The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-23-2018 - Item #4 - Bell MEMORANDUM DATE:May 23, 2018 TO:Planning Commission BY:Kyle Bell, Associate Planner FROM: Doug Davidson,Deputy DirectorDD rd SUBJECT:Zoning Regulations Update May 3Community Workshop Overview COMMUNITY WORKSHOPUPDATE On May 3, 2018, the City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department hosted its second public workshop on the comprehensive update to the Zoning Regulations. The purpose of the workshop was to encourage residents and the business community to share their ideas about specific Zoning Regulation update topics as the City nears completion of the public review draft. The City hosted the workshop to achieve the following objectives: Update residents, the business community, and property owners on the Zoning Regulations update process Introduce the concept of very small-lot subdivisions to determine the degree of community acceptance Present and receive comment on recommended new administrative review processes Learn of community ideas for incorporating climate change and sustainability regulations into the Zoning Regulations Test the idea of more intensive home-based businesses (cottage industries) in residential neighborhoods Hear any other ideas the community may have for the updated Zoning Regulations ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Community Workshop Summary Page 1 SUMMARY ZONING REGULATIONS UPDATE WORKSHOP #2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ağǤ ЌͲ ЋЉЊБ ΋ ЏʹЉЉ t͵a͵ БʹЉЉ t͵a͵ 5ƚǞƓƷƚǞƓ \[źĬƩğƩǤͲ ВВЎ tğƌƒ {ƷƩĻĻƷ WORKSHOP OVERVIEW AND FORMAT On May 3, 2018, the City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department hosted its second public workshop on the comprehensive update to the Zoning Regulations. The purpose of the workshop was to encourage residents and the business community to share their ideas about specific Zoning Regulation update topics as the City nears completion of the public review draft. The workshop was held in the community room of the Downtown Library, 995 Palm Street. The format was an open house, whereby people could stop by any time between 6:00 and 8:00 P.M. Approximately 45 community members attended and provided input. City staff members in attendance included Kyle Bell, Doug Davidson, Soroush Aboutalebi, Chris Read, Shawna Scott, Rachel Cohen, and Cara Vereschagin. Laura Stetson from MIG, the consultant for the update program, attended as well. The City hosted the workshop to achieve the following objectives: Update residents, the business community, and property owners on the Zoning Regulations update process Introduce the concept of very small-lot subdivisions to determine the degree of community acceptance Present and receive comment on recommended new administrative review processes Learn of community ideas for incorporating climate change and sustainability regulations into the Zoning Regulations Test the idea of more intensive home-based businesses (cottage industries) in residential neighborhoods Hear any other ideas the community may have for the updated Zoning Regulations Attendees were welcomed at the entrance, signed in, and received an open house brochure for guidance and comment cards for recording their ideas. Topic-oriented stations around the room presented information and invited comments on the following issues: Small-lot subdivisions Administrative review process Home-based businesses Climate Action Plan implementation A seasoned staff planner was stationed at interest and leave comments about any zoning issue. This summary describes the activity at each topic station and reports the comments received. 1 Summary Zoning Regulations Workshop#2 Page 2 STATION ACTIVITIES AND INPUT Small-Lot Single-Unit Neighborhoods This station provided examples of current residential development and smaller-scale, detached single-unit developments that could be allowed as infill development on narrow San Luis Obispo lots. Possible restrictions presented included one to two stories maximum, zero to one parking space per house, and a maximum home size of 1,000 square feet. Participants were asked what they thought about this development approach. Really supportive of this idea; zero parking is ideal. Reduce fees to actually encourage these units being built. Houses (as downtown infill) must have no less than one parking space. Parking is more important than future generations. In terms of housing stability, San Luis Obispo will always be expensive. Sad but true. Please require parking for one large car or two small cars per dwelling. Please consider de-coupling parking from units. Allow parking to be satisfied in more flexible ways; once it is built it stays. Love this small lot efficiency idea! Please no accessory dwelling units. Please consider traffic density (e.g., 22 Chorro Street and 790 Foothill Boulevard); there is already congestion without these projects! Parking is a must. Cars are not going away. Elderly and families need cars. If zero parking, where do all the cars go? Have flexible parking as appropriate. We need smaller units as infill! Please relax the parking regulations to allow more small units to be built. Since parking is already too scarce, parking for each unit/residence should be provided by the developer. Maybe half a car per unit for cluster homes with required car share on site? Zero car per unit seems unfair to the overall neighborhood street parking and visitors. Parking is a priority and an issue in town. Developers need incentives to build houses under 100 square feet. It won I fully support smaller compact, well-designed units and more aggressive infill. Support infill to prevent sprawl. City needs to require an owner-occupied condition! Please include owner-occupied rights and responsibilities. Take traffic congestion into consideration when evaluating high-density housing. A lot should be large enough for two-story housing and parking place. Allow parking in front yards, and reduce side and backyard setbacks. Develop a lot merger ordinance. Do not allow accessory dwelling units on small lots. Support infill; promote urban sprawl; keep traffic congestion in mind. Require that all existing codes apply to small lots. Do not allow two-story buildings or accessory dwelling units on small lots with small homes. I like the proposal for small lot development: infill with maximum square footage. But why limit development to one story? Perhaps it would be better to define the concern. The issue to address is undefined; leave flexibility on how best to meet it. Expect/encourage/incentivize passive solar strategies in all building types, beginning with optimal orientation and siting. Consider allowing tiny houses on wheels as an accessory dwelling unit, and/or five or six tiny houses on wheels as infill or small lot development. Allow infill in existing areas. Nice idea for low density (outside of downtown). 2 Summary Zoning Regulations Workshop#2 Page 3 I need this option to move my mom here, and she will not have a car. enough of a problem! This is a proposal for higher student influx into traditional residential neighborhoods look at the damage that has already been done! No! Affordable housing morphs into student housing, and rental costs rise. I live on Dudson Street there is no parking now. How can you allow accessory dwelling units exempt from parking? I agree with maximum two-story small houses, but there should be no exemptions for height. Window placement on second stories is critical so occupant(s) cannot easily observe occupants of other dwellings. To address the lack of parking, maybe add a neighborhood station for bike share or car share. Allowable noise levels may have to be reduced because of the density. In case there is an increase in complaints about noise, especially at night, maybe create a position(s) lower than a police officer. Regarding marijuana and smoking: can it be banned in tight quarters? Drifting smoke is not acceptable. I believe a need for housing is greater than our need for parking. I encourage you to relax the regulations on parking requirements so that smaller/infill housing can be built. A single-person rental now becomes six? You are destroying San Luis Obispo. This does not follow the poll data which oppose this. Administrative Review Process This station summarized the current development review processes (for projects that require input from the Architectural Review Committee and other committees/commissions) and proposed simplified processes. Participants provided feedback on the proposed new processes. More community involvement is needed, not less. Staff should remember who they work for. Increase the discretion of directors. I fully support these recommendations. Do not take away parking requirements until we get rid of our cars. Please simplify. Please get public input much earlier. It should be a first step, not a last step. Hear our concerns and needs, and consider them long before reviews. Improve our public engagement and notification. Get early and meaningful public engagement. Craft Land Use Element and zoning to work around date mandates. More public insight is good. We should f Could we re-structure o be a trained focus group of three on an as-needed basis to join the Architectural Review Commission (ARC)? Separate committees require the director to synthesize potential disagreement of opinion/advice. Also, how is the director set up to make final decisions on issues of architectural design and/or historic compatibility standards? Projects meeting all design criteria should be approved by staff. Under -architectural lobbying (pro or con) tracked, managed, and assured to be equitable? Transparency is critical. 3 Summary Zoning Regulations Workshop#2 Page 4 The definition for streamlining should state: removing as much oversight and public input as Keep advisory bodies within their scope of review. A form-based code would resolve many issues. Question the motives of the developers. The Council needs to listen to the residents and take what they say into consideration. Ask for more input from residents and take the input seriously. Process should be consistent with the ommendation to have more community engagement (the CityGate survey conducted during the LUCE process). Ask for more resident input and public involvement, and less director decisions. Slow growth: it and decisions made behind closed doors with review hearings (especially in the last five years). I support collaborative meetings with the ARC to streamline the process and potentially speed up time frames. Simpler is better! Faster is good too. Planning Commission before ARC. I support streamlining the process along with clear regulations. Proposed review processes are incompatible with adaptive citizen participation. This looks like an attempt to eliminate public opinion shame on such a power grab! Require more site specific Environmental Impact Reviews on projects like 22 Chorro Street. We need more resident input, not less. We need thoughtful consideration. If a D, there should be no fee. ARC meeting to hear from CHC. Yes, we should streamline the advisory body process! High occupancy residential use should remain at administrative hearing level. Current process gives more opportunity for public scrutiny and appeal as it should in a Reduce the discretion of Director Actions. Retain and enhance opportunities for timely citizen input! Take the decision out of the staff hands and have the decision made by open meeting. What is minor exception and minor development? Notice to neighbors: neighbor input where you show it on the schematic is a hollow promise of any influence! I support streamlining the process along with clear regulations that enable applicant to achieve appeals. Conflict between ARC and Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC) should be kicked to Planning Commission. The current process brings more opportunity for transparency and public input. As per the City-associated assessment of the Community Development Department, there should be more community input on impactful development not less. Neighbor objections or questions never stop the granting of use permits if the city supports it it is an empty right. 4 Summary Zoning Regulations Workshop#2 Page 5 Home-Based Businesses and Neighborhood Commercial Uses This station summarized how home-based businesses are currently regulated in San Luis O residential zones, as well as where neighborhood commercial uses are currently allowed. The station asked participants to respond to possible new regulations intended to increase the walkability of residential areas. Make sure the level of review is at least Tier II . Require neighborhood input, not lip service. Encourage conversation of existing structures instead of building new ones. It might drive housing prices up if residences are remodeled for businesses. Why are people required to park in their garages? Garages can be used for businesses. More flexibility for home-based businesses and yes to corner stores. Consider micro retail/office/café along lots fronting the Railroad Safety Trail that are accessible by bicycle. Make sure parking is addressed if corner stores are allowed. Home businesses without employees should be encouraged with minimal red tape. Neighborhood shops should be encouraged in tandem with up-zoning or in neighborhoods with densities that put a sntele within walking distance (bicycle parking should also be provided). Signs should not be allowed for residential businesses. Working from home is a privilegenot part of residential zoningand signage is inappropriate. If individual wants a sign, then they should rent space in an appropriate zone. Yes to more local neighborhood grocery stores. Ensure grocery stores are close so we do not have to drive. Convenience or corner stores on corners in neighborhoods? No! Corner stores are good! There is no reason that a no-impact business should need a business license unless there are complaints that it is not no-impact. The proposals in effect eliminate zoning, which can result in higher housing costs as homes are purchased for businesses. A store like the Lincoln Market is wonderful to have in a neighborhood. More neighborhood-serving uses should be encouraged, especially markets. Lincoln Market is a great model. Why only corner lots? Lincoln Market has alcohol would this be prohibited? Maintain and enforce residential zoning. I enjoy corner stores such as flower shops. Convenience stores and other businesses do not belong in residential areas. Proposal might be too scary is San Luis Obispo eliminating zoning? Please encourage more home-based businesses. 5 Summary Zoning Regulations Workshop#2 Page 6 Too many stores will overreach market demand and result in empty stores. Parking is not the only impact of having employees at a home business. If employees are needed, it is time to open a business/share space in appropriate zone. Do something right by each neighborhood. At risk: quiet uses and adequate parking. Use vacant areas for fun pop-up spaces (food, trucks, etc.). A great example of a mixed-use project that is successful is at 3592 Broad Street where Blackhorse Coffee is. Do not turn houses into businesses; allow home business, not conversion. We already fixed this! Neighborhood stores will only work in very specific neighborhoods. Do not do this everywhere. Do not allow convenience stores in residential neighborhoods. It causes excessive people and/or vehicle traffic like in a commercial zone. People like areas for community space. Unless it is downtown and land, etc. is provided so there is no net loss, a residence should not be remodeled for business purposes. Any home occupation should be able to fit into the structure of the home and be easily returned to residential purposes. Require a minimum square footage or percentage of retail in mixed use zones. Convenience stores should not be allowed in R-1 zones, and in other zoning only near or adjacent to major travel routes. Make sure parking is addressed if corner stores are allowed. ing a broad range of uses that are driven by performance standards that protect residents but allow commerce. San Luis Obispo is not Portland, Oregon. This does not make sense in San Luis Obispo. Encourage conversion of existing structures instead of building new ones. These buildings are more compatible as a default. In R-1 zones, require extra sensitivity to existing neighbors with increased setback buffers, height restrictions, etc. I do not like the idea of commercial businesses in neighborhoods. Stores attract vehicles and litter. The High Street is an example love the deli but would not want to live near it. Home occupation for one person is okay if there is no noise and traffic generated. If the business requires two should be primarily for residential. One-person businesses that involve writing and research are appropriate. Consider allowing small-scale retail along lots fronting the Railroad Safety Trail so property owners along the railroad can create micro-retail/café/offices that are accessible from the trail. There would need to be rules about hours, noise, etc. Allow live/work in all zones, and eliminate distinction between live/work, work/live, and caretaker unit. Eliminate water/sewer impact fees ($15,000!) for projects that re-use existing water/sewer lines from existing buildings. There is no parking for convenience stores in R-1 zones! Early home noise is disturbing in R-1 zones. How do deliveries work? Social interactions are already happening in R-1 zone. Convenience stores in R-1/R-2: All decisions regarding convenience in R-2 or higher should be a Planning Commission review. No convenience stores in R-1 zones! 6 Summary Zoning Regulations Workshop#2 Page 7 Climate Action Plan Implemented via Zoning Regulations program actions that could be implemented via the Zoning Regulations. Participants were asked to comment on suggested regulations and to suggest additional standards that could be included in the gas reduction goals. Regulations were broken into six categories. ƩğƓƭƦƚƩƷğƷźƚƓ ğƓķ \[ğƓķ ƭĻ Electric recharge stations are needed for cars and bicycles. Connected bike routes for people of all abilities are essential to meet the 2070 trips by bike goal. Electric bike and car share programs for visitors as well as residents. Plentiful parking for all types of bikes, including electric and adult tricycles. Neighborhood retail. Do not change RI PD zoning. There are too many trips for regional retail transportation. I support virtually all measures in the transit component. But the city needs more intensive development that is strategically placed to enable better public transit and support local neighborhood businesses with a customer base within walking distance. Do increase height limits in urban core and strategic nodes. Need more grocery stores and other resident services for the people who live downtown. Update the parking requirements by use tables (pages 43-68) to include specific bicycle parking spaces in each use category, as with vehicles parking. Build for today; plan for tomorrow. A parking lot can be re-purposed. Lack of parking now just moves cars to other locations. Love zoning which accommodates small neighborhood businesses. Implement vehicle sharing like Zip Car. Do not reduce parking requirements we already have parking issues. It is not realistic to expect so many people to use just bikes. costs far less. Do not remove any more parking. Stop subsiding free vehicle parking on public streets. Provide for complete streets (sidewalks, bike lanes, etc.). Provide for reduced speed limits to 25 mph in neighborhoods, not 30, 35, or 40. Fund it and do it! Increase residential development density. charging stations. Encourage housing density downtown. 7 Summary Zoning Regulations Workshop#2 Page 8 Do not reduce parking. Meet the 20% mode share goal for cyclists by implementing parking for cyclists in all existing and new parking structures. Provide bike racks with charging stations. We are growing too much and too fast. That is not sustainable in light of climate change. Do not allow flexible standards for shared parking between uses because it results in insufficient parking spaces and people driving around to find a space. Increase flood drains on Dana Street. Require solar panels on new development. Do not reduce parking for new development in existing neighborhoods; spillover parking will result. Encouraging housing density downtown will usurp available parking and kill retail and tourism. Put more money into public transit; do not social engineer behavior by restricting parking. Need residential services and services downtown. Abandon five non-related adults rule per household to accommodate density. Too many people in San Luis Obispo will overtax our environmental footprint. You cannot claim that you want to be a net zero carbon community, and, at the same time, build madly as you are presently doing. Switch to electric buses. Eliminate parking minimums. .ǒźƌķźƓŭƭ Do not only focus on new construction. Requirements should be more mandatory and less discretionary. Allow residential development in commercial zones, even without mixed use. Adding solar panels to buildings three stories or less can make buildings net zero. Provide building incentives for new construction. To install solar hot water, greywater storage in lieu of fire suppression systems, or vehicle parking. wĻƓĻǞğĬƌĻ 9ƓĻƩŭǤ I do not see how you propose to build higher and maintain solar roof opportunities at the same time. Incorporate height restrictions (three stories limit) to maintain solar access. It is difficult for a building taller than three stories to reach net zero. New solar opportunities on the sides of buildings. Do something to incentivize existing housing stock to be more efficient. Encourage the use of trellises to grow plants on the sides of buildings (i.e., cool the area and sequester carbon). Mandate solar panels on all available rooftops, incentivize electric vehicle stations, and develop a bicycle/scooter share program. Require new residences in both single-family and multi-family neighborhoods to have an electric vehicle hookup for each unit. Ensure sustainability goals dovetail with upcoming building/green/energy codes for best implementation. Maintain access to solar panels by keeping buildings all the same height (two to three stories). 8 Summary Zoning Regulations Workshop#2 Page 9 the one at Santa Rosa and Marsh Street. The permit process for solar power and rainwater recovery systems should be as simple as possible. {ƚƌźķ ğƭƷĻ Zero-waste events should be made mandatory! Provide green waste/compositing for multi-family homes. Food scrap collection did not work. The bins were too small and smelled. The City needs to provide a bigger bin to be collected separately from green waste. Better descriptions of what can and cannot be recycled will prevent contamination. Water For grey water, it is critical to get buy-in from the Building Department and Public Works; otherwise it will go nowhere. Increase flood drains in floodplain from Pacific Street to Dana Street. Ultimately make rainwater harvesting a mandatory requirement and provide incentives or mandate greywater use for toilets. Allow and encourage composting toilets with permits and ongoing requirements. Every new construction should be required to include a water harvesting system. Provide for greywater collection and storage systems in lieu of fire suppression systems in new buildings/homes/apartments. Recharge aquifers through rainstorm basins. Require rainwater harvesting. tğƩƉƭ ğƓķ hƦĻƓ {ƦğĭĻ Create a design that incorporates the trees. All projects need to go to tree committee first. Stop removing mature trees. San Francisco has just committed $4,000,000 to plant and care for 2,000 trees. Develop a flooding evacuation plan. Raise the fee for community gardens so water will not be wasted. Maintain healthy trees, not just any trees. Stop the removal of trees all over the city. We need them for climate change resilience. Do not decrease input on tree removal. Just do not take out old, big, established trees like at 949 Higuera. Protect trees. Protect trees that are harboring raptors and other endangered species. No les Street. Allow tree committee to oversee tree removal in new development Preserve mature trees to suck up flood waters in flood zone. 9 Summary Zoning Regulations Workshop#2 Page 10 Ask a Planner/Share Other Ideas This station invited participants to engage with a City planner and discuss ideas not addressed in the topic-oriented stations. The City also solicited comment cards about a variety of topics. Tiny homes yes! ΛƭĻĭƚƓķĻķ ĬǤ ƷǞƚ ƚƷŷĻƩ ƦğƩƷźĭźƦğƓƷƭΜ Clarify definitions of work/live and live/work in zoning regulations. Stop up-zoning. More up-zoning in strategic locations and at edges of existing neighborhoods. We need infill, not sprawl. We need walkable neighborhoods. Encourage people to get out of their cars and walk or bike to work and the store. ng, but people with cars and no place to park them present a dilemma. Create long-term parking lots that charge fees like businesses that store boats and RVs. The transition to a world where individuals do not own cars will take a while, and viable options are needed. Public education on how you can get around without owning a car is needed. Tiny Homes: I strongly encourage the city to create regulations for tiny homes that would actually help create affordable housing. Tiny homes could create opportunity for citizens to build the housing they need/want, rather than waiting on developers to build small units for them. was made with that definition infill returns to development on vacant sites. Appeal Fees: Appeal fees are currently way too high for the average resident. It now restricts the public (residents) who cannot afford cost. Small Infill Neighborhoods: My daughter lives in Templeton and commutes to her job in San Luis Obispo. We are building her a tiny house on wheels hoping that she will be able to park it in developments, roads, etc. I hope Citizen Input: Zoning proposals must reflect citizen input on the city Circulation Element. Infill: Infill is supposed to be on vacant property. Tiny homes: They have advantages over permanent structures because can be moved if things do not work out. Temporary Housing and Tiny Homes on Wheels: Interested in receiving updates and participating in the development of regulations for and permitting of tiny homes on wheels or not. Decline in Neighborhoods: Please do not reduce parking required with development. Get Cal Poly to contract with 22 Chorro develop to build dorms on campus and not in neighborhoods. Cal Poly should pay for parking districts within a two-mile radius of the school. dwelling units to every property in SLO. I realized what SLO needs (affordable housing) and what 10 Summary Zoning Regulations Workshop#2 Page 11 SLO wants (on street parking) are at different ends of the spectrum. The voters want high property values. I have made up my mind to make a lot of money, because that is the only way to live here. I love this town, but I feel like it will never be affordable. Easier to make more money than wait for a miracle. opportunity to hear a discussion of the issues and reasons for proposals. Reacting in isolation is not useful. Dormitory Housing in Downtown: I would like to request that the City allow dormitory housing in Downtown and or pop-up/temporary dormitory housing under Director Approval as an interim use in vacant commercial spaces. No parking required. Zoning density: Allow redevelopment of properties to higher intensities by right. Zoning Enforcement: The city should enforce existing zoning. Air Quality: If we have a climate problem, it is because we have too many people and too many Affordable Housing: The affordable housing is the same as other development: studios are a travesty and are certainly not helping families. Foothill: Reduce the scale of the development at the McDonalds. Density: Maintain lower densities downtown and do not wave parking requirements. Accessory Dwelling Units: Maintain owner occupancy requirement and do not reduce parking requirements. Parking structures: Please put parking underground with parks or plazas at ground level. 50-year predicted for SLO. With approximately a quintupled population since the last flood in 1973, and millions of dollars of new infrastructure added by AT&T, PG&E, and Comcast, is there planning to diminish impacts of flood waters? Transportation: Encourage more mode sharing if parking space requirements are relaxed, such asZip Car, bike share, Uber, etc. Develop a public campaign to encourage these alternatives and attract private investment in bike share infrastructure. Zoning enforcement: The City should enforce existing zoning e.g., Atla Vista and Monterey Heights to see what the present misguided zoning interpretations have produced. Height of buildings: I want to see the mountains from the street. Affordable housing: Increase requirements for affordable housing. Start an inclusionary housing ordinance to collect money to offset the fees for affordable housing. Foothill: Reduce the scale of the proposed development at the old McDonald site. Neighborhood wellness: Be careful when crafting policy to respect the diversity of our C neighborhoods. Downtown is different than Laguna Lake Avenue. Height: Do not increase height in the Downtown core. There is already no parking. Height of buildings: I want to see the mountains from the street. Also get sunlight on ground level; that is smart housing here. I want to preserve what I care for. 11 Summary Zoning Regulations Workshop#2 Page 12 ŷźƭ ƦğŭĻ źƭ źƓƷĻƓƷźƚƓğƌƌǤ ĬƌğƓƉ͵ 12 Summary Zoning Regulations Workshop#2 Page 13 13 14 Page Zoning Regulations Workshop #2 Summary Unit Neighborhoods - Lot Single - ACTIVITY BOARDS Small 14 15 Page Zoning Regulations Workshop #2 Summary Administrative Review Process 15 16 Page Zoning Regulations Workshop #2 Summary 16 17 Page Zoning Regulations Workshop #2 Summary Neighborhood Businesses 17 18 Page Zoning Regulations Workshop #2 Summary 18 19 Page Zoning Regulations Workshop #2 Summary ŷźƭ ƦğŭĻ źƭ źƓƷĻƓƷźƚƓğƌƌǤ ĬƌğƓƉ͵ Implementing the Climate Action Plan (CAP) 19 Summary Zoning Regulations Workshop #2 Page 20 20 Summary Zoning Regulations Workshop #2 Page 21 21 Summary Zoning Regulations Workshop #2 Page 22 22 Summary Zoning Regulations Workshop #2 Page 23 23 Summary Zoning Regulations Workshop #2 Page 24 ŷźƭ ƦğŭĻ źƭ źƓƷĻƓƷźƚƓğƌƌǤ ĬƌğƓƉ͵ 24 Summary Zoning Regulations Workshop #2 Page 25