Planning Commission Meeting Update

October 17, 2007                  Wednesday                                7:00 p.m.

Special Workshop on the South Broad Street Corridor Plan

San Luis Obispo City/County Library

Community Room – 995 Palm Street

CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 

ROLL CALL:      Commissioners Dan Carpenter, Michael Multari, John Ashbaugh, Amanda Brodie, Diana Gould-Wells, Vice-Chairperson Charles Stevenson and Chairperson Carlyn Christianson.  Commissioner Gould-Wells was absent. 

ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: 

Agenda was accepted without changes. 

PUBLIC COMMENT:  There were no comments from the public on non-agenda items.  

PUBLIC HEARINGS: 

None 

PUBLIC COMMENT:   

Tom Sherman, 2855 El Cerrito, expressed concern about pedestrian safety on Broad Street and hoped the Commission could address pedestrian needs as part of the workshop.  Chairperson Christianson thanked him for his comment and noted that pedestrian circulation and safety would be addressed in the South Broad Street Corridor Plan.  

DISCUSSION ITEM: 

South Broad Street Corridor Plan.  GPI and ER 49-06.  Comment and Discussion. (Jeff Hook) 

Chairperson Christianson opened the meeting and welcomed the public to the workshop.  She briefly reviewed the workshop format and invited the public to provide questions on any items not on the agenda.  Staff gave a slide presentation and described previous Commission direction and staff’s response, summarized findings from a development capacity model that staff had prepared for eight blocks in the planning area, and then described the topics to be addressed at breakout tables. 

The Commission split up into two members per breakout table:  Land Use – Commissioners Multari and Carpenter; Circulation – Commissioners Christianson and Brodie; and Form-Based Codes – Commissioners Stevenson and Ashbaugh.   Staff members John Mandeville, Doug Davidson and James David assisted with Land Use, Kim Murry and Edgar Gutierrez with Form-Based Codes and Tim Bochum and Peggy Mandeville with Circulation.  Jeff Hook served as moderator and circulated among the tables.  Public  attendees included agency representatives and Focus Group members:  Tom Schumann, 630 Perkins #3; Elaine Lawson-Thurmond, 2515 Broad; Dan Kallal,  835 Francis; Jeff Lambert, 699 Lawrence Drive, Apartment #B; Deborah Denker, 2546 Victoria; Cindy Utter and David Murry, Caltrans District 5, Darren Brown, SLOCOG:

Lee Anna O’Daniel,  570 Al-Hil and 3598 Broad; Tom Swem,   570 Marsh Street.

Commissioners, public members and staff then reviewed key questions outlined in the staff report for each of the three issue areas.  Up to about 30 people attended the meeting, with several public members at each of the breakout tables.  After about one hour, members at each breakout table summarized their comments and recommendations and presented them to the group at large.  The Commission then reconvened as a group to discuss the comments and provide direction to staff.  The breakout table comments and Commission direction are outlined below. 

Breakout Table Comments and Recommendations: 

Land Use:  Victoria should be pedestrian-oriented.  The plan needs to define the streetscape and allow flexibility in uses with a preponderance of neighborhood commercial.  The Broad Street frontage needs to be defined with form-based codes (FBCs) or design guidelines and uses limited to office and commercial type uses with residential allowed subject to noise standards.  No FBCs are needed for side streets or areas other than Victoria and Broad Street; let the CS uses allowed in the Zoning Regulations prevail.  No dwellings should be allowed on the first floor in the CS area unless the development site has an area of at least ½ acre.  Mixed-use development would be the norm; residential-only development would be allowed only where lots were large enough (i.e. ½ acre or larger) to ensure effective densities, adequate parking, access and high quality design.  Heavy industry would be prohibited in the planning area.  

Circulation:  Pedestrian safety and access are important.  Access to the commercial properties along Broad Street is important.  Duncan and McMillan need to have a public street to connect them internal to the plan area to provide access between them and with a potential signalized intersection at Duncan and Orcutt (that can eventually connect with Sacramento Drive).  Traffic calming is desired.   There may be impacts to restricting turns – left turns, etc.  Some level of turn restriction on Broad Street is important.  How phasing and financing of the circulation improvements will be accomplished is of concern and realistic opportunities for funding mechanisms need to be identified.  Cul-de-sacs street ends at Caudill and Humbert at Broad may be problematic as proposed due commercial access needs.  An alternative approach was suggested that involved “flipping” the cul-de-sacs rather than eliminate them so that the bulb end is close to Victoria Avenue and access to the side streets from Broad Street would be maintained, but “calmed.”  This would address the concern of cut-through traffic to Victoria.  The plan needs a parking management plan to address parking concerns. 

Form-based Codes Group:

Planning Commissioners expressed concerns about the financing mechanisms that will be available to fund the public improvements listed in the plan and considered whether a fee program developed through a specific plan might be worthy of consideration. 

The Commissioners supported the use of FBCs in the South Broad Street Plan and felt that the street hierarchy worked as an organizing method in the plan.  They indicated that some street type re-designation was appropriate:  all streets coming off of Broad into the plan area should have the same designation.  The streets along Duncan and McMillan have a very different character and should be designated as service streets and the uses allowed in this area should be reconsidered after speaking with owners in the area.  The way that buildings front Orcutt Road needs to be addressed in the plan.  FAR standards should be deleted.  The character of the area should be characterized as “colorful and eclectic” rather than “funky”.  Possibilities for follow-up:  General Plan Designation as “South Broad Street Traditional Neighborhood” with zoning of “Mixed Use District”.

 Staff report questions/Commission direction (in italics): 

1.  Land Use   

A.     Address allowed land use in one location in the Plan -- include a matrix of allowed, conditionally allowed and prohibited types of uses based on street type. 
The break out group did not address how land uses would be presented in the plan but agreed the Plan should address them.  Commissioner Stevenson indicated that he liked the way the Grass Valley FBC addressed uses by district. 

B.     Broaden the range of allowed land uses beyond those allowed in the May 7^th, 2007 Draft Plan.  Allow assembly and entertainment uses, add new category of ‘cottage industry,’ continue to allow low-density residential, homeless services, service-commercial/light industrial uses (in the south planning area off of Orcutt Road).
The Commission indicated that performance standards would be needed for uses that may create conflicts and that staff needed to evaluate what types of CS uses would be appropriate for the area. 

C.    Define ‘cottage industry’ as an allowed use.  The Planning Commission indicated that this use should be a CS or very light industrial use subject to performance standards to ensure compatibility.  This use would allow residential on the upper floor.   

D.    Address transition and integration of land uses.  The Commission indicated that existing CS uses should be allowed and not made non-conforming with adoption of the plan.  A strictly residential project would need ½ acre of site area.  No residential should be required on the first floor otherwise.  No heavy industrial and staff needs to work to identify CS uses that are appropriate for the area. 

E.     Delete terms “primary” and “secondary” uses.   The Planning Commission agreed with this direction. 

F.     Identify how the Director would interpret allowed uses using FBCs.  We will delete the “street vitality” criterion in favor of more precise descriptions of desired street character and use criteria, using both qualitative and quantitative criteria.  For flexibility, the Plan could reference allowed and conditionally allowed uses Table 9 in the Zoning Regulations and only list prohibited uses.  The Planning Commission agreed with this direction. 

G.    Properties on west side of Broad Street will be addressed in the Plan in terms of allowed uses, Broad Street corridor changes and possible ‘public realm’ improvements.  The Plan will also explain why more intensive uses, including live-work incubator businesses, on the west side of Broad Street between Funston and Lawrence are not appropriate due to parking and access constraints.
The Planning Commission agreed that commercial uses on the west side of Broad would not be appropriate but directed staff to address what is being recommended for the west side properties and acknowledge that it will be the same if no changes are recommended. 

H.     Dwellings adjacent to Broad Street.  Planning Commission indicated that dwellings within 100’ of Broad Street would be acceptable provided that appropriate noise mitigation is included with new construction and they are located on either the upper floor of a commercial structure or located as a single use on a site with a minimum size of ½ acre. 

I.         Replace the proposed high density residential on south side (off Orcutt Road) with either Work-Live housing or Medium-High Density housing (pending signalization at Duncan/Orcutt).   Planning Commission agreed with this direction. 

J.   Identify role of advisory bodies in process.  Not addressed by the Planning Commission.

K. Evaluate parking requirements.   Planning Commission supported some flexibility in parking and directed staff to look at options to understand what parking standard is required to make the plan functional. 

2.      Form-Based Codes/Sense of Place 

A.     Describe ‘the vision’ and goals that the FBCs are designed to achieve (Attachment 5).  The Planning Commission agreed with the goals listed in Attachment 5 and believes that the plan will implement this vision with the direction provided to staff. 

B.     Identify a “regulating plan.”  Commissioner Stevenson indicated that the Grass Valley plan example is well-organized and the Planning Commission directed staff to look at this example when re-drafting the plan.   

C.    Reduce the number of street types shown in the Draft Plan by combining “entry” and “service” street types.  The Planning Commission agreed that street types could be simplified.  Discussion followed:  there needs to be a strict form designation for Victoria and Broad Streets but there is some over-regulation of side streets and Duncan and McMillan have different needs. Discussion ensued about CS use of side yards for the areas that are outside of Victoria and Broad.  Some members felt minimum build-to lines were important; others disagreed, saying setbacks and front-yard parking areas helped create and maintain the eclectic neighborhood character desired.  The Planning Commission directed staff to review current Community Design Guidelines to understand what is appropriate for this area now and compare to proposed design guidelines in draft plan. 

D.    Expand and refine description and standards for street and building types.  The Planning Commission referred again to the Grass Valley Plan example and expressed appreciation for the axonometric drawings and how they illustrate the desired form of development for a block. 

E.     Delete FAR standards from the Plan.   The Planning Commission agreed with this direction. 

F.     Seek to retain the area’s ‘funky character.’   The Planning Commission indicated that the character is eclectic and colorful and that the design guidelines should address materials and forms, and should understand the icons in the neighborhood.

        i.            The Commission did not favor Inclusion of a “grandfather provision” which allows existing uses to continue as legal, non-conforming uses, but rather would seek to continue to allow CS uses to a certain degree.

      ii.            The Commission favored continuing an eclectic and innovative range of land uses subject to the discussion above. 

G.  Discuss ideas of how to address general plan and zoning changes required:  The Planning Commission indicated that they liked the idea of flexibility in allowed uses without being tied to a specific recommendation of General Plan or Zoning designation 

3.      Transportation/Circulation 

A.     Delete cul-de-sac street ends at Caudill/Broad and Humbert/Broad. 
The Planning Commission was not yet ready to delete the cul-de-sac streets but rather expressed concerns about commercial uses and desired access.  The Commission recommended that staff look at alternatives such as “flipping” the bulb end of the cul-de-sacs.  Some blockage is okay but retaining commercial access is important to the business community.  Balance traffic calming with commercial access and fire safety 

B.     Clarify street grid connections.   The Planning Commission indicated that it is not practical to show alley cross-block connections going through lots and that the plan should acknowledge the existing lot configuration.  Common driveways with shared access can be used to access parking areas.  The plan should not get too specific or rigid in order to be flexible enough to allow creative designs

C.    Address traffic calming.  The Planning Commission indicated that it will be difficult to develop a specific parking management plan but that general approaches can be identified in the plan. 

D.    Identify locations/routes of key pedestrian, bicycle and public transit links within ¼ mile radius of planning area and describe the physical design of the points of connection.  The Planning Commission agreed that this should be addressed in the plan. 

E.     Ensure the Plan shows public street connection between Duncan and McMillan (at Morrison?) so both McMillan Street will have access to a four-way intersection at Duncan and Orcutt Road.   The Planning Commission agreed that this should be addressed in the plan. 

F.     Describe/include Orcutt Road/Laurel Lane changes in the Plan.   The Planning Commission agreed that this should be addressed in the plan.
 

G.    Identify public transit stops and routes.  The Planning Commission agreed that this should be addressed in the plan. 

COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 

1.        Staff       

      a.      2008 Meeting Dates.  The Commission agreed with shifting the 2008 Planning Commission meeting dates as proposed by staff.  

2.        Commission