Council lays groundwork for businesses in high-density housing zones while state regulations loom overhead
In a built-out city like La Cañada Flintridge, finding a way to accommodate the potential development of several high-density, multifamily dwellings is a difficult proposition.
So when local lawmakers were required by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HDC) in 2014 to zone for 343 units of residential space for such projects in the housing element of the city’s general plan, they looked for areas of town that might work.
One section, located near Jo-Ann Fabric on Foothill Boulevard, contained a promising mix of apartment-type housing and commercial properties. Another area was identified south of Foothill, in between Union Street and Indiana Avenue north of the Foothill (210) Freeway, for having a combination of housing and businesses.
Join the conversation on Facebook >>
“The city rezoned approximately 4.4 acres from what was known as Commercial Planned Development (CPD) and R-1 zones, and they rezoned these to R-3, which is a high-density residential use,” Deputy Director of Community Development Susan Koleda explained to council members in a meeting Tuesday.
The idea is that the areas would eventually transition away from commercial use and allow for more multifamily housing to be built. As such, the six commercial buildings in these locations, and the businesses they contained, may continue operations but now have a “legal non-conforming” status that prohibits their expansion in the newly identified residential zones.
What exactly counts as “expansion,” however, was brought before the City Council Tuesday by staffers not keen on seeing the city fall out of compliance with state regulations and then have to pay the price by being required to create zoning for even more high-density projects in the future.
“We have had some questions from potential tenants as well as the property owners over what types of uses can continue in what we now call ‘legal non-conforming’ structures,” Koleda said.
Business owners like Gary Zentmyer, who operates a development company and leases spaces in a building at 1434 Foothill Boulevard, understood they could not physically expand current operations under the new zoning rules.
But when Zentmyer was informed by cautious city planners he also might be prohibited from selling or leasing property to any business that might require a conditional use permit — including office space, fitness centers or businesses selling alcohol — he brought his concerns to the council.
“No new CUP applications are being accepted by the city for the properties. This has, of course, hampered our leasing efforts somewhat,” Zentmyer said in a public hearing. “I would support any path which would result in our having substantially the same rights and use options we’d had under the CPD zoning. Anything less than that feels like a taking.”
Koleda asked council members to select from three possible options moving forward. The first would be a full-court press on R-3 zoning prohibiting any perceived expansion, including conditionally permitted uses.
The second would grant existing structures an exemption that would allow for the continuation of commercial uses, including businesses needing CUPs to operate, so long as those buildings were not substantially modified or added onto.
The third option would create a formal review process for legal non-conforming uses, and apply that process citywide. City officials explained how option 2 might draw scrutiny from the state and trigger an HDC review.
“There was concern that if we don’t recognize these legal non-conforming uses, if we allow them to expand, we may not fall within compliance of the Housing Element,” City Manager Mark Alexander clarified.
The three council members present (Dave Spence was absent and Terry Walker recused herself for owning a business within the R-3 zone) said business owners should not be constrained due to zoning matters beyond their control. They directed staff to amend the R-3 zone to incorporate an exemption for existing commercial uses, as described in option 2.
“Even though there may be some hesitation, in terms of some repercussions from HDC ... it’s my feeling option 2 is really the clear avenue to get us straightened out,” said Mayor Pro Tem Mike Davitt.
Councilman Len Pieroni agreed.
“We want to do everything we can for the people who are there so they can maintain and do whatever they want to do with their properties,” he said.
--
Sara Cardine, sara.cardine@latimes.com
Twitter: @SaraCardine
