HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-2013 ph1 south broad st area plan
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared By: James David, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: SOUTH BROAD STREET AREA PLAN.
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by Planning Commission, adopt a Resolution (Attachment 9, Draft Council
Resolution) to include the South Broad Street Area Plan in the Land Use and Circulation Element
update process for further study.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City’s 1994 Land Use Element identifies the South Broad Street area as an Optional Use and
Special Design Area that should have an area plan to encourage innovative design concepts that
help revitalize and beautify the area. It is also identified in the Housing Element as an area suitable
for housing production to help meet the full range of community housing needs. The effort to
develop a plan for the area has been going on for seven years, starting as a 2003-05 Major City Goal
and subsequently supported through a Caltrans grant. The South Broad Street Area Plan (Area Plan)
implements General Plan policies with three primary tools: 1) a new land use vision, 2) an emphasis
on higher-density infill housing and mixed-use, and 3) form-based codes. Goals, policies and
standards in the Area Plan reflect extensive input from property owners, residents and citizens
(Attachment 1, Outreach and Hearings).
The Planning Commission unanimously endorsed the Area Plan at a November 2012 public hearing
and recommended its inclusion in the Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) update. At a
subsequent hearing in August 2013, the Planning Commission strongly endorsed the Area Plan
again after receiving a recommendation of support from the resident-based LUCE Task Force (TF-
LUCE).
Many of the Area Plan concepts align with the grant objectives outlined in the ongoing LUCE
update. Potential impacts and mitigations associated with developing the Area Plan need to be
reviewed in the larger context of overall circulation improvements and policy decisions being
discussed in the LUCE update process. To date, the TF-LUCE has identified growth potential in the
South Broad Street Area for the next twenty years. They recommended that the Area Plan, with
changes, be used as a guiding document for anticipated growth in the area, and voted to include the
Area Plan with other physical alternatives being forwarded for consideration in the LUCE update.
Previous Council Review
The Council reviewed the Area Plan on March 5th and March 19th, 2013 (Attachments 2 & 3).
Council took no action on the Area Plan after two hearings (vote split 2:2). Section 1.3.6.11 of the
Meeting Date
Item Number 9-17-13
PH1 - 1
Draft South Broad Street Area Plan Page 2
Council bylaws requires a motion be taken on agenda items.1 Since there was no motion taken on
the Area Plan, Council expressed interest at a July 2013 hearing in bringing the draft back for
discussion. It will be timely to reconsider the Area Plan as LUCE alternatives are being finalized.
Public Input
Public testimony provided at Council hearings and recent neighborhood engagement efforts came
from business and property owners in the area who expressed concerns about the zoning changes
proposed as part of the Area Plan and how the changes would affect their respective businesses.
Many of the business owners spoke of the neighborhood’s existing identity and cohesion, how the
business and property owners look out for one another, and how the mix of uses function together
well in the area. Themes that came out of the public testimony can be summarized as follows:
1. The manufacturing uses that exist in the area create neighborhood vibrancy and economic
value and should be protected and/or left alone
2. Connectivity is important – across Broad Street and across the Railroad tracks
3. Concerns about the infrastructure costs associated with the improvements in the area
4. Enhancements to Broad Street – slowing traffic and providing signal(s) – are supported
Some individuals that spoke supported Broad Street enhancements but wanted the proposed
rezoning and other elements of the Area Plan to be abandoned or revised. This public testimony was
forwarded to the TF-LUCE during their work on Land Use and Circulation alternatives in June/July
2013. Additional public input on the South Broad planning area was provided at the Future Fair 2
held on June 1, 2013 (Attachment 4, Future Fair 2 Summary). Based on their understanding of
Council deliberations and public input, the TF-LUCE determined that the South Broad area should
be included in the LUCE update. Based on public input, the TF-LUCE voted to remove the
McMillan/Duncan area from the Area Plan and strengthen protections for existing businesses, but
felt strongly that the Area Plan land use, circulation and form-based code concepts be included in
LUCE alternatives for further evaluation (Attachment 5, TF-LUCE Minutes).
Recent Work on the Draft Area Plan
1. Response to Public Input
Staff has drafted changes to the plan in response to public input (Attachment 6, Legislative Draft).
The intent is to refine the Area Plan so that it balances the long range vision for future development
while protecting existing businesses in the area. The proposed changes include:
1. The McMillan/Duncan area has been removed from the Area Plan (Attachment 7, Revised
Planning Area). The Manufacturing zone will remain in this area and the new street between
McMillan and Duncan has been removed from the plan.
2. The Nonconforming Uses section has been revised to include more protections for existing
businesses:
a. Nonconforming uses are protected indefinitely if they continue operation, change
ownership, or are replaced with a similar use. These uses may cease for up to two
years and still be able to re-establish.2
1 Council Policies and Procedures Manual. [February 2013]. Should a tie vote occur, the Council is required to
continue the item by majority vote or make motions until an action receives three affirmative votes. Section 1.3.6.11.
PH1 - 2
Draft South Broad Street Area Plan Page 3
b. Nonconforming uses can expand on their existing parcel.
c. A disclosure that there are manufacturing uses in the vicinity will be required with
real estate transactions.
The revisions to the Area Plan were emailed to the South Broad interested parties database, which
included all of the property and business owners from the Community Update meeting held at the
Unitarian Universalist Church in February 2013. To date, the City has received two responses via
phone and an in-person meeting; one resident that supports the changes but is concerned about cut-
through traffic on Meadow Street, and a business/property owner that still feels uncertain about the
future value of his property. In response:
1. Meadow Street traffic calming improvements are included in the draft Area Plan in the event
that traffic volumes warrant redesign of the circulation network in that area.
2. Regarding future property value, one objective of the Area Plan is to honor and
acknowledge the existing diversity of businesses in the planning area while enriching the
types of uses that are allowed. The intent of the proposed rezoning is to provide
opportunities for infill and mixed-use projects over the next twenty years while also
allowing existing uses to continue. Due to the planning area’s proximity to Downtown,
transit, and other existing infrastructure and amenities, it is expected that land values will
increase over time and there will be a natural market driven transition in the long term. The
Area Plan increases options for business and property owners in the future while taking
steps to protect those individuals that wish to continue business-as-usual.
2. Field Observations
Staff conducted a land use inventory of the 75 parcels in the planning area proposed for rezoning
(Attachment 8, Land Use Inventory of Selected Parcels). Approximately 11 out of 56 documented
businesses on properties proposed for rezoning will become legal nonconforming uses (19.6%).
Land Use Inventory of Properties to be Rezoned 3
Documented
Businesses
Businesses that will
become Legal
Nonconforming
Nonconforming
Businesses brought
into Conformance
Businesses that are
allowed Before and
After Rezone
56 11 9 36
There are approximately 28 vacant parcels/tenant spaces and 35 residential uses on parcels proposed
for rezoning. All data is based on available business license information from the City’s Land Use
Database and observations made in the field.
3. Density
Allowable density in the South Broad Street planning area is currently subject to the Airport Land
Use Plan (ALUP), which restricts residential density to 12 units per acre. As part of the LUCE
update, staff will be bringing forward proposed Airport Land Use compatibility findings that would
2 A nonconforming use typically loses its nonconforming status if it ceases for a continuous period of six months (MC
17.10.020B).
3 Some parcels have multiple businesses, addresses and/or residences.
PH1 - 3
Draft South Broad Street Area Plan Page 4
allow greater density by following city-wide standards in Municipal Code Section 17.16.010. Per
Section 17.16.010, maximum residential density in the Service-Commercial (C-S) zone is 24
density units per acre, and maximum residential density in the Retail-Commercial (C-R) zone is 36
density units per acre.
However, according to staff’s analysis anticipated density in the planning area is approximately 13
dwelling units per acre for residential development and 12,000 square feet per acre for
nonresidential development. Density estimates are based on 80 percent lot development efficiency
(allowance for parking, setbacks, landscaping) of primarily mixed-use projects with a ratio of 60%
residential to 40% commercial and an average floor-to-area ratio of 1.0. Dwelling units are assumed
to be two-bedrooms with an average size of 1,400 square feet.
If the Council recommends the Area Plan be included in the LUCE update, a fiscal analysis will be
completed that evaluates whether this estimated density is adequate to fund needed infrastructure
improvements (via impact fees, financing district, or other methods), and whether fees for
infrastructure would constrain redevelopment. If increased density is necessary to support planned
infrastructure, additional planning tools may be necessary such as requiring minimum density
thresholds in the Area Plan or other tools such as density based on lot size or increased flexibility
for parking standards.
Why Include in the LUCE Update?
The Area Plan implements current General Plan direction to identify and support mixed-use
development and higher-density infill housing close to Downtown and job centers, and also
provides a long-range plan implementing street connectivity and enhanced transit accessibility.
Evaluation as part of the LUCE update will provide a larger context for consideration of the Area
Plan and how it affects the City as a whole. For example, the LUCE process includes:
1. Fiscal consideration of development alternatives and infrastructure costs
2. Environmental review of proposed changes – how do any proposed changes affect the
circulation system? What mitigations are appropriate? Where would the community accept
lower traffic speeds/more congestion in exchange for better pedestrian and bike connections
(i.e. across Broad Street)?
3. What areas are appropriate to accommodate more housing?
All of this analysis is scoped, planned, and funded in the LUCE update. Completing this analysis
does not commit the City in the future to adopt the Area Plan, but it does keep options on the table
for future consideration. Furthermore, there is indirect cost savings by including the Area Plan in
the LUCE update since fiscal, environmental and traffic analyses of the Area Plan would not have
to occur separately at a later date.
Conclusion
The Planning Commission unanimously endorsed the Area Plan at public hearings in November
2012 and supported the revised draft in August 2013, and recommended its inclusion in the LUCE
update. The TF-LUCE voted to include Area Plan concepts in the LUCE update. Revisions to the
Area Plan respond to past public testimony by effectively balancing the long range vision for the
planning area with protections for existing businesses. The South Broad area is in transition and
PH1 - 4
Draft South Broad Street Area Plan Page 5
having a plan in place that anticipates market-driven changes while recognizing the vibrancy and
contributions that existing businesses make to the City is important. The Area Plan achieves this
goal, implements General Plan policies (LUE 8.3, HE 6.12), and enables opportunities for infill
housing, mixed-use projects, improved multi-modal transportation, and additional diversity in
commercial land uses that could benefit the existing neighborhood and the entire City.
If the Council adopts the attached draft Resolution, the Area Plan will be included as one of several
land use and circulation alternatives being further evaluated in the LUCE update. The Resolution
does not approve the Area Plan. The Council will have multiple opportunities to review the Area
Plan as different phases of the LUCE update are presented, approved and implemented.
CONCURRENCES
The Community Development Department prepared the South Broad Street Area Plan with input
from the Public Works, Utilities, Finance, Fire, Administration, and Police Departments.
FISCAL IMPACT
Chapter Seven of the Area Plan takes a preliminary look at plan implementation, and includes cost
estimates and funding approaches for critical infrastructure improvements. Possible financing
approaches identified in the Area Plan include development impact fees, development agreements,
financing districts, and/or integration of appropriate facilities into the City’s Improvement Plan
(CIP) as part of the two-year budget forecast. Financing could also come from State and Federal
sources such as available grant opportunities or changes to State infrastructure finance law. If the
Council chooses to include the Area Plan in the LUCE, cost-benefit evaluation and additional
financing strategies will be identified in the accompanying infrastructure analysis. The LUCE fiscal
analysis will also look at the ongoing service costs for the area and evaluate whether revenue from
the proposed mix of land uses can – to the extent feasible – cover any increases in service costs.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may elect to exclude consideration of the South Broad Street Area Plan from
the Land Use and Circulation Element update. This is not recommended. The area will
continue to evolve and absent a plan will likely develop in a piecemeal manner.
Furthermore, land use capacity and opportunities, traffic impacts, and larger policy issues
will not be considered in the city-wide context of the LUCE update.
2. The Council can vote to include circulation improvements along South Broad Street and not
advance any proposed land use changes. This is not recommended. Proposed land use
changes in the Area Plan provide opportunities for intensification of new development
projects that will contribute to financing identified circulation improvements. Without new
development financing new infrastructure will be challenging.
3. The Council may continue the item and direct staff to make revisions to the South Broad
Street Area Plan or include additional information.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Outreach and Hearings
2. 03/05/13 Council Agenda Report: South Broad Street Area Plan
PH1 - 5
Draft South Broad Street Area Plan Page 6
3. 03/19/13 Council Agenda Report: South Broad Street Area Plan
4. Excerpt from LUCE Future Fair 2 Summary
5. 07/01/13 TF-LUCE Minutes
6. Legislative Draft of South Broad Street Area Plan
7. Revised Planning Area
8. Land Use Inventory of Selected Parcels
9. Draft Council Resolution
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
Draft South Broad Street Area Plan
www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/southbroad.asp
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2013\2013-09-17\South Broad St Area Plan (Johnson-Murry-David)\GPI 49-06 (South Broad Street Area Plan)–Round
Three.docx
PH1 - 6
South Broad Street Area Plan Outreach Efforts
Key Date Meeting
1 2/5/2004 State Route 227 Charrettes Planning Call
2 3/4/2004 Pre-Plan Meeting for Civic Leaders
3 5/8/2004 Broad Street Community Planning Workshops
4 5/20/2004 Broad Street Community Planning Workshops
5 8/17/2005 Airport Land Use Commission Presentation
6 11/9/2006 Kick Off
7 12/21/2006 Focus Group
8 1/18/2007 Focus Group
9 2/15/2007 Focus Group
10 3/8/2007 Kiwanis Club Presentation
11 3/15/2007 Focus Group
12 4/19/2007 Focus Group
13 5/16/2007 Airport Land Use Commission Presentation
14 5/17/2007 Bicycle Advisory Committee
15 5/18/2007 Focus Group
16 6/8/2007 Focus Group
17 6/14/2007 Chamber of Commerce Presentation
18 6/14/2007 SLO Workforce Housing Coalition Presentation
19 7/19/2007 Focus Group
20 10/17/2007 Planning Commission Community Workshop
21 2/20/2008 Airport Land Use Commission Presentation
22 2/25/2008 Newsletter to area residents, property and business owners
23 3/13/2008 Airport Land Use Commission Subcommittee
24 6/24/2008 HASLO Presentation of Moylan Terrace
25 8/21/2008 Focus Group
26 8/25/2008 Newsletter to area residents, property and business owners
27 10/2/2008 Focus Group
28 2/25/2009 Stoneridge Neighborhood Meeting
29 3/16/2009 CHC Subcommittee & Property Owners
30 2/3/2010 Focus Group
31 2/15/2012 Airport Land Use Commission Presentation
32 2/29/2012 Focus Group
33 12/1/2012 LUCE Future Fair
34 1/1/2013 Newsletter to area residents, property and business owners
35 2/4/2013 Meeting with 20 concerned citizens
36 2/19/2013 REALTORs Presentation
37 2/28/2013 Community Update
38 6/1/2013 LUCE Future Fair 2
39 7/1/2013 TF-LUCE Meeting on Alternatives
40 8/12/2013 Meet with Interested Property/Business Owners
40Total
PH1 - 7
South Broad Street Area Plan Public Hearings
Key Date Hearing
1 7/5/2005 City Council
2 10/17/2006 City Council
3 4/18/2007 Planning Commission
4 6/4/2007 Architectural Review Commission
5 6/6/2007 Planning Commission
6 6/13/2007 Planning Commission
7 6/25/2007 Cultural Heritage Committee
8 7/16/2007 Architectural Review Commission
9 8/8/2007 Planning Commission
10 8/8/2007 Planning Commission
11 10/17/2007 Planning Commission
12 12/4/2007 City Council
13 12/18/2007 City Council
14 7/9/2008 Planning Commission
15 7/14/2008 Architectural Review Commission
16 7/23/2008 Planning Commission
17 8/18/2008 Architectural Review Commission
18 8/27/2008 Planning Commission
19 1/28/2009 Planning Commission
20 2/23/2009 Cultural Heritage Committee
21 4/27/2009 Cultural Heritage Committee
22 1/13/2010 Planning Commission
23 2/10/2010 Planning Commission
24 11/28/2012 Planning Commission
25 3/5/2013 City Council
26 3/19/2013 City Council
27 9/17/2013 City Council
City Council 7
Planning Commission 13
Architectural Review Commission 4
Cultural Heritage Committee 3
27Total
PH1 - 8
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared By: James David, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: REINTRODUCE THE SOUTH BROAD STREET AREA PLAN.
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, include the South Broad Street Area Plan in the
preferred growth alternative of the Land Use and Circulation Element update.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The City’s 1994 Land Use Element identifies the South Broad Street area as an Optional Use and
Special Design Area that should have an area plan to encourage innovative design concepts that
help revitalize and beautify the area. It is also identified in the Housing Element as an area
suitable for housing production to help meet the full range of community housing needs. The
effort to develop a plan for the area has been going on for six years, starting as a Major City Goal
and subsequently supported through a Caltrans grant. The South Broad Street Area Plan (Area
Plan) implements General Plan policies with three primary tools: 1) a new land use vision, 2) an
emphasis on higher-density infill housing and mixed-use, and 3) form-based codes. Goals,
policies and standards in the Area Plan reflect extensive input from property owners, residents
and citizens (Attachment 7, Outreach and Hearings).
The Planning Commission unanimously endorsed the Area Plan with recommended changes at a
November 2012 public hearing and recommended its inclusion in the Land Use and Circulation
Elements (LUCE) update. Many of the Area Plan concepts align with the grant objectives
outlined in the ongoing LUCE update. Potential impacts and mitigations associated with
developing the Area Plan need to be reviewed in the larger context of overall circulation
improvements and policy decisions that will occur through the LUCE update process. It is
recommended that Council direct staff to include the Area Plan in the preferred growth
alternative of the LUCE update.
DISCUSSION
Planning for redevelopment and improvements in the South Broad Street area began in Fall
2006. The City received a Community-Based Transportation Planning Grant from the California
Department of Transportation (CalTrans) to prepare a corridor plan addressing Broad Street
improvements, land use and circulation, architectural design and neighborhood character. The
Area Plan fulfills these objectives, and responds to the community’s desire to address
connectivity between the east and west sides of Broad Street, and to preserve or enhance the
area’s desirable qualities; mixed uses, diverse architecture, and historic buildings.
Meeting Date
Item Number 3-05-13
PH1 - 9
South Broad Street Area Plan (2013) Page 2
The Area Plan also implements General Plan policies for infill housing and mixed-use
development, specifically:
1. Land Use Element Program 8.3 identifies the South Broad Street corridor as an
“Optional Use and Special Design Area” and calls for the preparation of an area plan to
help revitalize and beautify the area, and
2. Housing Element Program 6.12 identifies the South Broad Street area for possible
rezoning to encourage mixed-use development and higher density housing.
The goal of the Area Plan is to promote mixed-use and higher density development, while
improving safety, connectivity, transportation alternatives, and aesthetics. It uses a hybrid
approach of traditional zoning and form-based codes to establish:
1. A long-range community vision for growth in the South Broad Street area,
2. A broader range of allowable land uses exclusive to the planning area,
3. Development standards that address building forms as part of a larger streetscape, and
4. Design guidelines with specific architectural styles that build on the area’s historic
character and sense of place.
Area Plan Development
The Area Plan sets a 20-year time horizon for gradual redevelopment of the South Broad Street
area, mostly east of Broad Street and between Upham Street and Orcutt Road. It is the work
product of current and former staff, consultants, a community-based focus group, and multiple
advisory bodies. Focus group members were randomly selected by the City Clerk’s office from a
pool of applicants. All members of the focus group were residents, property owners, or business
owners. The Area Plan reflects a great deal of community participation from public workshops,
design charrettes, stakeholder meetings with area residents, property owners and businesses, and
advisory body hearings. The public identified a need to address incomplete public infrastructure,
parking lots in street yards, lack of connectivity, dilapidated buildings, and dominance of auto-
related land uses. In general, the community has supported the Area Plan’s three primary
objectives: a new land use vision, an emphasis on higher-density infill housing and mixed-use,
and form-based codes (Attachment 1, Recent Public Comment Letter).
Area Plan Content
The Area Plan is divided into five key chapters:
1. Street types help define traffic patterns, modes, and land uses. They form the basis of the
Area Plan’s regulating plan.
2. Zoning establishes allowable land uses on a given parcel.
3. Development standards address site planning and building form.
4. Design guidelines provide appropriate architectural styles for the neighborhood.
5. Streetscape standards address the public right-of-way and design of public
improvements.
PH1 - 10
South Broad Street Area Plan (2013) Page 3
Area Plan Development Process Each of these chapters are steps in
the development process for the
South Broad Street area. Parcels
proposed for rezoning will follow
this process (shown at left) upon
redevelopment, and are subject to
Area Plan zoning and form-based
codes. Parcels not proposed for
rezoning have either been
developed to full potential or are
already subject to a planning
entitlement; therefore Area Plan
zoning and development standards
do not apply (Attachment 2, Parcels
Targeted for Rezoning).
Details on the different street types,
area-specific zoning, form-based
development standards, design
guidelines and streetscape standards
are included in the enclosed draft
Area Plan. Emphasis is placed on
creating a “Main Street” along
Victoria Avenue with suitable
building forms and land uses that
promote walkability and vibrant neighborhood character. The distinction between regulations
and standards in the South Broad Street Area Plan versus other specific and/or area plans
adopted in the past is a focus on designing the public realm (streets, sidewalks, block patterns,
street furniture, etc). Suitable land uses will follow provided they are allowed uses listed in the
Area Plan zoning matrix.
Future Growth
Over the next 20 years, the Area Plan calls for approximately 425 new dwellings and 880,000
square feet of commercial space. This projected density is consistent with the Airport Land Use
Plan’s (ALUP) density allowances. The Airport Land Use Commission has reviewed and
endorsed the Area Plan.
Preliminary analysis of traffic impacts indicate that the proposed density may cause potentially
significant environmental impacts. If the Area Plan is included as part of a preferred growth
alternative in the ongoing LUCE update, the environmental impacts will be analyzed
comprehensively with other potential land use changes in the LUCE Environmental Impact
Report.
PH1 - 11
South Broad Street Area Plan (2013) Page 4
Relationship to the LUCE Update
The Area Plan implements General Plan policy by rezoning parcels to allow mixed-use
development and higher-density infill housing close to Downtown and job centers, and providing
a long-range plan implementing street connectivity and enhanced transit accessibility.
Area Plan concepts were presented at the LUCE visioning workshop (a.k.a. Future Fair) on
December 1st, 2012. The current draft was generally well received with mainly comments and
questions. The Area Plan improvement that received the most support was the pedestrian and
bicycle crossing over the railroad in the vicinity of Francis Street and Humbert Avenue, which
provides critical linkages to the Railroad Safety Trail. Some residents voiced concerns about
narrowing Broad Street with medians and whether this would impact traffic as well as business
visibility. Others supported the proposed median as a way to slow traffic and improve pedestrian
and bicycle safety.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission has reviewed the draft Area Plan at multiple meetings since 2007, the
most recent being November 28th, 2012. The Commission supports the current iteration of the
Area Plan, and recommends that Council include it in the preferred growth alternative of the
LUCE update. They also recommend the Council fund preparation of an infrastructure financing
plan as part of the South Broad Street Area Plan (Attachment 4, PC Minutes 11/28/12).
Recent Public Input
The City recently met with a group that included several business owners in the South Broad
Street planning area. They raised concerns about the Area Plan’s proposed rezoning, including:
1. Creation of nonconforming uses and impacts to the established employee base
2. Pushing businesses out, related relocation costs, and lack of Manufacturing-zoned
property in the City
3. Compatibility issues between existing manufacturing and new residential
4. Change in development standards leading to extra process, time and cost
Some business owners from this group also raised similar issues at a Planning Commission
hearing held in February, 2009 (Attachment 5, 2009 Planning Commission comment letter). The
following sections provide a brief overview of the Area Plan’s proposed rezoning, and further
analysis on each of the raised issues.
Proposed Rezoning
Historically, zoning in the South Broad planning area has been a mix of Service-Commercial (C-
S) and Manufacturing (M) zones. In the 1990s and 2000s, parts of the South Broad Street area
were rezoned to Medium High Density Residential (R-3) to accommodate multifamily
development. The Area Plan builds upon this residential focus while maintaining the area’s
commercial roots by adding a Retail-Commercial (C-R) zone especially suited for mixed-use and
live/work projects. The Area Plan also phases out the M zone since additional land better suited
for manufacturing and industrial land uses is now part of the City in the vicinity of the airport.
PH1 - 12
South Broad Street Area Plan (2013) Page 5
Allowed uses under Area Plan C-R and C-S zoning are slightly different than the same zones in
other parts of the City. The distinction is a renewed focus on a mixed-use environment.
Compatible residential and commercial land uses that typically require discretionary review are
allowed by right in the South Broad Street Area Zoning Plan. Other uses that may conflict with
residential neighborhoods will require additional review or are prohibited. These subtle
differences help transition the area to more residentially-compatible land uses, and will shape the
desired “Main Street” environment along Victoria Avenue over time.
1. Nonconforming uses and Employee base
The Area Plan proposes rezoning all property zoned M in the planning area to C-S or C-R. Any
existing land uses that were legally established prior to the rezone that are not allowed in the new
zoning district will be considered nonconforming uses, and will be regulated according to the
Zoning Regulations (MC 17.10):
1. A nonconforming use may be continued indefinitely.
2. Nonconforming uses can also be changed to other nonconforming uses upon approval of
an administrative use permit.
3. Nonconforming uses that cease for a continuous period of six months shall lose
nonconforming status.
4. Nonconforming single-family dwellings may be continued without limitation, and if
involuntarily damaged or destroyed, may be reconstructed or replaced.
5. A lot occupied by a nonconforming use may be further developed by the addition of
conforming uses and structures, subject to use permit approval.
The Area Plan does not require any existing businesses to relocate because they are protected by
the nonconforming use provisions. As a result, the employees associated with those businesses
may remain for as long as the business wishes to retain their services.
Planning Area Zoning (Existing and Proposed)
Zoning Classification Existing
Zone
Parcel
Count
Existing
Area (Acres)
Area Rezoned to
C-S1 (Acres)
Area Rezoned to
C-R2 (Acres)
No Change
(Acres)
Community Commercial C-C 22 ---
Neighborhood C-N 32 9 ---
Service Commercial C-S 5539 6 1022
Manufacturing M 793327 5 13
Office O31 ---
Public Facility PF 23 ---
Low Density Residential R-1 31 ---
Med. Density Residential R-2 41 7 ---
Med. High Density Res.R-3 9114 ---
1 Area Plan C-S (different than Citywide C-S)
2 Area Plan C-R (different than Citywide C-R)
3 Area designated for new roads
Source: SLO GIS
PH1 - 13
South Broad Street Area Plan (2013) Page 6
Most of the land uses that are allowed in the M-zone are also allowed in the Area Plan’s C-S
zone (Attachment 6, Changes to Allowed Land Uses). This scenario applies to M-zoned parcels
surrounding McMillan Avenue and Duncan Road, and mid-block between Broad Street and
Victoria Avenue. Approximately 70% of existing businesses on M-zoned property (excluding
those parcels proposed for C-R) would be allowed under Area Plan’s C-S zoning. These
businesses would remain as conforming uses when the rezoning is implemented.
Land uses that are allowed under M-zoning, but prohibited under Area Plan C-S zoning
(approximately 30%) are not as compatible with residential development (e.g. heavy
manufacturing, large recycling facilities, storage yard, petroleum product storage and
distribution). This latter category of businesses would be considered nonconforming and allowed
to remain indefinitely per the Zoning Regulations as discussed above.
The most significant zoning change will be for properties that are rezoned from M to C-R.
Industry, manufacturing, processing and wholesaling land uses are generally not allowed in the
Area Plan’s C-R zoning district. Parcels proposed for C-R line Victoria Avenue and Broad
Street. The objective is to gradually transition Victoria Avenue to a “Main Street” environment,
with retail, restaurants, mixed-use buildings, and other pedestrian-serving uses. The list of land
uses allowed in the C-R zone is considerably more diverse and abundant than what is appropriate
for a C-S or M zone (e.g. general retail, multi-family dwellings, professional offices, hotel,
theater, social service organizations, and residential care facilities).
2. Manufacturing Zoning in the City
Currently there are:
1. 79 M-zoned parcels in the South Broad Street planning area totaling about 33 acres.
2. 180 M-zoned parcels outside the South Broad planning area totaling about 212 acres.
a. Most of these parcels are along Sacramento Drive, and in the Airport Area off
South Higuera Street.
As noted in the previous section, no businesses will be required to relocate as a result of the
proposed zone changes. Many businesses on M-zoned property are also allowed in the C-S zone,
and other businesses that do not fall into this category are protected by the Nonconforming Use
regulations. As the area transitions over the next twenty years towards more residentially
compatible land uses, there will be some businesses that choose to voluntarily relocate. There is
evidence that this is already happening due to current market forces.
The heart of the City is growing and manufacturing businesses that used to be on the edge of
town are now finding themselves in the expanding center. As land values rise, property owners
may make different choices regarding use of their properties or businesses may locate in areas
with similar uses. The Area Plan is the City’s chance to guide this natural and primarily market
driven transition so that it happens in an orderly way instead of through piecemeal decisions.
3. Compatibility issues
There will be compatibility issues as residential uses are further introduced into the South Broad
Street planning area. Service and manufacturing businesses sometimes operate during late hours
PH1 - 14
South Broad Street Area Plan (2013) Page 7
and can generate noise and odors that are objectionable to residents. However, this area is not
unfamiliar with odd mixes of uses. The area developed with railroad worker housing in the early
1880’s and is one of the City’s oldest residential neighborhoods. Some of this housing exists on
Victoria, Woodbridge, Caudill and other planning area streets.
Over time, the area transitioned to services and manufacturing uses, but retains pockets of older
residences along with newer residential developments such as the Villa Rosa condominiums and
the Moylan Terrace housing project on Humbert Street. The Area Plan vision supports a healthy
mix of commercial and residential, including live-work units. Increased flexibility in commercial
uses will also allow artisan type businesses to fabricate their wares and have a retail outlet for
them on the same property.
All commercial uses in the City are subject to the noise standards in the Municipal Code and the
South Broad Street area is no exception. These noise standards allow for reasonable business
operations while still maintaining a comfortable residential environment. Furthermore,
residential uses that are especially sensitive to noise and other impacts from commercial
activities (e.g. residential care facilities, rest homes) would be subject to a Community
Development Director’s use permit approval. The use permit process allows for case-by-case
decisions that evaluate nearby impacts and apparent compatibility issues.
4. Development Standards
The intent of the Area Plan’s form-based codes, architectural guidelines and land use table is to
streamline the review process. In some instances, proposed projects that are compatible with the
Area Plan won’t require use permits, and design review will be processed administratively. This
streamlined approach is one of the primary benefits of form-based codes; prescriptive
development standards that help create a unified development pattern on individual lots and
within the plan area.
To further reinforce cohesion and the relationship between public and private development, the
required street yard setbacks for buildings have less than current Citywide requirements for the
M-zone and C-S zones. However, the Area Plan does require greater rear yard building setbacks.
The intent is to create rear courtyards and parking aisles behind buildings, instead of between
buildings and the street. The emphasis is placed on bringing buildings forward to define the
public realm and the streetscape. It is important to note that parcels that are already substantially
developed or governed by existing Planned Developments are not subject to Area Plan rezoning
or development standards. The primary focus of the development standards is new construction,
large additions (increase in floor area 50% or more) and substantial remodels (50% or more of
current value).
In light of recent public concerns, the Community Development Department is hosting an
additional public outreach meeting on February 28th to summarize Planning Commission
comments and answer questions. A summary of this community meeting will be presented to the
City Council on March 5th.
PH1 - 15
South Broad Street Area Plan (2013) Page 8
Conclusion
The South Broad Street Area Plan has been streamlined with a simplified land use concept and
additional graphics and images. If the Area Plan is analyzed and integrated into the LUCE
update, further evaluation and review will occur through the environmental review process,
LUCE Task Force meetings, LUCE workshops, and Planning Commission and Council hearings.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that Council include the South Broad
Street Area Plan in the preferred growth alternative of the General Plan Land Use and
Circulation Element update. The Council will have future opportunities to review the Area Plan
as it is integrated into the LUCE update and subsequent implementation efforts, and will be able
to make informed decisions based on the analysis of impacts contained in the LUCE EIR.
CONCURRENCES
The Community Development Department prepared the South Broad Street Area Plan with input
from the Public Works, Utilities, Finance, Fire, Administration, and Police Departments.
FISCAL IMPACT
Chapter Seven of the Area Plan focuses on plan implementation, and includes cost estimates and
funding approaches for critical infrastructure improvements. Possible financing approaches
identified in the Area Plan include development impact fees, development agreements, financing
districts, and/or integration of appropriate facilities into the City’s Improvement Plan (CIP) as
part of the two-year budget forecast. Financing could also come from State and Federal sources
such as available grant opportunities or changes to State infrastructure finance law. If the
Council chooses to include the Area Plan in the preferred growth alternative, cost-benefit
evaluation and additional financing strategies will be identified in the infrastructure analysis
accompanying the LUCE update.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may continue the item and direct staff to make revisions to the South Broad
Street Area Plan or include additional information.
2. The Council may vote to exclude the South Broad Street Area Plan from the preferred
growth alternative of the Land Use and Circulation Element update. This is not
recommended. The area will continue to develop in a piecemeal manner and land use
capacity and opportunities, traffic impacts, and larger policy issues will not be considered
in the Citywide context of the LUCE update.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recent Public Comment Letter
2. Parcels Targeted for Rezoning
3. Excerpt from LUCE Update Grant Proposal
4. PC Minutes 11/28/12
5. 2009 Planning Commission comment letter
6. Changes to Allowed Land Uses
7. Outreach and Hearings
PH1 - 16
South Broad Street Area Plan (2013) Page 9
8. Draft Council Resolution
ENCLOSURE/LINK
Draft South Broad Street Area Plan
www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/southbroad.asp .
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2013\2013-02-05\South Broad Street Area Plan (Johnson-David)\GPI 49-06 (South Broad Street Area Plan) -
Council.docx
PH1 - 17
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared By: James David, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF THE SOUTH BROAD STREET AREA
PLAN.
RECOMMENDATION
As discussed by Council on March 5th, adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) to include review of
the South Broad Street Area Plan in the Land Use and Circulation Element update process.
DISCUSSION
The Council reviewed the draft South Broad Street Area Plan (Area Plan) on March 5, 2013. At
the hearing, 25 people provided testimony. Most of the testimony came from business and
property owners in the area who expressed concerns about the zoning changes proposed as part
of the Area Plan and how the changes would affect their respective businesses. Many of the
business owners spoke of the neighborhood’s existing identity and cohesion, how the business
and property owners look out for one another, and how the mix of uses function together well in
the area. Themes that came out of the public testimony can be summarized as follows:
• Concerns about “main street” uses accommodated by Area Plan zoning resulting in
competition with the Downtown and negatively impacting the Downtown.
• The manufacturing uses that exist in the area create neighborhood vibrancy in
addition to producing economic value and head of household jobs.
• Connectivity is important – across Broad Street and across the Railroad Tracks
• Concerns about the infrastructure costs associated with the improvements in the area
• Enhancements to Broad Street – slowing down traffic and providing signal(s) to get
across Broad – are supported.
The majority of individuals that spoke supported Broad Street enhancements but wanted the
proposed rezoning and other elements of the Area Plan to be abandoned or scaled back to avoid
existing uses becoming nonconforming. One objective of the Area Plan is to honor and
acknowledge the existing diversity of businesses in the planning area while enriching the types
of uses that are allowed. The intent of the proposed rezoning is to promote infill and mixed-use
projects over the next twenty years. Due to the planning area’s proximity to Downtown, transit,
and other existing infrastructure and amenities, land values will increase over time and there will
be a natural market driven transition in the long term. This is already occurring with the recent
vacancy of San Luis Obispo Garbage Company, the Housing Authority’s Moylan Terrace
project, and other new developments. Having a plan in place that anticipates this transition and
also recognizes the vibrancy and contributions that existing businesses make to the City is
important. The Area Plan achieves this goal, implements General Plan policies (LUE 8.3, HE
6.12), and facilitates infill that makes sense within the City’s contemporary urban pattern.
Meeting Date
Item Number 3-19-13
PH1 - 18
South Broad Street Area Plan (2013) Page 2
There is however room for improvement in the Area Plan, and changes to the plan should reflect
recent public input and be completed as part of the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE)
update, with Council direction. This specific direction is included in the revised resolution
(Attachment 1, Revised Council Resolution):
1. Remove the properties along McMillan and Duncan Roads from proposed rezoning.
Leave this area as a Manufacturing zone.
2. Review the proposed zoning and allowed uses in the area. Ensure that new commercial
uses supported in the area are more directly related to neighborhood-serving uses that do
not compete with uses in the Downtown.
3. Look for ways to support the manufacturing uses that exist in the area, but also plan for
the anticipated market driven transition of the area. Suggestions to consider include a
special South Broad Manufacturing overlay zone, extension of non-conforming use time
provisions, and disclosure requirements that would inform residents of new development
that manufacturing uses exist nearby (with associated noise, odors, and activities).
Why include in the LUCE update?
The Area Plan implements current General Plan direction to find ways to support mixed-use
development and higher-density infill housing close to Downtown and job centers, and also
provides a long-range plan implementing street connectivity and enhanced transit accessibility.
The evaluation that will occur as part of the LUCE update will provide a larger context for
consideration of changes to the plan and the area as well as consideration of how these changes
affect the City as a whole. For example, the LUCE process includes:
• Fiscal consideration of development alternatives and infrastructure costs
• Consideration of land use inventory and capacity for all zones and development types –
does the City have enough land zoned for various uses? Where is it located? What
projections for future development are being made?
• Environmental review of proposed changes – how do any proposed changes affect the
circulation system? What mitigations are appropriate? Where would the community
accept lower traffic speeds/more congestion in exchange for better pedestrian and bike
connections (i.e. across Broad Street)?
• What areas are appropriate to accommodate more housing?
All of this analysis is already scoped, planned, and funded in the LUCE update. Doing this
analysis does not commit the City in the future to adopt this plan, but it does keep options on the
table for future consideration. Furthermore, there is indirect cost savings by including the Area
Plan in the LUCE update since fiscal, environmental and traffic analyses of the Area Plan would
not have to occur separately at a later date.
Conclusion
The Planning Commission unanimously endorsed the Area Plan at a November 2012 public hearing
and recommended its inclusion in the LUCE update. Many of the Area Plan concepts align with the
grant objectives outlined in the ongoing LUCE update. It is clear from recent public testimony that
PH1 - 19
South Broad Street Area Plan (2013) Page 3
the proposed rezoning included in the Area Plan needs additional work, along with reevaluating the
neighborhood commercial corridor on Victoria Avenue. This specific direction is included in the
revised Council resolution, and the implementation of these changes can and should happen in the
larger context of overall circulation improvements and policy decisions that will occur through the
LUCE update process. The fact remains that the South Broad Street area presents good
opportunities for infill housing, mixed-use projects, and additional diversity in commercial land uses
that could benefit the existing neighborhood and City as a whole. Additional steps must be taken to
ensure that the Area Plan supports existing manufacturing businesses in the area, and enhances
rather than diminishes the vibrancy and cohesiveness that neighborhood champions have worked
hard to create.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may elect to exclude consideration of the South Broad Street Area Plan from the
Land Use and Circulation Element update or only include circulation improvements along South
Broad Street and not advance any proposed land use changes. This is not recommended. The
area will continue to evolve and absent a plan will likely develop in a piecemeal manner.
Furthermore, land use capacity and opportunities, traffic impacts, and larger policy issues will
not be considered in the Citywide context of the LUCE update.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Council Resolution
2. Legislative Draft Council Resolution
ENCLOSURE/LINK
Draft South Broad Street Area Plan
www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/southbroad.asp .
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2013\2013-03-19\South Broad Stret (Johnson-David)\GPI 49-06 (South Broad Street Area Plan)-CAR.docx
PH1 - 20
PH1 - 21
PH1 - 22
PH1 - 23
PH1 - 24
PH1 - 25
South Broad Street Area Plan
Legislative Draft
August 26, 2013
NOTES:
1. Changes are highlighted with deletions shown in strikethrough
2. Graphics removed for purposes of legislative draft
3. Some spacing and formatting in Area Plan not shown in legislative draft
4. Page numbers in legislative draft header reference Area Plan
PH1 - 26
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 1.0 INTRODUCTION Pages 7-16
PH1 - 27
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 1.0 INTRODUCTION Pages 7-16
PH1 - 28
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 1.0 INTRODUCTION Pages 7-16
PH1 - 29
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 1.0 INTRODUCTION Pages 7-16
PH1 - 30
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 1.0 INTRODUCTION Pages 7-16
PH1 - 31
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 2.0 STREET TYPES Pages 17-22
PH1 - 32
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 3.0 ZONING Pages 22-30
PH1 - 33
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 3.0 ZONING Pages 22-30
PH1 - 34
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 3.0 ZONING Pages 22-30
PH1 - 35
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 4.0 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pages 31-40
PH1 - 36
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 4.0 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pages 31-40
PH1 - 37
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 4.0 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pages 31-40
PH1 - 38
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 4.0 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pages 31-40
PH1 - 39
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 5.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES Pages 41-46
PH1 - 40
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 5.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES Pages 41-46
PH1 - 41
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 5.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES Pages 41-46
PH1 - 42
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 5.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES Pages 41-46
PH1 - 43
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 5.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES Pages 41-46
PH1 - 44
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 6.0 STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Pages 47-50
PH1 - 45
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 6.0 STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Pages 47-50
PH1 - 46
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 6.0 STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Pages 47-50
PH1 - 47
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 6.0 STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Pages 47-50
PH1 - 48
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 7.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Pages 51-60
PH1 - 49
South Broad Street Area Plan Legislative Draft 7.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Pages 51-60
Costs adjusted
based on removal of
McMillan/Duncan
area from Area Plan
PH1 - 50
±0 0.125 0.250.0625
Miles
Legend
South Broad Planning Area
Union Pacific RailroadPH1 - 51
Documented Businesses on Area Plan Parcels Proposed for Rezoning Attachment 4
Page 1
Key Parcel # Address
#Street Suite Occupant Land Use Classification Existing Zoning Area Plan Zoning
1 004-846-020 755 ALPHONSO REV Fitness/health facility A A
2 004-846-020 763 ALPHONSO A & M SEW AND
VAC Furniture, furnishings, and appliance stores NC A
3 004-846-031 2300 BROAD VALANCING ACT Furniture, furnishings, and appliance stores A A
4 004-846-031 2304 BROAD STOLLMEYERS
MAIN LIGHTING Furniture, furnishings, and appliance stores A A
5 004-846-031 2306 BROAD MCMILLAN LAND
SURVERYS Office - Production and administrative D A/D
6 004-846-031 2308 BROAD VALLEY OXYGEN General retail - 2,000 sf or less NC A
7 004-846-026 2310 BROAD CAR AUDIO
CENTER Auto parts sales, with installation A NC
8 004-846-032 2314 BROAD GOLDEN PAW PET
GROOMING Personal services A A
9 004-846-039 2322 BROAD NATURALLY
JENNIFER'S BEADS General retail - 2,000 sf or less NC A
10 004-846-039 2324 BROAD CLADDAGH SIMI
VALLEY Studio - Art, dance, martial arts, music, etc.A A/D
11 004-921-024 2400 BROAD HANGER
PROSTHETICS Medical service - Clinic, laboratory, urgent care D D
12 004-921-024 2410 BROAD HANGER
PROSTHETICS Medical service - Clinic, laboratory, urgent care D D
A = Allowed D = Use Permit Required NC = Legal Nonconforming
PH1 - 52
Documented Businesses on Area Plan Parcels Proposed for Rezoning Attachment 4
Page 2
Key Parcel # Address
#Street Suite Occupant Land Use Classification Existing Zoning Area Plan Zoning
A = Allowed D = Use Permit Required NC = Legal Nonconforming
13 004-921-023 2420 BROAD
GRAY & TROY
INSURANCE
SERVICES, INC.
Office – Business and Service D A/D
14 004-923-023 2550 BROAD MATTRESS
OUTLET Furniture, furnishings, and appliance stores A A
15 004-925-033 2600 BROAD QUICK STOP
MARKET Convenience store D A
16 004-925-035 2640 BROAD
MISSION THRIFT (A
PEEK IN THE
ATTIC)
General retail - 2,000 sf or less NC A
17 004-951-004 2750 BROAD CALDERON TIRES
AND SERVICES Auto parts sales, with installation A NC
18 004-951-004 2790 BROAD TAYLOR RENTAL Equipment rental A NC
19 053-195-004 2800 BROAD BUDGET CAR AND
TRUCK RENTAL Auto and vehicle sales and rental A NC
20 053-195-003 2880 BROAD SAN LUIS GRANGE
HALL Club, lodge, private meeting hall D D
21 053-196-004 2900 BROAD 110 AGGSON'S PAINT
AND GLASS Building and landscape materials sales, indoor A A
22 053-196-004 2900 BROAD 100 TASTE Catering service A D
23 004-581-025 2959 BROAD 120 LUNA RUSTICA Furniture, furnishings, and appliance stores A A
24 004-581-025 2959 BROAD 130 LUNA RUSTICA Furniture, furnishings, and appliance stores A A
PH1 - 53
Documented Businesses on Area Plan Parcels Proposed for Rezoning Attachment 4
Page 3
Key Parcel # Address
#Street Suite Occupant Land Use Classification Existing Zoning Area Plan Zoning
A = Allowed D = Use Permit Required NC = Legal Nonconforming
25 004-581-025 2959 BROAD 110 QUIKY CAR WASH Vehicle services - Carwash D D
26 004-581-025 2989 BROAD ENTERPRISE RENT-
A-CAR Auto and vehicle sales and rental A NC
27 004-583-041 3001 BROAD A NORTON SIGN &
DESIGN Business support services A A/D
28 004-583-032 3035 BROAD CALIFORNIA
COOPERAGE Building and landscape materials sales, indoor A A
29 004-583-047 3075 BROAD ALANO CLUB Social service organization NC A
30 004-601-023 3249 BROAD B TOP SHELF
PRODUCE Building and landscape materials sales, indoor A A
31 004-923-020 761 CAUDILL CATTANEO BROS
INC.Manufacturing - Light A A
32 004-923-015 769 CAUDILL CATTANEO BROS
INC.Manufacturing - Light A A
33 004-921-017 780 CAUDILL MY BODY YOGA &
MASSAGE Studio - Art, dance, martial arts, music, etc.NC A
34 004-923-024 750 FRANCIS STAR
AUTOMOTIVE
Vehicle services - Repair and maintenance -
Minor A A
35 004-925-009 759 FRANCIS THE ALTA GROUP Office - Production and administrative D A
36 004-923-010 760 FRANCIS RAINBOW AUTO
PAINTING & BODY
Vehicle services - Repair and maintenance -
Minor A A
PH1 - 54
Documented Businesses on Area Plan Parcels Proposed for Rezoning Attachment 4
Page 4
Key Parcel # Address
#Street Suite Occupant Land Use Classification Existing Zoning Area Plan Zoning
A = Allowed D = Use Permit Required NC = Legal Nonconforming
37 004-925-010 767 FRANCIS RAINBOW AUTO
PAINTING & BODY
Vehicle services - Repair and maintenance -
Minor A A
38 004-923-006 778 FRANCIS A SALEM, ROBERT
CO., INC
Furniture and fixtures manufacturing, cabinet
shop A D
39 004-925-011 787 FRANCIS SLO TOW VILLA
AUTOMOTIVE
Vehicle services - Repair and maintenance -
Minor A A
40 004-923-008 798 FRANCIS SAN LUIS
POWERHOUSE Wholesaling and distribution A NC
41 004-951-004 741 HUMBERT SUPERIOR
AUTOMOTIVE
Vehicle services - Repair and maintenance -
Minor A A
42 004-925-018 750 HUMBERT C JOHNBOY'S
TOWING
Vehicle services - Repair and maintenance -
Major A NC
43 004-951-011 781 HUMBERT SAN LUIS GLASS &
WINDOW Building and landscape materials sales, indoor A A
44 004-951-011 783 HUMBERT STAUCH PAINTING Maintenance service, client site services A NC
45 004-951-012 770 LAWRENCE 120 DIGITAL PUTTY Office - Processing D A/D
46 003-752-004 1180 ROUNDHOUSE
STALWORK
CONSTRUCTION
AND DESIGN
Office - Production and administrative D A/D
47 003-752-004 1182 ROUNDHOUSE THE BED STORE Furniture, furnishings, and appliance stores A A
48 004-583-042 657 SWEENEY PROJECT AMEND,
INC. Social service organization NC A
PH1 - 55
Documented Businesses on Area Plan Parcels Proposed for Rezoning Attachment 4
Page 5
Key Parcel # Address
#Street Suite Occupant Land Use Classification Existing Zoning Area Plan Zoning
A = Allowed D = Use Permit Required NC = Legal Nonconforming
49 004-922-014 2494 VICTORIA SLO NATURAL
FOODS
General retail - More than 2,000 sf, up to
15,000 sf NC A
50 004-922-024 2494 VICTORIA SLO NATURAL
FOODS
General retail - More than 2,000 sf, up to
15,000 sf NC A
51 004-922-021 2520 VICTORIA CONSOLIDATED
ELECTRICAL DIST. Wholesaling and distribution A NC
52 004-922-020 2584 VICTORIA RIZZOLI'S
AUTOMOTIVE
Vehicle services - Repair and maintenance -
Minor A NC
53 004-924-001 2650 VICTORIA ELCO MACHINE
SHOP Manufacturing - Light A NC
54 004-925-013 2653 VICTORIA CARROLL
BUILDING CO.Office - Production and administrative D A/D
55 004-921-007 747 WOODBRIDGE SLO VEG Catering service A A
56 004-921-009 777 WOODBRIDGE PACIFIC BUILDERS Office - Production and administrative D A
PH1 - 56
Residential Uses on Area Plan Parcels Proposed for Rezoning Attachment 4
Page 1
Key Parcel # Address
#Street Suite Occupant
1 004-581-025 2959 BROAD 210 Residential
2 004-583-047 3049 BROAD Residential
3 004-583-047 3077 BROAD Residential
4 004-923-019 743 CAUDILL Residential
5 004-923-019 743 CAUDILL 1/2 Residential
6 004-921-025 774 CAUDILL Residential
7 004-921-026 774 CAUDILL Residential
8 004-921-016 796 CAUDILL Residential
9 004-923-002 797 CAUDILL Residential
10 004-925-009 755 FRANCIS Residential
11 004-924-002 831 FRANCIS A Residential
12 004-924-002 831 FRANCIS B Residential
13 004-924-002 831 FRANCIS C Residential
14 004-924-003 835 FRANCIS Residential
15 004-924-004 855 FRANCIS Residential
16 004-924-014 881 FRANCIS Residential
17 004-925-032 730 HUMBERT A Residential
18 004-925-032 730 HUMBERT B Residential
PH1 - 57
Residential Uses on Area Plan Parcels Proposed for Rezoning Attachment 4
Page 2
Key Parcel # Address
#Street Suite Occupant
19 004-925-032 730 HUMBERT C Residential
20 004-925-032 730 HUMBERT D Residential
21 004-951-011 783 HUMBERT B Residential
22 004-924-013 858 HUMBERT A Residential
23 004-924-013 858 HUMBERT B Residential
24 004-583-042 655 SWEENEY Residential
25 004-583-042 659 SWEENEY Residential
26 004-922-003 2502 VICTORIA Residential
27 004-922-022 2546 VICTORIA Residential
28 004-925-012 2663 VICTORIA Residential
29 004-924-013 2690 VICTORIA A Residential
30 004-924-013 2690 VICTORIA B Residential
31 004-925-014 2691 VICTORIA Residential
32 004-846-036 750 WOODBRIDGE Residential
33 004-921-008 753 WOODBRIDGE Residential
34 004-846-037 756 WOODBRIDGE Residential
35 004-846-013 762 WOODBRIDGE Residential
PH1 - 58
Vacant Land/Tenant Spaces on Area Plan Parcels Proposed for Rezoning Attachment 4
Page 1
Key Parcel # Address #Street Suite Occupant
1 004-846-010 783 ALPHONSO Vacant
2 004-846-032 2318 BROAD Vacant
3 004-921-022 2436 BROAD Vacant
4 004-923-021 2504 BROAD Vacant
5 004-583-041 3001 BROAD B Vacant
6 004-601-023 3249 BROAD A Vacant
7 004-921-011 764 CAUDILL Vacant
8 004-921-012 764 CAUDILL Vacant
9 004-925-008 745 FRANCIS Vacant
10 004-923-006 778 FRANCIS B Vacant
11 004-923-006 778 FRANCIS C Vacant
12 004-924-001 807 FRANCIS Vacant
13 004-925-019 750 HUMBERT Vacant
14 004-924-013 858 HUMBERT C Vacant
15 004-924-013 858 HUMBERT D Vacant
16 004-951-012 770 LAWRENCE 100 Vacant
17 004-951-012 770 LAWRENCE 110 Vacant
18 004-951-012 770 LAWRENCE 130 Vacant
PH1 - 59
Vacant Land/Tenant Spaces on Area Plan Parcels Proposed for Rezoning Attachment 4
Page 2
Key Parcel # Address #Street Suite Occupant
19 004-951-012 770 LAWRENCE Vacant
20 003-752-009 1110 ROUNDHOUSE Vacant
21 003-754-004 1310 ROUNDHOUSE Vacant
22 003-752-009 2140 SANTA BARBARA Vacant
23 004-922-017 2450 VICTORIA Vacant
24 004-846-025 2450 VICTORIA Vacant
25 004-922-015 2490 VICTORIA Vacant
26 004-922-015 2492 VICTORIA Vacant
27 004-921-014 747 WOODBRIDGE Vacant
28 004-921-010 785 WOODBRIDGE Vacant
PH1 - 60
Attachment 9
RESOLUTION NO. (2013 Series)
A RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE THE SOUTH BROAD STREET AREA PLAN FOR
REVIEW AS PART OF THE PREFERRED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE OF THE LAND
USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE. (GPI 49-06)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
September 17, 2013, for the purpose of considering Planning File No. GPI 49-06, the draft South
Broad Street Area Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on November 28, 2012, for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the South Broad
Street Area Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department conducted approximately 40
public outreach efforts and 27 public hearings while developing the South Broad Street Area
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan contains policies supporting development of an
“area plan” for the South Broad Street Corridor to encourage innovative design concepts that
help revitalize and beautify the area; and
WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan also contains policies that identify the South Broad
Street area for possible rezoning to encourage mixed-use development and higher density
housing; and
WHEREAS, “South Broad Street Corridor enhancement” was adopted as a Major City
Goal for the Community Development Department in the 2003-05 Financial Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City received a California Department of Transportation Community-
based Transportation Planning Grant in Fall 2006; and
WHEREAS, potential impacts and mitigations associated with developing the Area Plan
need to be reviewed in the larger context of citywide circulation improvements and policy
decisions that will occur in the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) update process; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at
said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
PH1 - 61
Council Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series) Attachment 9
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings:
1. The proposed South Broad Street Area Plan implements General Plan policies because it
establishes an area plan to help revitalize and beautify the area, and proposes rezoning to
encourage mixed-use development and higher density housing.
2. The proposed South Broad Street Area Plan implements a past Major City Goal of the
2003-05 Financial Plan because it implements strategies to enhance the South Broad
Street Corridor.
3. Many of the Area Plan concepts align with the grant objectives outlined in the ongoing
LUCE update, and potential impacts and mitigations associated with developing the Area
Plan need to be reviewed in the larger context of overall circulation improvements and
policy decisions that will occur through the LUCE update process.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council recognizes that additional
environmental review of the South Broad Street Area Plan is necessary, which will occur as part
of the LUCE EIR.
SECTION 3. Action. As recommended by the Planning Commission, include the South Broad
Street Area Plan for review as part of the preferred growth alternative of the Land Use and
Circulation Element update.
Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Resolution was adopted this _______________________, 2013.
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
Sheryll Schroeder, Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
PH1 - 62
Goodwin, Heather
From: Schroeder, Sheryll
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 1:12 PM
To: Goodwin, Heather
Subject: FW: Draft South Broad Street Area Plan at Council
Sheryll Schroeder
Interim City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
(805) 781 -7102
From: Marx, Jan
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 12:26 PM
To: janna.nichols@sbcglobal.net
Cc: Schroeder, Sheryll
Subject: RE: Draft South Broad Street Area Plan at Council
Please post this message as agenda correspondence for tonight's meeting, Sheryll.
Thanks,
Jan
Jan Howell Marx
Mayor of San Luis Obispo
(805) 781 -7120 or (805) 541 -2716
From: janna.nichols Danna.nichols @sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 9:04 AM
To: Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Smith, Kathy; Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John
Cc: David, James
Subject: Draft South Broad Street Area Plan at Council
SEP 17 2013
SLO C TIT'Y CLE- K
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Date ')L-71& Item# t
Councilmembers,
Due to a conflicting meeting, I will not be able to join you tonight for your consideration of the So. Broad Street Area
Plan.
I would like to provide some comment about the plan, and am detailing my thoughts below. Please accept these
comments in the spirit intended, to continue to improve our community in the years to come.
I reside at 669 Lawrence Drive, the fourth residence off of Broad on Lawrence on the west side. I would ask, if you have
time, that you take a moment to acquaint yourself with Lawrence at this point, as the curve of the street and its width
are relevant to my comments.
Overall I am very much in favor of the plan as it has been revised. I believe it addresses the interest to create and
accommodate additional housing, while also respecting existing uses. Currently there are no neighborhood services
accessible to the west side neighborhood, and I am excited of the possibilities this plan presents. I am certainly in favor
of most of the changes to Broad Street itself, I believe this will slow traffic and improve access from the west side to the
east. The extension of Victoria Ave. poses great possibilities and the western bike path and over pass are an excellent
additions.
I would like to suggest that an additional bike /ped overpass be considered at Roundtable.
My concerns are that little of this plan includes the west side. Other than considering entry streets at Woodbridge and
Lawrence. Give the configuration of Lawrence and increasing development on the west side, I have serious concerns
about this intersection. I am in favor of the intersection at Lawrence, I see no other way to deal with the challenges
currently faced or those in the future. However, I believe more detail is needed.
The Broad Street plan references the 2010 So. Broad Street Traffic Analysis, but does not detail its findings. It simply
notes:
"Installation of traffic signals on Broad Street may encourage drivers to cut - through neighborhoods to avoid
perceived delays. The 2010 South Broad Street Traffic Impact Analysis identifies a menu of traffic calming measures
that can be installed if traffic patterns arise that impact residential streets within and surrounding the planning
area, including streets."
If you stand in front of my house, you will see how narrow the street becomes with the curve just off of
Broad. Parking here is usually full, creating a situation where those coming off of Broad are forced to travel in the
middle of the street in order to make it around the curve to head west on Lawrence. In fact if you turn onto
Lawrence from Broad in the early evening you are blinded by the sun for the first five houses or so, and are usually
unable to see oncoming traffic heading eastbound to Broad. Additionally there is a hill at the end of Lawrence, and
those travelling eastbound tend to gain increasing speed as they travel downhill to Broad. So while I support a
lighted intersection at Lawrence, I have significant concerns that I feel are unaddressed in this plan, and should
be. Greater detail on the traffic impacts to Woodbridge and Lawrence should be considered as part of this plan.
Another traffic concern affecting Lawrence that is included in this plan, appears to be access to Broad from
Stoneridge. The plan appears to provide for a left turn (northbound) from Stoneridge. This does not correct an
existing serious hazard that already exists. If you travel on Broad northbound and attempt a left turn onto
Lawrence to the west, there is often someone existing Stoneridge that travels north in the turn lane competing
with those attempting to access Lawrence. If by this plan the left hand turn from Stoneridge is left to exist, I do not
see this problem being addressed. I can assure you that this is a regular problem at rush hour and has created
several near miss situations.
Thanks or your consideration of my comments.
Best,
Janna
Janna Nichols
669 Lawrence Drive
(805) 471 -7404
Goodwin, Heather
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sheryll Schroeder
Interim City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
(805) 781 -7102
Schroeder, Sheryll
Tuesday, September 17, 2013 1:12 PM
Goodwin, Heather
FW: Broad St Plan
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Marx, Jan
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 12:22 PM
To: Douglas Pillsbury
Cc: Schroeder, Sheryll
Subject: RE: Broad St Plan
Please post this message as agenda correspondence for tonight's meeting, Sheryll..
Thanks,
Jan Howell Marx
Mayor of San Luis Obispo
(805) 781 -7120 or (805) 541 -2716
From: Douglas Pillsbury [douglasesl @charter.netj
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 9:55 AM
To: Marx, Jan
Subject: Broad St Plan
RECEMv —D
SEP 17 2013
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
�3ate %1?!1 Remy(
Dear Jan Marx,
I support the council including the revised South Broad Street Corridor Plan in LUCE. The modifications, as reported by
the Tribune, sound promising. We who live along Broad Street need many aspects of this plan.
Thank you,
Douglas Pillsbury
1
Goodwin, Heather
RECEIVED
SEP 16 2013
s'aLQ C ITY CLERK
From: Schroeder, Sheryll
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 1:43 PM
To: Goodwin, Heather
Subject: FW: South Broad Street Area Plan - Sept 17th City Council Agenda Item
Attachments: Sept 2013 Letter in Support of South Broad Street Area Plan.pdf
Sheryll Schroeder
Interim City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
(805) 781 -7102
From: Marx, Jan
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 12:58 PM
To: Schroeder, Sheryll
Subject: FW: South Broad Street Area Plan - Sept 17th City Council Agenda Item
Please consider this agenda correspondence.
Thanks
Jan
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Date LL3 Item #; -FPJ-
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Scott Smith [SSmithnhaslo.org]
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 12:03 PM Pacific Standard Time
To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John
Subject: South Broad Street Area Plan - Sept 17th City Council Agenda Item
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Attached is a letter in support of the staff recommendation regarding the South Broad Street Area Plan on Tuesday
night's agenda. I will be in Los Angeles at HUD meetings, but Ken Litzinger, our Finance Director, will be at the City
Council meeting on behalf of HASLO in support of the item.
While we know that the Plan is not perfect, we think the merits are significant enough that it should be further
evaluated as an alternative under the Land Use and Circulation Element updates.
It is a pleasure working with all of you and serving our community.
Sincerely,
Scott
Scott Smith
Executive Director
Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo
487 Leff Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 -1289
(805)594 -5323
Cell phone: 441 -6260
4-IASLO
Mayor Jan Marx and September 16, 2013
Members of the City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: September 17 City Council Agenda Public Hearing Item PHI;
South Broad Street Area Plan
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
The Housing Authority would like to express our support for the staff recommendation regarding
the South Broad Street Area Plan. We believe that the Area Plan should be included as an
alternative that is further evaluated in the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) update process.
This Plan has been discussed at numerous Planning Commission and City Council hearings, and has
received the unanimous recommendation of your Planning Commission that it be included as an
alternative in the LUCE study process.
The Plan contains numerous elements that have the potential to provide significant long range
benefit to our community. The Housing Authority is particularly pleased with the Plan's potential
for more in -fill and mixed use housing opportunities.
While the Plan contains many infrastructure improvements which could enhance the area, including
improved pedestrian access across the railroad tracks which we support, we encourage a financial
plan that spreads these costs broadly, as we believe there is no way they can be supported solely by
new development.
Finally, we are pleased that staff has given strong consideration to the protection and viability of
existing businesses in the Area Plan. These businesses provide important jobs and economic
benefit to our community.
The South Broad Street Area Plan provides a creative vision for our community and we suggest it be
given further evaluation as an alternative under the Land Use and Circulation Element update.
>S,Inrel
yam. -
Eott Smith`
xecutive Direc r
Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo
487 Leff Street - P.O. Box 1289, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
PH (805) 543 -4478 FAX (805) 543 -4992
Goodwin, Heather
From:
Schroeder, Sheryll
Sent:
Tuesday, September 17, 2013 1:12 PM
To:
Goodwin, Heather
Subject:
FW: Broad Street Plan and LUCE review
Attachments:
CombinedCorrespondence4- 30- 13.pdf
Sheryll Schroeder
Interim City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
(805) 781 -7102
From: Marx, Jan
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 12:48 PM
To: Schroeder, Sheryll
Subject: FW: Broad Street Plan and LUCE review
Please post this as agenda correspondence.
Thanks,
Jan
Jan Howell Marx
Mayor of San Luis Obispo
(805) 781 -7120 or (805) 541 -2716
From: Murry, Kim
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 4:33 PM
Cc: Lichtig, Katie; Johnson, Derek
Subject: Broad Street Plan and LUCE review
SEP 17 2013
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Date—Th--LILIS Item# _
Mayor and Council:
Attached please find the seven emails that were received and forwarded to the Task Force for their review
regarding the Broad Street area. Please let me know if you have any questions.
BCC: City Council
Kim Murry
Deputy Director, Long Range Planning
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Ph: 805 - 781 -7274 FAX: 805 - 781 -7173
Web: www.slocity.org
Email: kmurryaslocity.org
Murry, Kim
From:
Terry Boyer
Sent:
Monday, April 29, 2013 8:49 PM
To:
derekjohnson
Cc:
Murry, Kim
Subject:
Land Use Task Force Members:
I am a property owner at 2930 and 2950 McMillan Rd. I have been working on the street since 1969 and I've
been a property owner since 1971. There is a proposed street with no defined location that runs between
McMillan and Duncan Lane. This proposed road clouds the properties in this general area.I would like this
"paper street" removed.
I can't imagine any good reason why it was proposed at all. If tractor trailers where able to use it, the street
would probably have to be at least 80 feet wide at the mouth of the entrance, if parking were stil l allowed on
McMillan Rd.
This street would require a bridge across the creek, cost millions of dollars and disrupt productive
businesses.
Sincerely,
Terry Boyer
Mur , Kim
From:
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 2:21 PM
To: Murry, Kim
Subject: Broad Street corridor
Hello, I have been a resident on the west side of Lawrence Drive since 1973. I've attended almost every pubic
forum regarding the safety of Broad /South street corridors along with my neighbors. Even though our public
officials have changed frequently,we have persevered in our desire to make these streets safer, patiently
waiting for promises while the problems increase. You can imagine our disappointment when the council
completely dismisses our concerns. I realize that improvements such as light signals, stop signs, crosswalks,
medians, curbs are tied to the growth of businesses, but there have been a proliferation of new business
without regard to its safety impact on our neighborhood. What would it cost it simply lower the speed limits on
each street? Three persons have been slain by automobiles since I have lived in the neighborhood trying to
cross these streets. With a school, park, churches, businesses in our vicinity, shouldn't there be more concern
for those pedestrians who use them?
Linda and Michael Wenzl
Sent from my Pad
Murry, Kim
From: Elaine Townsend
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 4:06 PM
To: Murry, Kim
Subject: South Broad St. plan
My husband and I were very disappointed that that the Land Use plan for S. Broad St did not pass the Council.
It is difficult to cross the street. We frequently are on bicycles, and the traffic can be truly frightening. We urge
that this plan be re- considered.
Elaine Townsend, Lawrence Dr.
Sent from my Pad
Murry, Kim
From: Douglas Pillsbury
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:12 AM
To: Murry, Kim
Subject: Broad Street plan
Hello Kim Murry!
I live on Lawrence Street near Broad and wan to to express my disappointment in the Council's decision to, in
effect, drop the Broad Street plan. There are so many important elements to the plan which are worthy. I'm
concerned about two items in particular: crossing Broad Street as a pedestrian: it would be nice to go to the
Co -op, Taste, Staples, and Farmers Market without getting in my car to do what I could do in a two- or three -
minute walk. Or go jogging on the bike trail across the tracks, starting from my house.
The worst, however, is making a left -hand turn onto Broad from Lawrence when I go anywhere. So far, for the
ten years I've lived on Lawrence, I have not been involved in an accident -- everyone has been paying attention
As more people crowd onto Broad Street, will that change?
My understanding is that elements of the Broad Street plan could go forward through the LUCE plan. I'm
hopeful that that will happen.
Also, given the reporting in the Tribune, there seems to be a lot of misinformation about what would happen to
the businesses on the other side of Broad Street. Does there need to be an editorial or opinion piece in the
Tribune to clarify and allay fears of the business owners?
Let's pull this together and move forward!
Many thanks,
Douglas Pillsbury
Murry, Kim
From:
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 9:53 AM
To: Murry, Kim
Subject: Broad Street plan and LUCE review
Kim,
I held a reception for my neighborhood yesterday (those living on Lawrence Drive) to meet with City Council Candidate
Carlyn Christianson. You may recall that I have contacted you before about how active and concerned our
neighborhood is regarding issues on Broad Street. Several neighbors attended, and as would be expected, the
challenges of Broad Street and our "marooned" neighborhood were a hot topic. We discussed the work of the LUCE task
force, and were again disappointed to learn that Broad Street is not currently part of their work. I would like to formally
ask that the LUCE task force be allowed to consider Broad Street, and that planning to mitigate the challenges we face
continue.
I was very disappointed that the Council had tabled the planning process for Broad Street, and feel as though it was
done because they were solely focused on issues on the east side of Broad, and had little thought for the neighborhood
on the west side. By not moving forward, they have again left us "marooned." We struggle daily on Lawrence Drive to
access Broad Street without near collisions due to the Stoneridge development and now increasing challenges with the
expanding housing being developed on Lawrence on the east side of Broad. For me, it is unacceptable to "wait" for a
serious accident to occur — and it will soon happen — before making plans to improve the situation.
It is unfortunate that there is a grocery store less than % mile from my home that I cannot visit. Certainly not on foot
and equally challenging by car. When I went to the Tuesday farmer's market (only once), I went by foot and determined
that I would never go again due to the danger of crossing the street. I tried once by car, but was unable to cross over
Broad into my neighborhood. If I attempt to turn left in the morning from Lawrence Drive (into downtown) I observe
traffic accelerating very fast from South -Santa Barbara, and as often as not am forced to give up and just turn right and
then find a way to turn around further up Broad at the light to go back downtown.
My greatest concern, which I have already expressed to you, is with Stoneridge and the resident's use of the center
median as the "fifth lane." They often travel north in the center median without stopping before entering traffic, often
into and through the Lawrence Drive turning exchange. This habit makes it very difficult to know whether to pull in
behind them as they accelerate or pull in front of them (hoping they'll stop if they see me), as I attempt to turn from
Broad onto Lawrence (when travelling northbound). The combination of the traffic needs that combine to affect
entrance onto Lawrence Drive is very challenging. Add to this the angle of the street entrance, curve of the street within
three houses, late afternoon /evening sun, pedestrian and bicycle traffic and excessive speed down Lawrence from the
top of the hill, and the entrance to my own driveway becomes difficult.
I perceive that staff is challenged by the current direction (or lack thereof) of Council. I would hope that this email may
at least give you some foundation to allow the LUCE to consider our challenges. I, for one, am feeling abandoned after
much involvement by our neighborhood to bring the issues to light and help identify solutions.
Thanks for the consideration,
Janna
Janna Nichols
Murry, Kim
From: Shanta Keeling
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:08 AM
To: Murry, Kim
Subject: South Broad Street Plan - public comment
Hi Kim,
1 heard I could contact you regarding the South Broad street plan. We have attended several meetings over the
last 7 ( ?) years. We hope the LUCE Task Force will take up important land use and circulation issues that still
exist in the Broad St. area.
We are concerned that the bike lanes are getting narrower on Broad (close to South St.). Our family rides that
stretch at least twice a day when traveling to school and we have small children. The traffic travels quickly on
Broad and with narrower bike lanes, it makes the ride a bit more harrowing. Additionally, we live on the west
side of Broad and often take advatage of the great shops on the east side of Broad (such as the Natural Foods
Coop, the Quick Stop, and Taste, for example) but in order to get across to the other side, we have to travel a
ways to get to the light at either South or Orcutt when we could go directly across the street. It is too crazy
to take the kids across the street in the middle of Broad. We almost caused an accident one time b/c a kind
driver tried to stop to let us across but the driver behind him didn't anticipate someone stopping and almost
crashed into him. A light or pedistrian crosswalk would be absolutely fantastic at Stoneride or closeby.
Thanks so much for accepting our comments.
Shanta Keeling
Murry, Kim
From:
MJ Wood
Sent:
Monday, April 29, 2013 1:07 PM
To:
Murry, Kim
Subject:
Broad Street Plan
Hi Kim,
I have heard that the LUCE Task Force is meeting tomorrow. Please include the Broad Street Plan again in the land use
plan. Our neighborhood deals daily with our lack of safe pedestrian access to the commercial side of Broad street as
well as with life threatening games of "chicken" with those turning left from Stoneridge as we try to turn left from Broad
Street onto Lawrence. Had myself and our neighbors known that 20 fearful business owners would derail years and years
of input from us to the City Counsel and City Planning in one evening, many many more than 20 of us would have also
shown up at that meeting!!!
Thanks,
Mary Wood
Goodwin, Heather
From: Schroeder, Sheryll
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 2:24 PM
To: Goodwin, Heather
Subject: FW: South Broad Plan & Vacation rentals
Sheryll Schroeder
Interim City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
(805) 781 -7102
From: Marx, Jan
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 2:21 PM
To: 'Mary Wood'
Cc: Schroeder, Sheryll
Subject: RE: South Broad Plan & Vacation rentals
Thank you for your message. Sheryll, please post this as agenda correspondence.
Jan
From: Mary Wood [mailto:mwood @bbrlawfirm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 1:58 PM
To: Marx, Jan
Subject: South Broad Plan & Vacation rentals
Dear Jan,
I just want to weigh in regarding two current issues:
! I� CEl -D
S E P 17 2013
?- (:J "'Y CLERK
AGENDA
CM1*71,R ONDENCE
Date ltem#�
Re garding the South Broad Street Area Plan I urge you to vote to include it back in the Land Use and Circulation
Element. We live on Lawrence and were very disappointed in March when it was deleted. Some of us in this
neighborhood had worked for decades to improve safety for crossing pedestrians and drivers turning off and onto Broad
Street. If we had known in March that the whole plan was at risk we would have attended that meeting like the
merchants did!
Just another note, I support vacation rentals in owner occupied homes. They are much less disruptive, if at all, in a
neighborhood than a house packed with students and rented out by the month.
Thanks,
Mary Wood