Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-05-17 PRC Agenda Pkt
City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Parks and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting on Wednesday, April 5, 2017 @ 5:30p.m., Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: Chair Whitener ROLL CALL: Commissioners Greg Avakian, Susan Olson, Keri Schwab, Douglas Single, Rodney Thurman, Susan Ehdaie and Jeff Whitener Public Comment Period. At this time, you may address the Commission on items that are not on the agenda but are of interest to the public and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Commission may not discuss or take action on issues that are not on the agenda other than to briefly respond to statements made or questions raised, or to ask staff to follow up on such issues. PRC Meeting Agenda 1.Swear in New Commissioner Suzan Ehdaie 2.Consideration of Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 1, 2017 3.Final Tract Map Review of the Linear and Creek Trail park proposals for the West Creek Project (VTM#3083) in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (Watson - 60 minutes) 4.Presentation of Downtown Concept Plan (Gershow - 60 minutes) 5.Final Review and Recommendation to Council to Adopt Recreation Fees as Proposed (Hyfield - 20 minutes) 6.Director’s Report (Stanwyck – 5 minutes) 7.Subcommittee Liaison Reports Committee Liaison Adult and Senior Programming Doug Single Bicycle Advisory Susan Olson City Facilities (Damon, golf, pool, joint use) Greg Avakian Jack House Committee Vacant Tree Committee Rodney Thurman Youth Sports Association Keri Schwab 8.Communications Adjourn to Regular Meeting of May 3, 2017 APPEALS: Administrative decisions by the Parks and Recreation Commission may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with the appeal procedure set forth in Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including the disabled in all of its services, programs, and activities. Please contact the Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. Minutes - DRAFT PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 1 March 2017 Regular Meeting of the Advisory Body Committee Commission CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission was called to order on the 1st day of March 2017 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Whitener. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Greg Avakian, Susan Olson, Keri Schwab, Douglas Single, Rodney Thurman, Vice Chair Susan Updegrove and Chair Jeff Whitener Absent: Commissioner Olson, Commissioner Schwab Staff: Parks and Recreation Director Shelly Stanwyck, Recreation Supervisor Facilities Devin Hyfield, City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA David Brodie, SLO resident, spoke about climate change and the role that the Commission has in identifying the types of vegetation in San Luis Obispo. Lydia Mourenza, SLO resident, spoke about the Brown Act and the Commissions’ discussion at its February 1, 2017 meeting regarding support of the Parks and Recreation Element u pdate (March 1, 2017 agenda item 3). CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES ACTION: APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1, 2017 AS AMENDED, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SINGLE, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR UPDEGROVE. 1. Consideration of Minutes CARRIED 5:0:0:2 to approve the amended minutes of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Body for the meeting of 2/1/2017. AYES: AVAKIAN, SINGLE, THURMAN, UPDEGROVE, WHITENER NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: OLSON, SCHWAB PUBLIC HEARINGS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 1-1 DRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of March 1, 2017 Page 2 2. Presentation of Mitchell Park Beautification Neighborhood Grant Proponents for the Mitchell Park Beautification project, Ann Robinson and Trude Lindaind, presented to the Commission a proposal of how the Neighborhood Grant funds would be used to revitalize the landscaping of Mitchell Park (around the Senior Center and the Gazebo) with drought tolerant and low maintenance plantings. They estimate that 500 hours will be donated by the neighborhood volunteers of Mitchell Park. Park Maintenance Supervisor Jeff Hendricks spoke that the plantings proposed by this neighborhood grant will be an asset to the park. The project will commence in April 2017 with an estimated completion date of the end of June 2017. Public Comment None ACTION: RECEIVE AND FILE PRESENTATION OF MITCHELL PARK BEAUTIFICATION NEIGHBORHOOD GRANT. 3. Consideration of a Letter to City Council regarding Funding for an Update of the Parks and Recreation Element Director Shelly Stanwyck explained that the purpose of agenda item 3 is to provide an open public meeting, to have an opportunity to review Chair Whitner’s proposed letter of support for updating the Parks and Recreation Element, and provided feedback for modifications of the proposed letter to City Council to this topic. Chair Whitener explained the purview of the Parks and Recreation Commission and the role that it plays in recommendations to the City Council. Public Comment Lydia Mourenza, SLO resident, discussed the need for a park in the north Broad Street area. Cheryl McLean, SLO resident, was against using the funding set aside for a park in the North Broad Street area to fund an update to the Parks and Recreation Element. Heather Billing, SLO resident, supported alternative fund raising in support of parks. Dan Matthews, James Lopes and Kit Gould expressed the need for a park in this neighborhood which is currently underserved. They urged the Commission to support the funding already allocated to a park in this area and make land acquisition in this neighborhood a high priority for the 2017-19 Financial Plan. David Brodie, SLO resident, expressed concern about new development without the necessary infrastructure in place. He asked the Commission to make additional recommendations to the City Council to support this infrastructure. Michael Parolini, SLO resident, spoke about the history of Parks and Recreation Element and the need to update this plan to be in alignment with changes in the community. Steve Davis, SLO resident, spoke in favor of updating the Parks and Recreation Element if funding is available. Mila Vojuvich LeBarre, SLO resident, expressed an unmet park need of the North Broad Street area and the impacts of future building and traffic congestion. She urged the Commission to not 1-2 DRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of March 1, 2017 Page 3 use the funding set aside for land acquisition in this area for the update of the Parks and Recreation Element. Commission Comments followed. Commissioner Thurman and Commissioner Avakian spoke in favor of updating the Parks and Recreation Element as stated in the draft letter. Commissioner Single spoke in favor of updating the Parks and Recreation Element. He was not in support of using a portion of the funding set aside for the North Broad Street area for the plan update. Vice Chair Updegrove spoke is in favor of updating the Parks and Recreation Element as stated in the letter. She added her support for use of Parkland funds for this purpose. Director Stanwyck discussed the procedure as how the City allocates funding for projects. She discussed the Commission’s goals, the Public Study Session and the Council Goal Setting process. She reiterated that the City Council did not identify an update to the Parks and Recreation Element as a Major City goal for the 2017-19 Financial Plan and therefore no funding has been allocated for this purpose. She added that the Commission’s letter of support would provide some guidance for Council when considering the 2017-19 Financial Plan. Chair Whitener specified that it is not a guarantee that Parkland funds would be allocated for a new park. Chair Whitener spoke in favor of using the Parkland funds for an update to the Parks and Recreation Element and urged community members to work together to prioritize needs. The Parks and Recreation Commission offered modifications to the draft letter of support. ACTION: APPROVE THE LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING FUNDING FOR AN UPDATE OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THURMAN, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR UPDEGROVE. Chair Whitener requested 5-minute recess from 7:00 to 7:05 PM Commissioner Avakian requested additional modifications to the letter of support. Commissioner Thurman and Vice Chair Updegrove rescinded their motion. ACTION: APPROVE THE LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING FUNDING FOR AN UPDATE OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT AS AMENDED, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SINGLE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER AVAKIAN. CARRIED 5:0:0:2 to approve the amended letter to City Council in support of updating the Parks and Recreation Element. AYES: AVAKIAN, SINGLE, THURMAN, UPDEGROVE, WHITENER NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: OLSON, SCHWAB 4. Consideration and Recommendation to Council Regarding Fees Director Stanwyck proposed deferring Agenda Item 4 to the next Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of April 5, 2017. 1-3 DRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of March 1, 2017 Page 4 ACTION: AGENDA ITEM 4 MOVED TO APRIL 5, 2017 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING. COMMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS 5. Director’s Report Director Stanwyck provided a brief update of current Parks and Recreation programming and City updates. Six Parks and Recreation staff and Commissioner Schwab (on behalf of Cal Poly) are attending the annual California Parks and Recreation Society (CPRS) Conference in Sacramento. Leprechaun Lost is a new event in partnership with the Downtown Association on March 16th Farmer’s Market The majority of parks facilities have been closed due to the rain Sinsheimer park playground construction will continue once the weather clears up Rangers are continuing trail work on Cerro San Luis “M” trail extension LIAISON REPORTS 6. Subcommittee Liaison Reports Adult and Senior Programming: Commissioner Single said there was no report. He congratulated Vice Chair Updegrove for her work on the Jack House Committee and the Parks and Recreation Commission. Bicycle Advisory Committee: Commissioner Olson was absent. No report. City Facilities (Damon Garcia, Golf, Pool & Joint Use Facilities): Commissioner Avakian reported on the field and golf course closures due to rain. The SLO Swim Center continues to have heating issues in the locker rooms. Adult softball is scheduled to begin the second week of March. Tree Committee: Commissioner Thurman said there are applications for tree removal with some removals approved with replacements. No update on forming a tree commission. Jack House Committee: Vice Chair Updegrove updated on the Jack House fees and working to become a blue star museum (Veteran’s access for free). Youth Sports: Commissioner Schwab was absent. No report. Commission Communications Chair Whitener thanked Vice Chair Updegrove for her service on the Parks and Recreation Commission. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:29 p.m. to the regular Parks and Recreation Commission scheduled for 05, April 2017 at 5:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION: 04/5/2017 1-4 DRAFT Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of March 1, 2017 Page 5 1-5 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Final Tract Map Review of the Linear and Creek Trail park proposals for the West Creek Project (VTM#3083) in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP). PROJECT ADDRESS: 1299 Orcutt Road BY: David Watson, Contract Planner CITY FILE NUMBER: ER # SBDV 1769-2015 FROM: Shelly Stanwyck, Director RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: (1) Receive presentation on proposed parks by the applicant; and (2) Provide review/comment on proposed park improvement features and provide direction to the applicant for preparation of Final Design Review materials to be presented to the Commission at a future date. (Note: At this time, a recommendation from the PRC to City Council would be formulated for Council concurrent with review and recordation of the Final Map for this subdivision.) SITE DATA Applicant Robbins|Reed Representative Aaryn Abbott, Robbins Reed Jim Burrows, SMP Environmental Design CC Date CC Approval May 3, 2016 67 SFR and 105 MFR units = 172 dus Zoning R-2-SP (Medium Density Residential, Specific Plan) & R-4-SP (High Density Residential, Specific Plan) General Plan Medium & High Density Residential Site Area 18.3 acres Environmental Status Mitigated Negative Declaration and EIR approved for project 1.0 BACKGROUND on DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY IN THE OASP Since adoption of the OASP, five (5) subdivision projects have been approved, and are undergoing various states of preparation of final maps and construction plans at this time. These projects total 702 residential units, and an estimated resident population of just over 1,640 persons. Meeting Date: April 5, 2017 Item Number: _______ West Creek VTM#3083 2-1 West Creek VTM#3083 Park Proposals (1299 Orcutt Road) Orcutt Area Specific Plan Page 2 Taylor-Wingate VTM#3044 approved October, 2013 142 units / 324 est’d residents Righetti Ranch VTM#3063 approved May, 2015 304 units / 763 est’d residents Jones Ranch VTM#3066 approved May, 2015 66 units / 136 est’d residents West Creek VTM#3083 approved May, 2016 172 units / 374 est’d residents Imel Ranch VTM#3094 approved February 21, 2017 18 units / 46 est’d residents Of these projects, the Taylor-Wingate project was conditioned to provide 1.0 acres of improved public parklands as a part of their development, and the Righetti Ranch project is providing 11.8 acres of public parklands (11.6 acres Neighborhood Park and 0.2 acres Pocket Park), which are the majority of the 12.9 acres of public parklands planned for the OASP. Note that at the time of preparing this Report, the Taylor-Wingate project was undergoing possible changes in ownership that may result in the previous approval of VTM#3044 being abandoned in favor of a new subdivision proposal. 2.0 SUMMARY of APPLICANT’S PROPOSED PARK PROJECTS Pursuant to Condition #109 of the West Creek approval, the applicant is permitted, but not obligated, to offer parklands that would be improved and maintained by the project developer, but that also would be open to public use. Under this option, the applicant could secure an OASP Parklands Improvement Fee credit of up to ½ of the final cost of construction of the publically-accessible park improvements. VTM#3083 Condition 112. Parklands Development Fee Credit. In exchange for development of the "West Creek neighborhood parks" (described as Lots 68, 69, 71, 72) or such other configuration of lots as finally agreed upon by the city, the subdivider shall be entitled to a parklands development fee credit of up to one-half the overall parkland fee for improving and maintaining the referenced lots for public city use. The credit amount shall be considered by the Parks and Recreation Commission, with their recommendation to the City Council prior to recordation of a final map. The Parks and Recreation Commission shall be responsible for Final Design Review of the referenced parks prior to construction. West Creek has proposed to construct a Creek Trail along the east fork of Orcutt Creek (0.45 acres), a Park at the terminus of the Creek Trail at “A” Street (0.14 acres), and two (2) linear parks (combined 1.01 acres) within their project. These three (3) parks elements would be privately owned and maintained, but available for public use under the applicant’s proposal. A private recreation space of 0.55 acres is also proposed as part of the West Creek Multi-Family neighborhood. 3.97 acres of open space are included with the subdivision plans. Attachment 1 includes plan sheets and illustrative photography and sketches comprising the applicant’s proposed Parks Program, totaling 1.60 acres. Attachment 2 is a proposal from a contractor working with the applicant to establish a preliminary budget for the anticipated improvements totaling $977,090.00. 2-2 West Creek VTM#3083 Park Proposals (1299 Orcutt Road) Orcutt Area Specific Plan Page 3 Looking at the details of each park area, the applicant proposes the following features: Linear Parks 1 (closest to “A” Street) and 2 (connected directly to the Creek Trail) 1. ADA accessible walkway 2. Bench Terrace with rockery wall 3. Artificial Turf play slopes (open areas and bean bag toss and/or putting greens) 4. Seating Terrace with rockery wall 5. Active Terrace with Ping Pong Table and rockery wall Creek Park 1. Connection to the Creek Trail 2. Artificial Turf Play Mounds, incorporating a.Crawl tube b. Slide c. Bridge 3. Climbing Wall 4. Safety Play Surface 5. Boulder Scramble 6. Internal paths and benches 7.“Meadow” landscape treatments with unmown grasses and drought-tolerant groundcover Creek Trail 1.Decomposed Granite Trail running between Orcutt Road and “A” Street 2. Kiosk near the Orcutt Road trail intersection 3. Benches along the trail WEST CREEK Tract 3083 1299 Orcutt Road Park Proposals 2-3 West Creek VTM#3083 Park Proposals (1299 Orcutt Road) Orcutt Area Specific Plan Page 4 3.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The Parks and Recreation Commission is tasked with reviewing the proposed park facilities for West Creek in the context of the Conditions of Approval (COAs) for the project, as well as the guiding policies and programs contained in the OASP and Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. Relevant excerpts from the OASP are included in the Project Analysis section of this report for the Commission’s reference. COAs allow, but do not require, West Creek to present a detailed plan of improvements to the Parks Commission, before proceeding with the recordation of the first final map for the project. There are two (2) distinct steps to the PRC’s review of this proposal. First, the Commission is tasked with evaluating the overall concept for these parks, and appropriateness of the proposals given the project conditions and OASP guidance. The Commission is asked under this step to provide a recommendation to the City Council for approval of a parks design as part of the Final Map and Improvement Plans process. Provided the subdivision map and plans are approved by Council, the second step includes the Parks and Recreation Commission’s guidance tonight that will be used to provide directional items to the applicant, so that they may return with a final design that the PRC can review and approve following recordation of the initial final map. 4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The applicants have provided a budget for their planned improvements and conceptual park plans for the proposed parks in Attachments 1 and 2. The details of these outlines will be the focus of the applicant’s presentation tonight, so we have not repeated these elements here. The following excerpts from the OASP are provided for ready reference in the event any questions arise that may benefit from these references. OASP Program 2.3.3a: Based on Policies 2.2.1, 2.2.2, and 2.2.3, and the anticipated unit development for the Orcutt Area shown in Table 1-1. The OASP identifies 16.30 acres of active and passive parkland, including a 12- acre neighborhood park, a .25-acre pocket park at the end of ‘D’ Street, 1.54 acres of linear parkland associated with the regional detention basin and a 2.5 acre ‘trail-junction’ park consisting of passive parkland. In addition to these 16.3 acres, the City will pursue the development of approximately 4 acres of parkland as part of a joint use facility with the San Luis Coastal Unified School District if a new school is developed within or near the Orcutt Area. OASP Program 2.3.3b: A 12-acre centrally located neighborhood park will be developed in the Orcutt Area. 10 acres shall be dedicated during Phase I development, and construction of the neighborhood park will occur as identified in the Public Facility Financing Plan (PFFP) in Chapter 8. Facilities may include a playground for young children, soccer and baseball fields, tennis courts, basketball courts, sand volleyball, picnic tables and restrooms. Security lighting will be provided in the parking lots and at the restrooms but to avoid glare impacts to surrounding residences, major night lighting will not be used at the park or ball fields. An example of this park is shown in Figure 2.5: Neighborhood Park Plan. If development occurs on the Garay property, its required parkland dedication (0.9 acres) shall occur in such a way as to augment the central neighborhood park. 2-4 West Creek VTM#3083 Park Proposals (1299 Orcutt Road) Orcutt Area Specific Plan Page 5 OASP Program 2.3.3c: A 2.5 acre ‘trail-junction’ park will be developed along the northern boundary of Righetti Hill. Dedication of acreage and construction of the linear park will occur in as identified in the PFFP, Chapter 8. The linear park will have multiple uses including paths for recreational bicycling and walking; picnic areas for viewing the Edna Valley and a starting point for hikers to access Righetti Hill. OASP Program 2.3.3d: 1.5 acres of park will be developed along the western portion of the Specific Plan Area adjacent to the stormwater detention basin and wetland areas. The two pocket parks will provide resting points and information areas in support of the Class I bicycle/pedestrian path. The bicycle/pedestrian path wil l connect to the existing Class I bicycle path along the UPRR right-of-way and to the neighborhood park, allowing for multiple recreational opportunities for residents and visitors to the park. Picnic tables, benches, viewpoints, and educational signage about the wetland habitat project will provide additional recreational and educational opportunities for users of the park (Figures 2.6 and 2.7). This park area will not have night lighting to avoid impacts to wildlife. OASP Policy 2.3.4: Provide property owners within the Orcutt Area that want to provide parkland on their properties an opportunity to do so through the subdivision review process. OASP Program 2.3.4a: When subdivisions are proposed in the future, property owners in the Orcutt Area may provide improved parkland on their property instead of paying the parkland fee identified in the OASP Fee Program (see Chapter 8), under the following circumstances: i. The Parks and Recreation Commission determines that the additional parkland serves a community-wide need that is not met through the provision of other parkland in the Orcutt Area. ii.The proposed parkland can be provided without reducing the number of residential units anticipated for the property, as illustrated by the range of Total Estimated Units shown in Table A-2 (Appendix A). iii. The provision of additional parkland will not impact the ability of Orcutt Area development to finance parkland acquisition costs identified in Chapter 8, Public Facilities Financing, because other funding sources insure the feasibility of financing this parkland acquisition. Other funding sources can include the following: - Grant funding for parkland acquisition. - Development in the Orcutt Area in excess of the 937 units used to estimate available fees for parkland acquisition in Chapter 8, making more money available for parkland acquisition than previously anticipated. - City funding of parkland acquisition to meet regional parkland needs, if approved by the City Council. Analysis: Staff has met with the applicants and their team of consultants and are supportive of the conceptual designs and park improvements suggested in the Attachment 1 graphics. Subject to PRC feedback, these individual park features can be revised/modified to reflect directional items by the Commission. Staff believes the character of these improvements, such as the Creek Park “play mounds”, boulder climbing and hopping improvements, terraced seating and activity areas and artificial play surfaces, reflect amenities not otherwise planned for the OASP. Additionally, the applicant’s option to create these improvements and permanently maintain them for city-wide public use, coupled with their on- and off-site trail extensions and connectivity, makes these improvements unique to the area and potentially meets park and recreation needs of more than just the OASP community. 2-5 West Creek VTM#3083 Park Proposals (1299 Orcutt Road) Orcutt Area Specific Plan Page 6 Concerning the provision of these amenities for public use outside the Central Neighborhood Park, this far northerly end of the OASP community will benefit from additional public parklands. The OASP called for a range of density on the West Creek site of 143-157 units. This number was increased to the 172 units during the approval process for West Creek through increasing the number of studio and 1-bedroom units, allowing for a larger # of net units on the property. These park improvements can be provided without compromising the anticipated residential densities planned under the OASP for the West Creek property. Regarding the matter of Parkland Improvement Fee credits and Condition #109, a preliminary (current) estimate of these fees derived from future construction on West Creek are as follows: Land Use Category Fee Per LU Type Est’d Units Est’d Fee Single Family Residential $6,585/unit 67 units $441,195 Multi-Family Residential $4,899/unit 105 units $514,395 172 units $955,590 Our reference to “preliminary (current) estimate”, above, is intended to clarify that (i) this is a “preliminary” estimate of fees based on the number of units approved for West Creek. Whether all the units are ultimately built could have an effect on these calculations. Also, (ii) the terminology “current” estimate reflects the 2016 update to the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) fee structure. All OASP PFFP fees are subject to annual adjustments for cost-of-living and/or construction index changes, which may have an effect on the actual fee amounts going forward from 2016, when future building permits are issued. Under the OASP the Commission must also decide if providing public parklands on individual sites (other than just the Righetti Ranch project) would impact the ability of the PFFP fees collected to complete planned parkland improvements. To this question, staff would note that the PFFP established a fee program designed to support 16.5 acres of parkland improvements at a 2016 estimate of about $6,045,700 in cost. To date, the Righetti Ranch project has been designed to accommodate about 15 acres of parkland improvements, with budgets at the $6.045 million cost. These budgets, similar to the West Creek budget, are at early stages, and will be subject to actual construction and verification of final costs several years from now. In order to accommodate a potential reduction of PFFP parkland improvement fees up to $477,795 (one-half of the West Creek fees estimate) it will be incumbent on staff to closely monitor final construction design costs and amenity budgets between the Righetti and West Creek projects. Additionally, the OASP policies allow the City to augment this funding in other ways (such as grant funds). Given the early nature of planning for these areas, and the fact that future Final Design Review and action by the Parks and Recreation Commission will be required for both the West Creek and Righetti projects, we are confident that a balancing of these needs can be accomplished to meet, if not exceed, the expectations of the OASP parkland improvement goals. Staff is supportive of the potential credit of up to ½ the estimated fees for parkland improvements as detailed above. The actual credit will be determined when final construction plans are completed and the actual costs of the improvements are documented and approved by 2-6 West Creek VTM#3083 Park Proposals (1299 Orcutt Road) Orcutt Area Specific Plan Page 7 staff following construction. The mechanism for this should be detailed in the Final Map approval by Council. 5.0 RECOMMENDATION & NEXT STEPS Staff recommends the Commission evaluate the applicant’s park proposals, and determine the proposed improvements meet the following criteria under Program 2.3.4a: a)The West Creek parkland improvements serve a community-wide need that is not met through provision of other parkland improvements planned for the Orcutt Area; b) The West Creek parkland improvements do not result in the reduction of residential units otherwise established under the OASP for the subject property; and, c)The West Creek parkland improvements and the credit associated with the project do not impact the ability of the OASP PFFP from completing the public parklands improvements contemplated under the OASP. A Commission motion recommending City Council approval of the public parklands component of the Final Map for West Creek based on the findings above would be appropriate. Additionally, the Commission should provide directional items to the applicant and staff regarding changes to any of the design features presented tonight, which will be addressed at the time of PRC final design review consideration at a future date. ATTACHMENTS 1. West Creek VTM#3083 Illustrative Parks Program (SMP Exhibits) 2. West Creek Parks Budget (Landscape Development, Valencia) 3. OASP Vicinity and Ownership Map 2-7 WEST CREEKPARKS PROGRAMTract 3083San Luis Obispo, CA742502 MARCH 22, 2017PARKS PROGRAM KEY MAP1LINEAR PARKSHEET # 5 & 6LINEAR PARKSHEET # 5 & 6CREEK PARK SHEET # 2 & 3CREEK TRAILSHEET # 4Attachment 1 WEST CREEKPARKS PROGRAMTract 3083San Luis Obispo, CA742502 MARCH 22, 2017CREEK PARK PLAN2Attachment 1 WEST CREEKPARKS PROGRAMTract 3083San Luis Obispo, CA742502 MARCH 22, 2017CREEK PARK SKETCH3Attachment 1 Attachment 1 Attachment 1 Attachment 1 2 8 4 4 7 W i t h e r s p o o n P a r k w a y V a l e n c I a, C a l i f o r n i a 9 1 3 5 0 P h o n e 6 6 1 - 2 9 5 - 1 9 7 0 F a x 6 6 1 - 2 9 5 - 1 9 6 9 w w w . L a n d s c a p e d e v e l o p m e n t . c o m March 21, 2017 Shawn Reed Robbins Reed 1308 Monterey Street, #210 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: West Creek Parks - Budget Shawn, Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this proposal West Creek Parks Budget located in San Luis Obispo. You can count on us to deliver a superbly crafted installation, on time and according to plan. We look forward to providing you with quality service that exceeds your expectations. This proposal includes all labor, materials, equipment and services necessary to install West Creek Parks in accordance with the sketches prepared by SMP Environmental Design, dated 3/15/2017, 4 Sheets Total. Our bid is per the following summary listed by lot and work category. Option 1 Irrigation $48,916.00 Landscape $71,011.00 Maintenance $1,953.00 Site Amenities $6,450.00 Hardscape $143,414.00 Synthetic Surface $8,105.00 Total $279,849.00 Option 2 Irrigation $45,806.00 Landscape $56,143.00 Maintenance $1,801.00 Site Amenities $17,770.00 Play Area $20,888.00 Hardscape $176,184.00 Synthetic Surface $26,736.00 Total $345,328.00 Attachment 2 2 8 4 4 7 W i t h e r s p o o n P a r k w a y V a l e n c I a, C a l i f o r n i a 9 1 3 5 0 P h o n e 6 6 1 - 2 9 5 - 1 9 7 0 F a x 6 6 1 - 2 9 5 - 1 9 6 9 w w w . L a n d s c a p e d e v e l o p m e n t . c o m Creek Park – Lot 72 Irrigation $5,975.00 Landscape $14,576.00 Maintenance $304.00 Site Amenities $1,952.00 Play Area $303,225.00 Hardscape $9,355.00 Synthetic Surface $16,526.00 Total $351,913.00 Job Total $977,090.00 Important Job Concerns It is important to note this proposal is for budgetary purposes only. We have based our proposal off conceptual sketches only. At the time of bid we have not received any approved plans. Pricing can change greatly based on materials and methods selected by the owner. We have bid the steps as natural grey concrete and provided one handrail at each set of steps. Specific Job Qualifications and Exclusions 1.This job is bid as non-prevailing wage. 2. Landscape Development’s General Conditions of Proposal apply to this proposal. Please see the attached form. 3.This bid is based on a contract being awarded within 45 days from the date of this document. 4.Our proposal is based on 8 hour, 5-day workweeks. Requests for overtime or weekend work will be accounted as extras. 5.This contract does not include the export of rocks exceeding 2” in size. We will stock pile the rock generated during the irrigation at the adjacent lot. 6.Staking and surveying to be provided by others. 7.All permits are excluded. 8.Maintenance has been bid for a 90-day period. 9.Water and power to be provided by owner or builder. 10.All fine grading and grow and kill is excluded from this proposal. Landscape Development is to receive the site in a clean, weed-free condition, and within 1/10” of finish grade. 11.All trees are bid as standard form, unless otherwise noted or discussed. 12.Soil amendments are bid at the following rates per 1000sf: 3 yds of NWS, 100 lbs Gypsum, 15 lbs fertilizer. 13. Lighting is excluded. 14.Drainage is excluded. 15.We have bid 2” Walk on bark mulch for all planting areas. 16.We have bid the root barrier as 18” deep rolls. Attachment 2 2 8 4 4 7 W i t h e r s p o o n P a r k w a y V a l e n c I a, C a l i f o r n i a 9 1 3 5 0 P h o n e 6 6 1 - 2 9 5 - 1 9 7 0 F a x 6 6 1 - 2 9 5 - 1 9 6 9 w w w . L a n d s c a p e d e v e l o p m e n t . c o m 17.All trees are bid with lodge poles. Landscape Development, Inc. strives to make “raving fans” from each of its clients. Our ultimate purpose is to make your life easier and give you peace of mind. I assure you that you can look forward to very personal and attentive service from start to finish on this project. Thank you for the opportunity to bid on West Creek Park - Budget. Sincerely, Tyler Friend Director of Construction Services Landscape Development Inc. Enclosure Attachment 2 2 8 4 4 7 W i t h e r s p o o n P a r k w a y V a l e n c I a, C a l i f o r n i a 9 1 3 5 0 P h o n e 6 6 1 - 2 9 5 - 1 9 7 0 F a x 6 6 1 - 2 9 5 - 1 9 6 9 w w w . L a n d s c a p e d e v e l o p m e n t . c o m G e n e r a l C o n d i t i o n s o f P r o p o s a l 1. We are to receive all grades at plus or minus one tenth of a foot of finish grade, in a clean condition. No import or export of soil is included. 2. Utilities are to be supplied by client. We exclude any costs for hand watering landscaped areas due to lack of either water or power to the subject areas. Cost of water and power are not included in this proposal. 3. Labor for this proposal is calculated at an 8 hour day/5 day week schedule. Requests for work on Saturdays, Sundays and past 8 hours per day will result in additional fees for overtime. 4. The landscape maintenance period is to begin upon the completion and initial walk-through of each phase of the landscape work. This proposal is based on one “move on.” Costs for additional “move-ons,” extended maintenance, or restoration of completed areas shall be considered extra. 5. All sleeves and piping under asphalt or concrete paving are to be installed prior to paving. This proposal does not include boring or jacking under paving. 6. All materials shall be furnished and installed in accordance with the respective industry tolerances for variations in color, size, texture, performance, etc. 7. Guarantee on any materials which are to be relocated is limited to workmanship only. 8. We exclude liability for damage from wind, rain, erosion, frost, acts of God, animals or vandalism. If the client does not install all improvements as shown on the contract documents then the client releases LDI from all claims of liability. No warranty as to design, engineering, performance, product duration or longevity is given. 9. Any damage to LDI’s work and materials; the client’s work and materials, or damage to adjacent property by storm, silt, mud, earth movement or flooding shall not be the responsibility of LDI. 10. The client shall furnish all on site facilities, including suitable storage area, sufficient sanitary facilities, adequate lighting for safe working conditions, and adequate potable water and electricity within reasonable working distance. 11. After acceptance of this contract as provided, LDI shall be given a reasonable time in which to make delivery of materials, equipment, and/or labor to commence and complete the performance of the contract. LDI shall not be responsible for delays or defaults where occasioned by any cause beyond its control. 12. Lines, grades, and other reference points shall be supplied by the client to the LDI as necessary for layout of proposed work or to locate existing underground conditions. 13. This proposal does not include high voltage electrical connections of any kind. 14. Costs of permits are not included in this proposal unless otherwise stated. 15. Any work outside the scope of this proposal or changes resulting from site conditions shall be negotiated between client and LDI prior to proceeding. Written authorization for extra work is to be received by LDI prior to the commencement of the extra work. 16. No back charges, claims of the client for services or liquidated damages shall be valid except by the agreement in writing by LDI before such work is executed. 17. All sums not paid when due shall bear interest at the rate of 1-1/2% per month from the due date until paid or the maximum legal rate permitted by law whichever is less; and all costs of collection including reasonable fees of an attorney, shall be paid by the client. 18. If the client fails to make payment to LDI as herein provided, LDI may stop work without prejudice to any other remedy it may have. 19. In the event of conflict or dispute between LDI and the client, arbitration shall be the means for resolution. Arbitration shall be governed as per the rules of the American Arbitration Association and shall be binding. 20. Acceptance of this proposal by the client shall be acceptance of all terms and conditions recited herein or incorporated by reference. 21. Landscape Development, Inc. shall be paid periodic progress payments based upon percentage of work completed. Payments shall be one hundred percent of the work completed or contract upon completion. Acceptance of this contract may be oral, written,or provided by allowing LDI to commence the work. Final payment shall be due 30 days after the work described in this contract is substantially completed. 22. Retention payments shall be progressive. 23. No retainage shall be witheld from Landscape Development, Inc.’s draws for work related to maintenance, erosion control, sandbagging, storm watch, and storm damage repair. 24. Warranty periods valid only if Landscape Development continuously maintains the project. If the project has been subjected to sub-standard maintenance practices, or neglected, warranties are void. Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Project Vicinity Map SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY San Luis Obispo County Project Location Los Angel*■ Project Boundary in Luis Obfepo JASU SWCAfcNVlRONMtNfM CONSULTANTS Project Vicinity Map West Creek Development Project Copyright: © 2013 National Geographic Society. U.S. Geological Survey 7,5 Minute Series (Topographic) San Luis Obispo Quadrangle. Attachment 3 Project Location Map Prpjert BpumJgry Project Location Map West Creek Development Project Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Righetti Ranch Approved 2015 Imel Approved 2017 Jones Approved 2015 West Creek Approved 2016 Taylor- Muick Approved 2013 Attachment 3 City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda Report Date: April 5, 2017 SUBJECT: DRAFT DOWNTOWN CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW AND DISCUSSION Prepared by: Rebecca Gershow, Associate Planner, Long Range Planning RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Receive a presentation on, discuss and provide input on the draft Downtown Concept Plan, focusing on the parks and recreation components of the plan. DISCUSSION: Summary The primary objectives of the Downtown Concept Plan are to assess and update the development, vision, goals and concepts related to San Luis Obispo’s downtown, to provide a road map for future public projects and guidance for private development. The project has been underway since December, 2015, and was split into four phases, as shown in Figure 1, Planning Process Graphic, Meeting Date: 4.5.17 Item Number:____4__ 3-1 Draft Downtown Concept Plan Review and Discussion Page 2 below. We are now at the public hearing stage of Phase 4. Figure 1: Planning Process Graphic The project is being led by staff, consultants, and the ten-member Creative Vision Team (CVT) appointed by the City Council. The Draft Plan was released in January 2017, and a public workshop with approximately 150 attendees was held on February 4. Staff is now collecting input from City Advisory Bodies, including the Mass Transportation Committee, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Cultural Heritage Committee, Parks and Recreation Commission and Architectural Review Commission. In May, the CVT will provide direction to staff on prioritization of input on the Draft Plan, and revisions will be made prior to meeting with the Planning Commission for their review and input. Staff will then present the Downtown Concept Plan to the City Council, with a summary of Advisory Body input, for final review and adoption. 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 downtown ever since, and 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. Project Analysis. The 1993 Downtown Concept Plan served as a vision for the downtown for almost 25 years, and although not a regulatory document, it has been referred to over the years as guidance for development projects and for public improvements downtown. The updated Downtown Concept Plan will continue to serve this function. The Downtown Concept Plan is one of many tools available to staff and stakeholders to implement the General Plan. Staff will continue to review specific development applications in the downtown for consistency with adopted regulatory documents, while using the Downtown Concept Plan as guidance for the holistic vision for the downtown. As a visionary document, the updated Downtown Concept Plan will continue to be used to encourage general consistency with the plan and to provide decision makers with information on how each project can generally implement its 3-2 Draft Downtown Concept Plan Review and Discussion Page 3 concepts. In addition, a prioritized list of public programs, projects, and actions needed for plan implementation is included in Chapter 5. It will be referred to when updating other relevant City planning documents, or developing Capital Improvement Program lists. Public input was gathered through a robust public engagement process including stakeholder interviews, an outdoor public open house with the Mission Plaza Master Plan team, two public workshop, an Open City Hall survey, and two neighborhood meetings with downtown residents. Based on input received, previous planning efforts, the values that remain relevant from the 1993 Plan, and the overall vision, the CVT developed eight Project Planning Principles to guide the development of the Downtown Concept Plan. Following each Planning Principle are corollary Goals that guide the vision of our future downtown as embodied in the Illustrative plan. They can be found in Chapter 2, pages 2.2-2.5. Below are the project Planning Principles and Goals that most directly relate to the purview of the Parks and Recreation Commission (bold added): 1.Strong Identity: Preserve and enhance the downtown’s distinct sense of place and memorable character. 1.5 Focus attention on the downtown’s gateways through landmark buildings, public art, and public spaces that announce your arrival in the downtown. 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. 2.1 Treat sidewalks and paseos as wide and inviting urbanized parks with street trees, ample seating, bike parking, lighting, public art, and other street furniture. 2.2 Encourage mid-block paseos that enable opportunities for improved pedestrian access, shopping, outdoor dining, and informal gathering places, but not at the expense of a vibrant street front. 2.3 Provide opportunities for a variety of new public spaces and recreation downtown, including pocket parks, plazas, wide sidewalks with seating, an expanded Creek Walk, parklets, and creative rooftop public spaces. 5.Universal Accessibility: Promote a downtown that is safe, inclusive, and easy to navigate for those using all modes of transportation. 5.3 Ensure that sidewalks, crosswalks, and public improvements are universally accessible and easy to navigate. 6.Art, Culture, and History: Encourage artistic and cultural opportunities and celebrate the downtown’s unique history. 6.3 Expand cultural, historical, and artistic opportunities in the downtown, including enhancing the downtown Cultural District. 7.Innovative and Human Scale: Embrace original and compatible design that supports connections to the surrounding built environment, public realm, and hillside views. 3-3 Draft Downtown Concept Plan Review and Discussion Page 4 7.1 Reduce or redevelop surface parking lots with two-story minimum development or convert to public open space where appropriate. 8.Ecological Connections: Protect, enhance, and reveal the natural areas and ecological functions that are an integral component of the downtown area. 8.1 Preserve access to open space and views of hillsides from public areas downtown. 8.2 Enhance San Luis Obispo Creek as a visual, recreational, educational, and biological resource for public enjoyment and wildlife habitat. 8.3 Design streetscape and public realm improvements with green infrastructure components. In Chapter 3, the Downtown Concept Plan Illustrative (Figure 2) is described in detail. The Illustrative graphically represents the future vision for downtown San Luis Obispo. The plan depicts envisioned future land uses, public spaces, and private development. It is described in block-by-block detail (pages 3.4-3.9); by proposed uses (pages 3.9-3.16); and more generally by planning sub-areas (pages 3.17-3.24). Figure 2: Draft Downtown Concept Plan Illustrative Below are draft Plan highlights for each planning sub-area. The relevant pages from the draft Downtown Concept Plan (Attachment 1) are noted for each section. North Downtown (Santa Rosa to Pepper St, described on pages 3.17-3.19): As reinvestment occurs, Monterey Street will transition from one- and two-story structures, many with parking in front, to structures of two to five stories with parking primarily in a new structure on Higuera, between Santa Rosa and Toro Streets (Block 23). It is envisioned to support rooftop public open space. 3-4 Draft Downtown Concept Plan Review and Discussion Page 5 North Downtown will feature a variety of design styles in contrast to the historic Downtown Core. Density and intensity will be focused primarily along Monterey Street. Marsh and Higuera Streets will have more intensive development near Santa Rosa Street, and will gradually lessen as it approaches Pepper Street to respect the adjacent neighborhoods. A new pocket park is envisioned on Higuera St between Toro and Johnson. It is surrounded by lower-level office and upper-level residential uses, and connects to a small public plaza fronting Monterey St (Block 24). Ludwick Center on Santa Rosa and Mill Streets (Block 6) is improved as a multi-story community recreation center with a full-sized gymnasium, multipurpose rooms, and underground parking. A public path at the end of Pacific Street is envisioned to connect pedestrians to Toro Street around the Dallidet Adobe. Another small pocket park is located on the corner of Toro and Marsh St. Public art is incorporated at the corners of major new development projects, such as along Santa Rosa St, and at Monterey and Pepper Streets. The railroad trestle at Monterey and Pepper Streets is envisioned with a welcoming mural, marking a new downtown gateway. Central Downtown (Nipomo to Santa Rosa Streets, described on pages 3.19-3.21): Central downtown boasts charming, historic architecture and development patterns, and serves as the community’s cultural and civic heart. One of the key concepts in this area is an expanded, walkable, vibrant, and art-filled Cultural District, the focus of which is along Monterey Street. Visitors arriving in cars can park in the new parking structure at Palm and Nipomo Streets, then walk to a variety of museums and parks, including an improved Mission Plaza in a short two-block stretch (Blocks 11 and 19). A new park on the corner of Monterey and Broad Streets celebrates local history while connecting pedestrians to the Creek Walk and Mission Plaza. On the corner of Higuera and Nipomo Streets, a new public plaza provides casual outdoor seating, gathering, and playing opportunities. The bridge across San Luis Creek easily connects pedestrians on Higuera Street to the Cultural District. At the corner of Santa Rosa and Marsh Streets (Block 47), Cheng Park is expanded, and in front of the old County Building (Block 14) the existing lawn is envisioned to be replaced with a drought-tolerant demonstration garden with seating and public art. South Downtown (Higuera and Walker to Nipomo Streets, described on pages 3.22-3.24): As in the 1993 Downtown Concept Plan, an enhanced and well-connected Creek Walk will provide a physical and visual connection to nature and a unique recreational amenity downtown. Just across the Creek on Block 9, the City-owned Rosa Butron Adobe property is envisioned as a small neighborhood park. The Jack House and Gardens (Block 28) will be buffered from adjacent development by publicly-accessible paseos; it will be increasingly utilized as a passive-use park as more people live and work downtown. Emerson Park in Block 54 will be revitalized to better serve the needs of nearby residents. Blocks 9, 52, 53, 40, and 41 envision a variety of additional housing opportunities in the residential zones on the edge of the downtown, while keeping with the 3-5 Draft Downtown Concept Plan Review and Discussion Page 6 character of the area. The Old Gas Works building on Pismo St, on Block 51 in the “flex zone,” is rehabilitated and incorporated into a mid-block pocket park. The reconfiguration of Archer and Walker Streets provides the opportunity for two new small plazas. Chapter 4 includes a focused consideration of mobility and streetscapes in the downtown, and is consistent with the goals of the General Plan Circulation Element. A Street Types Diagram (p.4.2) and a Bicycle Facilities Diagram (p. 4.10) and accompanying definitions convey the vision for mobility in the downtown, where streets are valued as quality public places. An important street recommendation in Central Downtown is the conversion of a portion of Monterey and Broad Streets to Street Type D, or a shared street, where pedestrians and bicycles are prioritized, but slow automobiles are allowed (p. 4.6). Shared streets minimize the segregation of pedestrians and vehicles in their design. They have unique paving patterns that differ from surrounding vehicular streets which encourage outdoor seating, public events, and festivals. They are flexible in nature, as they are easily converted to car-free streets temporarily or over time with removable bollards or other barriers. This street type could help to visually define the Cultural District and further enliven Monterey St between Chorro and Santa Rosa Streets. Also included in Chapter 4 is a discussion of Downtown Streetscape Elements and Green Infrastructure. Using streetscape elements in a consistent manner will help define the downtown’s sense of place. Streetscape elements include lighting, seating, bicycle racks, bicycle corrals, parklets, public art, farmer’s market infrastructure and public restrooms. Green infrastructure is also seen as part of the future streetscape downtown. It provides many community benefits like stormwater management, and could be woven into downtown streetscapes over time, using bioretention or drywell facilities, pervious pavement, green walls, or other improvements. Chapter 5 includes a list of the public programs, projects, and actions needed for implementation of the Downtown Concept Plan. It will be referred to when updating other relevant City planning documents, or developing Capital Improvement Program lists, and it priorities will be assigned for the final plan. The following implementation actions, from Table 5.1 relate to parks and recreation downtown and may be of interest to the PRC: Public Art 10.Incorporate public art with public realm improvements throughout downtown, beyond the locations identified in the Public Art Master Plan. Cultural District and Programming: 13.Implement the Mission Plaza Concept Plan, including redevelopment of streets in the Cultural District to Street Type D (shared street) as described in Chapter 4, with possible eventual conversion to car-free streets. These street sections include: Monterey Street between Nipomo and Broad Streets; Broad Street between Palm and Monterey Streets; and Broad Street between Monterey and Higuera Streets Historic Facilities: 3-6 Draft Downtown Concept Plan Review and Discussion Page 7 16.Develop and implement a master plan for the public use of the Rosa Butron Adobe property. 17.Develop and implement a restoration plan for the Murray Adobe in coordination with the Mission Plaza Master Plan. New Parks, Plazas and Paseos: 19.Update the Park and Recreation Element of the General Plan, including a citywide Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, to refine the community’s vision for parks and recreation downtown and aid in implementation. 20.Develop a feasibility analysis for the acquisition, design, and development of a public park on the corner of Monterey and Broad Streets, connecting to the Creek Walk. 21.Develop a feasibility analysis for the acquisition, design, and development of a pocket park and plaza between Monterey and Higuera Streets (Block 24). 22.Develop a feasibility analysis for the acquisition, design, and development of a small pocket park on the corner of Toro and Marsh Streets. 23.Develop and implement a master plan for a public plaza on City property on the corner of Higuera and Nipomo Streets, as shown in the Concept Plan Illustrative. 24.Encourage the replacement of the existing lawn around the old courthouse building with a drought-tolerant demonstration garden with seating and public art (Block 14). Existing Parks and Public Facilities 27.Develop and implement a master plan for Emerson Park to ensure that it is used most efficiently and accommodates the needs of the neighborhood. 28.Develop and implement a master plan for the Ludwick Center to better meet the community’s needs for a full-service recreation center. San Luis Creek 29.Make improvements to the existing Creek Walk so it is a safe, inviting, and enjoyable experience for everyone. 30.Develop and implement a master plan for the expansion of the Creek Walk from Nipomo Street to the Marsh/Higuera intersection, as shown in the Concept Plan Illustrative. Public Restrooms 32.Ensure the provision of public restrooms downtown, including new restrooms at Mission Plaza and Emerson Park. Streetscape 58.Develop a pogram for designing and installing parklets downtown 64.Implement a lighting plan on downtown streetscapes, public spaces, and storefronts for enhanced safety and placemaking. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: The Draft Downtown Concept Plan represents the work of the general public, stakeholders, the Creative Vision Team, staff and consultants over the last 15 months. The Parks and Recreation Commission should discuss and provide input on the draft Downtown Concept Plan’s goals, 3-7 Draft Downtown Concept Plan Review and Discussion Page 8 recommendations and implementation actions related to parks and park facilities in the downtown. Some questions to consider: 1.Is the Commission in support of how the draft Downtown Concept Plan envisions the future use of the City’s current parks and recreation facilities? 2.Is the Commission in support of how the draft Downtown Concept Plan envisions the location, amount, and use of future parks and recreation facilities? 3.Do Commissioners have any questions or concerns about the Draft Plan’s vision for downtown? The Parks and Recreation Commission’s guidance tonight will be used to update the Draft Plan. No formal action is requested. NEXT STEPS: After review by the Parks and Recreation Commission, staff will present the Draft Downtown Concept Plan to the Architectural Review Commission on April 17. The Creative Vision Team will then provide direction to staff on prioritization of input to date on the Draft Plan, and revisions will be made prior to meeting with the Planning Commission for their review and input on June 28.Staff will then present the updated Downtown Concept Plan to the City Council, including a summary of Advisory Body input, for final review and adoption. Staff anticipates providing the final Downtown Concept Plan for Council adoption in August, 2017. ENVIRONMENTAL The project is statutorily exempt and exempt from CEQA under the General Rule. The Downtown Concept Plan is exempt from CEQA under Section 15262, Feasibility and Planning Studies, as an advisory planning document which has no binding effect on future activities. As a visionary planning document that is conceptual in nature, without regulatory authority or entitlement of projects which can be implemented directly which would have a physical effect on the environment, the project is also exempt under the General Rule, Section 15061 (b)(3) since it can be seen with certainty that the Downtown Concept Plan will not have a significan t effect on the environment. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Downtown Concept Plan 3-8 San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Public Draft January 31, 2017 Attachment 1 i | Public Draft Acknowledgements To be updated at the completion of the plan Citizens of San Luis Obispo The residents of the City who parƟ cipated in the update of the Downtown Concept Plan Creative Vision Team (CVT) Pierre Rademaker - Chairperson Charles Stevenson - Vice Chairperson Chuck Crotser Jaime Hill MaƩ Quaglino Annie Rendler Vicente del Rio Melanie Mills T. Keith Gurnee Eric Meyer Andrew Merriam (former) Kenneth Schwartz (former) City of San Luis Obispo Rebecca Gershow Xzandrea Fowler Michael Codron City Council Planning Commission Consultant Team Michael Baker International Loreli Cappel Tammy Seale (former) Amy Sinsheimer Christopher Read (former) Siri Champion Ten Over Studio Jim Duff y Mathieu Anfosso Daniel Lawrence KTU+A - Mobility Michael Singleton San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | ii Table of Contents 1. Planning Context Downtown San Luis Obispo is Special ............................................................................................................1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................................................1.1 What is the Downtown Concept Plan?.....................................................................................................1.2 How Will the Plan Be Used?.....................................................................................................................1.2 General Plan Consistency .................................................................................................................. ......1.3 Plan Area Boundary .................................................................................................................................1.4 Planning Process ......................................................................................................................................1.8 2. Concept Plan Vision The 1993 Vision .............................................................................................................................................2.1 Planning Principles and Goals ........................................................................................................................2.2 3. Plan Diagram DTCP IllustraƟ ve .............................................................................................................................................3.1 Planning AssumpƟ ons .............................................................................................................................3.1 Proposed Uses Downtown ......................................................................................................................3.9 Planning Subareas .................................................................................................................................3.17 4. Mobility and Streetscape Background ....................................................................................................................................................4.1 Street Types ..................................................................................................................................................4.4 Bicycle Improvements ....................................................................................................................................4.8 Bicycle FaciliƟ es .....................................................................................................................................4.12 Downtown Streetscape Elements ................................................................................................................4.13 Green infrastructure ....................................................................................................................................4.16 5. ImplementaƟ on ImplementaƟ on Plan ......................................................................................................................................5.3 iii | Public Draft List of Figures Figure 1.1 General Plan Downtown Planning Area ........................................................................................1.4 Figure 1.2. Downtown Concept Plan Area .....................................................................................................1.6 Figure 1.3. Outreach Process Graphic ............................................................................................................1.8 Figure 3.1. Downtown Concept Plan IllustraƟ ve ............................................................................................3.2 Figure 3.2. Range of Downtown Housing Types ...........................................................................................3.14 Figure 3.3. North Downtown Planning Subarea ...........................................................................................3.17 Figure 3.4. Central Downtown Planning Subarea ........................................................................................3.19 Figure 3.5. South Downtown Planning Subarea ...........................................................................................3.22 Figure 4.1 Street Types Diagram ...................................................................................................................4.2 Figure 4.2. Bicycle FaciliƟ es Diagram ...........................................................................................................4.10 List of Tables Table 3.1. Block DescripƟ ons .........................................................................................................................3 .4 Table 5.1. ImplementaƟ on Plan ............................ ...........................................................................................5.3 Appendices Appendix A: Stakeholder Outreach Summary 1Introduction 1.1 | Public Draft Downtow n is about ge tt i n g p e o p le toge t h e r mor e than e v e r. As re ta i l move s o nli n e mo r e a nd mor e, d owntown needs t o b e a p la ce for p e o p le to c on g re gat e a nd enjoy each ot hers’ c o m p a n y. - Res i den t Planning Context Downtown San Luis Obispo is Special Downtown is a vital and diverse mixed-use district; it is the focus of local and regional government; it is the center of our cultural acƟ viƟ es and fesƟ vals; it is a place where we go to work and live; it is where we enjoy entertainment, dining, and music; it is our favorite meeƟ ng place. Down- town San Luis Obispo is the heart of our community. The success of the downtown is a fragile thing; if not nurtured it will likely be lost. Constant vigilance, ongoing experimentaƟ on, adaptability, and visionary leadership are necessary to keep the downtown vital. With these thoughts in mind, the City Council asked staff to prepare an update to the 1993 Conceptual Physical Plan for the City’s Center (Downtown Concept Plan or Plan) with the support of a consultant team and a Cre- aƟ ve Vision Team of ten community volunteers. Background In late 1990, the City Council authorized the preparaƟ on of a vision plan for the downtown and authorized the City Manager to establish a commiƩ ee 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 eff ort to develop the Downtown Concept Plan. San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 1.2 The City Council adopted the Downtown Concept Plan by resoluƟ on on May 4, 1993. It has served as a vision for the downtown ever since, and has been referred to over the years as a guiding tool for development projects and for acquisiƟ on of public spaces downtown. The recent update to the General Plan Land Use Element in 2014 includ- ed an implementaƟ on objecƟ ve to update both the Downtown Concept Plan and the Mission Plaza Master Plan. As part of the 2015–2017 Finan- cial Plan, the City Council allocated funding for both eff orts. On August 18, 2015, the City Council approved the scope of work and request for proposal for consultant services associated with updaƟ ng the Downtown Concept Plan. In addiƟ on, the City Council adopted a resolu- Ɵ on creaƟ ng the CreaƟ ve Vision Team (CVT) for the project and defi ning its term and charge. What is the Downtown Concept Plan? The Downtown Concept Plan includes both the illustraƟ ve physical plan and this supplement. This supplement provides the narraƟ ve or story to guide achievement of the illustraƟ ve plan. Together they are the commu- nity’s long-range vision for the downtown, which will guide both public and private investment toward realizaƟ on of the vision. How Will the Plan Be Used? The 1993 Downtown Concept Plan has served as a vision for the down- town for almost 25 years, and although not a regulatory document, the plan has been referred to over the years as guidance for development projects and for public improvements downtown. The Downtown Con- cept Plan will conƟ nue to serve this funcƟ on. The Downtown Concept Plan is one of many tools available to staff and stakeholders to implement the General Plan. Staff will conƟ nue to review specifi c development applicaƟ ons in the downtown for consistency with adopted regulatory documents, while using the Downtown Concept Plan as guidance for the holisƟ c vision for the downtown. As a vision document, plan consistency is encouraged, rather than required. Where the Plan shows potenƟ al public or community use of privately owned property, this does not refl ect any City intent to restrict the use of any such property or to acquire any parƟ cular piece of private property. The Plan also does not intend to convey any assurance that any public or community use would ever be made of any private property, but rather to refl ect an integrated concept for desirable uses and ameniƟ es in the downtown. As the downtown evolves, the vision for various properƟ es 1.3 | Public Draft in relaƟ onship to one another may evolve as well, resulƟ ng in modifi ca- Ɵ on of this Plan. The ImplementaƟ on Plan in Chapter 5 includes a prioriƟ zed list of the public programs, projects, and acƟ ons needed for implementaƟ on of the Downtown Concept Plan. It will be referred to when updaƟ ng other rel- evant planning documents, or developing Capital Improvement Program lists. General Plan Consistency The Downtown Concept Plan is consistent with the City’s General Plan, which guides the use and protecƟ on of various resources to meet community purposes. The General Plan provides the overarching vision, goals, policies, and programs for the city. The General Plan is imple- mented through city ordinances, regulaƟ ons, guidance documents, and focused plans by topic, such as the Bicycle TransportaƟ on Plan, or by area, such as the Mid Higuera Street Enhancement Plan. New private and public development projects are evaluated for their consistency with the General Plan, compliance with municipal codes, and implemenƟ ng regu- laƟ ons and guidelines, such as the Downtown Concept Plan. The Land Use Element represents a generalized blueprint for the future of the City of San Luis Obispo. SecƟ on 4, Downtown, includes a set of policies and programs for the downtown area which the Downtown Con- cept Plan operates under. Policy 4.1 describes the downtown’s role: Downtown is the community’s urban center serving as the cultural, social, entertainment, and poliƟ cal center of the City for its residents, as well as home for those who live in its historic neighborhoods. The City wants its urban core to be economically healthy, and realizes that private and pub- lic investments in the Downtown support each other. Downtown should also provide a wide variety of professional and government services, serving the region as well as the city. The commercial core is a preferred locaƟ on for retail uses that are suitable for pedestrian access, off -site parking, and compact building spaces. Civic, cultural, and commercial porƟ ons of Downtown should be a major tourist desƟ naƟ on. Down- town’s visitor appeal should be based on natural, historical, and cultural features, retail services, entertainment and numerous and varied visitor accommodaƟ ons. The direcƟ on for updaƟ ng the Downtown Concept Plan comes specifi cal- ly from Programs 4.24 and 4.25, as shown in the box to the leŌ . Land Use Element Program 4.24: The City shall update the Downtown Concept Plan by 2016 and shall regularly up- date the plan as required to address signifi cant changes in or aff ecƟ ng the Downtown area including the opportuni- ty for meaningful public input. Land Use Element Program 4.25: The City shall consider fea- tures of … the Downtown Concept Plan in the approval of projects in the Downtown, recognizing that the plan is a concept and is intended to be fl exible. San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 1.4 The Downtown Concept Plan is also guided by the policies and programs in the CirculaƟ on Element, which is discussed further in Chapter 4, Mo- bility and Streetscape. Both the Land Use and CirculaƟ on Elements were updated in December 2014. Plan Area Boundary As noted in the General Plan, the downtown embraces residenƟ al neigh- borhoods, the commercial core and civic area, and less intensely devel- oped commercial, offi ce, and residenƟ al areas. Figure 1.1 illustrates the General Plan Downtown Planning Area and the downtown core (in white, in the center). Figure 1.1. General Plan Downtown Planning Area £¤101 MI LLCHORROP IS M O H IG U E R A HIGH MA R SH LE F FISL A Y T OROOS OS B UC HO N SA NT A ROS AMORROP E A C H M O NT E REY NI P OMOE LLAHI L L GA R DE NP AL M B E A CH P EP P ERLINCOLNO LIVE GROVE CA RME L SANDERCOCK W AL N UT BEEBEED A N A IR IS C H U RC H U P H A M OAK GRAM I S S I O N SANTABARBARAG E O R G E A RCHE RMONTALBAN PRICEC E N T E R STORYAL MONDRACHELHI LLC R ES T PARKCYPRESSWA L K E RWEST M O UN T A IN V IE W PACIFIC P H ILLIPS WARDBR ECK SWAZEYBIANCHI COURT P E N N Y N IP O M O A LLE Y P AL M MI LL AL LEY PAULINE H IG UERAPA C IFIC B ROA DB ROADMI SSI ONP AL M The 1993 Concept Plan included an area nearly idenƟ cal to the down- town core. The current Downtown Concept Plan boundary has evolved to include a slightly larger boundary than the downtown core, in order to include adjacent uses, context, and connecƟ ons, as well as opportunity areas. The Downtown Concept Plan area boundary is generally bounded by Mill Street to the north, Pismo Street to the south, Pepper Street to the east, and South Higuera and Walker Street to the west, as shown in Figure 1.2. Downtown Concept Plan Area. 1.5 | Public Draft This page intenƟ onally leŌ blank. San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 1.6Figure 1.2. Downtown Concept Plan Area 1.7 | Public Draft This page intenƟ onally leŌ blank. San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 1.8 Planning Process The Downtown Concept Plan is being updated through a communi- ty-based planning process guided by staff , consultants, and the CVT. Figure 1.3. Process Graphic summarizes the four-phase process used to update the Downtown Concept Plan. The project includes broad-based public engagement in accordance with the City’s adopted Public Engagement and NoƟ cing Manual, including stakeholder focus groups, online engagement, public workshops, and neighborhood meeƟ ngs. A complete summary of community outreach acƟ viƟ es is in cluded in Appendix A and will be updated at the compleƟ on of the project. Figure 1.3. Outreach Process Graphic 1.9 | Public Draft This page intenƟ onally leŌ blank. 2Concept Plan Vision 2.1 | Public Draft Concept Plan Vision The 1993 Vision The update of the Downtown Concept Plan builds off the vision of the 1993 Conceptual Physical Plan for the City’s Center. The 1993 Plan’s vision was to preserve, protect, and enhance downtown San Luis Obispo as: 1. The major commercial and business center off ering a wide variety of goods and services; 2. The historic center of the City and the County; 3. The seat of County government; 4. The primary cultural and entertainment center of the County; 5. A major desƟ naƟ on point for tourists; and 6. The major congregaƟ on center – an enjoyable place to meet others, to celebrate, and to parƟ cipate in fesƟ viƟ es. The 1993 vision was used as one of the building blocks for developing the Downtown Concept Plan’s updated vision of downtown today, as described in the text box below. 2017 Vision Statement As the heart of our community, downtown San Luis Obispo will serve as the center for arts, culture, shopping, entertainment, and government. A well-balanced mix of uses makes the downtown economically, culturally, and socially vibrant, and its authenƟ city creates a welcoming, livable atmosphere. It is our urban neighborhood. San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 2.2 Planning Principles and Goals Based on public input, previous planning eff orts, the values that remain relevant from the 1993 Plan, and the overall vision, the CVT developed eight Project Planning Principles to guide the development of the Downtown Concept Plan, numbered below. Following each Planning Principle are corollary Goals that guide the vision of our future downtown as embodied in the IllustraƟ ve plan. 1. Strong IdenƟ ty: Preserve and enhance the downtown’s disƟ nct sense of place and memorable character. 1.1 Preserve and augment the visual mixture, diversity, and interest of the downtown while retaining its tradiƟ onal character. 1.2 Foster an economically and culturally diverse downtown environment by encouraging a wide variety of housing, commercial, workplace, and cultural experiences. 1.3 Encourage the use of sustainable materials, green infrastructure, and renewable energy resources in downtown development. 1.4 Provide harmonious transiƟ ons between core area funcƟ ons and surrounding neighborhoods. 1.5 Focus aƩ enƟ on on the downtown’s gateways through landmark buildings, public art, and public spaces that announce your arrival in the downtown. 2. 2 PlenƟ ful and Safe Public Spaces: Provide opportuniƟ es for posiƟ ve social interacƟ on, quiet moments, and access to the natural environment, where everyone feels safe and welcome. 2.1 Treat sidewalks and paseos as wide and inviƟ ng urbanized parks with street trees, ample seaƟ ng, bike parking, lighƟ ng, public art, and other street furniture. 2.2 Encourage mid-block paseos that enable opportuniƟ es for improved pedestrian access, shopping, outdoor dining, and informal gathering places, but not at the expense of a vibrant street front. 2.3 Provide opportuniƟ es for a variety of new public spaces and recreaƟ on downtown, including pocket parks, plazas, wide sidewalks with seaƟ ng, an expanded Creek Walk, parklets, and creaƟ ve rooŌ op public spaces. Don’t overbuild!! Th e q u a lity of lif e here i s b ec ause of t h e simplicity. - Resid e n t 2.3 | Public Draft 3. Variety in Form and FuncƟ on: Encourage a variety of compaƟ ble uses, acƟ viƟ es, and housing types for an inclusive and vital downtown. 3.1 Provide a physical framework that retains and strengthens the economic health and vitality of the downtown. 3.2 Encourage mixed-use development throughout the downtown, as shown in the illustraƟ ve plan. 3.3 Create opportuniƟ es for smaller, independent businesses downtown. 3.4 Ensure the downtown funcƟ ons both as a commercial district and a residenƟ al neighborhood, with a variety of housing opportuniƟ es. 3.5 Encourage the City and County to meet their future offi ce needs in the vicinity of their exisƟ ng government centers. 3.6 Provide new in-lieu fee parking districts over Ɵ me to accommodate the needs of future mixed-use development, recognizing that the demand for parking today will not necessarily be the same in the next 25 years. 3.7 Reduce auto travel by providing services, jobs, and housing in proximity to each other. 4. Enhanced Mobility: Enhance the downtown’s walkability, making it easier to get to and travel throughout for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders. 4.1 Design downtown streets for pedestrians fi rst, followed by cyclists; encourage walking and bicycling by making the downtown safe and welcoming. 4.2 Improve downtown’s circulaƟ on by emphasizing alternaƟ ve routes for through automobile traffi c that do not pass through the core area. 4.3 Provide ample wayfi nding to direct drivers to parking structures so they do not need to drive through the downtown core to access them. 4.4 Provide safe bicycle infrastructure that connects to neighborhoods to encourage people to ride bicycles to and from downtown rather than drive. I lov e t h e idea of d own town b e i n g ou r core area...we need to continue t h e fo cus on i n fi ll p rojects tha t creat e d e n s ity wi thi n t h e d own town core, whi l e pushin g p a rki n g lot s to t h e b ri m of d own town. - Res id e n t San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 2.4 4.5 Collaborate on a new transit center to meet the needs of downtown employees, residents, and visitors. 5. Universal Accessibility: Promote a downtown that is safe, inclusive, and easy to navigate for those using all modes of transportaƟ on. 5.1 Locate parking structures at strategic points on the periphery of downtown that are within easy walking distance of major acƟ vity areas. 5.2 Provide ample pedestrian wayfi nding throughout the downtown. 5.3 Ensure that sidewalks, crosswalks, and public improvements are universally accessible and easy to navigate. 5.4 Design street improvements with appropriate lighƟ ng, visibility, and other public safety features to help reduce the potenƟ al for crime. 5.5 Design street improvements with adequate short-term loading zones for commercial and personal vehicles (ride sharing) as well as disabled person parking. 6. Art, Culture, and History: Encourage arƟ sƟ c and cultural opportuniƟ es and celebrate the downtown’s unique history. 6.1 Encourage rehabilitaƟ on and adapƟ ve reuse of the downtown’s historic structures. 6.2 Preserve historic residenƟ al neighborhoods on the periphery of the downtown. 6.3 Expand cultural, historical, and arƟ sƟ c opportuniƟ es in the downtown, including enhancing the downtown Cultural District. 7. InnovaƟ ve and Human Scale: Embrace original and compaƟ ble design that supports connecƟ ons to the surrounding built environment, public realm, and hillside views. 7.1 Reduce or redevelop surface parking lots with two-story minimum development or convert to public open space where appropriate. 7.2 Support compaƟ ble building heights of two to fi ve stories in the downtown. Encourage residenƟ al uses above the ground fl oor. It i s i m p o rt an t to plac e a h igher p ri o rity on m aki n g t h e d own town area ac cess i ble to p e rs o n s w i th d is abilities. Th i s w o u ld i n c lude bett e r p a rki n g, bett e r m a i n ta ined w a l kw ays an d path s of t ra v el tha t hav e redu ced gra de. - Res id e n t 2.5 | Public Draft 7.3 Target height carefully and in limited areas; consider locaƟ ng taller buildings toward the center of blocks, in pockets, and in low areas to lessen impacts on views. 7.4 Encourage higher-density projects and smaller dwelling units for a vibrant residenƟ al mix in the downtown. 8. Ecological ConnecƟ ons: Protect, enhance, and reveal the natural areas and ecological funcƟ ons that are an integral component of the downtown area. 8.1 Preserve access to open space and views of hillsides from public areas downtown. 8.2 Enhance San Luis Obispo Creek as a visual, recreaƟ onal, educaƟ onal, and biological resource for public enjoyment and wildlife habitat. 8.3 Design streetscape and public realm improvements with green infrastructure components. We need m o re peop l e -sca l e w a l k a ble s h op p i n g i n c ludin g a groc e ry sto re an d a gy m f o r a ll t h e d own town resid e n ts we hav e an d w an t m o re of . - Res id e n t 3Plan Diagrams 3.1 | Public Draft Plan Diagrams Downtown Concept Plan Illustrative The Downtown Concept Plan IllustraƟ ve shown in Figure 3.1 graphically represents the future vision for downtown San Luis Obispo. The plan depicts envisioned future land uses, public spaces, and private development. Together, this Plan and supplement can help the reader “experience” the downtown from diff erent perspecƟ ves. The Plan has been developed as a digital model which has the potenƟ al to evolve into a tool that could be used to plug in detailed models of future development projects as they are approved, to visualize how they will fi t into the greater context of downtown San Luis Obispo of the future. Planning Assumptions To develop the Downtown Concept Plan IllustraƟ ve, some assumpƟ ons were made, including the following: The uses in the IllustraƟ ve were developed based on the City’s exisƟ ng zoning regulaƟ ons map. However, uses were fl aƩ ened (e.g., all commercial zones were shown as Commercial Mixed Use) and lot coverage standards were not applied. Generally, there is more density and more lot coverage shown in the Downtown Concept Plan than exists today. Most surface parking lots are shown as redeveloped, and addiƟ onal structured parking is envisioned around the outer ring of the downtown. Density is not necessarily synonymous with height in the Downtown Concept Plan. Detailed height recommendaƟ ons remain under the purview of the General Plan and Zoning RegulaƟ ons. Expanded or new in-lieu parking fee districts are assumed to meet the needs of the envisioned mixed-use development paƩ ern. ResidenƟ al uses are assumed for upper stories for a true mixed- use downtown. Historically signifi cant resources are shown as remaining. Projects submiƩ ed to the City for development approval that are enƟ tled but not yet built are shown in the IllustraƟ ve as they were approved; development projects submiƩ ed to the City but not yet enƟ tled may be shown diff erently than submiƩ ed. The numbers on the plan describe the future vision for each block as it redevelops in the future. Detailed block descripƟ ons are included in Table 3.1, which follows the Plan IllustraƟ ve. As a downtow n re s i den t, I’d l i k e more a tt e n t ion p a i d t o how t h i ngs l i k e noise, p arki n g, ch a n ges to traf fi c fl ow, et c . a ff e c t the qui e t e n joy men t of ou r n e i gh borh oods a n d p ro pert y v a l u es. - Re s i den t San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement |3.2Figure 3.1. Downtown Concept Plan IllustrativeDANAPALMMILLMONTEREYHIGUERAMARSHPACIFICPISMOMISSION PLAZAMASTER PLANHIGUERAPALMMONTEREYHIGUERAMARSHPACIFICPISMO WALKERARCHERCARMELBEACHNIPOMONIPOMOBROADBROADGARDENCHORROCHORROMORROMORROOSOSOSOSSANTA ROSASANTA ROSATOROJOHNSON AVEJOHNSON AVEPEPPERTORO19101918211312204544434241403938323130292827265857565554535251413213346595142234476061523354871624364981725375061BLOCK NUMBERSSee block descriptions in plan supplement27COMMERCIAL MIXED USEStreet-front commercial uses with upper level residential and/ or office usesOFFICE MIXED USEOffice uses with compatible residential and/ or commercial usesRESIDENTIALWide variety of medium density and high density housingHOSPITALITY Hotels and conference facilitiesCOMMUNITY SERVINGGovernment facilities, museums, churches, and schoolsPARKINGAbove or below ground parking that may include roof top public spacesPARKSMay include publicly accessible historic sites, gardens and walkwaysPLAZA, PASEOS, AND SHARED STREETSPaseos may include publicly accessible private property 3.3 | Public Draft This page intenƟ onally leŌ blank. San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.4 Table 3.1. Block Descriptions Block # Block DescripƟ ons Blocks with no numbers have no redevelopment opportuniƟ es envisioned and are shown only for context. EnƟ tled projects, as of January 2017, are included. Projects under development review are also included but may be diff erent than submiƩ ed. 2 New residenƟ al opportuniƟ es in the R-4 zone along the corner of Broad and Mill Streets. 3 New residenƟ al opportuniƟ es in the R-4 zone on Mill Street. Community-serving reuse of the historic Ah Louis Store. Commercial mixed-use development between the Ah Louis Store and the Palm parking structure. Chinatown interpreƟ ve exhibits are displayed along the front of the parking structure to beƩ er highlight the area’s history. 4 New residenƟ al opportuniƟ es envisioned on site of current AT&T building. City-owned property (City Hall, current SLO LiƩ le Theatre, and surface parking lot) are renovated to incorporate addiƟ onal city or leased offi ces and improved outdoor public space along Palm Street frontage. 5Offi ce mixed use is envisioned in the exisƟ ng surface parking lot facing Santa Rosa Street. 6 City-owned Ludwick Center is redeveloped into a full-featured Community RecreaƟ on Center, with full-sized gym, mulƟ -use rooms, staff offi ces, and below ground parking. Offi ce mixed use is envisioned next to the Ludwick Center facing Santa Rosa Street. 9Offi ce mixed use is envisioned in the exisƟ ng surface parking lot on the corner of Nipomo and Dana Streets. New small-scale residenƟ al is envisioned at the end of Dana Street in the R-3 zone. The City-owned Rosa Butron Adobe property is opened to the public and managed as a park. The IOOF property is envisioned as residenƟ al. A new connecƟ on from Dana Street crosses San Luis Creek and connects residents to the expanded Creek Walk. 10 A new parking structure on the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets is constructed to include offi ce mixed use along Nipomo Street, with the SLO LiƩ le Theatre along Monterey Street. An addiƟ on to the History Center is shown on the City-owned parking lot on Monterey Street, wrapping around the building to the property on Broad Street. If this is not all needed for the History Center, then it is envisioned for other community-serving use in the Cultural District. 11 Mission Plaza will be improved as envisioned in the Mission Plaza Master Plan. An expanded Museum of Art is shown connecƟ ng to Mission Plaza. 12 The Chinatown Project is under construcƟ on. It includes both new construcƟ on and the reuse of historic buildings for commercial mixed use along Monterey Street, including retail and student housing, and hotel use with plazas and paseos fronƟ ng Palm Street. A future envisioned pedestrian connecƟ on is shown to Chorro Street. 13 An addiƟ onal porƟ on of the exisƟ ng alley is opened to public use, connecƟ ng through the block to Osos Street, adjacent to the library. 14 The large lawn at the County building is envisioned as a demonstraƟ on garden with interacƟ ve public art. The courthouse is expanded toward Santa Rosa Street, with opportuniƟ es for addiƟ onal offi ce and commercial mixed use. Courthouse drop-off and parking areas are relocated on the lower level. 15 The surface parking lots on this block are envisioned to be redeveloped into a 3–4-story County offi ce building with parking. Commercial or public uses along Monterey Street will help acƟ vate the street. ResidenƟ al and offi ce mixed use will conƟ nue to occupy the block along Palm Street. 3.5 | Public Draft Block # Block DescripƟ ons Blocks with no numbers have no redevelopment opportuniƟ es envisioned and are shown only for context. EnƟ tled projects, as of January 2017, are included. Projects under development review are also included but may be diff erent than submiƩ ed. 16 The corner of Monterey and Johnson Streets will redevelop into 3–4-story commercial mixed use (ground fl oor commercial and residenƟ al above), similar to The Mix across the street. The exisƟ ng off -street parking will be converted to plaza space. The exisƟ ng development paƩ ern will mostly remain along Palm Street, with some new offi ce mixed use and residenƟ al opportuniƟ es. 17 This block conƟ nues to redevelop, with the surface parking lot on the corner of Monterey and Pepper Streets converƟ ng to commercial mixed use, envisioned as ground fl oor commercial with residenƟ al or residenƟ al and offi ce above. This gateway locaƟ on is an opportunity for a signature building. 18 This large block is envisioned to include new commercial mixed use, a hotel and conference facility, and residenƟ al opportuniƟ es near downtown’s main entrance. Historic buildings will be preserved while a variety of uses will be infused south of the creek along Higuera Street. New development will open onto and interact with the expanded Creek Walk, which will connect to Higuera and Dana Streets. Included in this block are four diff erent projects currently in the works: The LoŌ s at Nipomo is a 4-story mixed-use project along the creek that currently includes 23 residenƟ al units, 7 hotel rooms, and approx. 3,500 sq. Ō . of commercial space; South Town 18 is a 4-story mixed-use project along the creek that currently includes 18 new residenƟ al units and approximately 70 sq. Ō . of commercial space; Downtown Terrace is a medium-density residenƟ al project with approximately 30 new prefabricated manufactured homes on the site of the current mobile home park; and The Creamery will be expanded and rehabilitated with paseo connecƟ ons to Nipomo and Higuera Streets and an interior courtyard where there is currently parking. 19 The City-owned parking lot at Higuera and Nipomo Streets will be converted to a public plaza that is envisioned to provide seaƟ ng, an interacƟ ve fountain, and more posiƟ ve acƟ vity at this prominent Downtown Corner. Neighboring restaurants or cafes can share a porƟ on of the space and management responsibiliƟ es. Pedestrians cross the creek here and can walk to the parking structure, Children’s Museum, and other Cultural District opportuniƟ es. Safety and accessibility improvements are made to the Creek Walk and its connecƟ ons to adjacent businesses. This block also includes a public park on the corner of Broad and Monterey Streets across from the Museum of Art; it is envisioned with historic interpretaƟ on, paths to the creek, and children’s play opportuniƟ es. It could also include a small facility for leasing and cultural uses. The enƟ tled Monterey Place project is also located on this block; it is a mixed-use development with 23 residenƟ al units, a bed and breakfast with 11 rooms, and lower-level offi ce, retail, and restaurant space along the creek, with a paseo connecƟ on through the project to the pedestrian bridge. 20 As this block redevelops, uses along Monterey Street will open up to the shared street more. The intersecƟ on at Chorro and Monterey Streets will be enhanced to beƩ er connect pedestrians to the plaza. 22 This block is envisioned to include a commercial mixed-use project next to the Fremont Theater and connecƟ ng to Higuera Street. It will include lower-level commercial with upper-level offi ce and residenƟ al uses, and may also include a mid-block paseo. Ground-fl oor improvements along Osos Street will make it more vibrant and pedestrian-friendly. San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.6 Block # Block DescripƟ ons Blocks with no numbers have no redevelopment opportuniƟ es envisioned and are shown only for context. EnƟ tled projects, as of January 2017, are included. Projects under development review are also included but may be diff erent than submiƩ ed. 23 New landmark buildings are envisioned along Santa Rosa Street, opening onto corner plazas with public art and a mid-block paseo. Commercial mixed-use buildings along Monterey Street will include housing on upper levels. A parking structure and transit center are envisioned along Higuera Street, with community serving and commercial mixed use along most of the street front. Public open space is envisioned on the parking structure rooŌ op or adjacent private development, where people can enjoy views of the surrounding hills. 24 This block is envisioned to include 2–4-story commercial mixed-use development along Monterey Street with upper-level residenƟ al. Buildings will be sited along the street front with upper stories that may be stepped back for scale and increased outdoor space. A small plaza area on Monterey Street will connect to a pocket park on Higuera Street, for neighborhood green space and small- scale play opportuniƟ es. Offi ce use on Higuera Street is envisioned with upper-story residenƟ al. 25 This block will conƟ nue the redevelopment paƩ ern along Monterey Street with 2–4-story commercial mixed use. Upper stories may be stepped back for scale, with opportuniƟ es for increased outdoor space and residenƟ al uses. ResidenƟ al uses will conƟ nue along Higuera Street. 26 This block serves as the main downtown gateway. It is envisioned to include an iconic commercial mixed-use gateway development at the Marsh and Higuera intersecƟ on, announcing arrival into downtown. It will include an entry plaza with public art, and a parking structure to serve surrounding commercial mixed use and hospitality uses. This area will be further enhanced with intersecƟ on improvements. 27 New commercial mixed use and hospitality are envisioned in this block, with historic resources remaining. A mid-block paseo in alignment with Beach Street connects pedestrians between Marsh and Higuera Streets and to Block 28. 28 This block includes the San Luis Square Project currently under review. It includes three 4-story mixed-use buildings with retail space and 48 residenƟ al units facing Higuera, Nipomo, and Marsh Streets. A paseo travels through the center of the block between buildings, connecƟ ng to the Jack House and Gardens and adjacent commercial mixed use. The Jack House and Gardens will be used more as a public park as the surrounding area redevelops. 29 The corner of Marsh and Nipomo Streets is envisioned with 3–4-story commercial mixed use with residenƟ al on the upper levels. New 2-story commercial mixed use is envisioned for the surface lot on the corner of Broad and Marsh Streets to retain compaƟ bility with the exisƟ ng development paƩ ern. There will be opportuniƟ es for pocket plazas and outdoor dining. 30 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. Ō . of commercial space and 8 residenƟ al units, as well as improvements to Garden Street. 32 The enƟ tled Discovery SLO project will be located on the corner of Chorro and Marsh Streets. It will reuse the exisƟ ng 24,500 sq. Ō ., 2-story commercial building, and includes a bowling alley, restaurant, outdoor paƟ o, and open banquet area. No other changes are proposed for this block. 3.7 | Public Draft Block # Block DescripƟ ons Blocks with no numbers have no redevelopment opportuniƟ es envisioned and are shown only for context. EnƟ tled projects, as of January 2017, are included. Projects under development review are also included but may be diff erent than submiƩ ed. 33 The enƟ tled Granada Hotel Expansion Project will include a 24-unit, 4-story hotel addiƟ on with roof deck in the interior of the block, located in the Historic Downtown District. In addiƟ on, the current surface parking lots between Higuera and Marsh Streets are envisioned for infi ll with a 3–4-story commercial mixed-use project. This new development will conƟ nue the vibrant downtown street front, creaƟ ng opportuniƟ es for lower-level commercial and upper-level housing or offi ce. A paseo is envisioned to align with Court Street, providing addiƟ onal pedestrian connecƟ ons. 34 This block is envisioned to redevelop to take advantage of the creek with addiƟ onal outdoor paƟ os, paseos, and pocket plaza areas. The prominent corner of Higuera and Santa Rosa will redevelop with 3–4-story commercial mixed use. 35 This block along Santa Rosa and Higuera Streets is envisioned to redevelop with 3–4-story commercial mixed-use projects. This site is an ideal locaƟ on for upper-story residenƟ al and offi ce opportuniƟ es. A paseo is shown connecƟ ng pedestrians to the parking structure and transit center on Block 23. Eight 3-story townhomes are located next to the historic hospital property on Marsh Street. 36 This block is envisioned to redevelop over Ɵ me with 2–3-story offi ce mixed use along Higuera Street, with housing on upper levels facing the pocket park across the street. New offi ce/mixed use will be on the corner of Toro and Marsh Streets. 38 Announcing an entry into downtown, Higuera Street frontage is envisioned to redevelop with 3-story commercial mixed use. This block is part of the “fl ex zone,” which envisions fl exible uses such as live/work studios or larger-footprint shared work spaces. 39 Archer Street is reconfi gured with a small plaza and alley access mid-block. Along Marsh Street, new hospitality uses and commercial mixed use with upper-level residenƟ al or offi ce are envisioned, conveniently located across from structured parking. Commercial mixed use is also shown redeveloping along Pacifi c Street. 40 MulƟ family housing is envisioned in the R-4 zone along Pacifi c Street. Commercial mixed use will redevelop around the corner of Marsh and Carmel Streets, which could include housing on upper stories, conveniently located to structured parking. 41 A similar development paƩ ern is envisioned on this block: MulƟ family housing will redevelop in the R-4 zone across from Emerson Park, and commercial mixed use will redevelop on Marsh Street, with upper-level offi ce and housing opportuniƟ es. The historic Kaetzel Garden House will remain. A local market or other neighborhood-serving use could be located on the ground fl oor at Beach and Marsh Streets, supported by surrounding mulƟ family housing. 42 A diagonal plaza is envisioned through this block, providing a connecƟ on to Emerson Park from downtown as well as addiƟ onal outdoor dining, event, and public art opportuniƟ es. Commercial mixed use will front onto Marsh and Pacifi c Streets, with the historic Parsons House remaining. A parking structure is included to accommodate new development in the area, with microretail storefronts along Pacifi c Street for a small local business cluster. 43 New commercial mixed use is envisioned at Pacifi c and Garden Streets, which could include upper level housing or offi ce. New commercial mixed use along Marsh Street could include a ground-fl oor local market with structured parking across Broad Street. The corner of Broad and Pacifi c Streets includes a brewpub and restaurant with retail space. San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.8 Block # Block DescripƟ ons Blocks with no numbers have no redevelopment opportuniƟ es envisioned and are shown only for context. EnƟ tled projects, as of January 2017, are included. Projects under development review are also included but may be diff erent than submiƩ ed. 44 On the surface parking lot at the corner of Marsh and Chorro Streets, new commercial mixed use is envisioned with upper-level residenƟ al. Along Pacifi c Street, the surface parking lot redevelops with offi ce mixed use with a small area for shared parking behind, as well as across the street in the exisƟ ng structured parking. 45 This block includes the exisƟ ng Marsh Street parking structure. While not changing signifi cantly, small-scale public improvements may enliven the Pacifi c Street frontage. 46 The surface parking lot on the corner of Osos and Marsh Streets is envisioned to infi ll with 3–4-story commercial mixed use. Offi ce mixed use will be added on the corner of Morro and Pacifi c Streets. An area for shared parking is shown remaining behind the offi ce uses, as well as across the street in the structured parking. 47 Cheng Park is shown expanding across the creek onto the exisƟ ng surface parking lot, with a paseo providing connecƟ ons to it from Marsh and Pacifi c Streets. AddiƟ onal commercial mixed-use and offi ce mixed-use projects are envisioned on the block. 48 The property on the corner of Marsh and Santa Rosa Streets is envisioned as mulƟ -story offi ce mixed use set back from the creek with an adjacent paƟ o area. Offi ces redevelop into offi ce mixed use. Alley-access parking is shown behind buildings. Historic buildings remain. A widened walkway along Toro Street beƩ er connects pedestrians to the adjacent shopping center and the Dallidet Adobe. A walkway at the end of the cul-de-sac connects pedestrians to Toro Street. 49 The shopping center footprint remains as is. The green space on the corner of Marsh and Toro Streets is envisioned as a small pocket park, and the pedestrian path behind the shopping center connects to the new pedestrian path from the Dallidet Adobe across Toro Street. 51 This block is envisioned as part of the mid-Higuera Plan transiƟ on area, or “fl ex zone.” Larger footprint commercial mixed use may accommodate incubator businesses, technological uses, or uses such as shared marketplaces or shared work spaces. Walker Street ends in a cul-de-sac at the Pacifi c/Pismo Alley, creaƟ ng a small plaza along Higuera Street and addiƟ onal street front opportuniƟ es. The Old Gas Works building on Pismo Street is rehabilitated and incorporated into a mid-block pocket park. 52 Pismo Street between Archer and Carmel Streets is envisioned as redeveloping with 2–3-story residenƟ al in the R-3 zone. This block of Pacifi c Street has more of an industrial feel with a variety of commercial mixed uses and the possible adapƟ ve reuse of the brick building at the corner of Archer and Pacifi c Streets. 53 Pacifi c Street between Carmel and Beach Streets is envisioned as redeveloping with mulƟ family housing in this R-4 zone adjacent to Emerson Park. Along Pismo Street, corner properƟ es are shown redeveloping into garden apartments sƟ ll in keeping with the scale of the neighborhood. 54 As housing increases in downtown, improvements are envisioned at Emerson Park to provide more opportuniƟ es for outdoor play for neighborhood residents. The surface parking is replaced with park elements, as new structured parking is envisioned in block 42. 55 This block envisions redevelopment of some small offi ce buildings and surface parking lots into 2–3-story offi ce mixed use on Pacifi c and Broad Streets. 3.9 | Public Draft Block # Block DescripƟ ons Blocks with no numbers have no redevelopment opportuniƟ es envisioned and are shown only for context. EnƟ tled projects, as of January 2017, are included. Projects under development review are also included but may be diff erent than submiƩ ed. 56 This block envisions redevelopment of some small offi ces and surface parking lots into 2–3-story offi ce mixed use along Broad and Pacifi c Streets. Alley-access parking is accessible from Pacifi c and Pismo Streets. 57 Some exisƟ ng single-story buildings and surface parking lots are envisioned to convert to 2–3-story offi ce mixed use along Pacifi c and Chorro Streets with residenƟ al on upper levels. A small plaza area is included along Marsh Street. 58 Some exisƟ ng single-story buildings are envisioned to convert to 2–3-story residenƟ al and offi ce uses, compaƟ ble with the mixed Offi ce/R-3 zoning of the block, and the R-4 across Pismo Street. The historic properƟ es on the corner of Pacifi c and Chorro Streets will remain. 59 New offi ce mixed use includes 9 residenƟ al units and approximately 8,000 sq. Ō . of commercial space. Also envisioned is 2–3-story offi ce mixed use on the surface parking lot at the corner of Pacifi c and Morro Streets. 60 Underdeveloped single-story buildin gs and surface parking along Pacifi c Street are envisioned as 2–3-story offi ce mixed use. Small-scale alley-access parking is shown behind buildings. Proposed Uses Downtown By encouraging a diverse mix of uses in the downtown, the City intends to promote a compact urban core; provide addiƟ onal (including aff ordable) housing opportuniƟ es; and reduce auto travel by providing services, jobs, and housing in proximity to each other. The City desires the safety and vitality that comes with having a true mixed- use downtown for a 24-hour “eyes on the street” environment. This secƟ on provides addiƟ onal details regarding the proposed uses in the downtown, as shown on the IllustraƟ ve Plan. I l i k e mixed uses! Diff e r e n t strokes f o r diff e r e n t f o l k s! - Re s i den t San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.10 Commercial Mixed Use The Commercial Mixed Use category is intended to show areas appropriate for vibrant commercial mixed-use development. As the predominant use in the downtown core, it is designed to integrate retail and service commercial uses with residenƟ al and offi ce uses. In mulƟ ple- story buildings, retailers are the primary tenants on the ground fl oor and upper fl oors are envisioned to contain residenƟ al, offi ce, or both, depending on market demand. This category is shown in areas zoned as Downtown Commercial (C-D), Retail Commercial (C-R), and Service Commercial (C-S) zones. Housing is strongly encouraged on upper levels. DANA PALM MILL MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMO MISSION PLAZA MASTER PLAN HIG U E R A PALM MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMO WALKERARCHERCARMELBEACHNIPOMONIPOMOBROADBROADGARDENCHORROCHORROMORROMORROOSOSOSOSSANTA ROSASANTA ROSATOROJOHNSON AVEJOHNSON AVEPEPPERTOROCOMMERCIAL MIXED USE - Street-front commercial uses with upper level residenƟ al and/or offi ce uses 3.11 | Public Draft Off ice Mixed Use The Offi ce Mixed Use category is shown in areas zoned as Offi ce (O); it is intended to show areas in the downtown intended primarily for a variety of offi ce uses, while encouraging compaƟ ble commercial and/ or residenƟ al uses to be integrated into upper fl oors or to the rear of a site. Offi ce Mixed Use is intended to act as a buff er between Commercial Mixed Use and ResidenƟ al areas. In many cases, Offi ce Mixed Use is shown with alley access and small-scale parking behind to accommodate on-site parking for patrons. DANA PALM MILL MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMO MISSION PLAZA MASTER PLAN HIG U E R A PALM MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMO WALKERARCHERCARMELBEACHNIPOMONIPOMOBROADBROADGARDENCHORROCHORROMORROMORROOSOSOSOSSANTA ROSASANTA ROSATOROJOHNSON AVEJOHNSON AVEPEPPERTOROOFFICE MIXED USE - Offi ce uses with compaƟ ble residenƟ al and/or commercial uses San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.12 Hospitality/Community Serving Hospitality includes uses such as hotels and convenƟ on or conference centers. As of December 2016, there are three hotel projects under way in the Central Downtown subarea. Three new hospitality uses are proposed in the plan, all in the South Downtown subarea. Rooms for short stays that are integrated into predominantly commercial uses are not shown as Hospitality. Community Serving uses include schools, churches, museums, government offi ces, recreaƟ on centers, courts, and transit centers. A cluster of community-serving uses can be seen around the Mission, City offi ces, and County government center. DANA PALM MILL MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMO MISSION PLAZA MASTER PLAN HIG UE R A PALM MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMO WALKERARCHERCARMELBEACHNIPOMONIPOMOBROADBROADGARDENCHORROCHORROMORROMORROOSOSOSOSSANTA ROSASANTA ROSATOROJOHNSON AVEJOHNSON AVEPEPPERTOROCOMMUNITY SERVING - Government faciliƟ es, museums, churches, and schools HOSPITALITY - Hotels and conference faciliƟ es 3.13 | Public Draft Residential ResidenƟ al uses are shown in the R-2, R-3, R-4 (Medium, Medium-high, and High Density residenƟ al) zones primarily around the perimeter of the downtown, adjacent to lower-density residenƟ al neighborhoods. Some housing currently exists in the O zone downtown and is shown as such in the plan. The residenƟ al uses illustrated in the Plan are consistent with General Plan Housing Goal 5, which aims to provide variety in the locaƟ on, type, size, tenure, and style of dwellings. DANA PALM MILL MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMO MISSION PLAZA MASTER PLAN HIG U E R A PALM MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMO WALKERARCHERCARMELBEACHNIPOMONIPOMOBROADBROADGARDENCHORROCHORROMORROMORROOSOSOSOSSANTA ROSASANTA ROSATOROJOHNSON AVEJOHNSON AVEPEPPERTORORESIDENTIAL - Wide variety of medium density and high density housing San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.14 The Plan encourages a wide variety of housing types to appeal to diff erent demographics, and includes a spectrum of housing opƟ ons. ResidenƟ al uses are envisioned to accommodate low income, workforce, and high-end housing for seniors, families, and single professionals. ResidenƟ al uses downtown include a range of mulƟ -unit housing types that help meet the vision for a more compact and walkable downtown living environment. The imagery and diagram shown below represents a range of housing types that should be considered in the future. Figure 3.2. Range of Downtown Housing Types 3.15 | Public Draft Parking Structures As of December 2016, there are three exisƟ ng parking structures in the downtown, while another (the Palm-Nipomo structure) is in the works. The Plan shows three addiƟ onal structures (plus addiƟ onal parking at a new County offi ce building and at the Ludwick Center) to accommodate parking needs as the downtown redevelops. As in 1993, this Plan assumes new infi ll development on most exisƟ ng surface parking lots in the downtown; instead, cars will primarily park in new structures accessed from Palm, Nipomo, Marsh, Pacifi c, and Toro Streets. The intenƟ on is to direct drivers to parking structures fi rst, so they will not need to drive through the downtown core. This also assumes that there will be new or expanded in-lieu fee parking districts to accommodate new development paƩ erns and parking needs. The Plan also assumes that parking structures will have limited street frontage, and located behind other uses that are more compaƟ ble with a vibrant downtown street, such as ground-fl oor retail or commercial mixed use. Roofs on some parking structures or adjacent buildings are envisioned to be used for parks, plazas, outdoor dining, photovoltaic shade structures, and access to views. DANA PALM MILL MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMO MISSION PLAZAMASTER PLAN HIG U E R A PALM MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMO WALKERARCHERCARMELBEACHNIPOMONIPOMOBROADBROADGARDENCHORROCHORROMORROMORROOSOSOSOSSANTA ROSASANTA ROSATOROJOHNSON AVEJOHNSON AVEPEPPERTOROPARKING - Above or below ground parking that may include roof top public spaces San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.16 Parks, Plazas, and Paseos The Plan shows public parks in dark green and plazas and paseos in tan interspersed throughout the downtown. With addiƟ onal people living in the downtown comes the need for addiƟ onal parks. A variety of diff erent park types are shown in the Plan. Several park uses improve public spaces that already exist, such as Emerson Park (Block 54). Some park uses provide mulƟ ple benefi ts such as converƟ ng the lawn of the County building to a garden area with seaƟ ng and public art (Block 14). Others preserve historic resources, such as the Old Gas Works (Block 41), or the Rosa Butron Adobe (Block 9). New parks are also proposed that expand exisƟ ng park space, such as the park in Block 19 adjacent to the Creek Walk, or the expansion of Cheng Park (Block 47). Paseos (mid-block walkways) are encouraged in new development, but not at the expense of a vital streetscape. Paseos are mostly shown connecƟ ng parks and plazas with the street system. They are also illustrated on the Street Types Diagram (Figure 4.1). Plazas and paseos should incorporate public art in fun and imaginaƟ ve new ways. Plazas of diff erent sizes are shown at the downtown gateways, at key corners (Block 19), and on exisƟ ng surface parking lots (Blocks 15, 16, 24, and 42). DANA PALM MILL MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMO MISSION PLAZAMASTER PLAN HIG U E R A PALM MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMO WALKERARCHERCARMELBEACHNIPOMONIPOMOBROADBROADGARDENCHORROCHORROMORROMORROOSOSOSOSSANTA ROSASANTA ROSATOROJOHNSON AVEJOHNSON AVEPEPPERTOROPARKS - May include publicly accessible historic sites, gardens and walkways PLAZA AND PASEOS - Primarily hard-surface; publicly accessible but may be privately owned 3.17 | Public Draft Planning Subareas This secƟ on breaks down the Downtown Concept Plan into three subareas and describes in more detail some of the key proposals in those areas. Each subarea has diff erent characterisƟ cs, development paƩ erns, and project details. The three plan subareas are north downtown, central downtown, and south downtown, as described below. For addiƟ onal informaƟ on, see Table 3.1, Block DescripƟ ons. North Downtown North downtown is generally Santa Rosa to Pepper, and Mill to Pismo. The area around Monterey and Johnson Streets (coined “MoJo”) is envisioned to redevelop over Ɵ me with commercial mixed use along its vibrant street front, connecƟ ng the upper Monterey area to the downtown. Figure 3.3. North Downtown Planning Subarea “The Mix” development project diff ers from the historic core San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.18 Sketch of Santa Rosa and Monterey IntersecƟ on by Pierre Radamaker, CVT Member As reinvestment occurs, north downtown will transiƟ on from one- and two-story structures, many with parking in front, to structures of two to fi ve stories built to the sidewalk. North downtown will feature a variety of design styles in contrast to the historic downtown core, which is more tradiƟ onal in architectural style. Density and intensity will be focused primarily along Monterey Street; Marsh and Higuera will have more intensive development near Santa Rosa, which will gradually lessen as it approaches Pepper Street to respect the adjacent neighborhoods. The Pepper Street railroad bridge will incorporate public art and act as a key gateway to the downtown. Santa Rosa Street narrows at Mill Street with widened sidewalks or a center-landscaped median, announcing one’s arrival in downtown. The intersecƟ ons of Monterey at Santa Rosa and Higuera incorporate public art and scramble intersecƟ ons, allowing improved bicycle and pedestrian connecƟ ons across the busy street. A new County offi ce building with parking and acƟ ve fronƟ ng retail is envisioned on Block 15; it will have the potenƟ al to house a “one stop” counter for County services. Block 23 is envisioned as the home to a new transit center. Block 23 will also include structured public parking, iconic mixed-use buildings, and rooŌ op public open space. An example of public art on a railroad bridge at a downtown entry Newly renovated iFixit building (Block 17) Scramble intersecƟ ons improve pedestrian and bike access 3.19 | Public Draft A new pocket park is shown on Higuera with a connecƟ ng plaza along Monterey (Block 24). Ludwick Center on Santa Rosa and Mill Streets (Block 6) is improved as a two- to three-story community recreaƟ on center with a full-sized gymnasium, mulƟ purpose rooms, and underground parking. A public path at the end of Pacifi c Street will connect pedestrians to Toro Street around the Dallidet Adobe. Central Downtown Central downtown contains the Chinatown Historic District, and most of the Downtown Historic District. Central downtown boasts charming, historic architecture and development paƩ erns and serves as the community’s cultural and civic heart. One of the key concepts in this area is an expanded, walkable, vibrant, and art-fi lled cultural district, the focus of which is along Monterey Street. Figure 3.4. Central Downtown Planning Subarea San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.20 Visitors arriving in cars can park in the new parking structure at Palm and Nipomo Streets, then walk to the SLO LiƩ le Theater, Children’s Museum, expanded History Center, Museum of Art, Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa, and Mission Plaza in a short two-block stretch (Blocks 11 and 19). A new park on the corner of Monterey and Broad Streets celebrates local history while connecƟ ng to the Creek Walk and Mission Plaza. On the corner of Higuera and Nipomo Streets, a new plaza provides casual outdoor seaƟ ng, gathering, and playing opportuniƟ es. The bridge across San Luis Creek easily connects shoppers on Higuera Street to the Cultural District and new structured parking. Other changes envisioned in central downtown include an expanded City Hall complex on Block 4, and County Courthouse complex toward Santa Rosa Street (Block 14). Both projects envision accommodaƟ ng growth on underuƟ lized surface parking lots, while keeping government jobs centrally located downtown. AddiƟ onal housing opportuniƟ es are envisioned in Blocks 2, 3, and 4 along Mill Street, on the edge of central downtown. Sketch of a new park on the corner of Monterey and Broad Streets (Block 19) by Keith Gurney, CVT Member Palm Street view of proposed parking structure at Palm and Nipomo Street (Block 10) 3.21 | Public Draft Currently one of the few pedestrian “dead zones” in central downtown, the large surface parking lots on Block 33 are now envisioned as commercial mixed use with upper-level offi ces and housing and paseo connecƟ ons through the interior. On Block 34, as redevelopment occurs, it is reconfi gured toward the creek, and across the street on Block 47, Cheng Park is expanded. Another key proposal in central downtown is the envisioned redevelopment of Block 42, with a diagonal paseo providing a connecƟ on to Emerson Park from the downtown, as well as new outdoor dining, event, and public art opportuniƟ es. Commercial mixed-use fronts onto Marsh and Pacifi c Streets, with the historic Parsons House remaining. A parking structure is included to accommodate new development in the area, with micro-retail storefronts along Pacifi c Street for a small local business cluster. Sketch of Broad and Marsh Street IntersecƟ on looking at Block 42 by Chuck Crotser, CVT Member Sketch of Chorro and Monterey Street intersecƟ on looking from the etrance of Mission Plaza by Pierre Radamaker, CVT Member San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.22 South Downtown South downtown is currently on the edge of the downtown—but not for long. Development pressure is moving south, which presents signifi cant opportuniƟ es for this area over the next 25 years. Blocks 38, 51, and porƟ ons of 39 and 52 present an opportunity for a unique and fl exible zone or “fl ex zone” with the ability to accommodate adapƟ ve reuse of industrial buildings, and/or redevelopment for larger- footprint incubator businesses with loŌ -style mixed-use residenƟ al. Consistent with the Mid-Higuera Plan, Block 51 includes a small plaza along Higuera Street, where Walker Street dead-ends. Figure 3.5. South Downtown Planning Subarea Recent fl ex mixed-use development in South Downtown 3.23 | Public Draft The Old Gasworks building (Block 51) is rehabilitated and incorporated into a mid-block pocket park to provide some relief to the area’s increased density. Block 39 shows expanded hospitality uses, such as lodging or a convenƟ on center, as does the southernmost end of Block 18. A parking structure on Block 26 between Marsh and Higuera Streets accommodates both faciliƟ es and the increased commercial mixed use in the area. Design elements unique to the downtown announce one’s arrival at Block 26 (the Marsh/Higuera intersecƟ on), one of the downtown’s key gateways. A roundabout increases bicycle and pedestrian safety at this busy intersecƟ on. There is an emphasis on signature buildings and public realm improvements appropriate to San Luis Obispo, along with creaƟ ve public art and intersecƟ on enhancements. ConƟ nued revitalizaƟ on in the area around The Creamery on Block 18 will create a lively, walkable, mixed-use area with improved connecƟ vity and posiƟ ve interacƟ on with the creek. Historic buildings will be preserved while a variety of uses will enliven Higuera Street toward the southern entrance of the downtown. Sketch of new plaza at Block 19 (Higuera and Nipomo intersecƟ on) connecƟ ng Central to South Downtown by Keith Gurney, CVT Member Gasworks building (Block 51) presents opportunity for reuse Improved interacƟ on with the creek (Block 18) San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.24 As in the 1993 Downtown Concept Plan, an enhanced and well- connected Creek Walk will provide a physical and visual connecƟ on to nature and a unique recreaƟ onal amenity downtown. The path will extend from the exisƟ ng Creek Walk at Nipomo Street to the Cerro San Luis trailhead with the intent of acƟ vaƟ ng the creek area with posiƟ ve uses and consistent acƟ vity so that negaƟ ve uses will decrease. As reinvestment occurs along the riparian corridor, buildings will turn to face and interact with the creek, creaƟ ng interesƟ ng spaces that can be enjoyed by residents and visitors alike. The Creek Walk will connect to Higuera Street at several points, and to Dana Street across from the improved Rosa Butron Adobe. The Jack House and Gardens in Block 28 will be buff ered from adjacent development by paseos, including a connecƟ on from Marsh Street to Higuera Street, following Beach Street’s alignment; its use will increase as more people live and work nearby. Emerson Park in Block 54 will be revitalized to beƩ er serve the needs of nearby residents. Blocks 9, 52, 53, 40, and 41 envision a variety of addiƟ onal housing opportuniƟ es in the residenƟ al zones on the edge of the downtown, while keeping with the character of the area.ExisƟ ng community garden at Emerson Park (Block 54) Creek walk will improve visual and physical connecƟ vity to nature Jack House and Gardens (Block 28) will provide open space for nearby employees and residents 3.25 | Public Draft This page intentionally left blank. 4Mobility & Streetscape 4.1 | Public Draft Mobility and Streetscape Background The Downtown Concept Plan includes a focused consideraƟ on of mobility to and through the downtown and is consistent with the goals of the General Plan CirculaƟ on Element. The City’s CirculaƟ on Element sets transportaƟ on goals to provide a safe and accessible transportaƟ on system while reducing dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles. It also promotes and expands alternaƟ ve transportaƟ on modes such as walking, bicycling, riding buses, and ridesharing. The CirculaƟ on Element includes a transportaƟ on goal for the downtown to be more funcƟ onal and enjoyable for pedestrians (Goal 1.6.1.5). CirculaƟ on policies also aim to reduce congesƟ on in the downtown. The boxes to the leŌ illustrate the General Plan’s priority mode ranking for downtown, and the modal split objecƟ ves, showing the City’s commitment to increase the use of alternaƟ ve forms of transportaƟ on and depend less on single-occupant use of vehicles. To support achievement of General Plan goals, the Downtown Concept Plan includes a vision for the future downtown streetscape, including street types, locaƟ ons, features, and bike facility improvements. This vision responds to the City’s transportaƟ on goals and policies to create beƩ er transportaƟ on habits, support a shiŌ in modes of transportaƟ on, and establish and maintain beauƟ ful and livable street corridors. Improving mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists to beƩ er connect to and move around the downtown was one of the most widely discussed topics throughout public engagement acƟ viƟ es. Workshop and online engagement parƟ cipants discussed issues related to mobility downtown for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and drivers. Parking was a frequent topic. ParƟ cipants also suggested ideas for how to design a more pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly environment. Complete public input can be found in Appendix A. Stakeholder Outreach Summary. Following are two mobility diagrams and accompanying defi niƟ ons, developed to convey concepts regarding downtown street types (Figure 4.1) and downtown bicycle improvements (Figure 4.2). They are meant to work together to convey the vision for mobility downtown. The General Plan’s priority mode ranking for the downtown area is: 1. Pedestrians 2. Bicycles 3. Transit 4. Vehicles General Plan CirculaƟ on Element, Table 3, Policy 6.1.3, May 2015 Modal Split ObjecƟ ves (% of City Resident Trips) Type of Transportaiton: Motor Vehicles 50% Transit 12% Bicycles 20% Walking, Car Pools, 15% & Other General Plan CirculaƟ on Element, Table 1, May 2015 San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 4.2Figure 4.1 Street Types Diagram 4.3 | Public Draft This page intentionally left blank. San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 4.4 Street Types This secƟ on provides defi niƟ ons and imagery that correspond to the Street Types Diagram (Figure 4.1). Street types are conceptual in nature and are meant to illustrate possible scenarios in the downtown; they are not to be confused with street classifi caƟ ons in the General Plan. Street Type A Modal Priority: All modes have equal priority The role of Street Type A is to move people to and through the downtown safely and effi ciently. This street type is designed to ensure safe speeds and accessibility for users of all ages and abiliƟ es. These streets are designed so that people can easily walk to shops or residences, bike to work, and cross at intersecƟ ons safely. Street Type A is primarily located around the perimeter of the downtown, and on connector streets, in a grid paƩ ern to disperse traffi c volume. These streets include a variety of street classifi caƟ ons. The transit center (Block 23) and parking structures are located on Street Type A. Bike improvements can include signed routes, sharrows, bike lanes, buff ered bike lanes, or cycle tracks. 4.5 | Public Draft Street Type B Modal Priority: 1. Pedestrians 2. Bicycles 3. Transit 4. Automobiles Street Type B is located in the heart of the downtown and along Monterey St north of Santa Rosa St. Street Type B gives the pedestrian realm a higher proporƟ on of the right-of-way. It strives to have lower automobile volumes and speeds than Street Type A, as drivers will park in structures on surrounding streets. These densely developed streets will allow ample room on sidewalks for outdoor gathering, socializing, dining, and commerce. Street Type B includes porƟ ons of Marsh, Higuera, Monterey, Broad, and Garden Streets. Bike improvements can include sharrows, bike lanes, buff ered bike lanes, or cycle tracks. Conceptual Street Type B cross secƟ on for Marsh or Higuera Streets between Nipomo and Santa Rosa San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 4.6 Street Type C Modal Priority: 1. Bicycles 2. Pedestrians 3. Transit 4. Automobiles Street Type C gives bicycle faciliƟ es a higher proporƟ on of the right-of- way, and prioriƟ zes bicycling over vehicle travel. Many of these streets are shown as bike boulevards on the Bicycle FaciliƟ es Diagram (Figure 4.2). These streets will connect with adjacent neighborhoods to bring more bicyclists downtown. Street Type C includes porƟ ons of Beach, Broad, Morro, Toro, and Pepper Streets. Street Type D Modal Priority: 1. Pedestrians 2. Bicycles 3. Slow Automobiles Street Type D is also known as a shared street. Pedestrians are prioriƟ zed, but slow automobiles are allowed. It minimizes the segregaƟ on of pedestrians and vehicles in its design. This is done by removing features such as curbs, road surface markings, traffi c signs, and traffi c lights. Street Type D is similar to car-free streets in appearance, with unique paving paƩ erns that diff er from vehicular streets and that encourage outdoor seaƟ ng, public events, and fesƟ vals. Cars are not prohibited but are not encouraged. These streets are fl exible in nature, as they can be easily converted to car-free streets temporarily or over Ɵ me with removable bollards or other barriers. Street Type D includes porƟ ons of Monterey and Broad Streets. 4.7 | Public Draft The following elements are also included as part of the downtown street system: Paseos Modal Priority: 1. Pedestrians (slow bikes allowed) Paseos are public or private pedestrian passageways between buildings. They oŌ en connect parks or plazas to the public streetscape. They provide addiƟ onal car-free opportuniƟ es for shopping, dining, or seaƟ ng. The Street Types Diagram and the IllustraƟ ve plan both show a network of paseos throughout the downtown. Enhanced Intersections IntersecƟ on enhancements include elements such as raised or painted crosswalks, bulbouts to provide refuge and decrease crossing distances, pedestrian scrambles (diagonal crossings to increase effi ciency), or roundabouts. The Plan encourages enhanced intersecƟ ons throughout the downtown as it redevelops. A roundabout is envisioned at the Marsh/Higuera intersecƟ on, and pedestrian scrambles are shown on Santa Rosa Street. Mid-block Crossings Mid-block crossings should be considered at logical locaƟ ons where crossing is currently occurring regularly. They should connect paseos and/or break up long blocks. Drop Off /Loading Zones Drop off /loading zones for commercial vehicles and rideshare/ridesource vehicles should be incorporated throughout the downtown at key locaƟ ons and major acƟ vity centers. They should be a safe distance from corners, well lit, free of furnishings/fi xtures, and clearly marked. San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 4.8 Bicycle Improvements As bicycling has become a more popular transportaƟ on choice due to its health, economic, environmental, and even Ɵ me-saving benefi ts, more communiƟ es are commiƩ ed to creaƟ ng safer places to cycle. San Luis Obispo is no excepƟ on. It recently received recogniƟ on as a Gold Bicycle Friendly Community by the League of American Bicyclists. The Bicycle FaciliƟ es Diagram (Figure 4.2) illustrates the proposed vision for bicycle faciliƟ es for the future downtown, with corresponding defi niƟ ons and imagery. The Bicycle FaciliƟ es Diagram is consistent with the City’s Bicycle TransportaƟ on Plan and supports the General Plan’s modal split objecƟ ve of 20 percent of City resident trips by bicycle. Most of the specifi c improvements are idenƟ fi ed as either exisƟ ng or planned. Planned improvements are recommendaƟ ons from the Bicycle TransportaƟ on Plan. The new ideas are shown as “proposed.” Those include a cycle track or buff ered bike lane along the length of Marsh and Higuera Streets in the Downtown Concept Plan area. Either opƟ on would improve the comfort level of less experienced bicyclists and families riding to the downtown. It would make the downtown more welcoming and easier to navigate for cyclists, thereby increasing ridership. These bike improvements would connect users to adjacent neighborhoods, and to other on-street improvements as shown conceptually in the Street Types Diagram. 4.9 | Public Draft This page intentionally left blank. San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 4.10Figure 4.2 Bicycle Facilities Diagram 4.11 | Public Draft This page intentionally left blank. San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 4.12 Bicycle Facilities The purpose of this secƟ on is to provide defi niƟ ons and imagery that correspond with the Bicycle FaciliƟ es Diagram. Images are examples from San Luis Obispo as well as other communiƟ es. Bike Path Also referred to as a Class I bikeway, bike paths provide a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossfl ow by motorists minimized. Because of their separaƟ on from motor vehicle traffi c, Class I paths commonly aƩ ract users less comfortable riding on roadways with traffi c and can be an eff ecƟ ve tool in providing transportaƟ on connecƟ ons within neighborhoods, to recreaƟ onal faciliƟ es such as parks and open spaces, or as high-speed bicycle commuter routes. There are two planned bike paths shown in Figure 4.2. Bike Lane Bike lanes are considered a Class II facility and provide a striped lane for one-way bicycle travel on a street or highway. It is the City’s long-term goal to establish and maintain Class II bike lanes along all arterial streets and highways (except Highway 101) since these corridors provide the most direct access to important desƟ naƟ ons and are frequently used by commuƟ ng bicyclists. There are four exisƟ ng bike lanes and one planned bike lane shown envisioned for the downtown. Bike Boulevard Categorized as a Class III bike routes, bike boulevards are a shared roadway (bicycles and motor vehicles share the space without marked bike lanes) where the through movement of bicyclists are given priority over motor vehicle travel on a local street. Bicycle boulevards are designated on low-speed, low-volume, local streets that parallel higher traffi c arterial streets. There is one exisƟ ng bike boulevard and four planned bike boulevards envisioned for the downtown. Cycle Track Categorized as a Class IV bikeway, cycle tracks (also known as separated bike lanes or protected bike lanes) are exclusive bikeways with elements of both a separated path and on-road bike lane. They are located within or next to the roadway, but are made disƟ nct from both the sidewalk and roadway by verƟ cal barriers or elevaƟ on diff erences. 4.13 | Public Draft Cycle tracks are designed to encourage less experienced road riders in an eff ort to relieve automobile congesƟ on, reduce polluƟ on, and increase safety through reduced bicycle/automobile confl ict. Cycle tracks may be one-way or two-way, and may be at road level, at sidewalk level, or at an intermediate level. There are two potenƟ al cycle tracks proposed for the downtown. Buff ered Bike Lane A buff ered bike lane is an on-street bike lane that has a painted buff er either between the bike lane and parked cars, between the bike lane and the standard motor vehicle lane, or both. Typically, the buff er is striped with diagonal lines and serves to keep bicyclists from riding in the “door zone” and/or to add separaƟ on between bicyclists and motor vehicle traffi c. There are two potenƟ al buff ered bike lanes proposed for the downtown. Downtown Streetscape Elements CommuniƟ es are rediscovering the broad benefi ts streets can provide as public spaces, including local commerce, socializaƟ on, community celebraƟ on, and recreaƟ on. Enhancing streetscapes and public spaces is a key priority for the downtown’s envisioned future. Using themaƟ c design elements throughout the downtown in a consistent manner will addiƟ onally defi ne downtown San Luis Obispo’s “sense of place” and leave a lasƟ ng impression. When asked what people enjoy about downtown San Luis Obispo, the most frequent community responses refl ected social and serendipitous interacƟ ons off ered on downtown’s streets, or in public spaces, local retail, and outdoor dining establishments. The community also expressed a desire to enhance and perpetuate central downtown as a tradiƟ onal historic core with more design fl exibility in the other subareas of downtown. Given this, future streetscape furnishings and materials should embody a tradiƟ onal/Main Street feel in central downtown and around historic properƟ es, with fl exibility for other styles in the north and south downtown subareas. The following images and types of street furnishings are examples of fi xtures and treatments that support this senƟ ment and are appropriate for the future downtown. Lighting Street lighƟ ng is a key organizing streetscape element in downtowns that provides safety and ambiance, and defi nes the nighƫ me visual environment. San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 4.14 As streets are improved with a focus on pedestrian and bicycle travel, lighƟ ng should be designed not only for vehicular traffi c on the roadways, but also for pedestrians and cyclists on sidewalks and pedestrian paths. Street lighƟ ng through bollards should be considered rather than overhead lighƟ ng, in order to preserve views of the night sky throughout the downtown. Seating To create streets and public places that foster socializaƟ on, seaƟ ng should be plenƟ ful in the downtown. Benches should be clustered and installed facing one another to create “outdoor living rooms” that do not inhibit the pedestrian right-of-way. Bicycle Racks To accommodate the increase in cyclists as street improvements and bicycle infrastructure are implemented over Ɵ me, bicycle racks should conƟ nue to be installed in safe, frequent, and convenient locaƟ ons throughout the downtown. Racks should not interfere with the fl ow of pedestrian traffi c. Covered bicycle racks and bicycle lockers should also be located in parking structures near entrances, for safety and convenience. PlenƟ ful bicycle racks help make cycling a convenient opƟ on for downtown patrons, workers, and residents. Bicycle Corrals Bicycle corrals should be installed in strategic locations throughout the downtown to help provide addiƟ onal short-term bicycle parking. Each facility can accommodate up to 16 bicycles in the same size area as a single vehicle parking space. Bicycle corrals serve as a good soluƟ on where sidewalks are too narrow to accommodate bicycle racks and in areas with high demand for bicycle parking. When placed near street corners, a corral also increases visibility and creates an addiƟ onal buff er between the sidewalk and vehicles. Parklets A parklet is a sidewalk extension that projects into the street, off ering more space and ameniƟ es for pedestrians. It is generally the size of one or two parking spaces, and may include greenery, art, seaƟ ng, bicycle parking, or outdoor dining. Parklets are usually temporary, and oŌ en volunteer-driven. A growing number of ciƟ es are developing guidelines for installing parklets. They are a low-cost alternaƟ ve to providing more small-scale gathering or seaƟ ng downtown. SeaƟ ng arranged for socializaƟ on Peak bike racks downtown Ver Ɵ cal bike corral to save space Parklet with ample seaƟ ng 4.15 | Public Draft Public Art Public art helps defi ne and reveal the unique character of a community’s idenƟ ty. It should be incorporated into the downtown in imaginaƟ ve new ways, some of which are discussed in the City’s Public Art Master Plan. Public art can take many forms, such as being interacƟ ve or incorporated into street furniture. Whatever its form, public art aƩ racts aƩ enƟ on. Great public art can take an ordinary place and make it spectacular. Farmers Market Infrastructure As the home of the City’s weekly farmers market, which provides an outdoor venue for commerce, dining, and entertainment, the future downtown should include infrastructure improvements that provide necessary services to accommodate this grand event. Whether the farmers market conƟ nues to be held on Higuera Street or another locaƟ on (such as Mission Plaza and Monterey Street), infrastructure such as power hookups should be incorporated into future street improvements. Public Restrooms Important but oŌ en overlooked, public restrooms should be incorporated into other public places downtown, such as Mission Plaza and Emerson Park, and should be clearly visible from the street, for wayfi nding, accessibility, and safety. Restrooms may also be quasi-public, accessed from the exterior of a café adjacent to a public plaza. Development and management opƟ ons are varied. Unique wall art installaƟ on ConverƟ ble shade structure Small downtown public restroom Public restroom integrated into a downtown development San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 4.16 Green Infrastructure San Luis Obispo residents place high value on access to the natural environment, with San Luis Obispo Creek named as one of the City’s top assets. Preserving and enhancing access to nature is a strong part of this downtown vision. Stormwater runoff is a major cause of water polluƟ on in urban areas. Green infrastructure elements can be integrated into public faciliƟ es as a cost-eff ecƟ ve and resilient approach to water management. Green infrastructure also provides many community benefi ts: It protects, restores, or mimics the natural water cycle, and it enhances community safety and quality of life. The following types of green infrastructure could be woven into downtown San Luis Obispo incrementally over Ɵ me to improve the environment and quality of life. BioretenƟ on: Stormwater management structures with open boƩ oms, allowing for infi ltraƟ on into the ground. Examples include rain gardens, planters, and swales. Drywell: An underground structure comprising a perforated pipe surrounded with gravel, which provides stormwater infi ltraƟ on. Pervious pavement: A pavement system comprising a porous paving surface with an underlying permeable aggregate base layer. Rainwater capture and use: A system that captures and stores for reuse rainwater from impervious surfaces such as rooŌ ops and paved surfaces. Green roof: There are a range of approaches for designing green roofs, depending on the desired access to the roof, depth of soil, diversity of plant types, cost, and maintenance. Green wall: Encompasses several forms of vegetated wall surfaces, including green façades, living walls, and living retaining walls. BioretenƟ on Pervious pavement Rainwater capture Green roof with green wall Green wall 4.17 | Public Draft This page intenƟ onally leŌ blank. 5Implementation 5.2 | Public Draft The city s h ould b uild on d owntown’s r e lat i v ely g o o d wa l k a b ility by c a re ful l y c raft i ng a n e v e n more h u m a n-cen t ri c, c o n v i vi a l desi g n a n d atm os phe re. Parklets a n d b i k e c o rra l s s h ould b e a d ded w h e re t h e re i s s upport fro m a m a jo rity of t he b usiness e s on t he respec t i ve b lock . C u rb ex ten s ions s h ould b e a p riority to enh a n c e pedes t ri a n sa fe ty a n d c omfort (b o nus i f t h e y a lso pro vi d e s to rm wa ter fi ltration). - Res i den t Implementation The Downtown Concept Plan is supported by the following ImplementaƟ on Plan, which provides a list of major public programs and projects needed for plan implementaƟ on. AcƟ ons will be implemented over the long-term, 25+ year Ɵ me frame of this plan, as feasible. As the Downtown Concept Plan is a high-level vision for downtown, all acƟ ons will require further study and analysis before implementaƟ on. PrioriƟ es will be assigned aŌ er addiƟ onal public input opportuniƟ es. San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 5.3 Table 5.1 Implementation Plan AcƟ on ID ImplementaƟ on AcƟ on Priority Responsibility 1 = Short Term 2 = Mid Term 3 = Long Term Ongoing Lead Support LAND USE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Zoning RegulaƟ ons 1 Include relevant concepts from the Downtown Concept Plan as part of the update of the City Zoning Regula- Ɵ ons, such as expanded commercial mixed use overlay zone and increased fl oor area raƟ os. City Housing 2 Work with partners on developing addiƟ onal programs and incenƟ ves to aid in the provision of addiƟ onal hous- ing opƟ ons downtown, as shown in the Concept Plan IllustraƟ ve. City HASLO, Partners Government Offi ces 3InvesƟ gate the feasibility of redeveloping the City- owned old library building and the surface parking lot behind City Hall to house addiƟ onal city services within one campus and create a welcoming public space. City 4InvesƟ gate the feasibility of developing a County offi ce building with staff parking and commercial or public uses along the street front on County property on Mon- terey Street (Block 15). County 5InvesƟ gate the feasibility of adding addiƟ onal offi ce space to the County courthouse, to bring the building to Santa Rosa Street, with commercial or public use at the corner of Monterey and Santa Rosa Streets. County 6InvesƟ gate the feasibility of leasing unused City offi ce space at a subsidized rate to qualifying nonprofi t organi- zaƟ ons. City Economic Development 7 Work with partners on developing a program to retain, aƩ ract, and support smaller, independent, and culturally diverse businesses. City Chamber, DTA 8 Consider developing an economic analysis of downtown, looking at the preferred mix of land uses for long-term economic health. City SLOEVC, Chamber 9InvesƟ gate opportuniƟ es for implemenƟ ng free WiFi in public areas downtown. City DTA, County, Others 5.4 | Public Draft AcƟ on ID ImplementaƟ on AcƟ on Priority Responsibility 1 = Short Term 2 = Mid Term 3 = Long Term Ongoing Lead Support ARTS, CULTURE, AND HISTORY Public Art 10 Incorporate public art with public realm improvements throughout downtown, beyond the locaƟ ons idenƟ fi ed in the Public Art Master Plan. City Cultural District and Programming 11 Work with community partners on furthering the idea of a Cultural District in the area around Monterey Street, between Mission Plaza and Nipomo Street. Encourage enhanced cultural, historical, and arƟ sƟ c uses in this general area. City Cultural partners, DTA, Chamber 12 Consider including addiƟ onal and diff erent ways to bring history alive in the Cultural District area, including inter- preƟ ve informaƟ on on the area’s natural resources, the Anza NaƟ onal Historic Trail, and El Camino Real historic bells. City Cultural partners 13 Implement the Mission Plaza Concept Plan, including re- development of streets in the Cultural District to Street Type D (shared street) as described in Chapter 4, with possible eventual conversion to car-free streets. These street secƟ ons include: Monterey Street between Nipo- mo and Broad Streets; Broad Street between Palm and Monterey Streets; and Broad Street between Monterey and Higuera Streets City 14 Work with the History Center and other community partners on developing a mobile history walking tour app for downtown. History Ctr City 15 Consider invesƟ gaƟ ng the feasibility of a West End Historic District, encompassing the area of Higuera and Marsh Streets southwest of the Downtown Historic District. City History Ctr Historic FaciliƟ es 16 Develop and implement a master plan for the public use of the Rosa Butron Adobe property. City 17 Develop and implement a restoraƟ on plan for the Mur- ray Adobe in coordinaƟ on with the Mission Plaza Master Plan. City 18 Work with the History Center on expansion plans to provide capacity for future needs. History Ctr City San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 5.5 AcƟ on ID ImplementaƟ on AcƟ on Priority Responsibility 1 = Short Term 2 = Mid Term 3 = Long Term Ongoing Lead Support RECREATION, OPEN SPACE, AND PUBLIC RESTROOMS New Parks, Plazas, and Paseos 19 Update the Park and RecreaƟ on Element of the General Plan, including a citywide Park and RecreaƟ on Compre- hensive Plan, to refi ne the community’s vision for parks and recreaƟ on downtown and aid in implementaƟ on. City 20 Develop a feasibility analysis for the acquisiƟ on, design, and development of a public park on the corner of Mon- terey and Broad Streets, connecƟ ng to the Creek Walk. City Property owner 21 Develop a feasibility analysis for the acquisiƟ on, design, and development of a pocket park and plaza between Monterey and Higuera Streets (Block 24). City Property owner 22 Develop a feasibility analysis for the acquisiƟ on, design, and development of a small pocket park on the corner of Toro and Marsh Streets. O City Property owner 23 Develop and implement a master plan for a public plaza on City property on the corner of Higuera and Nipomo Streets, as shown in the Concept Plan IllustraƟ ve. O City 24 Encourage the replacement of the exisƟ ng lawn around the old courthouse building with a drought-tolerant demonstraƟ on garden with seaƟ ng and public art (Block 14). County City 25 Work with private developers to implement a system of paseos as shown in the Concept Plan IllustraƟ ve. Private de- velopers City 26 Update the Design Guidelines to encourage the develop- ment of paseos that are interesƟ ng, safe, well connect- ed, and interact with development as shown in the Concept Plan IllustraƟ ve. City ExisƟ ng Parks and Public FaciliƟ es 27 Develop and implement a master plan for Emerson Park to ensure that it is used most effi ciently and accommo- dates the needs of the neighborhood. City 28 Develop and implement a master plan for the Ludwick Center to beƩ er meet the community’s needs for a full-service recreaƟ on center. City San Luis Creek 29 Make improvements to the exisƟ ng Creek Walk so it is a safe, inviƟ ng, and enjoyable experience for everyone. City Property owners 5.6 | Public Draft AcƟ on ID ImplementaƟ on AcƟ on Priority Responsibility 1 = Short Term 2 = Mid Term 3 = Long Term Ongoing Lead Support 30 Develop and implement a master plan for the expansion of the Creek Walk from Nipomo Street to the Marsh/ Higuera intersecƟ on, as shown in the Concept Plan IllustraƟ ve. City Property owners 31 Develop and implement a master plan for San Luis Obis- po Creek in the downtown area; potenƟ ally combine it with a Creek Walk master plan. City Property owners Public Restrooms 32 Ensure the provision of public restrooms downtown, including new restrooms at Mission Plaza and Emerson Park. City PUBLIC SAFETY 33 Coordinate with public safety so that streets and public spaces are designed to reduce crime through lighƟ ng, visibility, emergency access, and other public safety features. City MOBILITY AND CIRCULATION Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements 34 ConƟ nue the installaƟ on of pedestrian level wayfi nding signage to direct pedestrians and cyclists to the best routes and key locaƟ ons downtown. O City 35 Develop and implement a plan for a walking path around the Dallidet Adobe property to Toro Street. City History Ctr 36 Consider inclusion of bicycle facility recommendaƟ ons (as described in Chapter 4) into the Bicycle Transporta- Ɵ on Plan aŌ er addiƟ onal study. City 37 Work with interested partners on the feasibility of a bike share program. City Bike SLO- County, others 38 Develop a downtown pedestrian plan, or alternaƟ vely, a bicycle and pedestrian plan for downtown to further study specifi c locaƟ ons for improvements to enhance the pedestrian experience, using the Downtown Con- cept Plan as a guide. City Transit and MulƟ modal FaciliƟ es 39 Work with community partners to develop a transit cen- ter downtown to meet the transit needs of downtown employees, residents, and visitors. City SLOCOG, RTA, others San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 5.7 AcƟ on ID ImplementaƟ on AcƟ on Priority Responsibility 1 = Short Term 2 = Mid Term 3 = Long Term Ongoing Lead Support 40 InvesƟ gate the feasibility of providing free trolley service along Higuera and Marsh and between downtown park- ing garages throughout the year, in addiƟ on to exisƟ ng Monterey Street service. City Partners 41 When updaƟ ng the City’s Capital Improvement Program, consider inclusion of mulƟ modal street type improve- ments as described in Chapter 4. City 42 PrioriƟ ze mobility improvements to be consistent with the General Plan’s priority mode ranking in downtown: 1. Pedestrians, 2. Bicycles, 3. Transit, 4. Vehicles. City 43 Consider redevelopment of Monterey Street between Chorro and Santa Rosa Streets to Street Type D (shared street), as shown in Figure 4.1. City 44 Consider redevelopment of the downtown streets shown as Street Types A, B, and C in Figure 4.1. City 45 Conduct a feasibility analysis to determine the opƟ mal future design of the Marsh/Higuera intersecƟ on to im- prove bicycle and pedestrian safety and accessibility. City 46 When improvements are needed, consider a redesign of the Broad Street bridge (between Monterey and Higuera Streets) and a Creek Walk connecƟ on underneath. City Parking FaciliƟ es (motor vehicle, bicycle, structures) 47 ConƟ nue the installaƟ on of wayfi nding signage to direct motorists to public parking and keep vehicles away from the downtown core. City 48 Design parking structures with secure bike parking, transit and trolley stops, pedestrian wayfi nding signage, electric vehicle charging staƟ ons, and pedestrian cross- ings where feasible. City Partners 49 Design parking structures to integrate public rooŌ op ameniƟ es such as outdoor viewing areas, public spaces, or appropriate community faciliƟ es where feasible. City Partners 50 Design parking structures so that they are located be- hind commercial or offi ce mixed use to the extent possi- ble to keep the sidewalks pedestrian-scale and acƟ ve. City Partners 51 Develop or partner with private developers to build parking structures as conceptually located in the Down- town Concept Plan. City Partners 52 InvesƟ gate implemenƟ ng variable parking pricing during peak hours. City 5.8 | Public Draft AcƟ on ID ImplementaƟ on AcƟ on Priority Responsibility 1 = Short Term 2 = Mid Term 3 = Long Term Ongoing Lead Support 53 Develop or expand in-lieu parking fee districts to accom- modate future development paƩ erns as illustrated in the Downtown Concept Plan. City 54 Conduct a parking demand study every fi ve years to reevaluate demand for parking as technology, mobility needs, and demand evolve. City 55 When making street improvements, develop plans to ensure the adequate provision of on street parking for the disabled; short-term loading zones for commercial vehicles; and passenger drop-off and loading zones for shared economy and rideshare vehicles. City Partners CirculaƟ on 56 Work with the Downtown AssociaƟ on and business owners to designate mutually benefi cial hours of regula- Ɵ on for delivery vehicles, to minimize traffi c congesƟ on. City DTA 57 Evaluate and adjust traffi c signalizaƟ on at intersecƟ ons as necessary to improve downtown circulaƟ on for safety and effi ciency. City STREETSCAPE Green Infrastructure, Parklets, and Planters 58 Develop a program for designing and installing parklets downtown. City 59 Work with partners on exploring funding incenƟ ves for addiƟ onal streetscape improvements, such as adopƟ ng a tree or a planter (similar to the memorial bench and rack with plaque program). City DTA 60 Maintain a healthy downtown street tree canopy; eval- uate and replace tree grates annually to ensure obstruc- Ɵ on-free sidewalks as well as proper tree health and growth capacity. City 61 Include green infrastructure in public improvement proj- ects whenever feasible. City Farmer’s Market 62 Coordinate with the Downtown AssociaƟ on on farmers market infrastructure needs before any major street redesign. City DTA 63 Consider moving the farmers market to Monterey Street if it is improved as a Street Type D (shared street). DTA City San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 5.9 AcƟ on ID ImplementaƟ on AcƟ on Priority Responsibility 1 = Short Term 2 = Mid Term 3 = Long Term Ongoing Lead Support LighƟ ng & Street Furniture 64 Implement a lighƟ ng plan on downtown streetscapes, public spaces, and storefronts for enhanced safety and placemaking. City DTA, others 65 As Street Type improvements are made, update a plan for the design and installaƟ on of coordinated street furnishings (e.g., seaƟ ng, lighƟ ng, bike parking) to create a clear sense of place for downtown, or by subdistrict. City DTA Maintenance 66 Develop an improved system for coordinaƟ ng street and sidewalk cleaning that clearly defi nes the responsibility of the City and downtown merchants. City DTA LEGEND DTA = Downtown AssociaƟ on SLOEVC = San Luis Obispo Economic Vitality CorporaƟ on HASLO = Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo SLOCOG = San Luis Obispo Council of Governments RTA = Regional Transit Authority SLOCOG = San Luis Obispo Council of Governments RTA = Regional Transit Authority 5.10 | Public Draft This page intenƟ onally leŌ blank. Appendix Appendix A A-1 San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Summary of Outreach April 27, 2016 - DRAFT 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 – “Heart” of Downtown and Gateways .................................................... 8 What I Like and What I’d Change: ........................................................................................................................ 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 TAKEWAWAYS FROM ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................... 31 What Participants Value ......................................................................................................................................... 31 Common Concerns and Areas for Improvements.................................................................................................... 31 Issues, Ideas, and Next Steps ................................................................................................................................ 31 A-2 Appendix A Issue 1: Improving Mobility ............................................................................................................................... 32 Issue 2: Enhancing the Public Realm ................................................................................................................ 32 Issue 3: Infill Development ................................................................................................................................ 33 Next Steps ........................................................................................................................................................ 34 Appendix A A-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, 2016, 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, 2016, 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, 2016, 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, 2016. Neighborhood Meetings: To round out community engagement, the City hosted two neighborhood meetings that took place on April 18 and 19, 2016. 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. A-4 Appendix A 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. Appendix A A-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 . A-6 Appendix A 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: Appendix A A-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. A-8 Appendix A 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. Appendix A A-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. A-10 Appendix A 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. Appendix A A-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 A-12 Appendix A 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. Appendix A A-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. A-14 Appendix A 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. Appendix A A-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. A-16 Appendix A Exercise 1: Public Realm 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 Creek were chosen by the most groups as opportunity areas for public realm improvements. Appendix A A-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) A-18 Appendix A 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. Appendix A A-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. A-20 Appendix A 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 Appendix A A-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 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 A-22 Appendix A 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. Appendix A A-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. A-24 Appendix A 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 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. Appendix A A-25 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. A-26 Appendix A 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, 2016. 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. Appendix A A-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, 2016, at 5:30 at the Senior Center (with approximately 30 attendees) and on April 19, 2016, 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. A-28 Appendix A 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. 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. Appendix A A-29 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 Solar access with buildings Don’t build more without secure water Decrease density as you move away from downtown A-30 Appendix A 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 Appendix A A-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. A-32 Appendix A 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: Appendix A A-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. Idea #2: Maintain the pedestrian scale of the street, while allowing for appropriate height and density of infill development. A-34 Appendix A 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. City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda Report Date: April 5, 2017 SUBJECT: PARKS AND RECREATION FEE STUDY SESSION Prepared by: Devin Hyfield, Recreation Supervisor RECOMMENDATION Recommend Council’s adoption of the proposed Parks and Recreation User Fees. DISCUSSION PRC Initial Study Session At the February 1, 2017 meeting, the PRC held a Study Session on Parks and Recreation User Fees. Commissioners provided feedback and direction on proposed user fee adjustments and were in agreement with them as proposed. Commissioners supported the policy adjustments regarding cost recovery as proposed. Lastly, the Commissioners supported staff returning at a future meeting date with a project plan for the PRC’s consideration regarding how to analyze recreation costs associated with club sports use of City facilities for youth activities. All of this is detailed in the February 1, 2017 PRC meeting minutes included in the Agenda packet for this report. Jack House Committee Review and Refinement At the February 8, 2017 Jack House Committee meeting the Committee reviewed the PRC’s initial recommendation regarding fees for use of the Jack House Gardens. After discussion, the Jack House Committee recommended fees for the Jack House Gardens that were differentiated by weekend and weekday, resident and nonresident, and Full Day (wedding) and hourly. Council Study Session At its February 21, 2017, meeting the City Council held a Study Session to review a cost of service fee study prepared to update citywide user and regulatory fees. Parks and Recreation user fees as proposed by the PRC and Jack House were discussed by Council. Council generally supported the user fees and policy changes. The one adjustment, that by consensus Council suggested, was adding a nonprofit/community benefit user fee reduction for special events in the Mission Plaza and at the Jack House. Meeting Date: April 5, 2017 Item Number:_5________ 4-1 PRC Parks and Rec Fee Adoption PRC Action Sought Attachment 1 is a summary of the proposed Parks and Recreation User Fees. The Attachment details all user fees and has added the modifications suggested by Council . If acceptable to the PRC staff suggests making a recommendation to Council that the proposed Parks and Recreation User Fees be adopted and made effective July 1, 2017. ATTACHMENT Proposed Parks and Recreation User Fees 4-2 Activity Current Fee 2017-18 2018-19 Registration Fee $60 60.00$ 60.00$ School Year - hourly option $4 4.50$ 5.00$ Teacher Work Day $40 50.00$ 55.00$ Late Reg TWD $50 Weekly Rate + $10 Weekly Rate + $10 Weekly Option $175 180.00$ 185.00$ Late Reg Spring Break Weekly $185 Weekly Rate + $10 Weekly Rate + $10 Daily Option $41 50.00$ 55.00$ Late Reg Spring Break Daily $43 Weekly Rate + $10 Weekly Rate + $10 Registration Fee $5.00/week 5.00$ 5.00$ Full week Care Option $160 175.00$ 175.00$ Summer School Option $115 TBD*TBD* Day Rate Option $40 44.00$ 45.00$ Field Trip Sign Ups $5 - $20 $5.00 - $20.00 $5.00 - $20.00 $10 10.00$ 10.00$ $0 - $20 $0.00 - $20.00 $0.00 - $20.00 Current Fee 2017-18 2018-19 Adult per use $3 3.00$ 3.00$ Adult Monthly $45 45.00$ 45.00$ Youth/Senior per $2.50 2.50$ 2.50$ Youth/Senior monthly $35 35.00$ 35.00$ Adult per use $3 3.50$ 4.00$ Youth/Senior per $2.50 3.00$ 3.50$ Adult per use $27 27.00$ 27.00$ Youth/Senior per $22.50 22.50$ 22.50$ Adult per use $27 31.50$ 37.00$ Youth/Senior per $22.50 27.00$ 31.50$ Lessons $53 75.00$ 100.00$ Private Lessons $108 145.00$ 172.00$ Lifeguard $200 200.00$ 200.00$ Warm Water Exercise $75 100.00$ 100.00$ $30/day + $16.40/LG $50/day + $19.40/LG $50/day + $20.40/LG $200 200.00$ 200.00$ Current Fee 2017-18 2018-19 Teams (15 per team)$465 500.00$ 550.00$ Current Fee*2017-18 2018-19 $8 - $142 $8.00 - $142.00 $8.00 - $142.00 $4 - $393 $4.00 - $393.00 $4.00 - $393.00 Current Fee 2017-18 2018-19 Parks and Recreation Sponsored Events $15 $5 - $20.00 $5 - $20.00 Special Event Application $70 $100 park only/$160 encroachment $100 park only/$160 encroachment Banner Permit Application/Installation $181 200.00$ 200.00$ Still Photography $90 95.00$ 100.00$ Commercial $120 126.00$ 131.00$ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO - PARKS AND RECREATION Activity Activity Activity Activity 2017-19 FINANCIAL PLAN PROPOSED FEES Facility Use Junior Lifeguard Program Adult/Senior Youth Summer Camp Youth Services Special Events Proposed Sun-N-Fun Teacher Work Day Spring Break Camp YOUTH SERVICES Proposed AQUATICS Lap Swim Special Classes Lessons Recreational Swim Script Swim Script Recreational Swim Late Registration Fee Special Application Fees Proposed RECREATIONAL SPORTS Adult Softball Instructional Classes INSTRUCTIONAL CLASSES Proposed Proposed SPECIAL EVENTS Film Application Fee P&R Events Attachment 1 4-3 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO - PARKS AND RECREATION 2017-19 FINANCIAL PLAN PROPOSED FEES Non-Profit $35 37.00$ 40.00$ Destination Marketing $0 -$ -$ Permit Processing Fee $10 15.00$ 15.00$ Full Park Use $460 460.00$ 460.00$ Half Park Use $230 230.00$ 230.00$ Full Plaza $460 560.00$ 560.00$ Current Fee 2017-18 2018-19 Assembly Room (Non-Profit)$26 28.00$ 30.00$ Assembly Room (For-Profit)$57 60.00$ 63.00$ Gymnasium (Non-Profit)$34 36.00$ 38.00$ Gymnasium (For-Profit)$61 64.00$ 67.00$ Kitchen (Non-Profit)$11 12.00$ 13.00$ Kitchen (For-Profit)$16 17.00$ 18.00$ Floor Covers $70 75.00$ 80.00$ Full Facility Use (14 Hours)$1400 1,480.50$ 1,554.00$ Main Room (Non-Profit)$26 28.00$ 30.00$ Main Room (For-Profit)$57 60.00$ 63.00$ Conference Room (Non-Profit)$14 15.00$ 16.00$ Conference Room (For-Profit)$19 20.00$ 21.00$ Non-Profit $14 15.00$ 16.00$ For-Profit $19 20.00$ 21.00$ Community Room (Non-Profit)$26 28.00$ 30.00$ Community Room (For-Profit)$57 60.00$ 63.00$ Conference Room (Non-Profit)$14 15.00$ 16.00$ Conference Room (For-Profit)$19 20.00$ 21.00$ Current Fee 2017-18 2018-19 $62 65.00$ 68.00$ Wedding and Reception $757 N/A N/A Full Day WEEKEND (Resident)NA 2,000.00$ 3,000.00$ Full Day WEEKEND (non-resident)N/A 2,400.00$ 3,400.00$ Full Day WEEKDAY (Resident)N/A 1,800.00$ 2,800.00$ Full Day WEEKDAY (non-resident)N/A 2,000.00$ 3,000.00$ Party (1-50) Attendance (4 hour)$186 N/A N/A Under 50 Per Hour N/A 100.00$ 100.00$ 50-100 Per Hour N/A 200.00$ 200.00$ 100+ Per Hour N/A 300.00$ 300.00$ Security Deposit N/A 500.00$ 500.00$ Table/Chair Rental $180 Included Included Hourly Field Use $24 24.00$ 24.00$ Light Fee $22 22.00$ 22.00$ Hourly Use $5 5.50$ 6.00$ Light Fee N/A 11.00$ 11.00$ Full Use Facility (Day)$8 8.50$ 9.00$ Full Use Facility (Day)$444 444.00$ 444.00$ Full Use Facility (Hour)$72 72.00$ 72.00$ Full Use Light Fee (Hour)$43 43.00$ 43.00$ Maintenance Fee $24 24.00$ 24.00$ Concession Stand Rental $120 120.00$ 120.00$ Lower Fields Facility Use (Day)$295 295.00$ 295.00$ Lower Fields Facility Use (Hour)$48 48.00$ 48.00$ Lower Fields Light Fee $22 22.00$ 22.00$ Single Field Facility Use (Day)$151 151.00$ 151.00$ Single Field Facility Use (Hour)$24 24.00$ 24.00$ Single Field Light Fee $22 22.00$ 22.00$ Hourly Field Use $24 24.00$ 24.00$ Lights $22 22.00$ 22.00$ Press box Rental $16 16.00$ 16.00$ Mission Plaza Permit Fee OUTDOOR FACILITIES Activity Jack House Gardens Softball Fields Proposed INDOOR FACILITIES Ludwick Community Center Senior Center Meadow Park Building Activity BBQ/Picnic Areas City/County Library Proposed Baseball Stadium Multi-Use Courts Tennis & Volleyball Courts Damon-Garcia Attachment 1 4-4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO - PARKS AND RECREATION 2017-19 FINANCIAL PLAN PROPOSED FEES Field prep $41 41.00$ 41.00$ Concession Stand Rental $23 23.00$ 23.00$ Full Plaza $460 560.00$ 560.00$ Still Photography $90 95.00$ 100.00$ Commercial $120 126.00$ 131.00$ Non-Profit $35 37.00$ 40.00$ Destination Marketing $0 -$ -$ Permit Processing Fee $10 15.00$ 15.00$ Full Park Use $460 460.00$ 460.00$ Half Park Use $230 230.00$ 230.00$ $31 32.50$ 34.00$ $31 32.00$ 34.00$ Community Gardens $25/yr + $0.03 per sq ft $28/yr + $0.03 per sq ft $30/yr + $0.03 per sq ft Current Fee 2017-18 2018-19 Junior Ranger Camp $125 131.00$ 137.00$ Current Fee 2017-18 2018-19 $7.00/person $8.00/person $8.00/person $3.00/cart $3.00/cart $3.00/cart Monday-Thursday (Regular)$11 13.00$ 13.00$ Monday-Thursday (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)$9 10.00$ 10.00$ Friday-Sunday (Regular)$12 14.00$ 14.00$ Friday-Sunday (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)$10 11.00$ 11.00$ Replay $6.75 7.00$ 7.00$ Off Peak (M-Th 12-3 PM) (Regular)$10 11.00$ 11.00$ Off Peak (M-Th 12-3 PM) (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)$9 10.00$ 10.00$ Twilight (after 3 PM)$8.25 8.50$ 8.50$ Family Rate $20 25.00$ 25.00$ Super Twilight $5 5.00$ 5.00$ 10-Play Cards (Regular)$97.50 115.00$ 115.00$ 10-Play Cards (Snr/Yth/Stu/Mil)$82.50 87.50$ 87.50$ * Dependent Upon School District Offering a Summer School Program and Needed Childcare Hours (partial day). Hourly Rates Would Apply. Community Gardens Other Bounce House Portable BBQ Mission Plaza Film Application Fee Permit Fee Activity Laguna Lake Golf Course Rounds Proposed Proposed RANGER SERVICE Activity Junior Ranger Camp GOLF COURSE Cart Rental Pull Carts Attachment 1 4-5