Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Upzoning Auto Oriented topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board committee splits and duplicates 'auto‑oriented uses to housing' ordinance amid feasibility and equity debate
Summary
Planning staff presented an ordinance to ease conversion of auto‑oriented parcels to housing and to remove conditional‑use barriers for service‑station conversions. Supervisors pressed for feasibility studies and protections for legacy businesses; the committee agreed to non‑substantive edits, duplicate the file (one with density increases, one without) and continue both to the call of the chair.
The Land Use and Transportation Committee on June 11 considered an ordinance proposing density exceptions and streamlined conversions for properties with auto‑oriented uses (parking lots, garages, automotive businesses). Planning staff said the proposal would allow up to four units in RH districts for eligible parcels, remove the conditional‑use requirement for converting service stations, shorten the legacy‑business lookback period from 10 to 4 years, and allow combination with state density bonus programs.
Supervisor Dean Preston repeatedly sought clarity about feasibility analyses and cited a 2017 ordinance that directs feasibility review where rezonings increase developable residential gross floor area by 20% or more; Planning staff responded that a 2016 feasibility study and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) process will inform inclusionary rates, but Preston said no site‑level feasibility assessment was provided. He proposed duplicating the file and removing the density increase from one vehicle so feasibility work could proceed before any upzoning.
Public comment included strong support from housing advocates and residents urging more housing, and concerns from others about soil contamination at former gas stations, preservation of blue‑collar jobs, and the equity and geographic distribution of EV/fleet charging sites. The committee accepted a non‑substantive name change (removing culturally offensive phrasing), voted to duplicate the ordinance into two files (one retaining density increases, one retaining only conditional‑use removal), and continued both to the call of the chair for further analysis.
