HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-04-2016 Item 07 Down Town Concept Plan - Joint Planning and City Council Item Meeting Date: 10/4/2016
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Rebecca Gershow, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN CONCEPT PLAN UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive report on the Downtown Concept Plan work to date; and
2. Provide input on the working draft of the Downtown Concept Plan and accompanying
mobility diagrams.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The update of the Downtown Concept Plan has been underway since December, 2015. The
primary objectives of the project are to assess and update the present development, visi on, goals
and concepts related to San Luis Obispo’s downtown, in order to provide a road map for future
public projects and guidance for private development. The project is being led by staff and
supported by consultants, with a ten-member Creative Vision Team (CVT) appointed by the City
Council providing advice, input and design assistance throughout the process.
The project is split into four phases, described in this report: Project initiation; public
engagement; plan development; and plan refinement and adoption. We are nearing the
completion of phase 3, plan development.
The purpose of the joint study session is to provide the City Council and Planning Commission
with background information on the Downtown Concept Plan work to date, and receive input on
the working draft of the plan and accompanying mobility diagrams. We are requesting input
from both bodies before we take the plan to the public and further refine it. A joint study session
is beneficial for the public, who can attend one meeting instead of two, and for both the
Downtown Concept Plan and the Mission Plaza Master Plan projects since the projects have
aspects in common, have been coordinating closely, and can learn from the feedback provided to
each other.
After the study session, staff, consultants, and the CVT will continue to refine the Working Draft
Plan with additional input from the public. We will hold two public open houses, on November
12 and 14. Following, a Public Review Draft Plan will be developed with complete supplemental
materials for a series of public hearings and additional refinement, concluding with a Planning
Commission recommendation hearing in March 2017, and a City Council hearing in April 2017
for final action.
DISCUSSION
This report provides the City Council and Planning Commission with an update on the
7
Packet Pg. 15
Downtown Concept Plan work to date. At the study session, staff will request input from both
bodies on the progress of the plan before further refinement.
As you review materials, please consider the following questions for discussion at the Study
Session:
1. Does the Working Draft of the Downtown Concept Plan represent the community’s vision
for downtown San Luis Obispo over the next 25 years? In other words, if you were
standing in Downtown in 2042 would you say “Wow, our downtown is amazing. The plan
from 2017 really met our needs!”
2. Are there any big ideas missing from the Working Draft of the Downtown Concept Plan
or the mobility diagrams?
3. What else should be illustrated or highlighted in the community’s vision for downtown?
Background
In late 1990, the City Council authorized the preparation of a Downtown Concept Plan and
authorized the City Manager to establish a committee of community design professionals who
would be willing to do the work on a voluntary basis. Chuck Crotser, Rodney Levin, Andrew
Merriam, Pierre Rademaker, and Kenneth Schwartz volunteered to be the design team for the
effort to develop a Conceptual Physical Plan for the City’s Center (Downtown Concept Plan or
Plan).
The City Council adopted the Downtown Concept Plan by resolution on May 4, 1993. It has
served as a vision for the downtown ever since and, although not a regulatory document, the plan
has been referred to over the years as a guiding tool for development projects and for acquisition
of public spaces downtown.
The recent update to the General Plan Land Use Element in 2014 included an implementation
objective to update the Downtown Concept Plan and the Mission Plaza Master Plan. As part of
the 2015-2017 Financial Plan, the City Council allocated funding for both efforts. The
Community Development Department took the lead on the update of the Downtown Concept
Plan, while the Public Works Department took the lead on the Mission Plaza Master Plan effort.
On August 18, 2015, the City Council approved the scope of work and request for proposal for
consultant services associated with updating the Downtown Concept Plan. In addition, the City
Council adopted a resolution creating the Creative Vision Team (CVT) for the Downtown
Concept Plan Update and defining its term and charge.
On November 11, 2015, the City Council appointed nine members to the CVT. Michael Baker
International was hired as the lead consultant, with Jim Duffy from Ten Over Studio as the local
architect in charge of illustrating the Concept Plan. In July, two CVT members resigned, and on
September 6, 2016, the City Council appointed three additional CVT members. The CVT now
includes ten community members: Chuck Crotser, Keith Gurnee, Jaime Hill, Eric Meyer,
7
Packet Pg. 16
Melanie Mills, Matt Quaglino, Pierre Rademaker, Annie Rendler, Vicente del Rio, and Chuck
Stevenson.
As shown in Attachment A, Project Process and Timeline, the project is split into four phases:
(1) Project Initiation, (2) Public Engagement, (3) Plan Development, and (4) Plan Refinement
and Adoption. We are nearing the completion of Phase 3, Plan Development. Following is a
summary of the work to date and the key ideas and concepts that have been identified for
consideration.
Phase 1: Project Initiation, December 2015-January 2016
The first phase of the Downtown Concept Plan involved the development of an existing
conditions analysis, including base mapping and compilation of city policies and programs that
relate to downtown, to ensure consistency with the General Plan.
Phase 1 also included the first coordination meeting with the project staff team, Mission Plaza
Master Plan team, and the first CVT meeting to review project objectives, roles, product and
outreach strategy.
Included in the RFP was a detailed list of issues to be addressed in the update of the
Downtown Concept Plan. These issues are being used as guidance for plan development. Status
indicates whether these issues have yet to be addressed in the planning process. A check mark
indicates that significant progress has been made.
Status Issues to be Addressed in the Downtown Concept Plan
Evaluate the existing boundary of the Downtown Concept Plan given new General Plan policies and
programs for downtown and adjacent neighborhoods.
Reflect development/redevelopment that has occurred or been approved since inception of the
Downtown Concept Plan.
Understand what portions of the existing Downtown Concept Plan were not implemented and why.
Incorporate the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure and other planned public projects related to
circulation and transit.
Identify potential locations for new or expanded public space(s) for gathering and socializing.
Address implementation of new General Plan policies including multi -modal level of service
standards and downtown modal priorities.
Address implementation of Bicycle Transportation Plan policies and projects proposed downtown.
Address pedestrian needs in the downtown including sidewalk widths and uses, walking, seating,
gathering areas and crossings/mid-block connections.
Provide access to and connections across San Luis Creek where appropriate.
Address the goal of having safe and vital public areas such as streets, sidewalks and plazas at all
times of day while being considerate of adjoining neighborhoods.
Create connections and design cohesion between public and cultural spaces.
Underway Identify public art location opportunities and consistency with the Public Art Master Plan.
Underway Resolve whether the Fremont Theater/County Govern ment Plaza concept is still desirable.
Ongoing Coordinate closely with and incorporate ideas from the Mission Plaza Master Plan update
underway.
Identify ways to activate Monterey Street east of Santa Rosa to draw visitors from hospitality
facilities.
7
Packet Pg. 17
Underway Identify places where taller buildings may be appropriate.
Identify appropriate places to provide public views of surrounding hills/environment.
Phase 4 Include tools for evaluating future projects.
Phase 4 Include descriptions of public infrastructure and facilities needed for Plan implementation.
Phase 4 Identify regulatory changes needed as part of a subsequent Zoning code update.
Over the course of a few meetings, Planning and Design Principles for the Downtown Concept
Plan were developed with the CVT; they are meant to reflect the issues listed above, as well as
the robust public input received, and to help guide the development of the future vision for
downtown:
Planning and Design Principles for the Downtown Concept Plan:
1. Strong Identity: Preserve and enhance downtown’s distinct sense of place and
memorable character.
2. Plentiful and Safe Public Spaces: Provide opportunities for positive social interaction,
quiet moments, and access to the natural environment, where everyone feels safe and
welcome.
3. Variety in Form and Function: Encourage a wide variety of compatible uses, activities
and housing types for an inclusive and vital downtown.
4. Enhanced Mobility: Promote a downtown that is safe, inclusive and easy to navigate for
those using all modes of transportation; enhance its walkability and bikeability.
5. Art, Culture & History: Encourage artistic and cultural opportunities and celebrate
downtown’s unique history.
6. Innovative and Human Scale: Embrace original and compatible design that supports
connections to the surrounding built environment, public realm and hillside views.
7
Packet Pg. 18
Phase 2: Public Engagement, January-April 2016
The second phase of the project involved broad-based public engagement, in accordance with the
City’s Public Engagement and Noticing Manual. Engagement activities included stakeholder
interviews, an outdoor public open house with the Mission Plaza Master Plan team, a follow-up
public workshop, an Open City Hall survey, and two neighborhood meetings with downtown
residents.
An overview of the public engagement activities is provided below, with key takeaways
described at the end. More detail is included in Appendix B Community Engagement Summary
Report. The full appendices are available for review on our project web page at
www.slocity.org/downtown.
Stakeholder Focus Groups:
On January 19 and 20, the project team conducted a series of roundtable discussions with 48
downtown stakeholders. Stakeholders represented a broad cross-section of interested parties,
including downtown business owners; residents; property owners and developers; historical,
cultural, and arts representatives; seniors; students; and special interests such as bicycling,
environmental protection, design, and others. Staff also sat in on several of the Mission Plaza
Master Plan stakeholder interviews, including those with City Council members.
Public Workshop #1: Imagine Downtown SLO
The Downtown Concept Plan and Mission Plaza Master Plan teams collaborated to hold
Imagine Downtown SLO in Mission Plaza on February 20. Approximately 75 people signed
in, but an estimated 150+ people attended. The event was organized as an open-air event with
information boards, interactive stations, Street Plan online engagement tool, children’s
activities and walking tours.
While there was considerable
diversity of input, overall the
themes were consistent with
the key takeaways from the
stakeholder interviews. As a
result of the input received at
the first public workshop, the
project team identified four
topics to be further vetted at
the second workshop:
1. Improve the public realm to further activate the downtown and celebrate art, culture,
history, and play.
2. Redesign streets to improve the experience of pedestrians (foremost), bicyclists, and
transit riders and, in some places, to decrease the amount of space dedicated to
motorized vehicles.
3. Increase or maintain existing building heights.
4. Protect views.
7
Packet Pg. 19
Public Workshop #2:
The third engagement activity was the public
workshop that took place at the San Luis Obispo
County Library on February 27 and attracted
approximately 110 people. The workshop included
a presentation with a visual preference survey,
small group exercises, and self-guided activities
designed to help refine the ideas heard at the first
workshop.
Open City Hall Survey online engagement:
The City developed an online survey to help inform the Downtown Concept Plan and
Mission Plaza Master Plan projects. It was posted on Open City Hall, the City’s online
engagement tool, and 393 responses were received. According to Peak Democracy, this
equals 19.7 hours of public comment.
Neighborhood meetings:
In response to requests from neighbors surrounding downtown, almost 3,500 meeting
invitation postcards were mailed to everyone living in and owning homes in the General Plan
Downtown Planning Area. Approximately 30 people attended the evening meeting on April
18th and 15 people attended the lunch-time meeting on April 19th. Neighbors had an
opportunity to discuss issues and ideas specifically relevant to people living in and near
downtown.
Takeaways from Engagement Activities:
What Participants Value: From the input gathered throughout the outreach process to date, we
have learned that the vast majority of community members who have participated value the
following things about our downtown:
The small town feel and historic character
Access and views to open space
Its walkable scale
Vibrancy and sense of community
Common Concerns and Areas for Improvement: Participants provided hundreds of comments
that help us better understand concerns as well as opportunities for improvement. Some
comments were expressed rarely; other input fell within the following prevailing themes:
Public/open space: Activate a variety of public spaces downtown; design for positive
social interaction, access to views, and connections to the natural environment.
Mobility: Improve access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders. Elevate these
modes of transportation in the downtown, while providing adequate parking in garages
on the perimeter.
Art, culture, history, and diversity: Enhance arts and cultural opportunities, preserve
7
Packet Pg. 20
downtown’s historic charm, and encourage a diversity of local businesses, uses, and
activities.
Height and scale: Avoid a domineering built environment that blocks views, interrupts
the existing pedestrian scale, and overwhelms the public realm.
Public safety and nuisance issues: Address vagrancy, panhandling, public drunkenness,
dirty sidewalks, and other negative activity that appears to be increasing in downtown.
The following summary identifies priority issues as expressed by participants through the public
outreach process, followed by ideas for possible inclusion in the update of the Downtown
Concept Plan.
Issue Area 1: Improving Mobility
Improving mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists to better connect to and move around
downtown was one of the most widely discussed issues throughout our engagement
activities. Parking was also a frequent topic, followed by transit. Public stakeholders also
suggested ideas for how to design a more pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly environment:
Mobility Idea #1: Changes to the downtown streetscape (including sidewalks) could improve
the downtown experience for pedestrians and bicyclists, but downtown needs to also
accommodate drivers and transit users, and not redirect traffic problems to other adjacent
streets. In addition to improving safety and connectivity into and around downtown, input
focused on increasing pedestrian and bike safety at intersections and mid-block.
Mobility Idea #2: The original Downtown Concept Plan proposed parking garages spread
around the perimeter of the downtown core to accommodate vehicles but keep them away
from the heart of downtown, and reuse surface parking lots for other opportunities. There
was much support for this concept in the public input process. There were also ideas
suggested about trolleys/transit connecting parking garages, removing more on-street
parking, and developing multi-use parking structures with public amenities on the top level.
Mobility Idea #3: Participants in Workshop 2 proposed a combination of complete streets,
car light streets, and car free streets recognizing that the function and form of the street
network varies and could be improved to accommodate all users on some streets and a sub-
set of users on other streets. Most of the ideas focused on improvements to Higuera, Marsh,
Monterey and Santa Rosa Streets.
Mobility Idea #4: Create more opportunities for social interactions on our streets. This could
be accomplished through wider sidewalks to accommodate seating clusters, additional
outdoor dining opportunities, and interactive public art. Demonstration parklets could also
add whimsical and temporary small gathering areas on our streets.
7
Packet Pg. 21
Issue Area 2: Enhancing the Public Realm1
Stakeholders also place significant value on the ways that the public realm adds life,
character, and places to socialize in downtown. Various aspects of the public realm were also
common concerns. Ideas for enhancement included:
Public Realm Idea #1: Creation of new and better social spaces: Through the outreach
process participants identified a variety of locations and ways to improve the public realm.
The most common locations and improvements included:
County Courthouse Lawn – improve the use of the area in front of the Courthouse on
Monterey so it acts more like a public plaza
Mission Plaza – expand and improve the plaza
San Luis Obispo Creek – improve public access to the creek, include pocket parks,
plazas and exercise space
Use land near the Creamery to connect it to the creek
Use/convert public garage rooftops for public spaces
Improve the existing parks in and near downtown, including Emerson and Mitchell
Park
Public Realm Idea #2: The public realm also includes issues such as access to nature,
opportunities for youth, creative expression, events, and more. These ideas and locations for
public realm improvements, in addition to others, have been considered in the plan
development phase, based on their ability to address multiple needs. Some of what we heard
includes:
Improve access to and across San Luis Creek
Connect public and cultural areas
Support cohesive design between public and cultural areas
Accommodate/encourage public art installations
Consider mini parks/pocket parks/parklets
Provide public amenities such as restrooms, street furnishings (bike racks, garbage
cans, etc.) and wireless connections
Provide parks in areas for viewshed protection
Public Realm Idea #3: Stakeholders also raised many concerns about negative behavior in
the public realm, such as drunkenness, panhandling and littering. Input was given about
environmental design and improvements to the public realm to discourage negative
behavioral issues, such as activating park areas with more things to do for a variety of people
and families. Also, improving public access and putting more “eyes on the creek” in the hope
that by increasing the amount of positive use, negative use will be discouraged.
1 The project defines the public realm generally as parks, plazas and paseos (pedestrian walkways), regardless of
ownership. Streetscapes, and particularly sidewalks, are also considered part of the public realm, but we are mainly
discussing streetscape improvements under mobility.
7
Packet Pg. 22
Issue Area 3: Infill Development
The public engagement process to date has not resolved differences of opinion as they relate
to building height and scale and access to views in downtown. However, the process has
advanced the conversation to consideration of solutions, recognizing that stakeholders value
and would like to preserve access to open space and views of open space from public areas
downtown.
A variety of ideas emerged regarding infill development downtown:
Infill Idea #1: Create a diverse, dynamic robust downtown that has more people living,
working and visiting while preserving its history, charm, walkability, and economic vitality.
Infill Idea #2: Maintain the pedestrian scale of the street, while allowing for appropriate
height and density of infill development.
Infill Idea #3: Target height carefully and in limited areas rather than across large swaths of
land. Height is more tolerable/desirable toward the center of blocks, in pockets, in low areas
(topography) so as to lessen impacts on views, and adjacent to the freeway. Use rooftops to
regain views downtown.
Infill Idea #4: Redevelop surface parking lots (while providing parking in multi-story lots).
Infill Idea #5: If we want people living downtown, we need to provide amenities for
residents, not just visitors (neighborhood commercial, local businesses, etc.).
The issues and ideas from Phase 2: Public Engagement, were used as building blocks to plan
development, as discussed on the following pages.
7
Packet Pg. 23
Phase 3: Plan Development (May-November, 2016)
Following completion of the public engagement phase
of the project, the Creative Vision Team (CVT) worked
in three subcommittees focusing on the three key areas
of public input: mobility, public realm, and infill
development. The CVT subcommittees had an
opportunity to meet several times and develop
preliminary recommendations for their topic area --
taking into consideration the information collected to
date, including public input, existing conditions, and
City policies.
The full CVT met at the end of May, and the subcommittees presented their work and
preliminary recommendations. There was a varying amount of detail between groups. We then
moved forward on two tracks:
1. Public realm and infill base mapping: Our consultants began developing a base model
for the concept plan that reflects public and CVT input and ideas gathered to date. The
CVT provided input on progress plans in July and August; the city staff team also
provided input on the internal draft. We continued our close coordination with the
Mission Plaza Master Plan team, who attended CVT meetings in June and August.
2. Mobility: The transportation sub-consultant analyzed traffic data, existing conditions,
subcommittee recommendations and public input, and developed preliminary options for
mobility improvements. Findings were presented at a July meeting with the CVT and
staff; and the team has been working on refinements since.
Working Draft Downtown Concept Plan:
Attachment C is the Working Draft of the Downtown Concept Plan. The Plan has been built
using the software SketchUp so that ultimately it will be printed in a 2 -D poster format similar to
the 1993 Plan, and also viewable online in 3-D. As the plan becomes more refined, additional
details like street improvements will be incorporated. There will be explanatory text on the
planning and design principles, key concepts, project descriptions, phasing recommendations,
and planning context. The rendering will be refined, and there will be additional visual elements,
such as diagrams, photos and illustrations.
The Concept Plan legend shows properties with different generalized uses. The locations of
these uses are consistent with current zoning and General Plan land use designations. Most uses
are self-explanatory, but a few merit additional explanation:
Commercial/mixed use (red) is shown in the C-D, C-R, C-S zones: It allows for
different commercial opportunities on the lower level and the addition of housing on
upper levels.
7
Packet Pg. 24
Office/mixed use (purple) is shown in the O zone: It allows for office on the lower level
and housing on the upper level(s).
Community-serving (blue) includes government, cultural, school, or church uses.
Attachment D is the Block Descriptions Table. It contains an explanation of the improvements
shown on each block of the Working Draft of the Downtown Concept Plan. This table will
continue to be refined and used in the explanatory text in the plan. Entitled development projects
are generally described as submitted. Projects submitted to the City but not yet entitled may be
described differently than submitted.
Following are summarized descriptions of a number of key ideas illustrated in the Downtown
Concept Plan. In many cases, these ideas will be further illustrated with sketches and examples
in the final plan:
Downtown gains more legibility beyond its core. As downtown expands, its gateways
and entrances are better defined through design. Design elements unique to downtown
announce your arrival. There is an emphasis on signature buildings and public realm
improvements at downtown’s key entry points: Block 37 (the Marsh/Higuera
intersection); Blocks 32, 33, 34, 35 (where Monterey, Higuera and Marsh intersect Santa
Rosa); and Blocks 25 and 35 (Monterey and Pepper).
Surface parking lots have been in-filled. The concept plan shows new development on
most existing surface parking lots in downtown. As in the 1993 Plan, cars primarily park
in new structures outside of the core (accessed from Palm, Nipomo, Marsh and Toro
Streets). This assumes new parking districts in the future for these areas.
Parking structures have limited street frontage; they are behind other uses that are
more compatible with a vibrant downtown street, such as ground floor retail or multi-
story mixed use. Parking structures will be flexible in design; roofs on some parking
structures and/or adjacent buildings will be able to be used for parks, plazas, outdoor
dining, photovoltaic shade structures, and views.
Downtown includes areas with different personalities and development patterns :
The Historic Downtown District with its traditional development patterns; the “cultural
district” surrounding Mission Plaza with its variety of cultural, historic and artistic
opportunities; the “funk zone” adjacent to the mid-Higuera plan area (around Pacific
and Archer) with its more industrial feel that can accommodate some larger footprint
incubator businesses, tech uses, live/work or lofts; and “MoJo” the area around Monterey
and Johnson Streets which is envisioned to redevelop with commercial/mixed use along
its vibrant street front, connecting the upper Monterey area to downtown.
Downtown will be infused with a diversity of uses for residents as well as visitors.
Development patterns were illustrated in the Plan with some specific uses in mind: A
local market on Block 54, across from a new parking structure and easily accessible to
7
Packet Pg. 25
downtown residents; opportunities for small local businesses to cluster together on Block
53; a small house development at the end of Dana Street on Block 17; larger-footprint
mixed-use opportunities on Block 63, and most importantly, the infusion of housing
throughout all of downtown, not just in residential zones, but included on upper levels
wherever commercial and office uses are shown.
The plan enhances connections to nature, and to San Luis Creek specifically – it
expands Mission Plaza across Broad Street creating another public park area with creek
frontage, shows additional businesses facing the creek with patios and outdoor dining
opportunities, expands Cheng Park across the creek to the existing parking lot, shows the
Rosa Butron Adobe and grounds used as a public park, and continues the Creek Walk
towards the Hwy 101 interchange. The intent is that by activating the creek area with
positive uses, consistent with the Mission Plaza Master Plan and the 1993 Downtown
Concept Plan, the negative uses will decrease.
The plan creates vibrant, safe public spaces and paseos. New paseos (mid-block
walkways) are included, but not at the expense of the vitality of the public streetscape;
paseos are mostly shown connecting public spaces with the street. Such as converting the
parking area between Marsh and Higuera at Beach Street (block 38) to a paseo that also
connects to the Jack House and garden – further utilizing this important public resource.
Another new paseo runs diagonally through Block 53, creating outdoor plaza areas and
improving connections to Emerson Park. Other new public spaces include converting the
lawn of the County building to a garden area with seating and public art (Block 22);
adding a plaza and pocket park connecting Monterey and Higuera Streets (Block 34);
including green roofs/public spaces on portions of parking structures or other tall
buildings; and improving Emerson Park so it better serves downtown residents (Block
66).
Mobility Diagrams:
Mobility improvements were a top priority for the public, but are a challenge to illustrate in t he
Concept Plan, so supplemental mobility diagrams have been developed to illustrate preliminary
recommendations. As the draft plan evolves, mobility improvements will be incorporated into
the concept plan diagram as well. Recommendations for all mobility improvements will be kept
high-level; they will be consistent with the multimodal level of service (MMLOS) objectives and
the modal priorities for the downtown area as recommended in the Land Use and Circulation
Element, as well as building on the recommendations in the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
Examples will illustrate possible future scenarios but won’t limit possibilities for innovation.
Street Types Diagram (Attachment E): This diagram is meant to illustrate the different types of
street improvements identified for downtown, with the goal of improving the safety, accessibility
and enjoyment of walking and bicycling downtown.
The only car-free street included in the diagram is the section of Monterey Street through
Mission Plaza. Surrounding Mission Plaza, the plan identifies Broad Street and Monterey Street
7
Packet Pg. 26
to be designed as shared streets, where the segregation of pedestrians and vehicles is minimized
by removing features such as curbs, road surface markings, and traffic signs. Shared streets te nd
to work where pedestrian activity is encouraged and vehicle volumes are low. They prioritize
access for pedestrians and bicycles, while maintaining access for vehicles at low speeds. The
design of a shared street makes temporary street closures relatively easy, and allows for the
possible conversion to a car-free street.
The Street Types Diagram identifies the streets in the interior core of downtown as car calmed
streets. As envisioned, these streets would have lower automobile volumes and speeds than
complete streets, and the pedestrian realm would have a higher proportion of the right-of-way.
This would include Marsh and Higuera in the heart of downtown, between Nipomo and Santa
Rosa Streets. As envisioned, these streets would be redesigned with additional focus on bicycle
and pedestrian infrastructure, allowing for two lanes of traffic with a dedicated buffered bike
lane or cycle track, some street parking, and wider sidewalks for additional outdoor seating and
opportunities for enlivening the streetscape with public art and other public amenities. Garden
Street car-calming improvements are in the works, and Morro Street as the connection to the
Morro Street Bicycle Boulevard would also be car-calmed.
The remainder of the streets in the diagram would be improved as complete streets. Complete
streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for users of all ages and abilities,
including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders and motorists. Complete streets make it easy to
cross the street, walk to shops and bicycle to work. This can mean a variety of improvements
depending on the width of the right of way and primary use of the street. The streets (or portions
thereof) that would help us get into and out of downtown would be further improved as complete
streets.
The Street Types Diagram also shows enhanced intersections or crossings. Some intersections
are already identified in need of enhancement, such as the Marsh/Higuera/Hwy 101 interchange.
Improvements are needed at this location in order to slow down traffic and make this area safer
and more hospitable for pedestrians and bicyclists. Additional study of this intersection is
necessary before specific recommendations are made. Other intersections will need to be
enhanced if the Downtown Concept Plan is built-out as envisioned, such as most of the
intersections along Pacific Street.
Existing and new paseos are included on the Street Types Diagram, as well as on the Downtown
Concept Plan. Paseos are enhanced public or private pedestrian passageways between buildings.
Their use in the downtown are meant to aid in pedestrian connectivity and create opportunities
for small plazas and outdoor seating, while at the same time not taking away from the vitality of
the public streetscape.
Please see Attachment F, Street Types and Definitions, for more detail, and an explanation of
each street type’s modal priority.
Bike Facilities Diagram (Attachment G): This diagram shows projects planned in the 2013
Bicycle Transportation Plan, existing bike lanes and bike boulevards, and proposals for new
bicycle facilities in the downtown. Where proposals are on streets with existing improvements,
7
Packet Pg. 27
only proposals are shown.
New proposals include a 1-way dedicated buffered bike lane or cycle track along the length of
Higuera and Marsh Street in the planning area. This improvement would increase the comfort
level of bicycling downtown for families and less experienced bicyclists. Adding safe bicycle
connections to/from Marsh and Higuera as well as ample and safe opportunities for bicycle
parking will also encourage more bicycle ridership downtown.
In many areas of downtown, the proposed bicycle improvements remain to be determined. As
shown in the Special Streets Diagram, bicycle facility improvements will be incorporated into
the overall street design. An example of this is the planned Broad St Bicycle Boulevard: the
Bicycle Transportation Plan shows its terminus at Monterey St, however the Bike Facilities
diagram shows it ending at Palm, as the proposed Shared Street on Broad will incorporate
bicycle improvements, and a “bike boulevard” designation is not necessary. The bike facilities
diagram is meant to call out those improvements already planned and newly proposed and show
key connections within, to and from downtown.
Creative Vision Team Role:
The Creative Vision Team has met eight times and has been actively engaged in the development
of the Working Draft of the Downtown Concept Plan and mobility diagrams. Three of the ten
CVT members are newly appointed so there has been a varying degree of involvement. Most
members have been very involved and have participated informally outside of the CVT meetings
as well, attending public engagement activities or working as a subcommittee on focus areas.
While there appears to be general agreement on the direction of the Working Draft of the
Concept Plan, CVT members continue to express a variety of opinions regarding some of the
specific concepts shown, namely the Freemont/Courthouse Plaza concept and the extent to which
to expand Mission Plaza, both concepts which were brought forth originally in the 1993 Plan.
As outlined in the CVT Guidelines, the CVT has an advisory role, and the team’s advice will be
conveyed to Advisory Bodies and the City Council during the public hearing process. Staff will
acknowledge CVT input in the formulation of all recommendations for action by Advisory
Bodies and the City Council.
Questions for the Study Session:
1. Does the Working Draft of the Downtown Concept Plan represent the community’s vision
for downtown San Luis Obispo over the next 25 years? In other words, if you were
standing in Downtown in 2042 would you say “Wow, our downtown is amazing. The plan
from 2017 really met our needs!”
2. Are there any big ideas missing from the Working Draft of the Downtown Concept Plan
or the mobility diagrams?
3. What else should be illustrated or highlighted in the community’s vision for downtown?
7
Packet Pg. 28
Next Steps:
After the study session, staff, consultants, and the CVT will continue to refine the Downtown
Concept Plan and mobility diagrams. CVT subcommittees will be working on further illustrating
concepts in the plan. Additional graphics and illustrations will be developed to help envision
downtown.
There will be two public open house opportunities on Saturday, November 12th, from 2-4 pm at
the Ludwick Community Center, and Monday, November 14th, from 4-6 pm at the County
Library Meeting Room. The draft plan will then be revised with a supplemental narrative and
context diagrams. Staff and consultants will participate in public hearings with the Bicycle
Advisory Committee, Cultural Heritage Committee, Park and Recreation Commission, and
Architectural Review Commission. We will then bring the Downtown Concept Plan back to the
Planning Commission for a public hearing in March 2017, and to the City Council for adoption
in April 2017.
CONCURRENCES
The City Council appointed Creative Vision Team has met eight times and has been working
closely with staff and consultants. In some cases, there are varying opinions among CVT
members on specific details of the plan, which will continue to be worked through as the
planning process continues. A staff team made up of representatives from throughout the City
has been kept updated on the planning process, and have met twice as a group. The staff team
had the opportunity to review and provide input on the progress plans. Planning and
transportation staff have been consulted with additionally and have provided additional input.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Once the Downtown Concept Plan strategies are defined, the consultant team will ensure
environmental compliance. The end product will include a memorandum on CEQA compliance
and/or an Addendum to the City’s LUCE EIR.
FISCAL IMPACT
As part of the 2015-2017 Financial Plan, the City Council allocated $100,000 for the update of
the Downtown Concept Plan. Due to expanded public outreach activities, CVT meetings and
coordination, the cost of updating the Downtown Concept Plan is expected to exceed that
allocation by approximately $20,000. However, staff anticipates that additional project costs will
be offset by cost savings in the Community Development Department’s LUCE Implementation
and Fee Update SOPC. The additional cost and amended contract will be requested via City
Manager report following the City purchasing policy upon receipt of amended scope of work
from the Consultant. The Downtown Concept Plan is not a regulatory document and therefore
has no direct fiscal impact.
7
Packet Pg. 29
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission and/or City Council could request additional information from staff
and consultants and request time on the agenda at an upcoming meeting for further discussion.
Either body could also request changes or clarification to the working draft plan or project
schedule.
Attachments:
a - Project Timeline
b - Engagement Summary
c - Downtown Concept Plan Working Draft
d - Draft Block Descriptions
e - Street Types Diagram
f - Street Type Definitions
g - Bike Facilities Diagram
7
Packet Pg. 30
CC and PC Study SessionPROJECT PROCESS & TIMELINEPROJECT PROCESS & TIMELINESan Luis Obispo Downtown Concept PlanPHASE 1Project InitiationDecember 2015 - January 2016PHASE 2Public EngagementJanuary 2016 - April 2016PHASE 3Plan DevelopmentMay 2016 -November 2016PHASE 4 Plan Refinement and AdoptionDecember 2016 - April 2017CVTMeeting1CVTMeeting2CVTMeeting3Neighborhood Meetings 1&2CVTMeeting4CVTMeeting5CVTMeeting6CVTMeeting10Draft Plan Public WorkshopCVTMeeting9Public Hearings City Council AdoptionCVTMeeting7Online EngagementOnline EngagementStakeholderMeetingsPublic Workshops 3 & 4Draft Plan Public WorkshopPublic Workshops 1 & 2Revised 9.21.16CVTMeeting8Attachment 17.a
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: a - Project Timeline (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
Community Engagement Summary 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan
Community Engagement Summary
Table of Contents
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan .................................................................................................................... 1
Summary of Outreach .................................................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................ 3
Overview of Outreach Activities ................................................................................................................................. 3
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL OUTREACH ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................ 4
Stakeholder Focus Groups ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Public Workshop 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Walking Tours ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
Vision Wall............................................................................................................................................................. 7
Big Ideas ............................................................................................................................................................... 8
What I Like and What I’d Change: Map 1 .............................................................................................................. 8
What I Like and What I’d Change: Map 2 .............................................................................................................. 9
Street Plan........................................................................................................................................................... 10
Kid’s Tent ............................................................................................................................................................ 12
Mission Plaza Master Plan Booths ...................................................................................................................... 13
Public Workshop 2 ................................................................................................................................................... 14
Live Polling “Warm-Up” Preference Survey ......................................................................................................... 15
Small Group Exercises ........................................................................................................................................ 15
Small Group Exercise Summaries by Group ....................................................................................................... 21
What did you learn Exercise? .............................................................................................................................. 25
Self-Guided Activities .......................................................................................................................................... 25
Online Survey .......................................................................................................................................................... 26
Neighborhood Meetings ........................................................................................................................................... 27
Issues and Concerns ........................................................................................................................................... 27
What do you Love about Living Downtown? ....................................................................................................... 28
Ideas & Opportunities .......................................................................................................................................... 29
Takeaways from Engagement Activities ...................................................................................................................... 31
What Participants Value .......................................................................................................................................... 31
Common Concerns and Areas for Improvements .................................................................................................... 31
Issues, Ideas, and Next Steps ................................................................................................................................. 31
Issue 1: Improving Mobility .................................................................................................................................. 32
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
2 San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan
Issue 2: Enhancing the Public Realm .................................................................................................................. 32
Issue 3: Infill Development .................................................................................................................................. 33
Next Steps ........................................................................................................................................................... 34
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................................................. 34
Appendix A: Stakeholder Interview Summary.......................................................................................................... 34
Appendix B: Transcriptions of Input Received During Workshop 1 ......................................................................... 34
Appendix C: Workshop 2 Mapping Activity Results Spatial Data ............................................................................ 34
Appendix D: Workshop 2 Mapping Activity Transcription ........................................................................................ 34
Appendix E: Workshop 2 Visual Preference Survey Responses ............................................................................. 34
Appendix F: Neighborhood Meeting Comments and Priorities ................................................................................ 34
Appendix G: Open City Hall Online Survey Responses .......................................................................................... 34
Appendix H: Workshop 2 Table Activity Photos……………………………………………………………………......…37
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
Community Engagement Summary 3
INTRODUCTION
The early work of the San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan update involved broad-based public engagement,
including targeted stakeholder interviews, a public open house, a public workshop, an online survey, two
neighborhood meetings and three meetings with the Creative Vision Team (CVT). This document summarizes the
results of the public engagement activities, and is intended to inform the next phase of the project to draft the concept
plan update.
Overview of Outreach Activities
Phase I outreach activities to date include:
• Stakeholder focus groups: On January 19 and 20, the project team conducted a series of roundtable
discussions with 48 downtown stakeholders. Stakeholders represented a broad cross section of interested
parties, including downtown businesses owners, residents, property owners and developers, nonprofit
organizations representing historical resources, arts and cultural activities and facilities, seniors, students,
and special interests such as bicycling, environmental protection, historic resources, neighborhoods, design,
and green building. Members of the team also sat in on several of the Mission Plaza Master Plan
stakeholder interviews, including those with City Council members.
• Workshop 1 (Imagine Downtown SLO Open House with Mission Plaza Master Plan): On February 20,
approximately 75 people officially signed in at workshop 1, which was organized as an open-air festival
including information boards, interactive stations, and walking tours. Dozens of other attendees dropped in
and participated casually in addition to those who signed in.
• Workshop 2: A week after Workshop 1, on February 27, approximately 110 people officially signed in as
attendees at workshop 2, an event that built on input received during workshop 1 and included a visual
preference survey, interactive group mapping exercises, and tactile self-guided exercises. All of these
activities were designed to generate discussion about potential solutions and to illustrate where and how
those solutions may be realized in the downtown
• Survey/online engagement: The City received 393 survey responses on Open City Hall, the City’s online
engagement tool, which equals 19.7 hours of public comment. Participants were asked to provide basic
demographic information and to respond to a series of questions such as their impressions of, draw to,
favorite things about or places within downtown as well as ideas for improving Mission Plaza. The input was
received between February 18 and March 9.
• Neighborhood Meetings: To round out community engagement, the City hosted two neighborhood
meetings that took place on April 18 and 19. The two meetings attracted approximately 35 residents from
the neighborhoods surrounding downtown During the meetings residents were asked to comment on issues
and concerns, ideas and opportunities, and what they love about living downtown.
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
4 San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
Stakeholder Focus Groups
The project team conducted a series of roundtable discussions with downtown stakeholders representing a broad
cross section of interested parties, including businesses owners, residents, investors, agents for downtown
development, nonprofit organizations, seniors, students, and special interests such as bicycling, environmental
protection, historic resources, neighborhoods, design, and green building.
Stakeholders have a predominantly positive impression of downtown. The most common impressions were
comfortable scale, walkable, vibrant, and historic.
When asked what people enjoy about downtown SLO, the most frequent stakeholder responses reflected social and
serendipitous interactions offered by local retail, outdoor dining, public spaces and people enjoying themselves.
Stakeholders also appreciated downtown’s physical environment, including both built and natural surroundings:
The built environment and the feel created by it, including the historic buildings; the atmosphere, ambiance, and
sense of place, and the diversity of styles, layout, and aesthetics. They also enjoy nature both in and around
downtown: the creek, trees, parks, sunshine and views.
The issues and challenges mentioned by stakeholders were wide-ranging and fell into four broad categories:
1. Social behavior, safety, and maintenance
2. Mobility and parking
3. Land uses, tenant mix, and land economics
4. Urban form and intensity
Stakeholders expressed the most disagreement about building height. A clear split exists between stakeholders who
want shorter buildings (1–3 stories) and those who want to see height and density increased (3–5+ stories). Although
stakeholders may disagree about height, an underlying value is common. Open space protection is important. Some
people want to be able to experience the joy of the views of the open space and hills from downtown and would like
height limited to protect views. Others, supportive of growth in the city, want to protect open space and prefer higher
density and height in downtown to avoid conversion of open space and the hillsides that surround the city.
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
Community Engagement Summary 5
The following table generally illustrates the comparative levels of concern among stakeholders.
Social Behavior, Safety, Maintenance Mobility & Parking Uses, Tenants, Economics Urban Form & Intensity
Homelessness ▪▪▪▪▪
▪▪▪▪▪
▪▪
Pedestrians &
pedestrian
infrastructure
▪▪▪▪▪
▪▪▪▪ High rents, chain
stores,
business/economic
diversity
▪▪▪▪▪
▪▪▪▪▪ Buildings too
high & impact
views
▪▪▪▪▪
Overconcentration
of bars, alcohol-
induced behavior
▪▪▪▪▪
▪▪▪ Parking & car
dominance
▪▪▪▪▪
▪▪▪▪ Increase height,
increase
density
▪▪▪▪▪
Safety (general) ▪▪▪▪▪ Bicyclists & bicycle
infrastructure
▪▪▪▪ Housing ▪▪▪
Trash ▪▪▪ Multimodal transit ▪▪▪ Restrictive zoning ▪ Diversity of
form
▪
Noise ▪▪ Higuera & Marsh ▪▪▪ Nonprofits, but no
affordable space
▪ Form-based
code
▪
For a full list of issues, as well as potential solutions generated by stakeholders, the complete summary can be found
in Appendix A, Stakeholder Focus Group Summary.
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
6 San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan
Public Workshop 1
Between 75 and 150 people participated at an outdoor Saturday workshop in Mission Plaza. Overall, the input was
consistent with the opinions expressed during stakeholder interviews. The big ideas, visions, likes, and things
stakeholders want to change demonstrate areas of consensus (i.e., appreciation for downtown as the heart of the
city) and areas of divergence (i.e., how tall buildings should be in the future). As a result of public workshop 1, the
project team identified four topics to be further vetted in workshop 2.
• Improve the public realm to activate space and celebrate art, culture, history, and play.
• Redesign streets to improve the experience of pedestrians (foremost), bicyclists, and transit riders and, in
some places, to decrease the amount of space dedicated to motorized vehicles.
• Increase or maintain existing building heights.
• Protect views.
A description of each station and key takeaways is included below and transcription of input is located in Appendix
B: Transcriptions of Input Received During Workshop 1.
Walking Tours
A series of one hour walking tours were conducted during the course of the event. Two tours departed at 11:30pm
and again at 1:30pm. The purpose of the tours were to discuss and envision what downtown San Luis Obispo was in
the past, is today, and could be in the next 25 + years. The tours were aimed to generate discussion about issues
and generate ideas about solutions. The two tours followed different routes and prompted participants to identify
which views into and out of the downtown should be maintained as well as where they believe taller buildings may be
appropriate and inappropriate. Participants were also asked to a few questions related to stops on each tour route:
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
Community Engagement Summary 7
Tour 1:
• Nipomo and Monterey Looking West – How do you feel about the proposed Palm/Nipomo parking structure?
Would you like to see uses on the group floor and/or the rooftop? If so, which ones?
• Marsh and Nipomo Looking North – What would you keep and what would you change about this area of Marsh
Street?
• Garden Street between Higuera and Marsh – What elements do you like or dislike about this street?
Tour 2:
• Chorro and Mill Looking South - Would you support higher density housing at this location (why/why not?)
• Santa Rosa and Higuera Looking North – Should the area North of Santa Rosa have similar form/standards as
downtown? (why/why not?)
• Chorro and Higuera Looking North and West – Look at the numerous ways outdoor dining has been
implemented on these streets. Which approach works best and why?
• Chorro and Marsh Looking South – What would you most like to see on the corner surface parking lot at this
intersection?
Vision Wall
This brainstorming activity asked participants to add their
responses to the following question, “What three words
describe what you want Downtown SLO to be in the future?”
Using large markers, participants recorded up to three words or
short phrases onto a large sheet of vinyl. 194 different
responses were recorded. Responses varied from key
adjectives describing downtown of the future, to short phrases
painting a picture of an improved or preserved downtown core.
Appendix B includes transcription of the input received on the
Vision Wall.
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
8 San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan
Big Ideas
This station generated innovative ideas by inspiring participants to think
outside the box. Participants were asked to use a “big ideas sheet” to draw or
write their response to the following question: “If budget and time were not
constraints, what is your one BIG IDEA to improve Downtown SLO?” (this can
be today up to 20+ years in the future). Facilitators took pictures of people
holding their ideas, and responses were hung on the booth’s clotheslines.
Participants shared 98 big ideas, with themes generally focusing on circulation
(about 25%), cultural uses and amenities (about 10%), and building height
(about 5%), with other comments addressing issues ranging from the need for
increased vegetation to specific commercial uses that would be appropriate for
downtown. Regarding circulation, most big ideas involved making specific
locations more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly, with numerous ideas to shut
down entire sections of downtown to motor vehicles. Circulation comments
also focused on lower speeds for vehicular traffic and the need for more parking. Cultural ideas typically focused on
uses and amenities around the art museum. Building height ideas typically focused on limiting or maintaining the
height downtown. See Appendix B.
What I Like and What I’d Change: Map 1 – “Heart” of Downtown and Gateways
At this table, participants were asked to identify where they typically enter the downtown using a gold star sticker as
well as placing a heart sticker to identify where people would geographically identify the “heart” of downtown.
Generally people liked this
exercise and found it
understandable without a lot of
clarifying questions. The
majority of hearts were in
Mission Plaza and near the
corner of Chorro and Higuera.
Concentrations of stars were
along Morro where it enters
downtown from the south, and
along Chorro where it enters
downtown from the north,
Higuera at the east end of
downtown. Some people placed
stars by their home if they live in
the study area.
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
Community Engagement Summary 9
What I Like and What I’d Change: Map 2 - Downtown Assets and Opportunities for
Improvement
This exercise asked participants to use up to three smiley face stickers to identify what areas they like (Assets) and
up to three sad face stickers to identify areas that need improvement (Opportunities for Improvement). Overall, there
was a concentration of happy faces on Monterey and Johnson, bubblegum alley, the Mission and Mission Plaza,
Court Street, the historic portions of the block of Monterey with J.P. Andrews and Bella Mundo, buildings/blocks on
either side of Higuera between Morro and Garden. In general, the higher concentration of sad faces were placed on
bubblegum alley, County building, site of former Shell station on Santa Rosa, block bounded by Higuera, Dana,
Nipomo, and Beach, and Mission Plaza by the bathrooms. At this exercise, people expressed that they were unsure
how their input would be interpreted from this map since it could be spatial or issue-related. For non-geographic
comments, participants were encouraged to fill out “I like” and “I’d change” stickers and post them on the
accompanying flipcharts. A full transcription of the “I like”/ “I’d change” exercise is included in Appendix B.
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
10 San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan
Street Plan
The Street Plan station was hosted by Cal Poly staff and students. It consisted of a series of laptops set up with
internet access where participants could engage in an interactive online activity of redesigning Higuera Street
through a tool called “Street Plan.”
Facilitators helped guide participants through the exercise showing them how to navigate the tool which allowed them
to make choices about which elements of the street were most important to them, including but not limited to;
sidewalks, transit, bike lanes, parking, landscaping, and auto lanes. Users could drag and drop elements into the
existing street dimensions shown as a basic two dimensional cross section to play around with which elements they
felt were most appropriate or desired. The activity was made available at Workshop 1 and online through March 8th,
2016.
Participants could share their final street design with others via social media and/or submit it through the online tool.
The online tool received 59 entries. Cal Poly staff and students developed a process to tally how frequently each
street feature was used by participants. Results from the Higuera Street Redesign activity are summarized in the
table on the following page. Adding bike lanes was the most frequently selected feature in participant’s street design,
followed by one driving lane and widened sidewalks.
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
Community Engagement Summary 11
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
Closed to Cars
Streetcar
Parklets
Bike Racks
No On-Street Parking
Widened Sidewalks
Bike Lanes
1 drive lane
2 drive lanes
3 drive lanes
Bi-directional
% of respondents supporting street characteristic
Higuera Street Redesign
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
12 San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan
Kid’s Tent
Workshop 1 also included youth engagement. At this station, games geared toward children provided a draw into the
plaza and allowed parents to participate in activities while their children were close by and engaged. Youth
volunteers from San Luis Obispo High School facilitated a coloring or writing activity geared toward extracting input
from children on what they love most about Mission Plaza and what their favorite thing is about downtown SLO.
Children illustrated their favorite activities, foods, shops and places. They also drew some fantastic dinosaurs. Some
of their favorite destinations included the creek, Bowl’d, frozen yogurt, swings, and the bear and child fountain at
Mission Plaza.
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
Community Engagement Summary 13
Mission Plaza Master Plan Booths
The Mission Plaza Master Plan Project team facilitated
a station that that included two booths. The first booth
provided information about the Mission Plaza Master
Plan process, opportunities for community input, and
existing conditions compiled to date. This table was
more informative and gave people the opportunity to
be introduced to the Mission Plaza Assessment and
Master Plan process.
The second booth was focused on gathering feedback.
It included a large map of the Mission Plaza that
people used to comment on with markers, pens and
sticky notes. Flip charts with titles such as “Issues and
Concerns” and “Ideas and Improvements” were also
provided so that participants could add comments.
Smaller maps were handed out so that people could
take a walking tour around the plaza and log feedback
as they walk. The walking tour activity was aimed at
exploring opportunities for improvements such as
event modifications, restroom improvements, lighting,
and pedestrian connections.
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
14 San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan
Public Workshop 2
The second public workshop was designed to help refine some of the key issues and ideas that generated varying
and sometimes conflicting input at the stakeholder interviews and Workshop 1 in order to move us forward in concept
plan development.
The event took place at the San Luis Obispo County Library and attracted about 110 people. The workshop included
a presentation with a visual preference survey, small group exercises, and self-guided activities. Some groups came
to consensus more easily than others, and some were divided. In general, the following themes emerged from the
majority votes in the breakout group exercises. An abbreviated summary appears below. For more detailed
information, please see Appendix C for a spatial diagram of responses and Appendix D for transcriptions.
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
Community Engagement Summary 15
Live Polling “Warm-Up” Preference Survey
After a brief presentation outlining the project team, goals and
workshop 1 recap, participants were invited to engage in a fun
warm up activity using electronic live polling software (Turning
Point Technology).
The visual preference survey prompted participants to use
their electronic remote control to cast their vote on a series of
imagery of streets, sidewalks, public spaces, and buildings
based on whether they thought they were appropriate or
inappropriate for downtown San Luis Obispo. Participants
were asked to give their first reaction to the image shown on
the screen. The exercise was intended to be an icebreaker to
help people focus on the upcoming workshop activities, and
survey results will not be used to determine plan
recommendations. Polling devices were provided to everyone
who wanted to participate but not all attendees opted to
engage in all of the questions. The final three slides were
questions based on Workshop 1 results. The intent of these
questions was to help direct the discussion for the self-guided
actives at the end of the event which focused on drawing and
model building exercises. Full results of the visual preference
survey can be found in Appendix E.
Small Group Exercises
The majority of the workshop was devoted to participants engaging in small group exercises. Participants were
divided into seven groups and asked to work as a table to respond to a series of questions regarding public realm,
street improvements, building heights, and
views in downtown. The summary of input
received follows.
Please see Appendix C for spatial a diagram
of responses. Appendix C uses colors to
indicate participants’ preferred street type (as
shown in the legend) and numbers to signify
the number of breakout group that voted for
the same street type on each various
segment. For transcription of additional
comments received, please refer to
Appendix D.
Exercise 1: Public Realm
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
16 San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan
As a group, participants were asked to select three locations where enhancements would have the most impact to
the public realm as illustrated in the worksheet below. Then they were asked “What type of improvements do you feel
are most appropriate for downtown?” and members of the small groups worked together to place dots with the
corresponding letters on the map provided.
Results of the activity are displayed in the table below with priority locations in the left column and types of
improvements across the rest of the table. Green spaces and pocket parks received the most responses and the
Creamery area, the County Courthouse Lawn, Mission Plaza and San Luis Ceek were chosen by the most groups as
opportunity areas for public realm improvements.
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
Community Engagement Summary 17
Location (by # of votes) A. Exercise Space B. Green Space C. Performance Space D. Paseo E. Plaza F. Pocket Park The Creamery/Creek I I I I
County Courthouse
Lawn I I I
Mission Plaza
(improvement
to/expansion of)
I I I
Along creek I I I
Mitchell Park I I
Corner parking lot at
Higuera and Nipomo I I
On rooftops (Nipomo
and City 919 Palm
Structures)
I I
SW corner of Chorro
and Marsh (bank
parking lot)
I I
Santa Rosa north of
County Building I
Garden Street
(mid-block) I
Above Ludwick
Community Center I
Next to Bank of
America (no type
specified)
Emerson Park
(no type specified)
By Fremont
(no type specified)
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
18 San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan
Exercise 2: Mobility
Working as a group, participants were asked to choose the three streets they would most like to see improved
downtown, then color code them as a complete street (blue), car-light street (yellow), or car-free street (green) by
placing colored tape on the map provided. As described in the worksheet that accompanied the exercise, complete
streets are designed for all modes and types of users; car-light streets are places designed for pedestrians and
bicyclists to be the most dominant mode; and car free streets are preserved primarily for bike and pedestrian use.
Most of the small group discussions focused on Higuera, Marsh, Monterey, and Santa Rosa Streets. Highlights
include complete street improvements for the length of Marsh and Santa Rosa Streets within the study area
boundary. Three groups demonstrated an interest in a car-free Monterey Street between Nipomo and Broad Streets,
Monterey Street between Osos Street and Santa Rosa Street, Broad Street between Monterey Street and Palm
Street, and Higuera Street, between Nipomo Street and Santa Rosa Street. This demonstrates that almost half of the
table groups recommended closing the Broad Street “dog leg” between Palm and Monterey Streets adjacent to
Mission Plaza. Several groups were split between wanting to extend the closure of Monterey between Nipomo and
Santa Rosa Streets or making Monterey “car light” on either side of Mission Plaza.
Through individual comments in other engagement activities, participants frequently showed an interest in making
mobility improvements downtown. These group activities helped, to some degree, refine priorities. Please refer to
Appendix C for a spatial representation of the mapping activity results.
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
Community Engagement Summary 19
Exercise 3: Height and Massing
Working as a group, participants were asked to design a representative block north of Santa Rosa, in central
downtown, and south of Nipomo. For that block, choose a Lego configuration to represent future building height and
massing for each block. Options provided included A. reduce or remove stories to create open space, B. keep
existing height and massing, C. add height but step back upper stories so buildings are tallest in the center of the
block, D. add height and build to the sidewalk, E. Design your own configuration.
At the end of the activity, little commonality was demonstrated amongst tables and hence, no real conclusion could
be drawn or summarized. The inherent value of the exercise was the discussion amongst tablemates about where
they felt strongly opposed to or open to additional height or view preservation. It was apparent that there were two
schools of thought amongst workshop participants.
1. The small town character, lifestyle, and scale of
today is highly valued and there is a fear that it
will be lost to new taller development in the future.
2. If downtown doesn’t adapt and make room for
new residents, more diversity in use/activities,
and increased vibrancy, downtown’s economic
vitality may be uncertain in the future.
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
20 San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan
Exercise 4: Views
Working as a group, participants were asked to pick a location where views contribute to the downtown atmosphere.
They were asked “where do you look from that location to see the iconic view? Create and label a “V” using dots and
yarn to capture that viewshed.”
The following is a summary of the number of votes for each view participants prioritized as “iconic:”
A. Cerro San Luis B. Cuesta Grade C. Bishop’s Peak D. Bowden Ranch (behind SLO High) Other
23 votes 10 votes 2 votes 5 Votes
Up Marsh
Up Monterey
360° from rooftops
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
Community Engagement Summary 21
Small Group Exercise Summaries by Group
Green Group (Chris)
Between 12 and 14 people participated in the exercises at the green table. Participants prioritized Mission Plaza
(active and cultural spaces), the creek near The Creamery shopping center parking lot at Higuera Street and Nipomo
Street (paseos), and uptown in the vicinity of Monterey Street between Johnson Avenue and Pepper Street (green
space/plaza).
Participants spent the majority of the time discussing circulation changes and agreed that Marsh Street should be a
complete street through the study area. Participants would make Higuera Street “complete” from the western study
area boundary to Nipomo, where they would close it to vehicles through Santa Rosa Street. Participants agreed that
Monterey Street should be car-light or closed to vehicles around the Mission, car-light from the Mission to Santa
Rosa Street, and “complete” through the eastern study area boundary.
The group generally agreed that heights should stay as they are through much of the study area, with an interest in
maintaining the current look and feel of central downtown. South of Nipomo, the group was in favor of potentially
higher densities than are currently occurring, as long as green spaces were integrated throughout to break up
development and prevent the area from becoming overly urban. The group’s individual responses regarding views
and viewsheds focused on the view of Bishop’s Peak from Nipomo Street and views of the creek throughout the
study area.
Red Group (Amy)
Approximately 13 people collaborated at the red table. With regard to the discussion about public space, the group
came up with 6 or 7 options and chose the top three locations and type of improvement they’d like to see. The group
prioritized 1.green space along San Luis Creek throughout the DT study area with enhanced and additional green
space along creek including walkable green space and dining, 2. Rooftop green spaces on top of buildings and 3. A
Paseo/plaza at the Mission Mall between Higuera and San Luis Creek. The idea is to open up Mission Mall and
enhance the plaza space along the creek (adjacent to the Birkenstock store).
On the topic of mobility, the group decided to prioritize Monterey, Higuera and Santa Rosa Streets as follows:
• Monterey Street – car free between Nipomo and Santa Rosa. Group also add the block of Broad between
Monterey and Palm to this closure as they felt it was all connected.
• Higuera Street – car light between Nipomo and Osos. Group also added the block of Garden Street
between Higuera and Marsh to this closure as it was the group’s understanding that this is already part of
the plan for this street once the Garden Street Terraces project is complete.
• Santa Rosa Street – complete street through the entire study area.
The height and massing discussion was the most challenging exercise for the group and some people didn’t
participate much because they didn’t feel comfortable expressing their ideas through LEGO bricks. Generally the
group wasn’t very comfortable having one block represent the whole district of downtown. Most people wanted a
variety of heights – especially in the north and south ends. Most people felt comfortable with the maximum heights as
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
22 San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan
they currently are (3 stories) in the core (most historic) district. As for prioritizing views, 4 voted for views towards
Cerro San Luis, 2 voted for 360 degree views from parking structures, and others selected views down Higuera, up to
east Cuesta Ridge, looking east down Monterey and toward the creek.
Black Group (Rebecca)
During the public realm discussion, the participants attempted to spread out the new parks/plazas over the three
different areas of downtown as follows:
• Santa Rosa – as this area grows, there should be a new park/plaza area also
• Lawn area in front of the court house could be better utilized as public space with a redesign
• Mitchell Park – it has great potential, but needs to be activated in positive ways as there are too many
homeless and it feels unsafe
• Mission Plaza (also see streetscape discussion below) could expand and connect across the creek via
creek walk to the surface parking lot at Higuera and Nipomo which would turn into a mini park/plaza area.
The mobility discussion prioritized Monterey, Marsh and Higuera. There was a desire to slow down traffic with
complete street improvements on Higuera and Marsh as approaching/leaving HWY101 and connect that area more
to downtown. There was discussion about converting to two-way streets, but it was not unanimous. Folks were
hesitant to deemphasize cars too much on Higuera and Marsh b/c of concern that traffic would then move to/more
greatly impact neighboring streets, however, in the downtown core on Higuera between Nipomo and Santa Rosa,
there was a desire to elevate peds even more. On north Monterey, the group decided they would like to slow down
vehicles as infill development continues and pedestrian connectivity is encouraged. Some members discussed that a
street closure around Mission Plaza was a good way to expand the Plaza. Generally, the group supported looking at
converting Monterey adjacent to Mission Plaza to pedestrian-only or pedestrian-mostly to expand the plaza.
With regard to height and massing, the group decided
to keep the scale as-is in the downtown core and the
SW area. With greenspace mixed in the core area (but
the intention was not to demo buildings to put in green
space). The white LEGO bricks showed generally 2-3
story buildings in the core, and 1-2 story buildings in the
lower section of downtown. In the upper Monterey area,
it was voiced that it would be okay to go taller. People
showed three story buildings with stepped-back height
increases. The discussion on views varied and some
people pointed out views up the streets, white others
pointed out views that would be blocked by pending
development.
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
Community Engagement Summary 23
White Group (Xzandrea)
Eleven people participated in the exercises at the white table. Participants prioritized public realm discussion around
green space (improvements to Emerson Park, the front lawn of the Old Courthouse, development of pocket parks
along the creek, and encouraging green space on the top level of existing and new parking structures), the Ludwick
Community Center (maintaining the existing indoor exercise area and creating other public indoor exercise
opportunities at the southern end of the downtown core), and creating a public plaza north of Santa Rosa Road to
support the new commercial and residential development that is occurring north of the downtown core.
Participants focused their mobility discussion on Monterey Street (between Broad and Nipomo) and on Morro Street
(between Pacific and Monterey). They were split between the “car-light” and “car-free” along that section of Monterey
and felt that a hybrid of the two concepts would be the most appropriate. On Morro Street they wanted to extend the
bicycle boulevard through a “car-light” street design. Participants also discussed the need to reduce speeds along
Marsh and Higuera but did not come to consensus on a preferred street treatment.
The group spent the most time discussing height and massing. Solar orientation was very important to the group and
they generally felt that the existing setting (adjacent to historic buildings, views, character of the block, and natural
lighting) should be the primary factors evaluated when determining building heights and massing. Approximately
2/3rds of the group felt that the height limitations should be removed and that each development should be evaluated
on a case by case situation since the downtown is so diverse and each street has a very unique character to take
into consideration when determining the appropriateness of building designs. The remaining 1/3rd of the group felt
that 4 stories that step back from the property lines would be the most appropriate maximum building height and
massing. There was consensus amongst the group that Marsh Street should be an open corridor that allows light to
travel down the street (tall buildings should not tower the street and create a tunnel effect). The group generally
agreed that as the elevations increased the allowable building heights should be reduced to ensure protection of view
sheds.
During the view discussion there was consensus amongst the participants that all public buildings/structures should
have roof top areas that could be used for public green space and areas to get unobstructed views (Cerro San Luis,
Cuesta Grande, Bishops Peak, etc.). Each member also identified on the map which view they felt was the most
important to them.
Blue Group (Tammy)
Between 12 and 14 people participated in the exercises at the blue table. During the public realm discussion, the
group prioritized green space (On Marsh Street between Garden and Chorro Streets), paseos (at Garden Street
between Marsh and Higuera Street) and plazas (at the Fremont Theatre) above the other types of public space.
Additionally, there was a minority report for green space at Marsh Street south of Osos corridor-wide.
On the mobility topic, participants prioritized Santa Rosa Street and Marsh Street as complete streets, Higuera Street
and Monterey Street south of Mission Plaza as car-light streets and the areas adjacent to the Mission (on Broad
Street) and near the Courthouse as car-free streets. There was a minority report stating that Higuera Street should
be a complete street and Center Street should be car-free.
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
24 San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan
For height and massing, the group felt that there should be no change to the scale of development in the core or
center of downtown to better maintain viewsheds. As a divided group, some participants expressed that height could
be added (with setbacks) at the outer segments or city entrances, but others felt that more height was inappropriate
and would jeopardize views and small town scale
Yellow Group (Michael)
Nine people participated in the exercises at the yellow table, although we lost and gained folks during the course of
the exercise. Participants prioritized public realm discussion around new areas for green space, including the surface
parking lot at the corner of Marsh and Chorro, and expanded uses at Mitchell Park.
Participants focused their mobility discussion on making major changes to the street network, including closing down
Monterey Street to vehicular traffic (other than transit) between Santa Rosa and Chorro. Cross-traffic at Osos, Morro,
and Chorro would still be permitted. They also decided to expand the sidewalks on Higuera and Marsh Street by
reducing travel lanes and going to two-lane traffic on both streets.
The group spent some time discussing height and
massing, however, there was no consensus
developed on locations for tall buildings. In general,
the group was supportive of buildings that stepped
back at the upper stories. For example, concerns
were expressed about the design of the Anderson
Hotel and generally the feeling was that new
buildings at that height should be stepped back at the
upper floors. The most expansive discussion
occurred regarding the viewsheds that should be
preserved. Several locations were identified with
cones of view to Cerro San Luis, Bishop Peak, and
the Santa Lucia foothills.
Overflow Group (Siri)
The overflow table included two residents and property owners who live near Mission Plaza, four local seniors, and a
non-resident downtown property owner. In response to the question about improvements to the public realm, the
group focused on the creek, where they would like to see a variety of activities to draw attention to the green space
and to discourage homeless activity. They also suggested recreation-related improvements to Emerson Park. The
group selected rooftop green spaces as the third opportunity to improve the public realm.
In response to the second question about street improvements, the group discussed the need for free-flowing traffic
through the downtown for those traveling in all directions. The group would like to see complete street improvements
the full length of Marsh Street and Santa Rosa Street. For local circulation, the group was hesitant to close any
streets to cars because they acknowledged the special needs of seniors and those with disabilities who need door-to-
door services from private vehicles or transit providers. Consistent with this concern, the group would like to see
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
Community Engagement Summary 25
accessible street parking spaces maintained in the future. The most vocal participants expressed opposition to
closing the dog-leg. With this in mind, the group selected Higuera Street for car-light improvements.
The third question about height was the most challenging for the group. Generally speaking, they do not want to see
increases in height beyond the current condition in downtown. They are open to the concept of a few taller landmark
buildings, particularly if they are located adjacent to the Highway 101. The final discussion regarding views was a
very important one to the group’s participants, and they identified views in most directions. Specifically, the group
discussed and identified views from Mission Plaza, Monterey Street (visible while driving or walking down the road),
and rooftop locations that offer panoramic views of the surrounding hillsides.
What did you learn Exercise?
The final exercise the groups were asked to complete,
was to share with the table what they learned from
working as a group. Please refer to Appendix D “What I
learned” section for a complete transcription of this
activity.
Self-Guided Activities
Appendices D and E include the complete results of the
visual preference survey and photos of the maps
produced by each of the small groups.
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
26 San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan
Online Survey
The City posted a series of questions on their online engagement tool ”Open City Hall” which was available from
February 18-March 9. Approximately 400 participants took the survey. Questions were geared toward understanding
how participants perceive downtown, why they visit, what they like and dislike about downtown and what they would
like to see Mission Plaza used for most. Seventy nine percent of survey respondents responded that they “Love” or
“Like it a Lot” “San Luis Obispo’s Downtown. People most like the look and feel of downtown and its walkability, and
most dislike panhandlers and traffic/parking. See Appendix G for full responses to the Online Survey questions.
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
Community Engagement Summary 27
Neighborhood Meetings
Residents who live or own homes in the downtown or surrounding neighborhoods within the General Plan Downtown
Planning Area, were invited to participate in two neighborhood meetings. Almost 3,500 postcards were mailed. The
meetings took place on April 18 at 5:30 at the Senior Center (with approximately 30 attendees) and on April 19 at
noon at the Ludwick Community Center, with about 15 attendees. The meetings included a group discussion about
neighbor-specific issues and concerns, ideas and opportunities, and what they value about living downtown.
A more detailed transcription of input recorded is included in Appendix F. The following paragraphs summarize
some of the highlights from the neighborhood meetings.
Issues and Concerns
Parking and Traffic
Neighbors are very concerned about large volumes of traffic and the spillover of parking into residential
neighborhoods. They see lack of adequate parking in the downtown and infrequency of transit times as part of the
problem. In addition, residents are critical of streets that are designed predominantly for vehicles, which creates an
environment of potential conflict between pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. Additional comments included
vehicles cutting through neighborhoods to avoid congestion, lack of drop-off and pick-up zones, underutilized surface
parking lots, and lack of education about parking options, which could all be part of a systematic solution to parking
and traffic concerns.
Pedestrians
The pedestrian environment is important to residents. By far the biggest concern related to the pedestrian experience
downtown are narrow sidewalks and obstructions and trip hazards making pedestrian travel difficult. Additional issues
included short crossing times at cross walks, the need for more visual cues for drivers at crosswalks, conflicts
between pedestrians and vehicles, and curb cuts that are too narrow and/or high.
Facilities and Operations
Residents expressed some frustration about how downtown is maintained or operated that negatively impacts
downtown residents. For example, a few people said that there are not enough trash receptacles on the edges of
downtown, and as a result there is a proliferation of litter in their neighborhood. Also, since the downtown recycling
center closed, there are more bottles and cans littering the area. A need for more public restrooms was also noted.
Setting
Residents expressed high levels of concern about crime, vandalism, and overconcentration of bars. Homelessness
was raised as an issue that makes the environment uncomfortable for residents and visitors to downtown. Additional
concerns about setting were air quality and pollution, safety, and walk-through traffic from downtown.
Housing
Multiple residents expressed a need for a neighborhood market. Two identified the lack of affordable housing as an
issue and one person described an imbalance between residents and visitors.
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
28 San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan
Historic Character
Historic character in the downtown core is important to preserve for residents. They believe that such character is an
important attractor for pedestrian traffic and pedestrian traffic is important to businesses.
Economics
Residents listed a variety of comments that reflect market conditions. They are concerned about high rents and real
estate costs, the rental housing stock, empty storefronts, and businesses, particularly local businesses, closing.
Growth
Residents in and around downtown are concerned about growth. They mentioned the rate of growth, lack of diverse
downtown uses, and demographic imbalances. Several participants were concerned about blocked views resulting
from downtown growth and they would like to see residents have more influence in decision-making about building
heights.
Height, Massing, and Intensity of Development
Meeting participants broadly supported limitations on new building height. A few discussed negative impacts of
development on our environment and noise impacts in neighborhoods.
Policy Enforcement
Lastly, residents described concerns about policy enforcement and a handful of people felt that the City lacks
enforcement of existing policies and development standards. Moreover, they believe that public comments are not
reflected in decision-making.
What do you Love about Living Downtown?
Neighborhood meeting participants expressed what they value about living downtown.
Connections to nature
Views received overwhelming support. Additional comments included sun on streets, creeks, trees, parks, and open
space protection.
Small Town Feel
Neighbors value the historic character of their neighborhoods and the sense of community they feel, as well as an
appreciation for their neighbors.
Proximity
An overwhelming number of residents appreciate their proximity to downtown and that they are within walking
distance of services; they value not needing a car.
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
Community Engagement Summary 29
Art/Culture
Various expressions of art and culture are important to residents. The appreciate events, fairs, and music in the park.
A few appreciate public art and the art museum. And some would like more opportunities for art.
Bicycle infrastructure
A few people expressed their appreciation for bicycle boulevards.
Ideas & Opportunities
Local residents also offered ideas and opportunities to address issues and concerns as well as to enhance existing
assets. The following suggestions got more than one “vote;” the full list of suggestions is included in Appendix F:
Improve Crosswalks
• Reflective lines on crosswalks
• More mid-block crossings
Improve pedestrian and bicycle experience downtown
• Promote walking/bike riding through infrastructure improvements
• Improve downtown pedestrian access, connections to surrounding areas, and to parking structures
• Conduct road diets and widen sidewalks (focus on Higuera and Marsh)
• Close Monterey from Chorro to Osos
• Increase the number of trash and restroom facilities
• Build additional bike lanes
• Secure bike parking in parking garages or within businesses, more bike racks, racks for family/cargo bikes
• More safe routes to school
• Build more bulb-outs, medians, improved crosswalks
Traffic & Parking
• Build parking structures and require employers to provide parking facilities specifically for employees
• Encourage parking structures; eliminate surface lot, and on street parking
Trees/Nature
• “Tree conservation corps” to preserve rather than replace trees
• Increase public park space
Art
• Cultural district; more public art
Housing/Density
• Encourage downtown housing
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
30 San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan
• Solar access with buildings
• Don’t build more without secure water
• Decrease density as you move away from downtown
Neighborhood Amenities
• More local shopping opportunities
• Family friendly activities and more variety
Other
• Increase activities and experiences downtown instead of storefronts only
• Activate Mission Plaza to reduce homeless population
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
Community Engagement Summary 31
Takeaways from Engagement Activities
Some of the overall themes from the extensive engagement activities are highlighted below. Transcriptions and
additional details from the individual activities are included in the appendices.
What Participants Value
From the input gathered throughout the Downtown Concept Plan outreach process to date, we have learned that the
vast majority of community members who have participated value the following things about our downtown:
• The small town feel and historic character
• Access and views to open space
• Its walkable scale
• Vibrancy and sense of community
Common Concerns and Areas for Improvements
During the public engagement activities, public stakeholders provided hundreds of comments that help us better
understand concerns as well as opportunities for improvement. Some comments were expressed rarely. Other input
pooled around the following prevailing themes:
• Public/open space: Activate a variety of public spaces downtown; design for positive social interaction,
access to views, and connections to the natural environment.
• Mobility: Improve access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders. Elevate these modes of
transportation in the downtown, while providing adequate parking in garages on the perimeter.
• Art, culture, history, and diversity: Enhance arts and cultural opportunities, preserve downtown’s historic
charm, and encourage a diversity of local businesses, uses, and activities.
• Height and scale: Avoid a domineering built environment that blocks views, interrupts the existing
pedestrian scale, and overwhelms the public realm.
• Public safety and nuisance issues: Address vagrancy, panhandling, public drunkenness, dirty sidewalks,
and other negative activity that appears to be increasing in downtown.
Issues, Ideas, and Next Steps
The following section identifies some priority issues as expressed by the community through the public outreach
process, followed by ideas for possible resolution of the issue and finally, next steps for the project team that will
need to be addressed moving forward in the update of the Downtown Concept Plan.
It’s important to note that the results from Workshop 2 were cumulative in nature as priority discussion topics/issues
from Stakeholder Focus Groups fed into Workshop 1 exercises, input from Workshop 1 fed into Workshop 2
exercises and the online survey questions, and input from Workshop 2, the online survey and neighborhood
meetings has led us to the issues, ideas, and key questions in this section.
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
32 SLO DTCP Outreach Summary
Increasing mobility options, enhancing the public realm, and height and scale rose to the top after the stakeholder
interviews and Workshop 1 as three issue areas that will need to be addressed by the Concept Plan update.
Workshop 2 was designed to garner more feedback on, and possible solutions for, these issue areas.
Issue 1: Improving Mobility
Improving mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists to better connect to and move around downtown was one of the
most widely discussed issues. Participants discussed issues related to mobility downtown for pedestrians, bicyclists,
transit riders, and drivers. Parking was also a frequent topic. Public stakeholders also suggested ideas for how to
design a more pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly environment.
Idea #1: Improving mobility and safety downtown for pedestrians and bicyclists was one of the most widely
discussed issues. Changes to the downtown streetscape (including sidewalks) could improve the downtown
experience for pedestrians and bicyclists, but downtown needs to also accommodate drivers and transit users, and
not redirect traffic problems to other adjacent streets. In addition to improving safety and connectivity into and around
downtown, input focused on increasing pedestrian and bike safety at intersections and mid-block.
Idea #2: The original Downtown Concept Plan proposed parking garages spread around the perimeter of the
downtown core to accommodate vehicles but keep them away from the heart of downtown, and reuse surface
parking lots for other opportunities. There was much support for this concept in the public input process. There were
also ideas suggested about trolleys/transit connecting parking garages, removing more on-street parking, and
developing multi-use parking structures with public amenities on the top level.
Idea #3: Participants in Workshop 2 proposed a combination of complete streets, car light streets, and car free
streets recognizing that the function and form of the street network varies and could be improved to accommodate all
users on some streets and a sub-set of users on other streets. Many of the ideas focused on improvements for the
following streets:
• Higuera – car-light street (Nipomo to Santa Rosa)
• Marsh – complete street (entire length)
• Monterey – car-light or car-free street (Nipomo to Santa Rosa)
• Santa Rosa – complete street (entire length)
Idea #4: Create more opportunity for social interaction on our streets
Issue 2: Enhancing the Public Realm
Various aspects of the public realm were also very common concerns. Stakeholders also place significant value on
the ways that the public realm adds life, character, and places to socialize in downtown. Ideas for the enhancing the
public realm included:
Idea #1: Creation of New and Better Social Spaces: Through the outreach process participants identified a variety of
locations and ways to improve the public realm. The most common locations and improvements include:
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT 33
• County Courthouse Lawn – improve the use of the area in front of the Courthouse on Monterey so it acts
more like a public plaza
• Mission Plaza –expand and improve the plaza
• San Luis Obispo Creek – Improve public access to the creek, include pocket parks, plazas and exercise
space
• Use land near the Creamery to connect it to the creek
• Use/convert public garage rooftops for public spaces
• Improve the existing parks in and near downtown, including Emerson and Mitchell Park
Idea #2: The public realm also includes issues such as access to nature, opportunities for youth, creative expression,
events, and more. These ideas and locations for public realm improvements, in addition to others, should be
considered, compared, and prioritized (as applicable) based on their ability to address multiple desires of public
stakeholders. Some of what we heard includes:
• Improve access to and across San Luis Creek
• Connect public and cultural areas
• Support cohesive design between public and cultural areas
• Accommodate/encourage public art installations
• Consider mini parks/pocket parks/parklets
• Provide public amenities such as restrooms, street furnishings (bike racks, garbage cans, etc.) and wireless
connections
• Provide parks in areas for viewshed protection
Idea #3: Stakeholders also raised many concerns about public behavior such as drunkenness, panhandling, and
littering. Design public realm improvements to discourage negative behavioral issues; activate park areas for a
variety of people and families. Consider Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) in public realm
design.
Issue 3: Infill Development
Not surprisingly, the public engagement process to date has not resolved differences of opinion as they relate to
building height and scale and access to views in downtown. However, the process has advanced the conversation
from hardline opinions to consideration of solutions, recognizing that stakeholders value and would like to preserve
access to open space (by accommodating development in the city) and views of open space from public areas
downtown.
A variety of ideas emerged regarding infill development downtown:
Idea #1: Create a diverse, dynamic robust downtown that has more people living, working and visiting while
preserving its history, charm, walkability, and economic vitality.
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
34 SLO DTCP Outreach Summary
Idea #2: Maintain the pedestrian scale of the street, while allowing for appropriate height and density of infill
development.
Idea #3: Target height carefully and in limited areas rather than across large swaths of land. Height is more
tolerable/desirable toward the center of blocks, in pockets, in low areas (topography) so as to lessen impacts on
views, and adjacent to the freeway. Use rooftops to regain views downtown.
Idea #4: Redevelop surface parking lots (while providing parking in multi-story lots).
Idea #5: If we want people living downtown, we need to provide amenities for residents, not just visitors
(neighborhood commercial, local businesses, etc.).
Next Steps
The Creative Vision Team (CVT), staff, and consultant project team will be working to refine and translate these
broad ideas into physical plan recommendations to be included in the Draft Downtown Concept Plan. Draft Plan
workshops are scheduled for the Fall.
APPENDICES ( go to www.slocity.org/downtown)
Appendix A: Stakeholder Interview Summary
Appendix B: Transcriptions of Input Received During Workshop 1
Appendix C: Workshop 2 Mapping Activity Results Spatial Data
Appendix D: Workshop 2 Mapping Activity Transcription
Appendix E: Workshop 2 Visual Preference Survey Responses
Appendix F: Neighborhood Meeting Comments and Priorities
Appendix G: Open City Hall Online Survey Responses
Appendix H: Workshop 2 Table Activity Photos
Attachment B
7.b
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: b - Engagement Summary (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
N
N
PROJECT
NORTH
TRUE
NORTH
SAN LUIS OBISPO DOWNTOWN CONCEPT PLAN WORKING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 21, 2016
OFFICE / MIXED USE
COMMERCIAL / MIXED USE
HOSPITALITY
RESIDENTIAL
PARKING STRUCTURE
COMMUNITY SERVING
PLAZA
HIGUERA STREET
MONTEREY STREET
PALM STREET
MARSH STREET
PACIFIC STREET
PISMO STREET
SANTA ROSA STREETOSOS STREETMORRO STREETCHORRO STREETBROAD STREETNIPOMO STREETBEACH STREETCARMEL STREETARCHER STREETWALKER STREETPALMMILL ALLEY
DANA STREET SANTA ROSA STREETOSOS STREETMORRO STREETCHORRO STREETBROAD STREETNIPOMO STREETTORO STREETJOHNSON AVENUETORO STREETJOHNSON AVENUEPEPPER STREETHIGUERA STREET
MARSH STREET
PISMO STREET
PACIFIC STREET
MONTEREY STREET
EMERSON PARK
MITCHELL PARK
MISSION PLAZA
P
P
P
P
P
GARDEN STREETP
P
P
PARK
BLOCK NUMBERSEE SPREDSHEET
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
29 30 31 32 33 34 35
41 42 43 44 45 46 47
55 56 57 58 59 60 61
69 70 71 72 73 74
40
54
68
39
53
67
38
52
66
51
65
37
50
64
49
63
8
18
28
17
27
37
Attachment C7.c
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: c - Downtown Concept Plan Working Draft (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
Block #
Working Draft‐‐Block Descriptions
(Bold indicates projects in the works. Blocks with no numbers have no changes proposed.)
10
New high density housing infill on Mill St., behind the Palm Parking Structure with community serving
reuse of the historic Ah Louis Store. Commercial/mixed use development between Ah Louis Store and
Palm Parking Structure.
11 City Hall, AT&T building and current SLO Little Theatre (City owned) are renovated to incorporate
additional city offices and improved outdoor public space along Palm St frontage.
17
Office/mixed use is shown near the corner of Nipomo and Dana Streets. New small scale residential is
at the end of Dana Street with the City‐owned Rosa Butron Adobe property opened to the public.
There is a new connection from the neighborhood to enhanced Creek Walk.
18
A new parking structure on the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets is constructed to include retail
along Nipomo, with the SLO Little Theatre along Monterey. An addition to the History Center is shown
on the City‐owned parking lot on Monterey St, wrapping around the building to property on Broad St.
If not all needed for the History Center, then used for other community serving use in the Cultural
District.
19 A portion of the Mission Plaza Master Plan will be illustrated in this block (and in block 29)
20
The Chinatown Project is under construction. It includes new construction and reuse of existing
buildings for commercial mixed use along Monterey St, including retail and student housing, and hotel
use with plazas and paseos. A future pedestrian connection is shown to Chorro St.
22
The greenspace at the County building will become a demonstration garden with interactive public art.
Additional office and commercial space will be added along Santa Rosa to bring the building to the
street's edge. County parking/drop off underground or on first level.
23
The County will develop its surface parking lots on this block to include a 3‐4 story County office
building with parking. Retail or public uses along Monterey St will help activate the street. Residential
and office mixed use will occupy the block along Palm St.
24
The corner of Monterey and Johnson will redevelop to 3‐4 stories with ground floor commercial and
residential above, like The Mix across the street. The existing development pattern will mostly remain
along Palm St, with some new office/mixed use and housing opportunities.
25
The corner of Monterey and Pepper converts to structured parking wrapped with gound floor
commercial and residential or office above. The parking structure or adjacent mixed use development
may include rooftop open space.
27
This large block will include new commercial/mixed use neardowntown's main entrance. Historic
buildings will be preserved while a varitey of commercial/mixed use, housing, and hospitality uses will
be infused south of the creek along Higuera. Modular single‐family residential and multi‐family units as
well as other commercial opportunitites will connect to the expanded Creek Walk. New development
will open onto and interact with creek. Four different projects are currently in the works:
The Lofts at Nipomo at 1027 Nipomo is a 4‐story mixed use project along the creek; it currently
includes 23 residential units, 7 hotel rooms and approx 3,500 sq ft of commercial space.
Downtown Concept Plan Working Draft‐Block Descriptions September 21, 2016
Attachment D
7.d
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: d - Draft Block Descriptions (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
South Town 18 at 560 Higuera St is a 4‐story mixed use project along the creek; it currently includes 18
new residential units and approximately 70 sq ft of commercial space.
Downtown Terrace Project is a medium density residential project with approximately 30 new
prefabricated manufactured homes on the site of the current mobile home park.
The Creamery will be expanded and rehabilitated with paseo connections to Nipomo and Higuera
Streets and an interior courtyard where there is currently parking.
28
The public parking lot on the corner of Higuera and Nipomo will be converted to multi‐story
commercial/mixed use project with a public plaza that provides more posititve activity along the creek
at this prominent corner. Pedestrians can cross the creek here and walk to the entitled Monterey Place
project, Cultural District and new parking structure. There are improvements to the Creek Walk and
connections to adjacent businesses. This block also includes a public park on the the corner of Broad
and Monterey across from the Museum of Art; it could include more plaza area or children's play
opportunities. It shows a small facility for leasing and cultural uses. Monterey Place is a mixed‐use
development with 23 residential units, a bed and breakfast with 11 rooms, and lower‐level office,
retail, and restaurant space along the creek, with a paseo connection through the project to the
pedestrian bridge.
29 The Mission Plaza Master Plan will be illustrated here. In addition, businesses along Higuera include
improved interaction with the creek to take advantage of the views and activate the corridor.
30 As this block redevelops, uses along Monterey will open up to the "shared street" more. The
intersection at Chorro St will be enhanced to better connect pedestrians to the plaza.
32
The Fremont Square project next to the Freemont Theater will include multiple stories of retail, office,
restaurant, and residential uses, and includes a mid‐block paseo. Ground‐floor improvements along
Osos will activate the street, making it more pedestrian friendly.
33
New landmark buildings will be sited along Santa Rosa on the corner of Monterey and Higuera Streets,
opening onto corner plazas with public art and a mid‐block paseo. A third commercial/mixed use
building will include retail along Monterey and housing on upper levels. A parking structure and transit
center will be built along Higuera, with community serving and commercial/mixed use fronting most of
the structure along Higuera. There will be public open space on the parking structure rooftop or
adjacent private development, where people can enjoy views of the surrounding hills.
34
This block will redevelop along Monterey Street with 2‐4 story commercial/mixed use. Buildings will be
sited along the street‐front with upper stories that may be stepped back for scale and increased
outdoor space, with opportunities for upper story residential. A small plaza area on Monterey will
connect to a pocket park on Higuera St, for neighborhood green space and small scale play
opportunities.
35
This block will continue the redevelopment pattern along Monterey Street with 2‐4 story commercial
mixed use. Upper stories will be stepped back for scale, with opportunities for increased outdoor space
and residential uses. Residential uses will continue along Higuera St.
37
This block will include an iconic commercial mixed use gateway development at the Marsh and Higuera
intersection to announce arrival into downtown. The block will include an entry plaza with public art.
This area will be further refined with intersection enhancements possibly including a roundabout.
Downtown Concept Plan Working Draft‐Block Descriptions September 21, 2016
Attachment D
7.d
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: d - Draft Block Descriptions (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
38
This large block includes the San Luis Square Project currently under review on the corner of Marsh
and Nipomo Streets. It includes three 4‐story mixed‐use buildings with retail space and 48 residential
units. A paseo travels through the center of the block between buildings, connecting to the Jack House
and gardens and to a mid‐block paseo between Beach and Higuera Streets. Commercial/mixed use and
hospitality will redevelop throughout the block. The Jack House and gardens will better connect with
surrounding properties and become more of a neighborhood amenity.
39
The corner of Marsh and Nipomo St will redevelop with 3‐4 story commercial/mixed use with
residential stepped‐back above. New 1‐2 story commercial will infill the surface lot on the corner of
Broad and Marsh Street to retain compatability with existing Broad St developoment pattern. There
will be opportunities for pocket plazas and outdoor dining.
40
An improved "social alley" will provide pedestrian access through this block and also connect to
Bubblegum Alley, as part of the Garden Street Terraces/Hotel Serra Project currently under
development. The 4‐story project includes 64 hotel rooms, 25,000 sq ft of commercial space and 8
residential units, as well as improvements to Garden St.
42
The entitled Discovery SLO project will be located on the corner of Chorro and Marsh St. It will reuse
the existing 24,500‐square‐foot 2‐story commercial building, and includes a bowling alley, restaurant,
outdoor patio, and open banquet area. No other changes are proposed for this block.
43
The entitled Granada Hotel Expansion Project will include a 24‐unit, 4‐story hotel addition with roof
deck in the interior of the block, located in the Historic Downtown District. In addition, the current
surface parking lots between Higuera and Marsh Streets will infill with 3‐4 story commercial/mixed
use. This new development will continue the vibrant downtown street front, creating opportunities for
lower level retail and commercial, and upper level housing.
44
This block will redevelop to take advantage of the creek with additional outdoor patios and pocket
plaza areas. The prominent corner of Higuera and Santa Rosa will redevelop with 3‐4 story
commercial/mixed use. The project on the corner of Marsh and Santa Rosa is currently under
construction and will include 3 stories with offices and housing.
45
Eight 3‐story townhomes are under development along Marsh Street. Santa Rosa and Higuera Streets
will redevelop with 3‐4 story commercial/mixed use. There will be a paseo connecting to the parking
structure and transit center. The historic hospital property will remain on the corner of Marsh and Toro
Streets.
46
This block will include 2‐3 story office/mixed use redevelopment along Higuera Street, with housing on
upper levels facing the pocket park across the street. New office/mixed use will be on the corner of
Toro and Marsh St.
49
Higuera Street frontage redevelops with 3‐story commercial mixed use announcing your entry into
downtown. This block is part of the "funk zone" bordering the Mid‐Higuera Plan area; it can
accomodate flexible uses such as live/work studios or larger‐footprint shared work spaces.
50
This block will be redeveloped with commercial/mixed use, hospitality, and structured parking to
accommodate the new development in this portion of downtown, including the adjacent hotel.
Commercial mixed use is in front of the parking structure along Marsh St., providing for an inviting
pedestrian experience.
Downtown Concept Plan Working Draft‐Block Descriptions September 21, 2016
Attachment D
7.d
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: d - Draft Block Descriptions (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
51
Multi‐family housing will redevelop in the R‐4 zone along Pacific Street. Commercial/mixed use will
redevelop around the corner of Marsh and Carmel, which could include housing on upper stories,
conveniently located to structured parking.
52
A similar development pattern will occur on this block: Multi‐family housing will redevelop in the R‐4
zone across from Emerson Park, and commercial mixed use will redevelop on Marsh St, with upper‐
level office and housing opportunities. The historic Kaetzel house will remain. A local market or other
neighborhood‐serving use could be located on the ground floor at Beach and Marsh, supported by
surrounding multi‐family housing.
53
A diagonal plaza runs through this block, providing a visual connection to Emerson Park from
downtown as well as outdoor dining, event and public art opportunities. Commercial mixed use fronts
onto Marsh and Pacific Streets, with the historic Parsons House remaining. A parking structure is
included to accomodate new development in the area, with micro‐retail storefronts along Pacific for a
small local business cluster.
54
New commercial mixed use along Pacific and Garden includes upper level housing. New commercial
mixed use along Marsh could include a ground‐floor local market with structured parking across Broad
St. The Libertine Market Place will redevelop the commercial building on the corner of Broad and
Pacific St into a brewpub and restaurant with retail space.
55
New commercial/mixed use is redeveloped on the surface parking lot on the corner of Marsh and
Chorro St. It includes stepped back upper‐level offices and housing. Along Pacific Street, the surface
parking lot converts to office/mixed use with a small area for shared parking behind, as well as across
the street in the structured parking.
56 This block shows the existing Marsh St parking structure. It won't change significantly, but pedestrian‐
level improvements will enliven the Pacific St frontage.
57
The surface parking lot on the corner of Osos and Marsh will infill with 3‐4 story commercial/mixed
use. Office/mixed use will be added on the corner of Morro and Pacific; an area for shared parking will
remain behind the office uses, as well as across the street in the structured parking.
58
Cheng Park is expanded across the creek onto the existing surface lot, with a paseo providing
connections to it from Marsh and Pacific, and allowing new adjacent development to open onto the
park.
59
The property on the corner of Marsh and Santa Rosa redevelops into multi‐story office/mixed use set
back from the creek with an adjacent patio area. Offices redevelop into office/ mixed use. Historic
buildings remain. A widened walkway along Toro Street better connects pedestrians to the adjacent
shopping center and Dallidet Adobe. A walkway at the end of the cul‐de‐sac connects pedestrians to
Toro St.
60
The shopping center footprint remains as‐is. The green space on the corner of Marsh and Toro is
enhanced, and the pedestrian path behind the shopping center is connected to the new pedestrian
path from the Dallidet Adobe across Toro St.
Downtown Concept Plan Working Draft‐Block Descriptions September 21, 2016
Attachment D
7.d
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: d - Draft Block Descriptions (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
63 This block is part of the mid‐Higuera Plan transition area, or "funk zone." Larger footprint commercial
mixed use can accommodate incubator businesses, technological uses, or things like a shared
marketplaces or shared work spaces. Walker street dead ends with a cul‐de‐sac at the Pacific/Pismo
Alley, creating a small plaza along Higuera St and additional street‐front opportunities. The Old Gas
Works building on Pismo St is rehabilitated and incorporated into a mid‐block pocket park/plaza.
64
Pismo Street between Archer and Carmel redevelops with 2‐3 story residential in the R‐3 zone. This
block of Pacific has more of an industrial feel with a variety of commercial mixed uses and the possible
adaptive resue of the brick building at Archer and Pacific.
65 Pacific between Carmel and Beach will redevelop into multi‐family housing in this R‐4 zone adjacent to
Emerson Park and structured parking.
66
As housing increases in downtown, improvements will be made to Emerson Park so that it includes
more opportunities for outdoor play for neighborhood residents. The surface parking is replaced with
park elements, as new structured parking is built in block 53.
67 This block includes redevelopment of some small office buildings and surface parking lots into 2‐3 story
office/mixed use on Pacific and Broad Streets.
68
This block includes redevelopment of some small offices and surface parking lots into 2‐3 story office/
mixed use along Broad and Pacific Streets. Alley‐access parking is accessible from Pacific and Pismo
Streets.
69
Some existing single story buildings and surface parking lots will convert to 2‐3 story office mixed use
along Pacific and Chorro Streets. A small plaza area is included along Marsh St. Housing is encouraged
on upper stories.
70
Some existing single story buildings will convert to 2‐3 story residential and ofice uses, compatable
with the mixed Office/R‐3 zoning of the block, and the R‐4 across Pismo St. The historic properties on
the corner of Pacific and Chorro will remain. Alley‐access parking is shown behind buildings.
71
The Pacific Courtyards project at 1327 Osos Street includes 9 residential units and approximately 8,000
sq ft of commercial space. Also shown is 2‐3 story office mixed use on the surface parking lot at the
corner of Pacific and Morro.
72 Underdeveloped single story buildings and surface parking along Pacific Street will redevelop into 2‐3
story office/mixed use. Small‐scale alley‐access parking is shown behind buildings.
73 Some office mixed use properties redevelop along Santa Rosa and Pacific Streets. Alley‐access parking
is shown behind buildings. A pedestrian path connects from the end of Pacific Street along the edge of
the Dallidet Adobe property to Toro St.
Downtown Concept Plan Working Draft‐Block Descriptions September 21, 2016
Attachment D
7.d
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: d - Draft Block Descriptions (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
11352-(&71257+758(1257+6$1/8,62%,632'2:172:1&21&(373/$1:25.,1*'5$)76(37(0%(5 Car Free Streets Paseos (Walkways)Enhanced Intersection or CrossingLEGENDShared Streets Complete Streets (Multi-modal)Car Calmed Streets STREET TYPES DIAGRAMSan Luis Obispo Downtown Concept PlanBroad StNipomo StChorro StOsos StToro StJohnson AveMonterey StPalm StMill StHiguera StMarsh StPacific StDana StPismo StSanta Rosa StPepper StMorro StWorking Draft Revised 9.21.16Attachment E7.e
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: e - Street Types Diagram (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
Working Draft
Complete Streets are for everyone. The role of complete
streets is to move people to and through downtown
safely and efficiently. They are designed and operated
to enable safe access for all users, including pedestrians,
bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and
abilities. Complete Streets make it easy to cross the
street, walk to shops, and bike to work.
Modal Priority: 1. All modes have equal priority
Car Calmed Streets are at the heart of our downtown.
They generally have lower automobile volumes and
speeds than complete streets, and the pedestrian realm
has a higher proportion of the right-of-way. These streets
will allow more room on the sidewalks for outdoor
gathering, socializing, dining, and commerce.
Modal Priority: 1. Pedestrian 2. Bikes 3. Auto/Transit
Shared Streets minimize the segregation of pedestrians
and vehicles. This is done by removing features such as
curbs, road surface markings, traffic signs, and traffic
lights. These are similar to car-free streets in appearance
with unique paving patterns that differ from vehicular
streets. Cars are not prohibited but are not prioritized.
Modal Priority: 1. Pedestrians and Bikes 2. Slow Autos
Car Free Streets are designed to allow through pedes-
trian and bicycle travel without the conflict of automo-
biles. These may be shared streets that sometimes are
converted to car free streets with removable bollards or
temporary barriers.
Modal Priority: 1. Pedestrians and Bikes (no auto)
Enhanced public or private pedestrian passageway
between buildings.
Modal Priority: 1. Pedestrians (slow bikes allowed)
Intersection Enhancements may include elements such
as crosswalks, bulb outs to provide refuge and decrease
crossing distances, pedestrian scrambles (diagonal
crossings to increase efficiency) or roundabouts.
Mid-block Crossings should be included at logical
locations where crossing is currently occurring regular-
ly. These should connect paseos and/or break up long
blocks.
Drop Off/Loading Zones should be incorporated at major
activity centers on at least every other block. These
should be a safe distance from corners, be well lit, free of
furnishings/fixtures, and well-marked.
The purpose of this exhibit is to provide definitions and imagery for the street types shown in the Special Streets Diagram. Images are examples from other
communities. The color or symbol references the Special Streets Diagram.
Complete Streets (Multi-Modal)
Paseo (Walkways)Enhanced Intersections Mid-block Crossings Drop Off/Loading Zones
Car Calmed Streets Shared Streets Car Free Streets
Revised 9.21.16
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept PlanSTREET TYPES & DEFINITIONS
Attachment F
7.f
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: f - Street Type Definitions (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
11352-(&71257+758(1257+6$1/8,62%,632'2:172:1&21&(373/$1:25.,1*'5$)76(37(0%(5 LEGENDExisting Bike BoulevardProposed 1-Way Cycle Track or Buffered Bike LaneExisting Bike LanePlanned Class I Bike Path Special CrossingsPlanned Bike Boulevard Proposed Bike Improvements (TBD) Projects in 2013 Bicycle Transportation PlanTo be coordinated with Special Streets Diagram improvements12112Broad StNipomo StChorro StOsos StToro StJohnson AveMonterey StPalm StMill StHiguera StMarsh StPacific StDana StPismo StSanta Rosa StPepper StMorro StWorking Draft Revised 9.21.16BIKE FACILITIES DIAGRAMSan Luis Obispo Downtown Concept PlanAttachment G7.g
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: g - Bike Facilities Diagram (1460 : Downtown Concept Plan Update)
Downtown Concept Plan Update
City Council and Planning Commission Study Session, October 4, 2016
Downtown Concept Plan Update
Staff Recommendation:
1.Receive report on the Downtown Concept Plan
work to date; and
2.Provide input on the working draft of the
Downtown Concept Plan and accompanying
mobility diagrams
2
Downtown Concept Plan Update
Questions for Study Session:
•Does the Working Draft of the Downtown Concept Plan
represent the community’s vision for downtown San Luis
Obispo over the next 25 years?
•Are there any big ideas missing from the Working Draft of the
Downtown Concept Plan or the mobility diagrams?
•What else should be illustrated or highlighted in the
community’s vision for downtown?
3
Downtown Concept Plan Update
Background:
Update of the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City’s
Center adopted by resolution in 1993
How should downtown look and function 25 + years in
the future?
Guided by General Plan policies and programs
Council provided funding for update after LUCE update
Advisory committee: Creative Vision Team
Coordinating with Mission Plaza Master Plan project
4
Downtown Concept Plan Update
Creative Vision Team:
2 original members + 8 new members appointed by
Council subcommittee
Chuck Crotser, Keith Gurnee, Vicente del Rio, Jaime
Hill, Eric Meyer, Melanie Mills, Matt Quaglino, Pierre
Rademaker, Annie Rendler, Chuck Stevenson
Advise staff on plan development, provide design
expertise
5
6
Downtown Concept Plan Update
The Plan Should Reflect:
Where/how downtown has changed since 1993, and where/how it should
change in the future
Areas for new or expanded public spaces, public art and access to San
Luis Creek
Areas where taller buildings may be appropriate
Places to provide views of surrounding hills
Implementation of new General Plan transportation policies, Bicycle Plan
projects, and pedestrian improvements
Ways to activate Monterey St across Santa Rosa
Whether the County Government Plaza concept is still desirable
Coordination with Mission Plaza Master Plan Project
7
Downtown Concept Plan Update
Additional Deliverables:
Tools for evaluating future projects
Public infrastructure and facilities needed for plan
implementation
Regulatory changes needed as part of the Zoning
code update
8
Phase 2: Public Engagement
Stakeholder Focus Groups Public Workshops Neighborhood Meetings Open City Hall
9
Key Themes from Public Engagement:
•Public/open space: Activate a variety of public spaces downtown; design for positive
social interaction, access to views, and connections to the natural environment.
•Mobility: Improve access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders. Elevate these
modes of transportation in the downtown, while providing adequate parking in
garages on the perimeter.
•Height and scale:Avoid a domineering built environment that blocks views,
interrupts the existing pedestrian scale, and overwhelms the public realm.
•Art, culture, history, and diversity: Enhance arts and cultural opportunities,
preserve downtown’s historic charm, and encourage a diversity of local businesses,
uses, and activities.
•Public safety and nuisance issues: Address vagrancy, panhandling, public
drunkenness, dirty sidewalks, and other negative activity that appears to be
increasing in downtown.
10
Draft Planning and Design Principles
1.Strong Identity: Preserve and enhance downtown’s distinct
sense of place and memorable character
2.Plentiful and Safe Public Spaces: Provide opportunities for
positive social interaction, quiet moments, and access to
the natural environment, where everyone feels safe and
welcome
3.Variety in Form and Function: Encourage a wide variety of
compatible uses, activities and housing types for an
inclusive and vital downtown
11
Draft Planning and Design Principles
4.Enhanced Mobility: Promote a downtown that is safe,
inclusive and easy to navigate for those using all modes
of transportation; enhance its walkability and
bikeability.
5.Art, Culture & History: Encourage artistic and cultural
opportunities and celebrate downtown’s unique
history
6.Innovative and Human Scale: Embrace original and
compatible design that supports connections to the
surrounding built environment, public realm and
hillside views.
12
Working Draft Concept Plan
13
Office/Mixed Use
14
Commercial/Mixed Use
15
Hospitality
16
Residential
17
Parking Structures
18
Community Serving
19
Parks, Plazas and Open Space
20
Creek Walk
21
Defined Gateways
Marsh & Higuera Intersection
22
Defined Gateways
Santa Rosa St
23
Defined Gateways
Monterey and Pepper
24
North Downtown Better connected
to Central
Downtown
Vibrant street
front;
variety of
design styles
Density will
transition down
from
Santa Rosa
to Pepper
25
Connects
to new
County
building
with
fronting
retail
Commercial
MU, Transit
& Parking
Structure
Paseos and
“calmed”
Santa Rosa
provides good
access
Transit Center
26
Central Downtown
27
Central Downtown Historic
architecture and
development
pattern in core
Redevelopment
pockets;
height towards
interior of blocks
Celebrates art, culture,
history, connections
28
Walkable,
vibrant art-
filled district
Improved
connections
to creek, parking
and businesses
Mission,
Little Theatre,
Art, History, and
Children’s Museum,
and more
Cultural District
29
New diagonal
Paseo connecting
downtown to
Emerson Park
Opportunity for
grocery
near
parking
Micro retail;
residential on
upper stories
New Connections
30
South Downtown
31
Expanded
creek
walk
Adaptive reuse;
“funk zone”
Variety of
housing types
South Downtown
sssss
sssss
sssss
sssss
sssss
sssss
sssss
sssss
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Cross-section Example 1
40
Cross-section Example 2
41
Next Steps:
CVT meeting on study session input and
plan refinement (October 18)
Two Public Workshops:
Saturday, November 12 from 2-4 pm at the
Ludwick Community Center
Monday, November 14 from 4-6 pm at the
County Library Meeting Room
Downtown Concept Plan Update
42
Questions for Study Session:
•Does the Working Draft of the Downtown Concept Plan represent the
community’s vision for downtown San Luis Obispo over the next 25
years?
•Are there any big ideas missing from the Working Draft of the
Downtown Concept Plan or the mobility diagrams?
•What else should be illustrated or highlighted in the community’s
vision for downtown?
43
Thank you!
44
Streetscape example 3
45
Commercial/mixed use in
SLO
46
Other new housing types downtown
47
Marsh St Brownstones
Pacific Courtyards
Other street type examples
48
Barcelona shared street
More street examples
49
Roundabouts with bike lanes
50
51
52
53