members of the City Council
John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
do
,e "-
U� V
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce .A�6 C.A
1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo. California 93401 -3278
(805) 781 -2777 • FAX (805) 543 -1255 ;�Po
e -mail: slo- chamberpslonet.org
July 19,1996 David E. Garth, Executive Director
Honorable Chairman Karleskint and Members of the Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401 -
Dear Chairman Karleskint and Commission Members:
E`
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce would like to express its serious concerns with
proposed zoning changes that will come before you at your August 14 meeting. Our concerns lie
primarily in proposed changes to the C -S zoning classification, although we would like to
comment on certain other zone changes as well.
We were disappointed that proper notice had not been sent to property owners that could be
affected by these proposed changes prior to your discussion of this issue last month, and we
would like to thank you for correcting this error and postponing discussion until City staff could
notify these property owners and other interested parties.
For our part, the Chamber is gravely concerned with certain recommendations in the staff report
you received last month (TA 79 -96). Although we agree that there must be consistency between
our General Plan and land use ordinances, we do not believe that the recommended method to
bring these policies into conformance does service to property owners, businesses, city
government, or most importantly, the citizens of our community.
The staff report's recommendation to eliminate several important uses in the C -S zone will make
many local businesses non - conforming in their present locations. Although the report suggests
that existing businesses would be protected through grandfathering, such protection would not
apply when these businesses desire to expand or remodel.
These restrictions would add to the cost of doing business in San Luis Obispo, discourage good
development such as that seen in the Commerce Park business park, would prolong the permit
process for expansion, and would fly directly in the face of the City's number one priority for
economic development -- business retention and expansion. Furthermore, the proposed zone
restrictions would have the effect of reducing property values for future resale, and would
diminish property tax revenues to the City in future years.
We must ask why the City would voluntarily choose such a solution when no problem
has been proven to exist. When the Planning Commission first discussed this issue,
there were no examples given of problem properties under current zoning ordinances.
In the words of Commissioner Senn, "If it is not broken, why do we need to fix Wit
ACCREDITED
dAmO OF �E
V
In summary, we agree that uses such as research and development that are recommended in the
staff report would be a welcome addition in the C -S zone, but strongly disagree that currently
allowed uses need to be eliminated in order to accommodate these new land uses. We wonder
why the City would desire, for example, to force a company's research & development and office
functions to locate in different areas of the city, thereby creating sprawl and violating the concept
of compact urban form?
The Chamber is also concerned with the proposed reduction in maximum height allowances
from 45 to 35 feet in the C -R zone. Given the required mechanical, fire, electrical and structural
requirements of buildings, it is virtually impossible to construct a three -story commercial
building in 35 feet or less. Reducing the allowable height of commercial buildings would
therefore significantly reduce development intensity, forcing development to sprawl into pristine
areas. Again, this is counter to a compact urban form philosophy, and will result in greater
pressure on open space areas, reducing the quality of life of our community.
Again, the Chamber would like to reiterate that our community's zoning ordinances and General
Plan must be consistent. We therefore strongly recommend that the City amend the General Plan
to achieve conformance with the current, non - problematic zoning ordinances mentioned above.
In addition, the new uses mentioned in the staff report, such as research and development,
should be allowed in C -S zones. Finally, we recommend that the City amend the General Plan to
allow buildings of three stories in C -R zones and not limit height to the rigid 35 foot standard.
The inconsistencies between the General Plan and zoning ordinances that are currently before
you were not foreseen or discussed when the General Plan was being updated. There was no
debate by Council, nor was staff given specific direction in this matter when the General Plan
update took place. It is therefore our firm belief that amending the General Plan according to the
above recommendations in no way violates the intent of the General Plan.
A very united business community would like to thank you for your leadership on this extremely
important issue. Please recommend that the General Plan be amended rather than imposing
debilitating restrictions on property owners and businesses or placing further pressure on our
compact urban form.
Please let me know if there is any additional information that you require, or if there is any
assistance that the Chamber can provide to you.
Yours very truly,
Robert L. Griffin
President
cc: Mayor Allen Settle and Members of the City Council
John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
144
L
June 12, 1996
San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
995 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Agenda Item 5
City -wide: TA 79 -96
.i
KSTRUCTIO
RECEIVED
JUN 1 21996
C" of SAN w1s OBISP O
coueawnv r*wLOauPar
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am requesting that you not adopt the amendments to various sections of the Zoning
Regulations related to the C -S Zoning district. The current C -S Zoning regulations allow r
for the following uses that we intend to lease our propose ,000 square foot multip a
tennant commercial building to:
* Contractors -all types general & specialty including our own construction offices
* Offices (engineering) engineers, architects and industrial design.
* Organizations (professional, religious, political, labor, fraternal, trade, youth,
etc.)
* Engineering and Administrative offices.
* Retail Sales - general merchandise (drug, groceries, liquor, specialized food,
hardware, discount, department and variety stores)
* Secretarial and related services.
The proposed amendment you are discussing today basically illuminates all the above uses
from the C -S Zones in the City.
I am enclosing copies of our site plan and elevations for our proposed multi- tennant
commercial building at 1996 Santa Barbara St. for your review. This project received a
negative declaration from the City on April 15, 1992. If you decide to adopt the staff
recommendations and de -value our property we will most likely not develop our property.
Sincerely,
Steve Rarig, President
Airport Plaza
4540 Broad St.
San Ln15 Obispo, CA 93401
Phone: 805.543.9397
FAX: 805.543.4268 147
RqRlr* I N
W
W
rr
I( I I I I I I I I I I
SANTA BARBARA STREET
SANTA BARBARA STREET AT HIGH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO
STATISTICS: Location - High traffic, highly visible corner
Size - Up to 11,500 sq. ft. (or less)
Parking - Ample customer parking
Zoning - Service Commercial (C -S)
REMARKS: This will be a well designed, well laid out building, with plenty of
parking and even a laoding facility. It's location is on a well traveled
street within the central traffic pattern of San Luis Obispo. Take the
opportunity to get your input incorporated into the building's plans,
before ground breaking. Many types of uses are allowed in this zone.
Airport Plaza
4540 Broad St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Phone: 805. 543-9397
FAX: BOS•543.4268 /— ��
. ,
city of san tuts osispo
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION 1998 Santa Barbara Street APPLICATION NO. 49-91
Construct a new 16,240 square -foot service
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
commercial building including the proposed demolition of existing
structures and the abandonment of a portion of High Street.
APPLICANT
Steve Rarig
STAFF} RECOMMENDATION:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY Pam Ricci, Associate Planner DATE April 14, 1992
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: / n \% GATE A��� /��
'SEE ATTACHED REPORTQ 9
f [
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY
FINDINGS
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
II. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW
POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
NONE
A.
COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ...................................................
NONE
B.
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH ..........................................
NONE
C.
LAND USE ........................................ ...............................
MAYBE*
D.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ................ ...............................
NONE
E
PUBLIC SERVICES ................................. ...............................
NONE*
F.
UTILITIES ......................................... ...............................
NONE
G.
NOISE LEVELS ..................................... ...............................
MAYBE*
H.
GEOLOGIC & SEISMIC HAZARDS 6 TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS ....................
NONE
I.
AIR QUALITY AND WINO CONDITIONS ............... ...............................
.
I
NONE
J.
SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ............ ...............................
.NONE
KPLANT
LIFE .................................... ...............................
NONE
LANIMALLIFE
...................................... ...............................
YES*
M.
ARCHAEOLOGICAUHISTORICAL .................... ...............................
MAYBE*
N.
AESTHETIC .................................... ...............................
NONE
O.
ENERGYIRESOURCEUSE ........................... ...............................
NONE
P.
OTHER ........................................... ...............................
1
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
'SEE ATTACHED REPORTQ 9
f [
i I�m
i L
�' o
OC)
m
e
tO
fA
,vow'
_J
p
i
Lau
U)
w�
W
wo
Law
cc
V
s
a�
ca
Lan
:-E:
.._ .
INNOWN
as
Ag
ra
��gg
fl S
p pryp,,p m ppep A
0
�p p6 oil
° s �s W.�¢E� �
I �
Ass �� T �
$E6 Ea�3a'
��3 K. og io ao w.e o 0 3 b
9g35
Its
lee
u
C'v�'�55�• s,
Milo
�C�o
�E .� wee 9,;;
lift v�d e . His
agar
� A � ii s ��� S gg
JHS
c JAW=
s o e s_
J2 7h
p ^ $
lilt I
40 g.
MCC log
Uft
qij
CO
r
0
0
c
d it laic H 34
P now
ca qp Q
vtA JC E s�gi''O 07-20 -0 a A
l—l0�
L
San Luis Obispo
Property Owners Association
P.O. Box 12924
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
RECEIVED
SUN 1 21996
Ciry OF SAN `EO
June 12, 1996
Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, California 93408
RE: Zone Changes; Item #S on June 13, 1996 agenda
Members of the Commission:
The San Luis Obispo Property Owners Association opposes the
proposed changes to the C -S zoning regulations. The proposed
regulations appear to prohibit or add a new layer of development
approval for a large number of uses in the C -S zone. The effect of
these changes will be to devalue C -S property, create many non-
conforming uses and discourage businesses from developing or
locating in San Luis Obispo. The C -S zone development in the City
has been one of the few shining examples of economic development.
If general plan provisions are driving a change, the Commission
should institute a revision to the general plan.
I further urge you to hold off on changes to the C -S zone
until the City's Economic Development Director comes on board next
month. Otherwise, the impacts on property values and economic
development will not be known.
Sincerely,
JO W. BELSBER
Pr 'dent
JWB:ac
C O M M E R C I A L
June 12, 1996
City of San Luis Obispo
PLANNING COMMISSION
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
VIA FACSIMILE as 781 -7173
RE: Revisions to CS Zone Ordinance
Dear Commissioners:
R E A I E S T A 1 E
RECEIVED
JUN 128%
°
wiWVam
It has just been brought to my attention that an attempt to revise the C -S Zoning
Ordinance is to be considered this evening. I apologize for not being better informed
regarding this issue or able to attend due to prior commitments, however, felt I must at
least make some attempt to comment.
The effects of the elimination of these uses would have an immense, far reaching
negative effect. I deal in the placement of tenants and owners in properties so zoned
on a daily basis, and by and large the ordinance seems to work fine.
With more time, I could speak more specifically toward to this issue, which is partially
my point. If you do not turn this proposal down,. which I urge you to do, at least
postpone it so that those people effected will be given an opportunity to learn about the
proposal and give their input,
Sincerely,
ohn Rossetti
1065 HIGUERA , SUITE 301
SAN IUIS OBISPO • CALIMRNIA • 43461
L A
A
liteg AxW.k 4^
4Z11k0Ag144 Mf
A444�k4444k
California Central
C o a s t C h a p t e r
P. O. Bo: 15103
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
President
Peter Sterlos, AIA
544 -6161
Vice President/President -Elect
George Garcia, AL4
549 -8658
Secretary
Marilyn Farmer, AIA
544 -2494
2reusurer
Jeffrey Einrick, AIA
549 -8658
Public Relations/Newsletter
Greg Wynn, AIA
544 -0430
Membership
Randy Rea, AIA
541 -6294
Legislative Affairs
Steve Barasch, AIA
544 -2600
Education
Allan Cooper, AIA
756 -1316
ALIS President
Dave Itner, AIRS
546 -9804
AIA - California Council
1303 J Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95814
AIA - National
1753 New York Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20006
Luitivak)
AUG 61996
4TY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo
- MWuNrry nFVFl.nw .
Arnold Jonas, Director of Community Development
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
August 6, 1996
RE: Proposed Text Changes to the San Luis Obispo City Zoning Ordinance — C-S
Zone Text Modifications
The proposed San Luis Obispo text changes would, in fad, reduce the allowable uses
presently permitted In the C-S Zone. The California Central Coast Chapter of the
American Institute of Architects strongly urges the City not to reduce the presently
allowed uses within one of the City's most successful zoning categories for the
following reasons:
1. The effect of the proposed zoning changes would force several types
of non compatible office uses to relocate to the City's downtown area
with limited public parking and the highest local office rental rates.
2. The effect of the proposed zoning changes would cause significant
economic hardship on owners of both buildings and undeveloped
land within the C-S 24ft which will - lower existing commercial
retail and office property values due to the fact that the new range of
limited use would also diminish the number of potential buyers for
property within this historically stable zone.
3. The effect of the proposed zoning changes would create a great
number of non - conforming uses within the C -S Zone, thereby creating
administrative zoning enknoement problems for several succeeding
years.
4. The effect of the proposed zoning changes in the C -S Zone would
lessen the economic Impact of one of the most successful zones of
compatible land uses In the City of San Luis Obispo.
5. The affect of the proposed zoning changes limiting the allowable uses
In the C-S Zone would lessen any Incentives for landowners within
the proposed SLO Airport Annexation areas to actively participate In
the annexation process as the range of newly proposed allowable
uses in the City's C-S Zone would not be greatly different from the
allowable land uses presently permitted In San Luis Obispo County's
Based on the above reasons, the Central Coast Chapter of the American Institute of
Architects strongly urges the City Planning Commission and City Council to re -study
and eventually amend Its General Plan to eliminate any existing ambigultles that may
still exist In =+,rdc . to allowable land uses permitted In the City's C-S Zone.
Respectfully yours,
5�� 5t�(�
Stephen B. Baresch, AIA
Governmental Affairs Director
CCCCAIA
% r
star Sterlod, AIA
Chapter President
CCCCAIA
cc Jane Mc Vey, SLO Economic Development Manager
.1e12w /M-A- 1ev;A6 l 1,4,T r-10 +e pia win,P/7'
1 - /0y
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF THE CENTRAL COAST
P.O. Box 6180 • Santa Maria, CA 93456
(805) 928 -7196 FAX (805) 928 -7667
August 1, 1996
Honorable Chairman Karlskint and Members of the Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Proposed Amendment to Zoning Regulations
Dear Chairman Karlskint and Commission Members:
We have received a copy of your staff report dated June 12, 1996 and are disturbed by the implications
of some of the changes being recommended by your staff. The proposed deletions of land uses within
existing Zoning Table 9 especially within the C -S zone are un- called for. This land use and historic
zoning has produced good projects for San Luis Obispo. There are no demonstrated problems which
currently exist within C -S zones related to the office classification being recommended for deletion. It is
also unhealthy to create zoning which makes a significant part of your existing uses non - conforming.
This action would prevent or hamper the long term expansion of existing businesses. This places
enormous burden on business and property owners.
The value of land zoned C -S will also be adversely affected by removing what has to date, been
considered. a good zoning designation which will allow for office land uses. To required additional
bureaucratic red tape by placing a PD on top of such office uses will only further discourage investment
in our community.
We can see no logical motivation for proceeding on this course. If a conflict exists within your zoning
ordinance and General Plan, then it is our strong request that you amend the General Plan to be
consistent with existing land uses. We do support the proposed added uses to the table such as research
and dctielopment services, but to delete any existing uses is a taking of property rights and cannot be
supported.
We are also opposed to the lowering of building height to 35' in C -R zones. This lowering would
effectively eliminate all three story buildings from consideration which is in conflict with the adopted
Downtown Concept Plan. We urge your denial of this request. We do however, support the added uses
bringing the table into the 20th century by adding Research Parks etc. We urge you to reject the staff
proposal as it is recommended and to move for a General Plan amendment to obtain consistency.
Economic Development and proper planning will not result without your action on this item.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
Jon Martin
President
I' la!!
K
Partnership
August 15,1996
City of San Luis Obispo
Planning Commission
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,Ca. 93401 -3249
Ronald Whisenand:
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
1. M�
After attending the planning commission meeting last night I see I
must fiuther explain our property. We have property located at 3592
Broad Street (next to Von's) of approximately 9.79 acres, currently
zoned C -S with the ability to have a retail store and/or stores including a
grocery type business. Our property based on its size and location is
ideal for this type of use. We are one of the very few parcels in the city
big enough to accommodate a large grocery/ retail development.
The city staff seems to prefer as they call it "Clean Industry". I can
not see that the uses left unaffected by the amendment are, for example,
auto repair and related services (body shop, brake shop, transmission,
muffler shop and painting shops), contractor yards, landscape maintenance
services, equipment rental, and tire recapping facility. None of these
examples I would consider "Clean Industries ". It would be a travesty to
have to take a property like mine and limit its uses to any of the above
listed "Clean Industries ".
The economic value of my property is based on what can be
developed by a future owner. If you remove or limit the uses for the
property, uses which we already have, you are taking value away from the
property owners. This reduction of economic value is unacceptable to all
the property owners in the C -S zone. Is the city prepared to compensate
the owners for the loss of value of the property?
3592 Broad Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
(805) 543 -2682, Fax (805) 543 -0447
1 -to j,
page 2
The property is located on highway 227, a gateway into the city. It
is an ideal location for a grocery /retail type business. We will take all
action available to us to keep the size of a store and use of the property
the same as is currently allowed. Again I would like to discuss this matter
further to again explain our position regarding this amendment., I can be
reached at (805) 543 -2682.
Sincerely,
Garry Holdgrafer II
Managing Partner
2083 Partnership
/ -/G
city of sAn Luis OBISPO
990 Palm Street San Luis Obisno CA 9 01-3249
August 22, 1996
2083 Partnership
Atta: Garry Holdgrafer H
3592 Broad Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: C -S Zoning Uses
Dear Mr. Holdgrafer.
I have read your letter of August 15, 1996 and understand your concerns over some of the changes proposed
for the City's Service Commercial (C -S) zoning districts. You have indicated your desire to place a large
grocery store /retail development on your property located at 3592 Broad Street. If grocery stores are
eliminated from the C -S district, your future plans for the property would need to be altered.
As you know, the Planning Commission addressed the issue of C -S zoning at their meeting of August 14' and
has made certain recommendations to the City Council. The Commission reaffirmed certain policies of the
General Plan that determine where grocery, drug, discount, and department stores should be located. These
policies are not new and have been in effect citywide since 1994. Even though the Zoning Regulations
currently allow these uses in the C -S district with a conditional use permit, the General Plan would prohibit
the City from approving that permit because of non - conformance with General Plan policies.
Although the proposed changes would impact your ability to develop the property with a grocery store, there
is still a wide range of uses that could be developed consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations.
This listing of uses (attached) includes a wide variety of retail and service commercial uses.
It is important to note that the Planning Commission's action is a "recommendation" which still needs action
by the City Council. This item has been tentatively set for City Council review and consideration at their
meeting of September 17, 1996. I would invite you to attend that meeting and let the Council know of your
concerns.
Sincerely,
Ro d Whisenand
Development Review Manager
�reO� The City of San Luis' Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. O
` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781 -7410. /�
WIN PROPERI'mS, INC.
66 Field Poin[ Road, Greenwich, CT 06830
Tel. (203) 861 -7788 Fax (203) 861 -7765
Certified Return Receipt Requested
September 12, 1996
City of San Luis Obispo
City Clerks Office
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249
Attn: The Mayor and City Council
Re: Land Use Element General Plan
Text Amendment for Property Zoned C -S
TA 79 -96
Dear Gentlepersons:
L
ML..,JG AGENDA
DATE ITEM # .
IECEIVED
SEP 1 71996
m ARj OF SAN LUIS S 081Spo
Please allow this letter to serve as notice that we object to the above referenced
zoning amendment based on the fact that our tenants may be interpreted to be a non-
conforming use.
Thank you for the opportunity to set forth our position. Please feel free to contact
me if you have arry questions.
Y:erine ly /,
E. Sutherland
Director of Property Management
CES /Ja
cc: File - Interstate Bakeries, Municipal, Ownership
S EP 16 i:96
CIT! Ci_?RK
9 COUNCIL
eCAO
VACAO
e(ATTORNEY
tl CLERwoRIG
❑ MGMTTEAM
❑ C READ FILE
Iff ❑ PERS DIR F
® CDD DIR
❑ FIN DIR
❑ FIRE CHIEF
❑ PW DIR
❑ POUCE CHI
❑ REC DIR
❑ UTIL DIR
I-10IF
RECEIVED
Partnership sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss SEP 1 : 1996
CITY of SAN LUIS OBISPO
OMMUNfTY DEVELOPMENT
September 5,1996
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,Ca. 93401 -3249
Re: C -S Zoning
Mr. Whisenand:
Thank you for your letter dated September 4, 1996. Your presentation to the
fact that since 1994 the Cities General Plan has not allowed (non - convenience) grocery
stores does not make sense. Why has both the future Marigold Center and the future
grocery (Food 4 Less) store been given approval to develop in the C -S Zone if this is
the case.
You also refer to the fact that there can still be developments in the C -N,C -C
C -R and C -T zones where grocery types of development can occur. There is no parcel
currently zoned in any of the area large enough to accommodate a large Retail/
Grocery type development.
We do not understand the philosophy of the cities future development plans.
Your letter refers to the development of grocery stores , but the change in the zoning
does not only affect grocery stores but several other uses, including retail sales. It is
not only grocery type uses we are fighting for, but all the uses you are trying to
remove from the C -S zone.
We spent eight years negotiating with the city during the annexation process
trying to obtain agreeable zoning.We will do what ever we can to maintain our right to
develop our property with all the current uses now allowed. .
We will also personally reinforce our position in the matter with the Mayor,
Council, Community Development Director and the City Attorney.
Sincerely,
A/ a oYiold afer I
Managing General Partner
2083 Partnership
3592 Broad Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
(805)543 -2682, Fax (805) 543 -0447
/ - //A