The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-26-2017 PC Agenda PacketCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development, 919 Palm Street, during normal business hours. Agenda Planning Commission Wednesday, April 26, 2017 6:00 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Council Chamber 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA CALL TO ORDER: Chair Stevenson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE : Chair Stevenson ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR ROLL CALL : Commissioners Kim Bisheff, Scott Mann, John Fowler, Charles Stevenson, Ronald Malak, Nicholas Osterbur, and Hemalata Dandekar ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of February 22, 2017, and March 8, 2017. PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address. Comments are limited to three minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to staff, and, if action by the Commission is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. 1545 and 1675 Calle Joaquin. GENP-0156-2017: General Plan Conformity determination for property dedication from the City of San Luis Obispo to Caltrans as part of the Los Osos Valley Road Interchange improvement project; discussion of this item is not subject to CEQA; C-T and C/OS zones; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Kyle Rowland) Planning Commission Agenda Page 2 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs , and activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. 2. Downtown Concept Plan. GENP-1622-2015: Update on the Downtown Concept Plan project; discussion of this item is not subject to CEQA; multiple zones; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Rebecca Gershow) COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 1. STAFF a. Agenda Forecast ADJOURNMENT The next Regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. APPEALS: Any decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action (Recommendations to the City Council cannot be appealed since they are not a final action.). Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available at the Community Development Department office, City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $281, and must accompany the appeal documentation. Minutes - DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, February 22, 2017 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order on Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Stevenson. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kim Bisheff, Hemalata Dandekar, Daniel Knight, John Larson, Ronald Malak, Vice-Chair John Fowler, and Chair Charles Stevenson Absent: None Staff: Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, Community Development Director Michael Codron, Deputy Director Xzandrea Fowler, Housing Programs Manager Jenny Wiseman, and Recording Secretary Monique Lomeli. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Stevenson led the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. --End of Public Comment-- CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 2016 ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DANDEKAR, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MALAK, CARRIED BY CONSENSUS to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission for the meeting of December 14, 2016. DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of February 22, 2017 Page 2 Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of January 11, 2017 and January 25, 2017 ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DANDEKAR, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MALAK, CARRIED BY CONSENSUS to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission for the meeting of January 11, 2017 and January 25, 2017. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. City-Wide. CODE-0107-2017: Review of amendments to Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) of the Municipal Code associated with Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) provisions with a Categorical Exemption from Environmental Review; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Housing Programs Manager Jenny Wiseman provided the staff report with use of a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Commissioner inquiries. Chief Building Official Anne Schneider responded to Commissioners requests for clarification. Public Comments: Jerry Rioux, suggested the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) size restrictions include reasonable accommodations for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance and suggested the City consider tiny homes as Accessory Dwelling Units. Michael Boudreau, stated 450 feet is an insufficient living space and encouraged the City to consider a sliding impact fee. Greg Wynn, San Luis Obispo, referred to a previously submitted correspondence item, providing a PowerPoint presentation to demonstrate the livability of small units; suggested City requirements should mirror state requirements. Randy Russom, RRM Design Group, AIA president-elect, stated the 450-sq. ft. ADU limit is inconsistent with City goals and does not provide meaningful housing; suggested the City follow state requirements and responded to Commissioners inquiries. Cynthia Boche, San Luis Obispo, encouraged infill development and requested the City allow ADUs up to 1,200 square feet per state law. Corey Dudley, San Luis Obispo, shared personal experience with accessory dwelling units and requested the Commission reconsider the 450-sq. ft. size restriction. DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of February 22, 2017 Page 3 Theodora Jones, spoke in opposition to increased size restrictions or allowance of tiny homes; urged the Commission to consider environmental effects of small dwelling units. Steve Delmartini spoke in opposition to the 450-sq. ft. size restriction and requested the Commission consider a procedure to address possible hardships. Jeff Eckles, Homebuilders of Central Coast, encouraged the Commission to provide flexibility in ADU size restrictions. Brett Strickland, San Luis Obispo, voiced opposition to the proposed 450 ft. ADU restriction and encouraged the Commission to consider all demographics when setting standards. --End of Public Comment-- Commission discussion followed. Community Development Director Codron and Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere responded to Commissioner inquiries regarding the appropriateness of modifications to the Zoning Regulation Chapter 17.10.020 Accessory Spaces amendments. ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR FOWLER, SECOND COMMISSIONER BISHEFF, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation that the City Council introduce and adopt an Ordinance amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code regarding accessory dwelling units with the following amendments: Subsection C.2. Eliminate R-3 and R-4 zones. Subsection C.8. Change the maximum size from 450 square feet to 800 square feet, allowing administrative discretion for units 801-1200 square feet, not to exceed 50% of the primary residence and 50% site coverage. Subsection E.1. Eliminate the inspection requirement. Amend Finding #2 to reflect changes to subsection C.8. MOTION CARRIED 7-0 ON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: BISHEFF, DANDEKAR, KNIGHT, LARSON, MALAK, VICE-CHAIR FOWLER, CHAIR STEVENSON NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. Commission provided direction to staff to clarify the language in subsection C5. DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of February 22, 2017 Page 4 Commission Recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m. with 7 members present. BUSINESS ITEM 1. Study Session on the status of implementation of the Climate Action Plan, the Energy Code, and the Green Building Standards. Chief Building Official Anne Schneider provided a status report on the implementation of the Climate Action Plan (CAP), the Energy Code, and the Green Building Standards. Deputy Director of Long-Range Planning Xzandrea Fowler provided information regarding CAP policy implementations and requested feedback regarding the Climate Action Plan Implementation Strategy Plan Recommendations provided in the staff report. Commission discussion followed. Deputy Director Fowler responded to Commission inquiries and received individual comments. Public Comment: None. --End of Public Comment-- 2. Presentation and information session regarding State Density Bonus Law and Housing Accountability Act. Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere presented an overview of the State Density Bonus Law and Housing Accountability Act with use of a PowerPoint presentation. LIAISON REPORTS Deputy Director Fowler provided an agenda forecast. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, March 8 , 2017 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: XX/XX/2017 Minutes - DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, March 8, 2017 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order on Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Stevenson. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kim Bisheff, John Larson, Ronald Malak, Vice-Chair John Fowler, and Chair Charles Stevenson. Absent: Commissioners Daniel Knight and Hemalata Dandekar. Staff: Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, Deputy Director Xzandrea Fowler, Planning Technician Steven Orozco, and Recording Secretary Monique Lomeli. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Stevenson led the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. --End of Public Comment— BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Citywide. GENP-0244-2017: General Plan Annual Report for 2016; City of San Luis Obispo – Community Development Department. Planning Technician Steven Orozco presented the 2016 General Plan Annual Report with use of a PowerPoint presentation. Public Comment: None. DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of March 8, 2017 Page 2 --End of Public Comment-- Chair Stevenson explained the purpose of the General Plan Annual Report, commending City staff on the comprehensive nature of the report. Deputy Director Fowler responded to Commissioner comments and questions regarding the jobs-housing ratio. Commissioner Malak recommended the City take a proactive approach to building additional dwellings, allowing opportunities for the commuting workforce to obtain local housing. Chair Stevenson summarized feedback from the Commission, stating increased appropriately-designed housing with greater density should be given greater consideration. Chair Stevenson referenced the General Plan Program Implementation Status list (included in the agenda packet) and stated interest in receiving updates on the City’s progress in addressing each item. 2. Presentation and information Regarding Land Use Regulations and the Planning Commission’s Role and Responsibilities under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Associate Planner Shawna Scott and Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere jointly narrated a PowerPoint presentation, providing contextual case studies illustrating the application of CEQA guidelines and responded to Commissioner inquiries. LIAISON REPORTS Deputy Director Fowler provided an agenda forecast through May 10th. COMMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS Chair Stevenson announced the end of Commissioner Larson and Commissioner Knight’s term on the Commission and Commissioners expressed appreciation to Commissioner Larson for his service. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: XX/XX/2017 Meeting Date: April 26, 2017 Item Number: 1 2sz PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: General Plan conformity report for the relinquishment of portions of two parcels adjacent to the Southbound U.S. 101 on-ramp at the Los Osos Valley Road interchange. Properties are for the use as State of California right-of-way and to be relinquished by the City of San Luis Obispo and exempt from environmental review. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1545 Calle Joaquin and BY: Kyle Rowland, Engineer III 1675 Calle Joaquin Phone Number: 783-7717 e-mail: krowland@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: GENP-0156-2017 (GPC) FROM: Matt Horn, City Engineer RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached Planning Commission resolution (Attachment 1), which determines and reports to the City Council, that the proposed relinquishment conforms to the General Plan. SITE DATA Applicant City of San Luis Obispo Address 1545 Calle Joaquin (Location 1) 1675 Calle Joaquin (Location 2) Zoning Tourist Commercial (TC) Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) General Plan Tourist Commercial Open Space Site Area 608 square feet (0.0139 acres) 6,360 square feet (0.146 acres) Environmental Status Exempt from CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3) because the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. PC1 - 1 GENP-0156-2017 (GPC) (LOVR Interchange - 1545 & 1675 Calle Joaquin) Page 2 SUMMARY 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW Section 65402 of the California Government Code requires the local agency make a finding of General Plan conformance whenever a governmental entity proposes to acquire or dispose of property. The Planning Commission reviews the project for a determination of conformity with the General Plan and reports its findings to the City Council. 2.0 BACKGROUND In 2014, City advisory bodies reviewed and approved plans for the US 101 and Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) Interchange project. The project was designed to correct operational deficiencies and improve safety at the southern entry to the City at LOVR by widening LOVR to four lanes between the recently constructed Calle Joaquin intersection and South Higuera Street. To accomplish this, a new two-lane bridge structure was constructed south of, and adjacent to, the existing overcrossing. The existing bridge carries westbound traffic and the new bridge carries eastbound traffic. An adjacent bridge crossing of San Luis Obispo Creek was widened to accommodate four travel lanes. The project also included 6-foot wide sidewalks over the freeway, 6.5-foot wide bike lanes, and improves the on and off-ramps. Sidewalks across the SLO Creek Bridge were widened to allow additional area for pedestrians and bicyclists accessing the Bob Jones Trail and future integration with the Trail segment south of LOVR. As part of this project, two small relinquishments are required for project closeout. 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 3.1 Site Information/Setting The subject properties are located between Calle Joaquin and U.S. 101 (Attachment 1, Vicinity Map) in the Tourist Commercial (TC) and Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) zones. The proposed relinquishment consists of portions of 1545 Calle Joaquin and 1675 Calle Joaquin (POR. APN 053-171-029 and POR. APN 053-171-014) properties, totaling approximately 6,968 square feet (0.160 acres). The properties currently contain an unimproved parking area and undeveloped land. The sites are located adjacent to property owned by the State of California and used for the southbound U.S. 101 onramp. Further site specific details are noted below in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1: Location 1 Site Summary Site Size 608 square feet (0.0139 acres) Present Use & Development Undeveloped land scheduled adjacent to the U.S. SB 101 onramp Topography Flat Surrounding Use/Zoning North: C-T (Commercial: Hampton Inn and Suites) South & West: C-T (Commercial: Margie’s Diner, Rose Garden Inn) East: State of California Right of Way: U.S. 101 PC1 - 2 GENP-0156-2017 (GPC) (LOVR Interchange - 1545 & 1675 Calle Joaquin) Page 3 Table 2: Location 2 Site Summary Site Size 6,360 square feet (0.146 acres) Present Use & Development Undeveloped land adjacent to U.S. SB 101 onramp Topography Flat Surrounding Use/Zoning North: C-T (Commercial: Rose Garden Inn) South & West: C/OS (Conservation/Open Space) East: State of California Right of Way: U.S. 101 3.2 Project Description The City of San Luis Obispo is proposing to relinquish portions of City property located at 1545 Calle Joaquin and 1675 Calle Joaquin for State of California right-of-way to be used as part of the southbound U.S. 101 onramp at Los Osos Valley Road. This onramp has already been constructed as part of the recent interchange improvements project. 4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The following excerpts are from applicable policies from the General Plan Circulation Element (CE) and Land Use Element (LUE). Staff response to each policy as it relates to the proposed project may be found below the policy language. Circulation Element, Policy 7.1.3. Growth Management & Roadway Expansion The City shall manage the expansion of roadways to keep pace with only the level of increased vehicular traffic associated with development planned for in the Land Use Element and under the City’s growth management policies and regional transportation plans. Staff response: The LOVR interchange was designed and completed to correct operational deficiencies and improve safety at the southern entry to the City at LOVR, consistent with this CE policy. As part of this project, land is being relinquishment to the State of California for right-of-way management and access. Land Use Element, Policy 8.1.1. Through Traffic The City shall design its circulation network to encourage through traffic to use Regional Routes, Highways, Arterials, Parkway Arterials, and Residential Arterial streets and to discourage through traffic use of Collectors and Local streets. Staff response: The redesigned interchange encourages through traffic to use Highway 101 and LOVR (an arterial and arterial parkway) within the City. Summary Staff finds the relinquishment of the right-of-way by the City of San Luis Obispo is in conformance with the General Plan. The right-of-way will fulfill the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element goals of enhancing connections and improving traffic circulation by creating a freeway onramp in conformance with Caltrans highway design standards. PC1 - 3 GENP-0156-2017 (GPC) (LOVR Interchange - 1545 & 1675 Calle Joaquin) Page 4 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Section 15061(b)(3) states a project is exempt from CEQA if the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The determination of general plan conformity for the relinquishment of land for State right-of-way by the City of San Luis Obispo is not subject to CEQA because the project will not have a significant effect on the environment since it is a policy review of whether land relinquishment is consistent with the General Plan. Any future development related to the proposed right-of-way will be subject to environmental review as required under CEQA. 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 6.1. Deny the relinquishment based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Quitclaim to Caltrans PC1 - 4 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE FOR THE RELINQUISHMENT OF PORTIONS OF 1545 CALLE JOAQUIN AND 1675 CALLE JOAQUIN PROPERTIES FOR USE OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED APRIL 26, 2017 (1545 CALLE JOAQUIN & 1675 CALLE JOAQUIN, GENP-0156-2017 (GPC)) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 26, 2017, for the purpose of considering application # GENP-0156-2017 (GPC); and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: 1. The relinquishment of land for right-of-way will not harm the general health, safety, and welfare of people living or working in the vicinity because the proposed right-of-way is consistent with the General Plan and the existing development pattern. 2. The proposed project is consistent with General Plan Circulation Element Policies 7.1.3 and 8.1.1, which encourage the expansion of roadways to keep pace with increased vehicular traffic and encourage through traffic to use Regional Routes, Highways, Arterials, and Parkway Arterials. Section 2. Environmental Review. Section 15061(b)(3) states a project is exempt from CEQA if the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The determination of general plan conformity for the relinquishment of land for State right-of-way by the City of San Luis Obispo is not subject to CEQA because the project will not have a significant effect on the environment since it is a policy review of whether land relinquishment is consistent with the General Plan. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-17 GENP-0156-2017 (GPC) (1545 Calle Joaquin & 1675 Calle Joaquin) Page 2 Any future development related to the proposed right-of-way will be subject to environmental review as required under CEQA. Section 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby determine General Plan conformity of # GENP-0156-2017 (GPC). On motion by , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 26th day of April, 2017. _____________________________ Xzandrea Fowler, Secretary Planning Commission Form RW 6-1(I) (Revised 01/08) RECORDING REQUESTED BY CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO - - - - - - - WHEN RECORDED – RETURN TO City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attn: Tim Bochum Space above this line for Recorder's Use CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California , does hereby release and quitclaim to the State of California all that real property in the City of San Luis Obispo , County of San Luis Obispo , State of California, described as: Parcel 11727-1 as described in Exhibit “A” and depicted on Exhibit “B” AND Parcel 11726-1 as described in Exhibit “C” and depicted on Exhibit “D” Said exhibits attached hereto and made part of this quitclaim deed. This quitclaim deed is made for the purpose of a freeway and the undersigned hereby releases and relinquishes to the STATE any and all abutter’s rights of access, over and across above described courses A, B, C and D as said courses are described in Exhibits “A” and “C”. Transfer Tax Not Applicable: R & T Code 11911 STATE BUSINESS: Free This is to certify that this document is presented for recordation by the State of California under Government Code 27383 and is necessary to complete the chain of title of the State to property acquired by the State of California. District County Route Post Number 05 SLO 101 PM 25.7 PM 25.9 11726-1 11727-1 QUITCLAIM DEED (CORPORATION) ATTACHMENT 2 PC1 - 7 Form RW 6-1(I) (Revised 01/08) The grantor further understands that the present intention of the grantee is to construct and maintain a public highway on the lands hereby conveyed in fee and the grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby waives any claims for any and all damages to grantor's remaining property contiguous to the property hereby conveyed by reason of the location, construction, landscaping or maintenance of said highway. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said corporation has caused its corporate name to be hereunto subscribed and its corporate seal to be affixed hereto, this day of ______________________, 20_____ By , Name: +HLGL+DUPRQ Title: &LW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSRMayor ATTEST: By , 1DPH&DUULH*DOODJKHU 7LWOH&LW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSRClerk APPROVED TO FORM: By Name: J. Christine Dietrick Title: City of San Luis Obispo, Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: By Name: 'DU\O*ULJVE\ Title: &LW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSR DirectorRI3XEOLF:RUNV [CORPORATE SEAL] ATTACHMENT 2 PC1 - 8 Form RW 6-1(I) (Revised 01/08) (Here insert name and title of the officer) A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of _______________ On ___________ before me,_____________________________________________________, personally appeared_________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity (ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature ____________________________________________ (Seal) THIS IS TO CERTIFY, That the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation (pursuant to Government Code Section 27281), hereby accepts for public purposes the real property described in the within deed and consents to the recordation thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ____ day of _______________, 20____. MALCOLM DOUGHERTY, Director of Transportation By _______________________________________ Marshall Garcia, Attorney in Fact Department of Transportation District 5, Right of Way Office Chief } ss ACKNOWLEDGMENT ATTACHMENT 2 PC1 - 9 ATTACHMENT 2 PC1 - 10 ATTACHMENT 2 PC1 - 11 ATTACHMENT 2 PC1 - 12 ATTACHMENT 2 PC1 - 13 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Downtown Concept Plan project update PROJECT ADDRESS: Downtown Area BY: Rebecca Gershow, Associate Planner Phone Number: 781-7011 E-mail: rgershow@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: GENP-1622-2015 FROM: Xzandrea Fowler, Deputy Director 1.0 RECOMMENDATION: Receive an update on the Downtown Concept Plan project. No action is requested. 2.0 SUMMARY The Downtown Concept Plan is the community’s long-range vision for San Luis Obispo’s downtown, providing a road map for future public projects and guidance for private development. The project has been underway since December, 2015, and is split into four phases, as shown in Figure 1, Planning Process Graphic, below. We are now at the public hearing stage of Phase 4, nearing completion of the project. The Draft Downtown Concept Plan represents the work of the general public, stakeholders, the Creative Vision Team, staff, consultants and city advisory bodies. Figure 1: Planning Process Graphic 3.0 PLANNING COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The Planning Commission last provided input on the Downtown Concept Plan at a joint study session with the City Council in October 4, 2016. The Planning Commission’s responsibility includes review and recommendation of the City’s long-range plans to the City Council; as such, it will review the Downtown Concept Plan on June 28 and recommend adoption as is or with changes to the City Meeting Date: April 17, 2017 Item Number: 1 Draft Downtown Concept Plan GENP-1622-2015 Page 2 Council for consideration in August. Tonight, staff will be providing background on the project for new commissioners, and updating the Planning Commission on project work since the October 4th study session. 4.0 BACKGROUND In late 1990, the City Council authorized the preparation of a Downtown Concept Plan and directed 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 Concept Plan. As part of the 2015-2017 Financial Plan, the City Council allocated funding for both efforts. On August 18, 2015, the City Council approved the Downtown Concept Plan scope of work and request for proposal for consultant services. In addition, the City Council adopted a resolution creating the Creative Vision Team (CVT) for the Downtown Concept Plan and defining its term and charge. Both projects have been coordinating closely, and the Mission Plaza Concept Plan will be incorpo rated into the Downtown Concept Plan when finalized. 5.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 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 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 workshops, an Open City Hall survey, and two neighborhood meetings with downtown residents. A wide-variety of input was also received at the joint study session with the Planning Commission Draft Downtown Concept Plan GENP-1622-2015 Page 3 and City Council, including an interest in providing more detail on housing options downtown and questions about whether pedestrian only or shared streets were more appropriate in some areas of downtown. Based on that input, additional examples of housing types were included in the plan, and proposed street types were further analyzed. Study session notes are included as Attachment 2. After the study session, staff and consultants drafted an internal Administrative Draft of the Downtown Concept Plan, and made it available for staff and the CVT to review. Updates to the administrative draft were completed by the end of January, 2017 and a public Draft was released before the February 4, 2017 public workshop. Approximately 150 people attended the workshop and provided input on all aspects of the Draft Plan, which was displayed around the room on project summary boards by topic area, as well as through two presentations. Figure 2: Board #4 from the February 4, 2017 Workshop Workshop participants were asked to provide input in a variety of ways: Sixty-two questionnaires were completed; comments were provided on post-it notes and flip charts; and participnts helped prioritize the Draft Implementation Action List for public projects in Chapter 5, by using dots to “vote” for their top 5 priorities. The 10 projects receiveing the most votes at the workshop were: Action 7. Work with partners on developing a program to retain, attract, and support smaller, independent, and culturally diverse businesses (24 votes) Action 1. Include relevant concepts from the Downtown Concept Plan as part of the update of the City Zoning Regulations, such as expanded commercial mixed use overlay zone (20 votes) Action 42. Prioritize mobility improvements to be consistent with the General Plan’s priority mode Draft Downtown Concept Plan GENP-1622-2015 Page 4 ranking in downtown: 1. Pedestrians, 2. Bicycles, 3. Transit, 4. Vehicles (20 votes) Action 38. Develop a downtown pedestrian plan, or alternately, a bicycle and pedestrian plan for downtown to further study specific locations for improvements to enhance the pedestrian experience, using the Downtown Concept Plan as a guide (18 votes) Action 60. Maintain a healthy downtown street tree canopy; evaluate and replace tree grates annually to ensure obstruction-free sidewalks as well as proper tree health and growth capacity (16 votes) Action 2. Work with partners on developing additional programs and incentives to aid in the provision of additional housing options downtown, as shown in the Concept Plan Illustrative (16 votes) Action 58. Develop a program for designing and installing parklets downtown (14 votes) Action 32. Ensure the provision of public restrooms downtown, including new restrooms at Mission Plaza and Emerson Park (14 votes) Action 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 (13 votes) Action 61. Include green infrastructure in public improvement projects whenever feasible (13 votes) The full workshop transcript is included as Attachment 3. The project summary boards are included as Attachment 4. Following the public workshop, staff has been presenting the Draft Plan and collecting input from the following City Advisory Bodies: the Mass Transportation Committee (March 8), Bicycle Advisory Committee (March 16), Cultural Heritage Committee (March 27), Parks and Recreation Commission (April 5) and Architectural Review Commission (pending, on April 17). Overall, input has been very positive. Advisory body notes are included as Attachment 5. 6.0 NEXT STEPS The project’s Creative Vision Team will meet on May 2, 2017 to discuss the input received on the Draft Plan and provide recommendations to staff on prioritization of input. Staff and consultants will update the Downtown Concept Plan and present it to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation on June 28, 2017. Staff will then present the Downtown Concept Plan to the City Council, with a summary of the Planning Commission’s input and recommendation, for final review and adoption. Staff anticipates providing the final Downtown Concept Plan for Council adoption in August, 2017. 7.0 DISCUSSION The Planning Commission should discuss and provide input on the general direction of the Draft Downtown Concept Plan since the October 4 study session, and identify any areas of needed clarification before staff proceeds with plan refinement. Draft Downtown Concept Plan GENP-1622-2015 Page 5 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL The Downtown Concept Plan is categorically 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 significant effect on the environment. 9.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Downtown Concept Plan 2. Notes from the City Council and Planning Commission Study Session on October 4, 20161 3. Transcript from input collected at the Public Workshop on February 4, 2017 4. Project Summary Boards from the Public Workshop on February 4, 2017 5. Notes from City Advisory Body meetings 1 Not approved meeting minutes. Notes are for staff, consultant and advisory body use for plan refinement and are noted as Draft. San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Public Draft January 31, 2017 ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 1Introduction ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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 L L C H O R R O P I S M O H I G U E R A HIGH MA R SH L E F FISLAY T O R O O S O S B UC HO N S A N T A R O S A M O R R O P E A C H M O NT E REY N I P O M O E L L A H I L L G A R D E N P AL M B E A C H P E P P E R L I N C O L N O L I VE G R O V E C A R M E L SANDERCOCK W AL N UT B E E B E E D A N A I R I S C H U RC H U P H A M OAK G R A M I S S I O N S A N T A BA R BA R A G E O R G E A R C H E R MONTALBAN P R I C E C E N T E R S T O RY A L M O N D RA C H E L HI L L C R ES T P A R K C Y P RE S S W A L K E R WEST M O UN T A I N V I E W P A C I F I C P H I L L I PS W A R D BR E CK S W A Z E Y BIANCHI C O U R T P E N N Y N I P O M O A L L E Y P AL M MI L L AL L EY PAULINE H I G UE RA PA C I F I C B R O A D B R O A D M I S S I O N P 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. ATTACHMENT 1 San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 1.6 Fi g u r e 1 . 2 . D o w n t o w n C o n c e p t P l a n A r e a ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 1.9 | Public Draft This page intenƟ onally leŌ blank. ATTACHMENT 1 2Concept Plan Vision ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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 rojec ts 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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 on s wi 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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 peopl 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 res id e n ts we hav e and w an t m o re of . - Res id e n t ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 3Plan Diagrams ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 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 . aff 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 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement |3.2 Fi g u r e 3 . 1 . D o w n t o w n C o n c e p t P l a n I l l u s t r a t i v e DA N A PA L M MILL MO N T E R E Y HI G U E R A MA R S H PA C I F I C PI S M O MI S S I O N P L A Z A MA S T E R P L A N H I G U E R A PALM MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMO W A L K E R A R C H E R C A R M E L B E A C H N I P O M O N I P O M O B R O A D B R O A D G A R D E N C H O R R O C H O R R O M O R R O M O R R O O S O S O S O S SANTA ROSA SANTA ROSATORO JOHNSON AVEJOHNSON AVE PEPPER TORO 1 9 10 19 18 2 11 3 12 20 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 4 13 21 33 46 59 5 14 22 34 47 60615233548716243649817253750 61 BL O C K N U M B E R S Se e b l o c k d e s c r i p t i o n s i n p l a n s u p p l e m e n t 27 CO M M E R C I A L M I X E D U S E St r e e t - f r o n t c o m m e r c i a l u s e s w i t h u p p e r l e v e l r e s i d e n t i a l a n d / o r o f f i c e u s e s OF F I C E M I X E D U S E Of f i c e u s e s w i t h c o m p a t i b l e r e s i d e n t i a l a n d / o r c o m m e r c i a l u s e s RE S I D E N T I A L Wi d e v a r i e t y o f m e d i u m d e n s i t y a n d h i g h d e n s i t y h o u s i n g HO S P I T A L I T Y Ho t e l s a n d c o n f e r e n c e f a c i l i t i e s CO M M U N I T Y S E R V I N G Go v e r n m e n t f a c i l i t i e s , m u s e u m s , c h u r c h e s , a n d s c h o o l s PA R K I N G Ab o v e o r b e l o w g r o u n d p a r k i n g t h a t m a y i n c l u d e r o o f t o p p u b l i c s p a c e s PA R K S Ma y i n c l u d e p u b l i c l y a c c e s s i b l e h i s t o r i c s i t e s , g a r d e n s a n d w a l k w a y s PL A Z A , P A S E O S , A N D S H A R E D S T R E E T S Pa s e o s m a y i n c l u d e p u b l i c l y a c c e s s i b l e p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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 WA L K E R AR C H E R CA R M E L BE A C H NI P O M O NI P O M O BR O A D BR O A D GA R D E N CH O R R O CH O R R O MO R R O MO R R O OS O S OS O S SA N T A R O S A SA N T A R O S A TO R O JO H N S O N A V E JO H N S O N A V E PE P P E R TO R O COMMERCIAL MIXED USE - Street-front commercial uses with upper level residenƟ al and/or offi ce uses ATTACHMENT 1 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 WA L K E R AR C H E R CA R M E L BE A C H NI P O M O NI P O M O BR O A D BR O A D GA R D E N CH O R R O CH O R R O MO R R O MO R R O OS O S OS O S SA N T A R O S A SA N T A R O S A TO R O JO H N S O N A V E JO H N S O N A V E PE P P E R TO R O OFFICE MIXED USE - Offi ce uses with compaƟ ble residenƟ al and/or commercial uses ATTACHMENT 1 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 U E R A PALM MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMO WA L K E R AR C H E R CA R M E L BE A C H NI P O M O NI P O M O BR O A D BR O A D GA R D E N CH O R R O CH O R R O MO R R O MO R R O OS O S OS O S SA N T A R O S A SA N T A R O S A TO R O JO H N S O N A V E JO H N S O N A V E PE P P E R TO R O COMMUNITY SERVING - Government faciliƟ es, museums, churches, and schools HOSPITALITY - Hotels and conference faciliƟ es ATTACHMENT 1 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 WA L K E R AR C H E R CA R M E L BE A C H NI P O M O NI P O M O BR O A D BR O A D GA R D E N CH O R R O CH O R R O MO R R O MO R R O OS O S OS O S SA N T A R O S A SA N T A R O S A TO R O JO H N S O N A V E JO H N S O N A V E PE P P E R TO R O RESIDENTIAL - Wide variety of medium density and high density housing ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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 WA L K E R AR C H E R CA R M E L BE A C H NI P O M O NI P O M O BR O A D BR O A D GA R D E N CH O R R O CH O R R O MO R R O MO R R O OS O S OS O S SA N T A R O S A SA N T A R O S A TO R O JO H N S O N A V E JO H N S O N A V E PE P P E R TO R O PARKING - Above or below ground parking that may include roof top public spaces ATTACHMENT 1 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 WA L K E R AR C H E R CA R M E L BE A C H NI P O M O NI P O M O BR O A D BR O A D GA R D E N CH O R R O CH O R R O MO R R O MO R R O OS O S OS O S SA N T A R O S A SA N T A R O S A TO R O JO H N S O N A V E JO H N S O N A V E PE P P E R TO R O PARKS - May include publicly accessible historic sites, gardens and walkways PLAZA AND PASEOS - Primarily hard-surface; publicly accessible but may be privately owned ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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) ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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) ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 4Mobility & Streetscape ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 4.2 Fi g u r e 4 . 1 S t r e e t T y p e s D i a g r a m ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 4.10 Fi g u r e 4 . 2 B i c y c l e F a c i l i t i e s D i a g r a m ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 5Implementation ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 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 ls 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 pedest 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 ltra tion). - 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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 3I n v e sƟ 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 4I n v e sƟ 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 5I n v e sƟ 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 6I n v e sƟ 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 9I n v e sƟ gate opportuniƟ es for implemenƟ ng free WiFi in public areas downtown. City DTA, County, Others ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 Appendix ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 A-2 Appendix A Issue 1: Improving Mobility ............................................................................................................................... 32 Issue 2: Enhancing the Public Realm ................................................................................................................ 32 Issue 3: Infill Development ................................................................................................................................ 33 Next Steps ........................................................................................................................................................ 34 ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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 . ATTACHMENT 1 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: ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 Appendix A A-17 Location (by # of votes) A. E x e r c i s e Sp a c e B. G r e e n Sp a c e C. Pe r f o r m a n c e Sp a c e D. P a s e o E. P l a z a F. P o c k e t P a r k The Creamery/Creek I I I I County Courthouse Lawn I I I Mission Plaza (improvement to/expansion of) I I I Along creek I I I Mitchell Park I I Corner parking lot at Higuera and Nipomo I I On rooftops (Nipomo and City 919 Palm Structures) I I SW corner of Chorro and Marsh (bank parking lot) I I Santa Rosa north of County Building I Garden Street (mid-block) I Above Ludwick Community Center I Next to Bank of America (no type specified) Emerson Park (no type specified) By Fremont (no type specified) ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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: ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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. ATTACHMENT 1 1 10.4.16 Planning Commission and City Council Study Session Draft Notes Input on Working Draft Downtown Concept Plan: Civic Center Concept (Monterey btw Santa Rosa and Osos):  Likes the civic center concept.  Explore the space in front of the Freemont-a shared street; eventually make Freemont Theater part of Community/Civic use  Likes civic Plaza-in front of courthouse. Close it for a new sense of energy  Freemont Theater/County Government Plaza-hope something can happen there Height:  More specificity on where 5-story buildings go  Where will height go?  Building heights/infill-can carefully plan and do well  Doesn’t go far enough at this point to take advantage of the areas where height could be designated … some areas could be pushed higher and should be to not only achieve more residential units but provide less expensive/affordable units Upper Monterey/MoJo:  Likes how we’ve shown upper Monterey  Likes description of uptown. Encouraging vibrancy  Likes MoJo and Parking Structure/transit center Creek/Creek Walk:  Don’t love the creek to death. Keep as a refuge for wildlife.  Likes the creek walk  Likes Creek Walk and inclusion of Rosa Butron Adobe  Block 44: tremendous potential with creek there Cultural District:  Likes cultural core—should embrace Freemont Theater all the way to Santa Rosa  Likes Mission area  Likes Cultural District Parks:  Lot 10-design it with more park space; less buildings  More pocket parks since there are more people Housing:  Mixed use-what are the densities, and where? What would different density look like? Ex’s of that. Very important for plan to address.  Likes balance of historic with targeted height—looking forward to more housing discussion. ATTACHMENT 2 2  Balance of commercial and housing very important. Bringing more people to live and shop downtown.  Be more specific about what kind of housing on top of mixed use. More small units. Also: Make sure we get what we think we want: look at demographics like age, economics to determine the housing mix …  Affordable housing needs to be a part of the downtown plan, as new residential housing downtown is out of the reach of everyone but the very well off Parking:  Likes parking--close enough so you can walk downtown  Good to keep parking on periphery  Block 50: viable? Are the hotel and parking too distant from the downtown core? Notification:  Notification-make sure neighbors are well informed.  Be sure we notice the public in Upper Monterey  Determine how to circulate enviro review for public Economic Analysis:  Economic impacts are important  No economic analysis in original plan either Compatibility/Types of Uses:  Move bars up Monterey away from 800 block of Higuera?  Cautious about use of rooftops due to noise and privacy  We are building in more conflicts of uses; more urban; little city in rural community  Keep signage classy. Careful about lighting’s impacts to the night sky  Transitions-be careful with compatibility with commercial next to residential.  Include desired commercial uses to compliment vision. We need commercial uses for those who reside downtown.  Senior needs and uses are important; identify places easily accessible and inviting for seniors to walk to and socialize so they feel a part of downtown Misc:  Deal with directions consistently-avoid n, s, e, w  National Historic District-reference it in the plan (our desire to get this designation)  Exciting, but are we over promising?  Is the boundary too wide –are we diluting our ability to get a good handle on downtown?  There should be three entry signs for downtown  Put artwork on Johnson St bridge also  Show as-builts (existing conditions)?  Needs more vision and more specificity  Funk zone-elaborate  Likes expansion of City Hall-into Little Theater Building  Block 33: very important view corridor. Also, Block 33 should have landmark buildings ATTACHMENT 2 3  Block 18: retail on Nipomo along parking garage should change to office/MU or Housing/Live Work. Not a good location for housing.  We need a vision for Marsh St-compatible with historic buildings; used to be the fancy street of town. Survey of historic structures. Make it its own thing  How will costs be estimated and budgeted to ensure these changes actually happen in 25 years? Input on Mobility Diagrams: Marsh and Higuera:  Where is traffic going if you calm Marsh and Higuera?  Marsh St-lots of traffic. Are we diverting traffic appropriately? Appropriate use/description of Marsh?  Excited about Marsh and Higuera complete streets-what does it look like? Pick protected or bike lane Car Free:  Go further than the shared streets around Mission Plaza? Particularly on the retail blocks. A robust city will need that kind of space  Close the dog leg  Likes closed streets – shared streets are a false sense of security. Close off all of Monterey to Nipomo. Close Broad from Palm to Higuera  Any other closed streets?...Show more car-free opportunities. Other:  Shared streets -how does it work in terms of safety?  Provide disabled parking  Electric shuttles (like SB”)  Bike parking-where?  Likes calming of Santa Rosa Input on Mission Plaza Master Plan [only includes input directly related to the DTCP]: CVT Plan:  Likes the CVT design  Likes the connection of MP to the new park property  Likes the new path under the Broad St bridge  Likes the connection to the history center  Likes expansion ideas  Drawn to it  Likes how it extends further than other plans Splash Pad/new park:  Likes the splash pad idea (joy per square foot)-but not sure where  Likes splash pad in the new park  Likes splash pad closer to children’s museum; family-friendly park improvements closer to CM  Likes the splash pad idea but in an open, safe location ATTACHMENT 2 4  Concerned about water usage  Splash pad better in a larger park New park (other):  There are constraints on the parking lot; private property issues Dog Leg—close it:  Make the dogleg usable as plaza like-close it  Close it; goal should be no traffic (why do we need street parking when building a new parking lot?) … then move center of Plaza to Broad St  Long term: Close it  Dog leg to Nipomo should be closed Dog Leg—1-way traffic:  Likes 1-way traffic better  Shared street okay but thinks 1-way will work better in short term  Likes dogleg with diagonal parking Dog Leg—other uses:  Portable kiosks in dog leg area to activate it Misc:  Ask voters to pay for it  Likes Monterey and Chorro improvements  Rotating vendors in Plaza History Center:  Likes connection between Murray Adobe and History Center Notes: Includes John Fowler’s input from correspondence emailed to the City; he was out of town for the Study Session. ATTACHMENT 2 Input on Boards 1-3: Project Background, Process, Public Engagement, Planning Principles and Goals Planning Principles and Goals Poster 3 Planning Principle 1, Goal 1: This goal is contradictory… Poster 3 Planning Principle 1, Goal 4: Restate to say "gradual transitions between buildings" as well. Poster 3 Planning Principle 2, Goals 1 & 2: Disagree with the term "paseos" as described. Poster 3 Planning Principle 3: Regarding variety, change to say "Encourage a variety of compatible buildings, Poster 3 Planning Principle 3, Goal 3.1: Change to say "…framework that retains a small scale character…" Poster 3 Planning Principle 4, Goal 4: Wording seems awkward. Poster 3 Planning Principle 7, Goal 3: Height should be increased in gradual transitions between buildings. Draw a section showing concept of good urban design i.e. the context gradually transformed. Height Heights should be 2 to 3 stories in the C-D zone - the Downtown Core - and 3 to 4 stories outside of that. Dislike 560 Higuera due to height and scale. Glad to know building heights are limited in this plan. Due to California laws that permit increased height for "affordable housing units" etc. our own zoning needs to DECREASE height to 30 feet, so if ones come in at 45 feet it is because they have contributed to the greater good. Keeping buildings 1-3 stories only. Go down 1 story (subterranean) if need be. Five stories is too big. Height does not belong at the corners. It belongs mid-block. Be sensitive to historic downtown 2 story height Honor height ordinances. Beware of "back door" exemptions by developers adding a few supposed affordable Build up to 5 or 6 stories. Height limit downtown at 50 feet. Limit height at 50 feet. Zoning regulations and adhering to height requirements and not calling them guidelines. 5 story buildings do block views and destroy the character of our town. Keep building heights low! I want to see those mountains! Ensure buildings are the right height in the right place Urban Design and Culture Traditional character is the only mention of the physical form, not strong enough. Need a section on the "historic forms, details, decorations, and materials" which should be included in new projects so that projects like "The Allow public art to be available for sale - will increase rotation and provide more opportunity for artists (example: Rooftop view gardens, etc. are nice ideas, but street-level views should be paramount - we spend our time mostly at street-level - this city's setting is too beautiful to be channelized and blocked. Thanks for your stated intent to preserve all the historical elements in our downtown environs - but please don't suggest painting over the beautiful old railroad trestle on Monterey - our "cutsify" the other old structures and I like the rooftop green area ideas as long as they are available for night sky viewing. The trees that were lost on Garden Street for development are missed. Do not chop down more trees for I like it. Keep SLO unique! We don't want to be another Orange County! Fewer alcohol outlets. New parking structures should have housing or a restaurant on the top level. Our current parking structures have some of the best views in the City. They were not done with the future in mind. They should have solar panels on Add landscape to roofscape even cafes and entertainment could be located there! Provide potential to make downtown more alive at night!!! Try to limit high crime rate. DTCP Workshop Feedback Boards 1-3 Page 1 Transcript from February 4, 2017 Public Workship ATTACHMENT 3 DR A F T More cops. Limit or reduce the number of liquor outlets. Art corridor is great idea! Too many establishments offering alcohol late into the evening. Require restaurantst to stop serving alcohol past Keep it up! Great work, everything looks awesome! I'm new to SLO so don't have a lot of input, but I appreciate the fact that we're concerned enough about having The bigger roads (i.e. Broad) need more regular cleaning. They're full of debris, rocks, glass, etc. I see no need to further regulate alcohol outlets - they are already adequately controlled as a result of strenuous Discuss threats to downtown and how the Concept Plan responds. What is the cultural distinction of SLO that we would like to preserve? Science/tech style museum. Department store. Encourage local businesses over chains. Zipcar downtown. Don't be intimidated by the NIMBY's and anti-height folks who do not have a vision for the future. Try not to move Farmers Market off Higuera Thank you for working so hard to make downtown SLO a better place! I like the sensitivity to existing older residences. The CVT has done amazing work. My thoughts are not to say that in any way I am not pleased with the plan. I Do not want to make the downtown upscale like Santa Barbara or Los Gatos, want to keep small-town agricultural The CVT should include some "regular folks" - too heavily weighted towards architects. No alterations or demolition of historic bungalows Reduce number of alcohol outlets significantly A mixed use district can have horizontally as well as vertically distributed uses. In the predominately single story West (of South) End District, this would have to be the case if we preserve the fundamental elements of the Consider the disruption that trimming trees causes downtown City doing a good job by asking residents to participate Do not dismiss what other cities and countries are doing to make improvements Emphasize neighborhood compatibility 360 degrees around projects More parks Respect neighborhood compatibility Environment Increase cost of water for downtown businesses forcing them to use available free water. Add more solar panels to the existing rooftops in the downtown core. Allow subsidies to convert. Make it a Infrastructure needs to be addressed FIRST, then pursue development projects. More refill stations for water/water fountains. Water filling stations. More recycling recepticles downtown, especially during events and busy seasons. Encourage solar power. There needs to be an education given to residents on predicted growth and what it really means for this city's All in all, I am not thrilled with the large amount of growth. Coordinate with a Climate Action Plan Be earthquake prepared by improving infrastructure to old buildings and keeping in mind for new buildings Less infill and less sprawl Stop ignoring environmental concerns Study climate change. DTCP Workshop Feedback Boards 1-3 Page 2 Transcript from February 4, 2017 Public Workship ATTACHMENT 3 DR A F T Require solar power; time to move toward renewable energy. Parking/Transit/Circulation Will street parking continue on side streets? (Pacific) Quick access to parking will be key to keeping cars in the less congested areas of downtown Need a 4 way stop at Garden and Pacific because parked cars obstruct views Street closures and removal of street parking inhibits use by store customers (carrying purchases, if retail is still supported, along with bars and restaurants) - particularly those residents and visitors unable to jump on and off bikes, trolleys, and conveyances, or walk long distances - they are as important to our community. (Imagine being Improve frequency of public transportation to downtown. Think about using Madonna Place area for transit center if at all possible with express shuttle to downtown and Transit stops with roofs for shelter. Move more quickly with implementation of LUCE and the 2017-2018 top 4 program goals Housing Have you considered low income or affordable housing options? Consider rising housing costs downtown Make workforce housing in proposed residential developments. Cal Poly students need to be housed on campus and free up housing for families Give buying priority to people working/already living (renting) in the city. Who will live in housing Downtown? ("The City doesn't want students living off campus"). Cal Poly Will Cal Poly growth affect Downtown? Has that been analyzed in the Plan? Encourage more students living downtown. Show that you understand that dowtown is used by both residents and a growing student community. Make Cal Poly pay for a lot of incidental costs because they allow more and more students every year. Will downtown provide housing for increased Cal Poly growth? When I moved here 32 years ago - it was SLO growth. Now it's not. I don't understand the shortage of houses - it's Add mention of Cal Poly and what encourages the students to come downtown (besides bars). Give consideration to developing a frequent shuttle system to Cal Poly to reduce student driving trip, serve all the parking structures, and serve downtown residents traveling along the ever-longer north-south corridor of Monterey/Higuera/Marsh. Homeless Are there any new spaces that encourage the welcome of the homeless population either for safety and rehabilitiation purposes or to divert unwanted panhandlers from heavy traffic areas? Increase safety in the Creek walk, discourage transients. More access to the Creek: nice idea but really great for homeless street people to set up camps. Homeless are not the problem. They are moved on. Drunks - adults after concerts in the park - college students at Adding the small parks is great, I would like to see if somehow to do "Private Property" parks so as to keep the transients from camping out anad taking over as they do already, for example the Globe. I'm very concerned with the homeless population which is increasing and more hostile people. It's awful to step DTCP Workshop Feedback Boards 1-3 Page 3 Transcript from February 4, 2017 Public Workship ATTACHMENT 3 DR A F T Input on Boards 4-6: Concept Plan Illustrative, Development Types & Planning Sub Areas Urban Design LOVE the green parking lot tops - best views in the City! Will rooftops be private or public space? (Public preferred.) Please consider that roof gardens affect nearby residents. I like the rooftop parking structure idea to turn it into usable space (not parking) No to rooftop public spaces. No to more parking structures. Like the "cultural" density around the Mission. LOVE entrance to Downtown using the "ugly" train bridge and connecting that part of Monterey to Downtown. I like the proposed mural on the railroad bridge overpass Artwork and entrance on railroad bridge. What are the qualities that make SLO special? Change doesn't equal the end of the world. Please, all new concrete or asphalt to be permeable!!! Preserve downtown historic structures and limit "new" development to agree with this concept. Looks great - more ped plazas and community spaces and less automobile traffic. Observe historical, traditional style in accordance with their harmony of height and scope. Modern or mixed can be problematic. We need to maintain character. Make sure cafes and restaurants break up long blocks of other types of commercial structures. There are a lot of great ideas to move downtown towards more of an "urban" and center-of-the-city feel. Add "urban design" section and objectives, see my post-it note. Delineate the downtown core (historic district, at least) and show streetscapes in perspectives - not just vignettes. Add gateway signage locations and concepts. Would like water fountains/water bottle refill stations with public art incorporated Instead of building new plaza at Higuera and Nipomo, put it between Leitcher House and the Childrens Museum Enhancing SLO creek is a top priority More outside seating Height Increase height limit! Enforce limit heights - NO exceptions. A regulation is a regulation! 5 stories far too high no matter where it is. Limit height at 50 feet, no exceptions. No buildings higher than 3 stories. Density doesn't equal taller. Honor the existing height limits and conditions in current zoning ordinance for mixed use zoning developed in Density downtown is great - but not at the expense of views. Keep height at 50 feet to be historically Existing Plan says "2 and 3 stories" are appropriate - KEEP! Except for N. Downtown, there say "3 and 4 stories." Density > Units : Designed and priced for employees working downtown. Love the increase of medium and high density housing downtown. While honoring the concept of density, ensure appropriate distribution of open spaces, etc. Enforce height limits - no exceptions. There is not enough discussion as to the maximum height allowed. The new buildings should not go beyond 3 stories, and building should be between 1 and 3 stories to preserve the character of SLO. Five stories is way too tall! Lower heights to 50 feet which is more compatible with the historic sense of place in SLO. Use the Downtown Guidelines - larger building might be okay at fringes of lower Higuera Street. DTCP Workshop Feedback Boards 4-6 Page 1 Transcript from February 4, 2017 Public Workship ATTACHMENT 3 DR A F T Change zoning to protect two story maximum height. Height limit downtown at 50 feet. Building height is a concern - hard to imagine 5 story buildings. Ugh! More emphasis on rooftop uses as a way to "preserve" views, versus height restrictions. Restrict building height and stick to regulations! Keep views of greenspaces open. No 4 story buildings. 5 stories is too tall in the historic district. It says nothing how to manage height increases, it expands the 75' limit in the C-D zone to the general C-[] zone outside downtown. Continue current wording that 2-3 stories are appropriate in downtown, with some exceptions for 4 stories. Outside the C-D zone 3 and 4 stories (45-50') may No more than 4 stories. Taller buildings in central downtown 2 to 3 story buildings max for views, sun, and the wonderful feeling of being downtown. Limit heights at 5 feet No 5 story buildings No "landmark" buildings downtown No tall buildings over 4 storys 3 story height is enough for dense housing Keep mixed use areas with current zoning ordinance height limits and conditions Economic Development How do you say "No," re: how do you know when to stop corporate construction that sends its profits to HQ More community commercial, i.e. neighborhood bakery, meat market, wine shop. Study good commercial planning. It's a great idea to continue incorporating residential with commercial, etc. What about provisions - a grocery How can small residential-serving businesses be incentivized to serve downtown residents? If you want to encourage downtown residential without cars, need nearby practical stores and services. Need a grocery/convenience store. Consider "anchor store" concepts at Wells Fargo block and at "Bank of America" block. Parking Keep parking next to History Museum. Outlying parking structures will require people to walk - what about those with walking disabilities? Makes it more difficult for them! Keep surface parking lots! (Needed for disabled, young families with infants, and seniors.) I appreciated the idea about having parking structures be more accessible. Like the increase in parking which is needed Would like to see underground parking opportunities Construct new parking structures ASAP More surface parking lots for seniors, the disabled, and young families. Encourage more public parking garages More attention to parking and especially a transit center conveniently located. Circulation More east-west bike and ped only paths/roads. No car traffic on Marsh/Higuera. Transit center's site placed on west side of Santa Rosa I would take out the Broad Street signals, it ruined the neighborhood feel. Don't allow any more signals. DTCP Workshop Feedback Boards 4-6 Page 2 Transcript from February 4, 2017 Public Workship ATTACHMENT 3 DR A F T I am impressed with the level of detail put into circulation and zoning. I would seriously reconsider why Monterey Street should be reduced to vehicles. Really like the closure of Monterey from Santa Rosa to Nipomo through Mission Plaza as a giant pedestrian Move farmers market to the closed off Monterey between the Mission and Santa Rosa. Look at the European/Latin American approach of pedestrian only paseos with open air cafes/shops Love the walking trails Love enhancing/extending the creek path Love the pedestrian only corridor Really like the paseo on Monterey between Chorro and Santa Rosa. Consider adding more street lights or low bollard lighting on outer streets. Most residential-heavy streets are Stop using the word "paseos" - be a little more specific with some of these ideas. Put the creek walk away from downtown residents. Today speaker used the word "serene" about 7 times. NO this concept plan will not be serene if people can walk 24-7 behind our homes. Bike paths along creek. Widen the creek area. More consideration to lighting for bikes in residential areas. Close Monterey during daytime between Santa Rosa and Osos General Excellent job. The cultural and historical district are critical to a vibrant downtown. Ensure that rental/lease space with Palm/Nipomo parking structure enhance the cultural district with artists It is headed in a direction that I support. More ped and bike friendly. "STORY-POLE" any new development. Inexpensive and leads to transparency. Awesome, I love it! More mixed-use projects to enhance the night life of downtown. Glad to see more residential housing being added. Limit alcohol outlets - help control high crime rates. Overall the plan looks good. I was impressed by the plans, but main concern is re-evaluating and updating zoning regulations and adhere to height requirement and not call them guidelines. 5 story buildings are too high for our core including north Monterey. I am a resident that values the lovely views of hills and the historical buildings that reflect the It is reflective of my vision. Protect all larger trees. Make sure infrastructure improvements proceed [precede?] additional development. More affordable residential units (either rent or own). It's a "grand vision," but from my 8 years on the City Council, I believe it makes for potentially high expectations - too high - when compared to what can be achieved. In final draft, include engineering cost estimates for the most popular projects. Do an initial study on the EI's of this plan - that could enable reduced costs for MND/IS's (or EIR's) on the Close to perfect. Reflects well, expansion of different building uses. Definitely the right direction. The disconnect seems to be between planning and implementing. This is an encouraging vision. It doesn't go far enough getting cars out of downtown but it is a start. There are some great ideas that I am afraid are in danger of not being implemented because of a fear of It somewhat aligns. Stop being so afraid of the conservative town views and make real improvements (you know what's best). My vision leans more toward residents, current and future. I think you are catering to developers and tourists. Archer/Pacific area looks good. DTCP Workshop Feedback Boards 4-6 Page 3 Transcript from February 4, 2017 Public Workship ATTACHMENT 3 DR A F T I do believe that the plan represents what will serve future generations well with regard to housing, jobs, and I would mark potential public restroom locations. DTCP Workshop Feedback Boards 4-6 Page 4 Transcript from February 4, 2017 Public Workship ATTACHMENT 3 DR A F T Input on Board 7: Bicycle Improvements General Good. I appreciate it. As an outsider, the SLO cycling community was a huge draw to me. I would emphasize this area the most. I think those were definitely necessary. Right now there is not a safe way for bicycle riders to get around and that's not good. Perhaps combine two of the ideas. Great start, needs to go further. Promising, this is a a good vision. More, more, more. Excellent start. Need more bike improvements to meet the 20% mode share in the LUCE I like the proposed bike improvements. Great bicycle improvements Great to see bike barriers decreased between Higuera and Marsh 20% bicycle use is unrealistic - you're overestimating the population that bikes for reasons other than recreation Love the bike improvements proposed. I like the variety of bike travel options Place these improvements as a high priority Make sure bicyclists can move from one area to the next easily and safely On-Street & Off-Street Improvements Prefer safe cycle track loops. Railroad safety trail needs a bridge over Monterey Street. The Railroad Bike Trail Plan is broken due to U.P. A realistic route with minimal elevation change needs to be Railroad safety trail extension from Pepper to Amtrak Station needs bridge over Monterey Street. Need overcrossing over Highway 101 at Broad to connect Broad Street Boulevard. Add overpasses for bikes/peds Add a bike/ped bridge over 101 at Broad Overpass or bridge from North. Love the Pepper St. bridge Better approach on a bike on Chorro heading south to downtown - that is scary on a bike. I'm concerned that some of the bike focus streets don't take into account some of the elevation changes. Cyclists will generally take routes with the least elevation change. The Bob Jones bike trail is envisioned to start at the south end of this Concept Plan. It should not be located as shown in the Bob Jones trail concept plan, the Bike Plan, or in this plan because this is a freeway entrance/exit. I would move it slightly south on Higuera, provide a bike-specific intersection for bikes traveling north, and Bike lanes on all streets downtown, bike share (expand up Monterey and Santa Rosa to neighborhoods/Cal Poly), Make sure there is a cycle track to/from downtown and the RR safety trail. I would add a vertical street type that emphasizes priority on bicycle access for example along Pacific. Need a cross-town north-south path(s) for bikes. LOVE the protected paths Need East-West bike route to help commuters. More Class II and IV bike lanes Make sure to have dedicated bike lanes in and out of the core DTCP Workshop Feedback Board 7 Page 1 Transcript from February 4, 2017 Public Workship ATTACHMENT 3 DR A F T More shortcuts only accessible to bikes and pedestrians like in Europe Buffered lanes is a great idea Connect Cal Poly path to Mill Street by crossing railroad. More bike protected paths just outside of downtown California bike path to bridge over railroad behind CHP to Mill to downtown All good. Need to understand if bicycle track on Higuera is incompatible with Farmers Market (though moving I would like to see more cycle-tracks downtown. Higuera and Marsh are a good start, but Chorro or Morro Want road diets on Higuera and Marsh from Santa Rosa to US 101 with protected Class II bike lanes (Class 4) Extend cycle tracks south on S. Higuera to link with Bob Jones trail at Octagon Barn Higuera should have 2 lanes and a separated bike lane Keep one side of Monterey/Higuera/Marsh very designated "bike friendly" not full bike lanes. Improved bicycle connections, e.g. Monterey at Santa Rosa and Higuera. More buffered bike lanes. More Type 1 bike paths. More bike lanes. Bike lanes. Separate bike lanes where possible. Physical separation between bikes and cars. Physical separate barrier between bikes and cars where possible. Awesome! Great! Love it! As a cyclist, the more bike-friendly, the better! Protected bike lanes! Bike plans are great, but be mindful of curb parking needs for vehicles. Bike lanes on all streets downtown, bike share (expand up Monterey and Santa Rosa to neighborhoods/Cal Poly), Protected bike lanes. Lots more protected bike lanes. I would like a proposed buffered bike lane to go through the process of creating a multi-trans downtown area. Smaller bike pathways between buildings. Add parking separated cycle track with allowed pedestrian use - priority to cyclists. Too many streets dedicated to bikes. The additional bicycle streets mean nothing to me. I find them a nuisance. Bike Boulevards There needs to be a bike boulevard all the way through downtown. More east-west bike boulevards. Bike boulevard on Beach? Why not Nipomo? Nipomo is an obvious choice for bike boulevard or buffered bike lane - except width is too narrow? Beach Street bike boulevard should be moved to Nipomo. It has further destinations and connections on both Nobody uses Beach for bikes. Use Nipomo. It is flatter and has a destination. Bike boulevard on Poster 7 doesn't make sense between Monterey and Mill because of the elevation change. Poster 8 doesn't show bike boulevard the same as Poster 7. Chorro from Palm to Foothill and new bike boulevard (on Broad) needs additional safety measures. Poster 7: Morro should be bike only, but Monterey and Palm uphill (perhaps all green with sharrow). More bike boulevards Complete Broad Street bicyle boulevard with Highway 101 overcrossing. Broad St. bike boulevard is a great idea and so is closing Broad St. on/off ramps to 101 for facilitating this. Uncertain that Broad Street is the best bike boulevard? Bike boulevard on Nipomo instead of Beach because Nipomo goes through to Palm More bike boulevards leading from downtown Bike boulevard on Chorro to Foothill to Highland to Cal Poly DTCP Workshop Feedback Board 7 Page 2 Transcript from February 4, 2017 Public Workship ATTACHMENT 3 DR A F T Move bike boulevard from Beach to Nipomo - connect this from Peach down to Leff then to King, then to Move bike boulevard off of Beach and over to Nipomo. It will better complete the network and connect to Want to see bike boulevard continued across town Extend Morro bike boulevard to at least Monterey. Make Morro a bike boulevard without cars all the way thru downtown. Chorro as a bike boulevard to Foothill is a great idea. Safety Safe and convenient bike crossing of Highway 101 near Marsh Street to connect downtown and Laguna Lake/Madonna area. The Madonna bike path access is poorly designed and perilous. Protected bike path from downtown to outskirts that is safe for kids. Chorro Mont to Mill needs to be a cycle track/buffered bike lane to connect safely to other side of freeway. Regular bike lanes are not enough to ride with children. Johnson is a death trap for cyclists at Johnson and California up to Lizzie Street. Better lighting on Toro if it is a bike corridor (especially near Dallidet Adobe). Palm/Nipomo intersecton needs better bike improvements (unprotected left for bikes and cars). Bike safety needs to be considered on all East-West connector streets. Less car parking so there is more space Johnson Avenue needs safety improvements for cyclists in both directions. It's a crap shoot, especially at I agree that we need to separate bike lanes for safety. Design ALL streets to keep bicyclists safe from dooring by motorists opening doors without looking. There needs to be a safer way for cyclists to transition from the northbound bike lane on Johnson under the Keep cyclists separate from cars as much as possible Make sure students from Cal Poly can safely bike downtown Bike Parking and Related Infrastructure More bike corrals! Allow mid-block corrals. The bike corrals would probably be very helpful. Like the increase in bike parking More bike racks Add discussion of streets/sidewalk where racks are encouraged/discouraged (i.e. no corrals on major streets but encouraged on side streets, like in front of Linnea's on Garden Street). Lower fees to merchants who want bike corrals/extra racks near their businesses - encourage - don't discourage - Public bike repair stations Use bio-retention areas/trenches to separate vehicle traffic from bicycle traffic. Slows traffic and provides a safe and enjoyable bike ride downtown. Allows freedom for cyclists to go slow. Fewer parking spaces? Easier to approve parklets with bike parking and bike corral parking. Bicycle parking in central downtown is essential, but first bicyclists must be able to get there with ease. DTCP Workshop Feedback Board 7 Page 3 Transcript from February 4, 2017 Public Workship ATTACHMENT 3 DR A F T Input on Boards 8-9: Street Types, Streetscape Improvements, Green Infrastructure General Going in the right direction. More downtown shuttles for those who are not able to walk. Get rid of Bubblegum Alley, a lab of bacteria and a vulgar display, dishonoring the dignity of SLO. Overseas Restroom for the public. Would like to see small public restrooms Love more bathrooms More restrooms. Public restrooms. Where are you getting all this room to expand your vision? Need more public bathrooms. I feel sorry for Barnes & Noble - we use it for the bathroom. Sidewalks need to be wide. More lights. Tree lighting. More trees. More lights. More thoughtful use of street-facing windows and spaces. No mention of how overpowering the figs [trees?] are on some streets (Morro, Higuera, & Marsh). More benches. More options for public transit. Encourage foot and bike traffic downtown, take cars out of downtown. More trees. There need to be interactive elements to the streetscape. People will linger if the streets cause them to engage with the built environment and have chance interactions with one another. Less signage, more trees. Facing benches don't work-only used by homeless people in other cities Parks Will roof gardens on parking structures affect the Dana Street neighborhood in terms of noise? See if Nick Tompkins will sell the area on Monterey for a park near the new transit center. Using rooftops as public spaces/green space. Love the focus on rooftops- great views and underutilized currently Love the ideas of rooftop common areas-makes use of all space created and improves existing underutilized I like the idea of roof gardens and more pocket parks, but remember needs for neighborhood parks > downtown Rooftop gardens. Roof gardens sound wonderful! The more green spaces and pedestrian areas, the better. Like the idea of rooftop gardens and living walls. Perhaps add pocket parks, art, etc. to the northern end. Pocket parks, benches, restaurants, and cafes and other public outdoor spaces. I like the expansion of Mission Plaza to include the art & culture corridor. Enlarge Mission Plaza to incorporate art corridor. Need a new P&R element of the general plan. Connect paseos to each other. Obviously parks are a big asset. DTCP Workshop Feedback Boards 8-9 Page 1 Transcript from February 4, 2017 Public Workship ATTACHMENT 3 DR A F T Parklets, street trees and lights, sidewalk cafes. Add considerations for piazzas on private properties with easements for public space. Add more benches or parklets Like the emphasis on parklets Add parklets Great street furniture and gathering spaces More green space, benches, places to sit, sculptures, small gardens. I like the idea of parklets and public art, but it has to be good art! Nothing that looks hopelessly outdated in 10 No creekwalk through residential areas at Pismo St, Dana St, etc. Continue creekside pedestrian walkway - add to it. Safety Need special crossings at Chorro and Higuera - huge crossing use. Need outdoor lighting to include tree lighting. Atmospheric plus safety achieved. Mandatory conduits in all Nipomo/Pismo intersection is a 2-way stop. Very dangerous. Paint curbs red 20 feet from intersection to avoid Safety circles/crossings on Chorro & Higuera and Chorro & Marsh. Drivers can get confused on such streets where bikes have priority. A safe, convenient bike/ped crossing of Highway 101 at Marsh Street to connect Downtown and Laguna Lake/Madonna area. This connection should be a priority. Pedestrians I would add "moving sidewalks" like at airports with breaks every 1/2 block. Especially important for those of us with limited mobility. These could be covered/solar powered. Pedestrian/bike friendly is good. Love the street calming, dedicated bike lanes and bricked pedestrian plazas. Love scramble crossings! During certain times of day (8-9, 12-1, and 4-5) consider yes, "pedestrian scramble." Increase pedestrian over bicycle. More thought to pedestrian aspects. Emphasize pedestrian-friendly downtown. Walkability. Make the downtown more walkable. Wider sidewalks for pedestrian use. Where is location of pedestrian islands? More bike and pedestrian friendly streets and green street types. Like the diagonal ped crossing. Medians where possible to aid pedestrians, create character and beauty. Diagonal crosswalks for pedestrians, especially at Santa Rosa and Monterey. I like the paseos and focus on pedestrians. Benches, wayfinding at pedestrian scale. My personal preference was Street Type B. I think the incorporation of having pedestrians be prioritized is Pedestrian-only streets. More pedestrian-only areas. I like the pedestrian-oriented street types along Marsh and Higuera. I would change street types in the lower-central downtown to include paseos for people who live in residential areas so that it can increase access to downtown. I absolutely believe that pedestrians are priority to bikes!! Bicyclists are not spending $ in shops!! Yea pedestrian, not a big promoter of bikes. DTCP Workshop Feedback Boards 8-9 Page 2 Transcript from February 4, 2017 Public Workship ATTACHMENT 3 DR A F T Need a pedestrian section showing "zones" of space on sidewalks - need to say wider sidewalks are needed on Pedestrian only malls Wider sidewalks. Bulbouts for pedestrians at all intersections. Advanced stop bars at intersections before crosswalk markings Use moveable signs at crossings for CA law "Yield to Pedestrians" Make it more ped friendly - keep cars on the outside boundaries and in structures Like the emphasis on bigger sidewalks Love scramble intersections Stop signs at all pedestrian crosswalks Mid-block crosswalks aren't safe because vehicle traffic isn't forced to stop, do not feel as safe using them Widen sidewalks so people can walk side-by-side. Add 6 way pedestrians crossings (scrambles) on downtown Higuera More pedstrian pick up and drop off areas Love the idea of pedestrian scramble More pedestrian protected paths in downtown core Widen sidewalks Prefer paseo in core of downtown, then prefere type D, C, B, and lastly A More wide sidewalks Pedestrian only "streets" More pedestrian-only and bike-only ways. Parking Remove more downtown parking spaces. Build more parking structures on the corners of the city forcing more pedestrian foot traffic. Increase the cost of parking meters. For new concept to work - need free and frequent trolley shuttle through downtown core and parking Pay attention to Dana Street: (1) Parking District (2) Paint curbs red to allow residents access to driveways (3) Speed bumps or special signage "Not a thru street" and limited parking. Need adequate parking - if too different or expensive, people will avoid coming downtown. Too much emphasis on the elimination of curb parking. My experience tells me that curb parking is very valuable and valued especially by the businesses they benefit. More specific locations for parking structures. More parking garages. Support directing motorists to parking garages with drop-off spots for disabled, elderly, people with kids. More parking facilities (parking garages get vehicles off the streets) Raise metered parking fees on the streets Would like to see charging stations in garages for hybrids More parking districts for neighborhoods. Green Infrastructure Water collection systems for better water savings. Collect stormwater and rain water on rooftops and back courtyards. Love adding greenery to the sides of parking lots to "beautify." Urban tree canopy needs to be stronger represented in plan as current ficus are dying. Concerned about the contaminents of standing water in cisterns, but they could be used for the watering of LID/retention/drywell… Save that rain! DTCP Workshop Feedback Boards 8-9 Page 3 Transcript from February 4, 2017 Public Workship ATTACHMENT 3 DR A F T Make clear that numerous bioswale/storm retention opportunities exist part and parcel with improving bike and ped amenities (bioswales mentioned late in section, but make it more integrated in street types discussion). Bioretention is important. Green infrastructure that is also public art. Create more pervious pavement to avoid runoff in the downtown region and create bioretention as well so that there is less stormwater running into the creek. Add easily accessible green walls and green roofs in central downtown that create views from the street and also has views of the surrounding mountains in SLO. More green/natural streetscaping Streets Close Monterey Street between Santa Rosa and Chorro to automobile traffic (pedestrian use only like the Mission Plaza). Bollards on each end to allow early morning deliveries. Love slowing down the downtown making it more like Italian piazzas, also love mixed-use and high density Close Monterey Street between Mission Plaza and Morro. The idea of needing a car to get to downtown is problematic. Still a car culture. Love road diets on Higuera and Marsh. More Type C and D in central downtown (Marsh and Higuera), it'll pay dividends. Nipomo and Palm will be the new way to get around downtown if Broad is slow traffic only. Needs a better left Do not close off any more of Monterey. Widen sidewalks, divert parking. Close some streets. Could some of the streets be totally closed from traffic? Close some streets from traffic around Mission Plaza. I love the idea of moving more and more towards a multi-modal downtown focusing on biking and walking. Love the ideas for street types. Seems like a good mix - right now cars pretty much have sway everywhere, so it's awesome to see a plan that de- I like the concept in Fig 4.1 [?] but would have liked to see a discussion of two-way streets for Higuera and I wish there was a discussion of implications for through-traffic w reduced lanes on Higuera/Marsh. What impacts on the Pismo/Buchon concept? Has a circulation study been conducted? Perhaps a way for the sidewalks to not be so close to a one-way. Moving in the right direction, but still far to go. Why do cars need to be downtown? Plenty of MAJOR cities - with far fewer traffic than SLO - have boulevards that are pedestrian-use only. Let's divert cars away from downtown. Higuera, Monterey, or Marsh should be pedestrian/bike only. As soon as business booms other streets will want More ped and bike only streets. Looks good. Space for people rather than motor vehicles. More car-free designated routes from neighborhoods to downtown. OR at least more complete streets that Interactive sites and street/public seating… Realize this might not fit, but… Higuera from Pepper to Santa Rosa should be Type A, given the high density of mixed use on the map. Love them. Slight concern about programming along Monterey to activate it but that is achievable. I love the enhanced intersections, Street Types B and C. I would add more enhanced intersections to the core of downtown, specifically Chorro/Higuera and Need more midblock crosswalks More roundabouts Like the intersection hardscapes proposed More traffic circles Make Higuera and Marsh bike and pedestrian dominant DTCP Workshop Feedback Boards 8-9 Page 4 Transcript from February 4, 2017 Public Workship ATTACHMENT 3 DR A F T Use bollards so that special use vehicles can access the closed off area of Monterey I appreciate the more bike/ped centric areas/streets Provide out of travel lane parking for buses and delivery trucks Focus on street repairs Love making Monterey a low-car street 5 lanes on Higuera (2 for parking and 3 for driving) is too much for the core of downtown Want staff to condiser how plan will affect Nipomo as a "new" thoroughfare over Broad One way streets need road diets Reduce vehicle lanes from 3 to 2 lanes Reduce speed limit to 25 mph in all downtown Post 25 mph signs and road legends on pavement with 25 mph on street surfaces Better street surfaces on Monterey, Marsh, Palm, etc. Add 2" of rubberized asphalt concrete to streets Like the configuration of streets No cars on Marsh and Higuera - implement #4 opion to these streets as is being done to Monterey Stop signs/lights at every intersection on Higuera and Marsh Great configuration of street types. Reduce Higuera from 3 lanes of traffic and 2 lanes of parking Less cars and added landscaping No more roundabouts (e.g. Chorro St.) No roundabouts More small city buses with better routes throughout town Love the configuration of street types Take a harder look at Johnson, especially under the railroad underpass Fix the potholes Downtown needs to remain human-centric Good variety of streets Heirarchy of ped and bikes is well thought out I really like stree ttype B for downtown I really like street type D for key sections like Monterey to the Mission Less traffic Slower traffic More shortcuts only accessible to bikes and pedestrians like in Europe Add overpasses for bikes/peds Emphasize pedestrians and bicycles, if you must keep street type A, make it safer for ped and bikes with Seems aggressive with the street type D on upper Monterey, but worth considering. Type C streets gives the benefits of reducing carbon emissions and creating a greater sense of community. Slow traffic on Higuera and Marsh to make in more bike/ped friendly DTCP Workshop Feedback Boards 8-9 Page 5 Transcript from February 4, 2017 Public Workship ATTACHMENT 3 DR A F T Comments on Implementation Activity Height Keep view of peaks from Dowtown sidewalks by not going up over 3 stories and terracing levels. No more tall buildings blocking views! Housing not over 3 to 4 stories. Use the Zoning Regulations to take height down to 30 feet. Developers will push it up to 45 feet with new State Urban Design, Historic Buildings, and Public Art Establish a National Historic District for SLO Mission and eligible Downtown areas. Use Design Guidelines as rules that protect historic downtown, not developers. Install the Jeffrey Laudenslager (sp?) Sculpture at Marsh & Higuera to Portola (sp?) Fountain Save old buildings, re-open Foster's Freeze - a SLO CLASSIC! Save the Mid-Centure Art Center (SLOMA) building! Student opportunity for public art installations other than murals, e.g. sculptures… Preserve the character of downtown by not making everything so fancy… keep it FUNKY! Modern need not equal fancy! Utilize the rooftops! So much potential. Stop cutting the mature trees in SLO! Update all parking meters to be digital meters (credit card friendly). Circulation Implementation Action 42: These four forms of transport should be closer to equivalent. Move Transit Center to Madonna Plaza with express buses to downtown and Cal Poly. Homeless I would love to see a solution to homeless people. Most will NOT hang out at Prado, they all want to be downtown. It's a fast-growing population and some are hostile. I hate to see any more come here. Make a dowtown area for the growing population of homeless. Safety Concern about standing water and mosquito growth. Creek Protect the residents who already live on the Creek. Walkways should not look into homes. Homeless should be moved by police, save us from loud people and drunks at 2 a.m.! No creek walk through residential properties. Parking Implementation Action 47: Keep off Dana Street DTCP Workshop Feedback Implementation Comments Page 1 Transcript from February 4, 2017 Public Workship ATTACHMENT 3 DR A F T What Implementation Actions do you believe should be top priorities? ID Implementation Action by Category Place one sticker in the box next to your top 5 priority actions Land Use and Economic Development Zoning Regulations 1 Include relevant concepts from the Downtown Concept Plan as part of the update of the City Zoning Regulations, such as expanded commercial mixed use overlay zone.20 Housing 2 Work with partners on developing additional programs and incentives to aid in the provision of additional housing options downtown, as shown in the Concept Plan Illustrative.16 Government Offices 3 Investigate the feasibility of redeveloping the City-owned old library building and the surface parking lot behind City Hall to house additional city services within one campus and create a welcoming public space.2 4 Investigate the feasibility of developing a County office building with staff parking and commercial or public uses along the street front on County property on Monterey Street (Block 15).0 5 Investigate the feasibility of adding additional office 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.0 6 Investigate the feasibility of leasing unused City office space at a subsidized rate to qualifying nonprofit organizations.2 Economic Development 7 Work with partners on developing a program to retain, attract, and support smaller, independent, and culturally diverse businesses.24 8 Consider developing an economic analysis of downtown, looking at the preferred mix of land uses for long-term economic health.4 9 Investigate opportunities for implementing free WiFi in public areas downtown.3 Arts, Culture, and History Public Art 10 Incorporate public art with public realm improvements throughout downtown, beyond the locations identified in the Public Art Master Plan.9 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 artistic uses in this general area.11 12 Consider including additional and different ways to bring history alive in the Cultural District area, including interpretive information on the area’s natural resources, the Anza National Historic Trail, and El Camino Real historic bells.2 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 13 14 Work with the History Center and other community partners on developing a mobile history walking tour app for downtown.2 15 Consider investigating the feasibility of a West End Historic District, encompassing the area of Higuera and Marsh Streets southwest of the Downtown Historic District.6 Historic Facilities 16 Develop and implement a master plan for the public use of the Rosa Butron Adobe property.1 17 Develop and implement a restoration plan for the Murray Adobe in coordination with the Mission Plaza Master Plan.2 18 Work with the History Center on expansion plans to provide capacity for future needs.6 DTCP Workshop Feedback Implementation Activity Page 1 Transcript from February 4, 2017 Public Workship ATTACHMENT 3 DR A F T Recreation, Open Space, and Public Restrooms 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.7 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.0 21 Develop a feasibility analysis for the acquisition, design, and development of a pocket park and plaza between Monterey and Higuera Streets (Block 24).0 22 Develop a feasibility analysis for the acquisition, design, and development of a small pocket park on the corner of Toro and Marsh Streets.0 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.1 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).2 25 Work with private developers to implement a system of paseos as shown in the Concept Plan Illustrative.6 26 Update the Design Guidelines to ecourage the development of paseos that are interesting, safe, well connected, and interact with development as shown in the Concept Plan Illustrative.3 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.1 28 Develop and implement a master plan for the Ludwick Center to better meet the community’s needs for a full-service recreation center.4 San Luis Creek 29 Make improvements to the existing Creek Walk so it is a safe, inviting, and enjoyable experience for everyone.9 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.7 31 Develop and implement a master plan for San Luis Obispo Creek in the downtown area; potentially combine it with a Creek Walk master plan.7 Public Restrooms 32 Ensure the provision of public restrooms downtown, including new restrooms at Mission Plaza and Emerson Park.14 Public Safety 33 Coordinate with public safety so that streets and public spaces are designed to reduce crime through lighting, visibility, emergency access, and other public safety features.5 Mobility and Circulation Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements 34 Continue the installation of pedestrian level wayfinding signage to direct pedestrians and cyclists to the best routes and key locations downtown.1 35 Develop and implement a plan for a walking path around the Dallidet Adobe property to Toro Street.3 36 Consider inclusion of bicycle facility recommendations (as described in Chapter 4) into the Bicycle Transportation Plan after additional study.5 37 Work with interested partners on the feasibility of a bike share program.0 38 Develop a downtown pedestrian plan, or alternately, a bicycle and pedestrian plan for downtown to further study specific locations for improvements to enhance the pedestrian experience, using the Downtown Concept Plan as a guide.18 Transit and Multimodal Facilities 39 Work with community partners to develop a transit center downtown to meet the transit needs of downtown employees, residents, and visitors.6 40 Investigate the feasibility of providing free trolley service along Higuera and Marsh and between downtown parking garages throughout the year, in addition to existing Monterey Street service.4 DTCP Workshop Feedback Implementation Activity Page 2 Transcript from February 4, 2017 Public Workship ATTACHMENT 3 DR A F T 41 When updating the City's Capital Improvement Program, consider inclusion of multimodal street type improvements as described in Chapter 4. 12 42 Prioritize mobility improvements to be consistent with the General Plan’s priority mode ranking in downtown: 1. Pedestrians, 2. Bicycles, 3. Transit, 4. Vehicles.20 43 Consider redevelopment of Monterey Street between Chorro and Santa Rosa Streets to Street Type D (shared street), as shown in Figure 4.1.6 44 Consider redevelopment of the downtown streets shown as Street Types A, B, and C in Figure 4.1.4 45 Conduct a feasibility analysis to determine the optimal future design of the Marsh/Higuera intersection to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety and accessibility.5 46 When improvements are needed, consider a redesign of the Broad Street bridge (between Monterey and Higuera Streets) and a Creek Walk connection underneath.4 Parking Facilities (Motor vehicle, bicycle, structures) 47 Continue the installation of wayfinding signage to direct motorists to public parking and keep vehicles away from the downtown core.3 48 Design parking structures with secure bike parking, transit and trolley stops, pedestrian wayfinding signage, electric vehicle charging stations, and pedestrian crossings where feasible.2 49 Design parking structures to integrate public rooftop amenities such as outdoor viewing areas, public spaces, or appropriate community facilities where feasible.2 50 Design parking structures so that they are located behind commercial or office mixed use to the extent possible to keep the sidewalks pedestrian-scale and active.2 51 Develop or partner with private developers to build parking structures as conceptually located in the Downtown Concept Plan.5 52 Investigate implementing variable parking pricing during peak hours.0 53 Develop or expand in-lieu parking fee districts to accommodate future development patterns as illustrated in the Downtown Concept Plan.3 54 Conduct a parking demand study every five years to reevaluate demand for parking as technology, mobility needs, and demand evolve.2 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.7 Circulation 56 Work with the Downtown Association and business owners to designate mutually beneficial hours of regulation for delivery vehicles, to minimize traffic congestion.3 57 Evaluate and adjust traffic signalization at intersections as necessary to improve downtown circulation for safety and efficiency.1 Streetscape Green Infrastructure, Parklets, & Planters 58 Develop a program for designing and installing parklets downtown.14 59 Work with partners on exploring funding incentives for additional streetscape improvements, such as adopting a tree or a planter (similar to the memorial bench and rack with plaque program).0 60 Maintain a healthy downtown street tree canopy; evaluate and replace tree grates annually to ensure obstruction-free sidewalks as well as proper tree health and growth capacity.16 61 Include green infrastructure in public improvement projects whenever feasible.13 Farmer's Market 62 Coordinate with the Downtown Association on farmers market infrastructure needs before any major street redesign.2 63 Consider moving the farmers market to Monterey Street if it is improved as a Street Type D (shared street).1 Lighting & Street Furniture 64 Implement a lighting plan on downtown streetscapes, public spaces, and storefronts for enhanced safety and placemaking.7 DTCP Workshop Feedback Implementation Activity Page 3 Transcript from February 4, 2017 Public Workship ATTACHMENT 3 DR A F T 65 As Street Type improvements are made, update a plan for the design and installation of coordinated street furnishings (e.g., seating, lighting, bike parking) to create a clear sense of place for downtown, or by subdistrict.10 Maintenance 66 Develop an improved system for coordinating street and sidewalk cleaning that clearly defines the responsibility of the City and downtown merchants.4 DTCP Workshop Feedback Implementation Activity Page 4 Transcript from February 4, 2017 Public Workship ATTACHMENT 3 DR A F T WH A T I S T H E D O W N T O W N C O N C E P T P L A N ? IMAGINE DOWNTOWN SLO DR A F T D O W N T O W N C O N C E P T P L A N San Luis Obispo Creek S a n L u i s O b i s p o C r e e k Mill St Santa Rosa St Toro St Johnson Ave Palm St Pepper St Union Pacific Railroad Monterey St Higuera St Marsh St Pacific St Pismo St Johnson AveJohnson Ave Toro St Santa Rosa St O s o s S t M o r r o S t C h o r r o S t G a r d e n S t B r o a d S t N i p o m o S t Pa l m S t Mo n t e r e y S t B e a c h S t Hi g u e r a S t Da n a S t Ma r s h S t Pa c i f i c S t Pi s m o S t C a r m e l S t A r c h e r S t W a l k e r S t S . H i g u e r a S t Hig h S t B r o a d S t C h o r r o S t M o r r o S t O s o s S t HWY 1 I Æ Railroad District Do w n t o w n Di s t r i c t Mill Street District Ol d T o w n Di s t r i c t Ch i n a t o w n Di s t r i c t 02 0 0 4 0 0Feet Pl a n A r e a Ci t y o f S a n L u i s O b i s p o Do w n t o w n C o n c e p t P l a n LE G E N D 19 9 3 D o w n t o w n C o n c e p t P l a n B o u n d a r y 20 1 7 D o w n t o w n C o n c e p t P l a n B o u n d a r y Hi s t o r i c D i s t r i c t Sa n L u i s C r e e k So u r c e s : C i t y o f S a n L u i s O b i s p o G I S , 2 0 1 6 ; M i c h a e l B a k e r I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 2 0 1 7 Scale: 1" = 450' Ba c k g r o u n d In l a t e 1 9 9 0 , S a n L u i s O b i s p o C i t y C o u n c i l a u t h o r i z e d t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of a v i s i o n p l a n f o r t h e d o w n t o w n a n d a u t h o r i z e d t h e C i t y M a n a g e r t o es t a b l i s h a c o m m i t t e e o f c o m m u n i t y d e s i g n p r o f e s s i o n a l s w h o w o u l d b e wi l l i n g t o d o t h e w o r k o n a v o l u n t a r y b a s i s . C h u c k C r o t s e r , R o d n e y L e v i n , An d r e w M e r r i a m , P i e r r e R a d e m a k e r , a n d K e n n e t h S c h w a r t z v o l u n t e e r e d t o be t h e d e s i g n t e a m f o r t h e e f f o r t t o d e v e l o p t h e D o w n t o w n C o n c e p t P l a n . Th e C i t y C o u n c i l a d o p t e d t h e D o w n t o w n C o n c e p t P l a n b y r e s o l u t i o n o n Ma y 4 , 1 9 9 3 . I t h a s s e r v e d a s a v i s i o n f o r t h e d o w n t o w n e v e r s i n c e , a n d h a s be e n r e f e r r e d t o o v e r t h e y e a r s a s a g u i d i n g t o o l f o r d e v e l o p m e n t p r o j e c t s an d f o r a c q u i s i t i o n o f p u b l i c s p a c e s d o w n t o w n . Th e r e c e n t u p d a t e t o t h e G e n e r a l P l a n L a n d U s e E l e m e n t i n 2 0 1 4 i n c l u d e d an i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o b j e c t i v e t o u p d a t e b o t h t h e D o w n t o w n C o n c e p t P l a n an d t h e M i s s i o n P l a z a M a s t e r P l a n . A s p a r t o f t h e 2 0 1 5 – 2 0 1 7 F i n a n c i a l P l a n , th e C i t y C o u n c i l a l l o c a t e d f u n d i n g f o r b o t h e f f o r t s . Wh a t i s t h e D o w n t o w n C o n c e p t P l a n ? Th e D o w n t o w n C o n c e p t P l a n i n c l u d e s b o t h t h e il l u s t r a t i v e p h y s i c a l p l a n a n d a s u p p l e m e n t . T h e su p p l e m e n t p r o v i d e s t h e n a r r a t i v e o r s t o r y t o g u i d e a c h i e v e m e n t o f t h e i l l u s t r a t i v e p l a n . T o g e t h e r t h e y ar e t h e c o m m u n i t y ’ s l o n g - r a n g e v i s i o n f o r t h e d o w n t o w n , w h i c h w i l l g u i d e b o t h p u b l i c a n d p r i v a t e in v e s t m e n t t o w a r d r e a l i z a t i o n o f t h e v i s i o n . Ho w W i l l t h e P l a n B e U s e d ? Th e 1 9 9 3 D o w n t o w n C o n c e p t P l a n h a s s e r v e d a s a v i s i o n f o r t h e do w n t o w n f o r a l m o s t 2 5 y e a r s , a n d a l t h o u g h n o t a r e g u l a t o r y do c u m e n t , t h e p l a n h a s b e e n r e f e r r e d t o o v e r t h e y e a r s a s g u i d a n c e fo r d e v e l o p m e n t p r o j e c t s a n d f o r p u b l i c i m p r o v e m e n t s d o w n t o w n . Th e D o w n t o w n C o n c e p t P l a n w i l l c o n t i n u e t o s e r v e t h i s f u n c t i o n . ATTACHMENT 4 WH A T W E H E A R D IMAGINE DOWNTOWN SLO DR A F T D O W N T O W N C O N C E P T P L A N Pr o c e s s t o U p d a t e t h e P l a n Th e 2 0 1 7 D o w n t o w n C o n c e p t P l a n i s b e i n g u p d a t e d t h r o u g h a c o m m u n i t y b a s e d p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s g u i d e d b y s t a f f , co n s u l t a n t , a n d a b o a r d o f t e n v o l u n t e e r s k n o w n a s t h e Cr e a t i v e V i s i o n T e a m ( C V T ) . T h e C V T w a s a p p o i n t e d b y t h e C i t y Co u n c i l t o a d v i s e t h e C i t y i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e p l a n . T h e p r o c e s s o f f e r e d m u l t i p l e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r e n g a g e m e n t in c l u d i n g s t a k e h o l d e r f o c u s g r o u p s , o n l i n e e n g a g e m e n t , t h r e e p u b l i c w o r k s h o p s , a n d n e i g h b o r h o o d m e e t i n g s . St a k e h o l d e r F o c u s G r o u p s On J a n u a r y 1 9 a n d 2 0 , 2 0 1 6 t h e p r o j e c t t e a m c o n d u c t e d a s e r i e s o f r o u n d t a b l e d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h 4 8 d o w n t o w n st a k e h o l d e r s . S t a k e h o l d e r s r e p r e s e n t e d a b r o a d c r o s s - s e c t i o n o f i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s . T h e i s s u e s a n d c h a l l e n g e s m e n t i o n e d by s t a k e h o l d e r s w e r e w i d e - r a n g i n g a n d f e l l i n t o f o u r b r o a d c a t e g o r i e s i n c l u d i n g ; 1 . S o c i a l b e h a v i o r , s a f e t y , a n d ma i n t e n a n c e ; 2 . M o b i l i t y a n d p a r k i n g ; 3 . L a n d u s e s , t e n a n t m i x , a n d l a n d e c o n o m i c s ; 4 . U r b a n f o r m a n d i n t e n s i t y . Op e n C i t y H a l l Th e C i t y d e v e l o p e d a n o n l i n e s u r v e y t o h e l p i n f o r m t h e D o w n t o w n C o n c e p t P l a n a n d M i s s i o n P l a z a M a s t e r P l a n p r o j e c t s . It w a s p o s t e d o n O p e n C i t y H a l l , t h e C i t y ’ s o n l i n e e n g a g e m e n t t o o l , a n d 3 9 3 r e s p o n s e s w e r e r e c e i v e d . A c c o r d i n g t o P e a k De m o c r a c y , t h i s e q u a l s 1 9 . 7 h o u r s o f p u b l i c c o m m e n t . Wo r k s h o p # 1 Th e D o w n t o w n C o n c e p t P l a n a n d M i s s i o n P l a z a M a s t e r P l a n t e a m s c o l l a b o r a t e d t o h o l d I m a g i n e D o w n t o w n S L O i n Mi s s i o n P l a z a o n F e b r u a r y 2 0 , 2 0 1 6 . A p p r o x i m a t e l y 7 5 p e o p l e s i g n e d i n , b u t a n e s t i m a t e d 1 5 0 + p e o p l e a t t e n d e d . T h e ev e n t w a s o r g a n i z e d a s a n o p e n - a i r e v e n t w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n bo a r d s , i n t e r a c t i v e s t a t i o n s , S t r e e t P l a n o n l i n e e n g a g e m e n t to o l , c h i l d r e n ’ s a c t i v i t i e s a n d w a l k i n g t o u r s . Wo r k s h o p # 2 Th e t h i r d e n g a g e m e n t a c t i v i t y w a s t h e p u b l i c w o r k s h o p t h a t t o o k p l a c e a t t h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o C o u n t y L i b r a r y o n F e b r u a r y 27 , 2 0 1 6 a n d a t t r a c t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 1 0 p e o p l e . T h e w o r k s h o p i n c l u d e d a p r e s e n t a t i o n w i t h a v i s u a l p r e f e r e n c e s u r v e y , sm a l l g r o u p e x e r c i s e s , a n d s e l f - g u i d e d a c t i v i t i e s d e s i g n e d t o h e l p r e f i n e t h e i d e a s h e a r d a t t h e f i r s t w o r k s h o p . Ne i g h b o r h o o d M e e t i n g s In r e s p o n s e t o r e q u e s t s f r o m n e i g h b o r s s u r r o u n d i n g d o w n t o w n , a l m o s t 3 , 5 0 0 m e e t i n g i n v i t a t i o n p o s t c a r d s w e r e m a i l e d to e v e r y o n e l i v i n g i n a n d o w n i n g h o m e s i n t h e G e n e r a l P l a n Do w n t o w n P l a n n i n g A r e a . A p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 0 p e o p l e a t t e n d e d th e e v e n i n g m e e t i n g o n A p r i l 1 8 , 2 0 1 6 a n d 1 5 p e o p l e a t t e n d e d t h e l u n c h - t i m e m e e t i n g o n A p r i l 1 9 , 2 0 1 6 . N e i g h b o r s h a d an o p p o r t u n i t y t o d i s c u s s i s s u e s a n d i d e a s s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l e v a n t t o p e o p l e l i v i n g i n a n d n e a r d o w n t o w n . Ta k e a w a y s f r o m E n g a g e m e n t A c t i v i t i e s Fr o m t h e i n p u t g a t h e r e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e o u t r e a c h p r o c e s s t o d a t e , w e h a v e l e a r n e d t h a t t h e v a s t m a j o r i t y o f c o m m u n i t y me m b e r s w h o h a v e p a r t i c i p a t e d v a l u e t h e f o l l o w i n g t h i n g s a b o u t o u r d o w n t o w n : • T h e s m a l l t o w n f e e l a n d h i s t o r i c c h a r a c t e r • A c c e s s a n d v i e w s t o o p e n s p a c e • I t s w a l k a b l e s c a l e • V i b r a n c y a n d s e n s e o f c o m m u n i t y Co m m o n C o n c e r n s a n d A r e a s f o r I m p r o v e m e n t : Pa r t i c i p a n t s p r o v i d e d h u n d r e d s o f c o m m e n t s t h a t h e l p u s b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d c o n c e r n s a s w e l l a s o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r im p r o v e m e n t . S o m e c o m m e n t s w e r e e x p r e s s e d r a r e l y ; o t h e r i n p u t f e l l w i t h i n t h e f o l l o w i n g p r e v a i l i n g t h e m e s : Pu b l i c / o p e n s p a c e : Ac t i v a t e a v a r i e t y o f p u b l i c s p a c e s d o w n t o w n ; d e s i g n f o r p o s i t i v e s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , a c c e s s t o v i e w s , a n d c o n n e c t i o n s t o t h e n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t . Mo b i l i t y : Im p r o v e a c c e s s f o r p e d e s t r i a n s , b i c y c l i s t s , a n d t r a n s i t r i d e r s . E l e v a t e t h e s e m o d e s o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i n t h e d o w n t o w n , w h i l e p r o v i d i n g a d e q u a t e p a r k i n g i n g a r a g e s o n t h e p e r i m e t e r . Ar t , c u l t u r e , h i s t o r y , a n d d i v e r s i t y : E n h a n c e a r t s a n d c u l t u r a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s , p r e s e r v e d o w n t o w n ’ s h i s t o r i c c h a r m , a n d e n c o u r a g e a d i v e r s i t y o f l o c a l b u s i n e s s e s , u s e s , a n d a c t i v i t i e s . He i g h t a n d s c a l e : Av o i d a d o m i n e e r i n g b u i l t e n v i r o n m e n t t h a t b l o c k s v i e w s , i n t e r r u p t s t h e e x i s t i n g p e d e s t r i a n s c a l e , a n d o v e r w h e l m s t h e p u b l i c r e a l m . Pu b l i c s a f e t y a n d n u i s a n c e i s s u e s : Ad d r e s s v a g r a n c y , p a n h a n d l i n g , p u b l i c d r u n k e n n e s s , d i r t y s i d e w a l k s , a n d o t h e r n e g a t i v e a c t i v i t y i n t h e d o w n t o w n . PH A S E 1 Pr o j e c t I n i t i a t i o n De c e m b e r 2 0 1 5 - Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 6 PH A S E 2 Pu b l i c E n g a g e m e n t Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 6 - Ap r i l 2 0 1 6 PH A S E 3 Pl a n D e v e l o p m e n t Ma y 2 0 1 6 - Fe b r u a r y 2 0 1 7 PH A S E 4 Pl a n R e f i n e m e n t an d A d o p t i o n Ma r c h 2 0 1 7 - Ju n e 2 0 1 7 CV T Me e t i n g 1 CV T Me e t i n g 2 CV T Me e t i n g 3 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Me e t i n g s 1& 2 CV T Me e t i n g 4 CV T Me e t i n g 5 CV T Me e t i n g 6 CV T Me e t i n g 10 CV T Me e t i n g 11 CV T Me e t i n g 12 / ƞ ) + Pu b l i c Wo r k s h o p CV T Me e t i n g 9 Pu b l i c H e a r i n g s Ci t y C o u n c i l Ad o p t i o n CV T Me e t i n g 7 On l i n e En g a g e m e n t On l i n e En g a g e m e n t St a k e h o l d e r Me e t i n g s Pu b l i c Wo r k s h o p 3 / ƞ ) + Pu b l i c Wo r k s h o p Pu b l i c Wo r k s h o p s 1 & 2 CV T Me e t i n g 8 CC a n d P C St u d y Se s s i o n ATTACHMENT 4 Pl a n n i n g P r i n c i p l e s a n d G o a l s W H A T W E E N V I S I O N IMAGINE DOWNTOWN SLO DR A F T D O W N T O W N C O N C E P T P L A N As t h e h e a r t o f o u r c o m m u n i t y , d o w n t o w n S a n L u i s O b i s p o w i l l s e r v e a s t h e c e n t e r f o r ar t s , c u l t u r e , s h o p p i n g , e n t e r t a i n m e n t , a n d g o v e r n m e n t . A w e l l - b a l a n c e d m i x o f u s e s ma k e s t h e d o w n t o w n e c o n o m i c a l l y , c u l t u r a l l y , a n d s o c i a l l y v i b r a n t , a n d i t s a u t h e n t i c i t y cr e a t e s a w e l c o m i n g , l i v a b l e a t m o s p h e r e . I t i s o u r u r b a n n e i g h b o r h o o d . Vi s i o n S t a t e m e n t 1 S t r o n g I d e n t i t y : Pr e s e r v e a n d e n h a n c e t h e d o w n t o w n ’ s d i s t i n c t s e n s e o f p l a c e a n d m e m o r a b l e c h a r a c t e r . 1 . 1 P r e s e r v e a n d a u g m e n t t h e v i s u a l m i x t u r e , d i v e r s i t y , a n d i n t e r e s t o f t h e d o w n t o w n w h i l e r e t a i n i n g i t s t r a d i t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r . 1 . 2 F o s t e r a n e c o n o m i c a l l y a n d c u l t u r a l l y d i v e r s e d o w n t o w n e n v i r o n m e n t b y e n c o u r a g i n g a w i d e v a r i e t y o f h o u s i n g , c o m m e r c i a l , w o r k p l a c e , a n d c u l t u r a l e x p e r i e n c e s . 1 . 3 E n c o u r a g e t h e u s e o f s u s t a i n a b l e m a t e r i a l s , g r e e n i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , a n d r e n e w a b l e e n e r g y r e s o u r c e s i n d o w n t o w n d e v e l o p m e n t . 1. 4 P r o v i d e h a r m o n i o u s t r a n s i t i o n s b e t w e e n c o r e a r e a f u n c t i o n s a n d s u r r o u n d i n g n e i g h b o r h o o d s . 1. 5 F o c u s a t t e n t i o n o n t h e d o w n t o w n ’ s g a t e w a y s t h r o u g h l a n d m a r k b u i l d i n g s , p u b l i c a r t , a n d p u b l i c s p a c e s t h a t a n n o u n c e y o u r a r r i v a l i n t h e d o w n t o w n . 2 P l e n t i f u l a n d S a f e P u b l i c S p a c e s : Pr o v i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r p o s i t i v e s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , q u i e t m o m e n t s , a n d ac c e s s t o t h e n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t , w h e r e e v e r y o n e f e e l s s a f e a n d w e l c o m e . 2 . 1 T r e a t s i d e w a l k s a n d p a s e o s a s w i d e a n d i n v i t i n g u r b a n i z e d p a r k s w i t h s t r e e t t r e e s , a m p l e s e a t i n g , b i k e p a r k i n g , l i g h t i n g , p u b l i c a r t , a n d o t h e r s t r e e t f u r n i t u r e . 2 . 2 E n c o u r a g e m i d - b l o c k p a s e o s t h a t e n a b l e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r i m p r o v e d p e d e s t r i a n a c c e s s , s h o p p i n g , o u t d o o r d i n i n g , a n d i n f o r m a l g a t h e r i n g p l a c e s , b u t n o t a t t h e e x p e n s e o f a v i b r a n t s t r e e t f r o n t . 2 . 3 P r o v i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r a v a r i e t y o f n e w p u b l i c s p a c e s a n d r e c r e a t i o n d o w n t o w n , i n c l u d i n g p o c k e t p a r k s , p l a z a s , w i d e s i d e w a l k s w i t h s e a t i n g , a n e x p a n d e d C r e e k W a l k , p a r k l e t s , a n d c r e a t i v e r o o f t o p p u b l i c s p a c e s . 3 V a r i e t y i n F o r m a n d F u n c t i o n : En c o u r a g e a v a r i e t y o f c o m p a t i b l e u s e s , a c t i v i t i e s , a n d h o u s i n g t y p e s f o r a n i n c l u s i v e an d v i t a l d o w n t o w n . 3 . 1 P r o v i d e a p h y s i c a l f r a m e w o r k t h a t r e t a i n s a n d s t r e n g t h e n s t h e e c o n o m i c h e a l t h a n d v i t a l i t y o f t h e d o w n t o w n . 3 . 2 E n c o u r a g e m i x e d - u s e d e v e l o p m e n t t h r o u g h o u t t h e d o w n t o w n , a s s h o w n i n t h e i l l u s t r a t i v e p l a n . 3 . 3 C r e a t e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r s m a l l e r , i n d e p e n d e n t b u s i n e s s e s d o w n t o w n . 3. 4 E n s u r e t h e d o w n t o w n f u n c t i o n s b o t h a s a c o m m e r c i a l d i s t r i c t a n d a r e s i d e n t i a l n e i g h b o r h o o d , w i t h a v a r i e t y o f h o u s i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s . 3 . 5 E n c o u r a g e t h e C i t y a n d C o u n t y t o m e e t t h e i r f u t u r e o f f i c e n e e d s i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f t h e i r e x i s t i n g g o v e r n m e n t c e n t e r s . 3. 6 P r o v i d e n e w i n - l i e u f e e p a r k i n g d i s t r i c t s o v e r t i m e t o a c c o m m o d a t e t h e n e e d s o f f u t u r e m i x e d - u s e d e v e l o p m e n t , r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t t h e d e m a n d f o r p a r k i n g t o d a y w i l l n o t n e c e s s a r i l y b e t h e s a m e i n t h e n e x t 2 5 y e a r s . 3 . 7 R e d u c e a u t o t r a v e l b y p r o v i d i n g s e r v i c e s , j o b s , a n d h o u s i n g i n p r o x i m i t y t o e a c h o t h e r . 4 E n h a n c e d M o b i l i t y : En h a n c e t h e d o w n t o w n ’ s w a l k a b i l i t y , m a k i n g i t e a s i e r t o g e t t o a n d t r a v e l t h r o u g h o u t fo r p e d e s t r i a n s , b i c y c l i s t s , a n d t r a n s i t r i d e r s . 4 . 1 D e s i g n d o w n t o w n s t r e e t s f o r p e d e s t r i a n s f i r s t , f o l l o w e d b y c y c l i s t s ; e n c o u r a g e w a l k i n g a n d b i c y c l i n g b y m a k i n g t h e d o w n t o w n s a f e a n d w e l c o m i n g . 4 . 2 I m p r o v e d o w n t o w n ’ s c i r c u l a t i o n b y e m p h a s i z i n g a l t e r n a t i v e r o u t e s f o r t h r o u g h a u t o m o b i l e t r a f f i c t h a t d o n o t p a s s t h r o u g h t h e c o r e a r e a . 4. 3 P r o v i d e a m p l e w a y f i n d i n g t o d i r e c t d r i v e r s t o p a r k i n g s t r u c t u r e s s o t h e y d o n o t n e e d t o d r i v e t h r o u g h t h e d o w n t o w n c o r e t o a c c e s s t h e m . 4. 4 P r o v i d e s a f e b i c y c l e i n f r a s t r u c t u r e t h a t c o n n e c t s t o n e i g h b o r h o o d s t o e n c o u r a g e p e o p l e t o r i d e b i c y c l e s t o a n d f r o m d o w n t o w n r a t h e r t h a n d r i v e . 4. 5 C o l l a b o r a t e o n a n e w t r a n s i t c e n t e r t o m e e t t h e n e e d s o f d o w n t o w n e m p l o y e e s , r e s i d e n t s , a n d v i s i t o r s . 5 U n i v e r s a l A c c e s s i b i l i t y : Pr o m o t e a d o w n t o w n t h a t i s s a f e , i n c l u s i v e , a n d e a s y t o n a v i g a t e f o r t h o s e u s i n g al l m o d e s o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . 5. 1 L o c a t e p a r k i n g s t r u c t u r e s a t s t r a t e g i c p o i n t s o n t h e p e r i p h e r y o f d o w n t o w n t h a t a r e w i t h i n e a s y w a l k i n g d i s t a n c e o f m a j o r a c t i v i t y a r e a s . 5. 2 P r o v i d e a m p l e p e d e s t r i a n w a y f i n d i n g t h r o u g h o u t t h e d o w n t o w n . 5. 3 E n s u r e t h a t s i d e w a l k s , c r o s s w a l k s , a n d p u b l i c i m p r o v e m e n t s a r e u n i v e r s a l l y a c c e s s i b l e a n d e a s y t o n a v i g a t e . 5. 4 D e s i g n s t r e e t i m p r o v e m e n t s w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e l i g h t i n g , v i s i b i l i t y , a n d o t h e r p u b l i c s a f e t y f e a t u r e s t o h e l p r e d u c e t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r c r i m e . 5. 5 D e s i g n s t r e e t i m p r o v e m e n t s w i t h a d e q u a t e s h o r t - t e r m l o a d i n g z o n e s f o r c o m m e r c i a l a n d p e r s o n a l v e h i c l e s ( r i d e s h a r i n g ) a s w e l l a s d i s a b l e d p e r s o n p a r k i n g . 6 A r t , C u l t u r e , a n d H i s t o r y : En c o u r a g e a r t i s t i c a n d c u l t u r a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s a n d c e l e b r a t e t h e d o w n t o w n ’ s un i q u e h i s t o r y . 6. 1 E n c o u r a g e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n a n d a d a p t i v e r e u s e o f t h e d o w n t o w n ’ s h i s t o r i c s t r u c t u r e s . 6. 2 P r e s e r v e h i s t o r i c r e s i d e n t i a l n e i g h b o r h o o d s o n t h e p e r i p h e r y o f t h e d o w n t o w n . 6. 3 E x p a n d c u l t u r a l , h i s t o r i c a l , a n d a r t i s t i c o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n t h e d o w n t o w n , i n c l u d i n g e n h a n c i n g t h e d o w n t o w n C u l t u r a l D i s t r i c t . 7 I n n o v a t i v e a n d H u m a n S c a l e : Em b r a c e o r i g i n a l a n d c o m p a t i b l e d e s i g n t h a t s u p p o r t s c o n n e c t i o n s t o t h e s u r r o u n d i n g b u i l t en v i r o n m e n t , p u b l i c r e a l m , a n d h i l l s i d e v i e w s . 7. 1 R e d u c e o r r e d e v e l o p s u r f a c e p a r k i n g l o t s w i t h t w o - s t o r y m i n i m u m d e v e l o p m e n t o r c o n v e r t t o p u b l i c o p e n s p a c e w h e r e a p p r o p r i a t e . 7. 2 S u p p o r t c o m p a t i b l e b u i l d i n g h e i g h t s o f t w o t o f i v e s t o r i e s i n t h e d o w n t o w n . E n c o u r a g e r e s i d e n t i a l u s e s a b o v e t h e g r o u n d f l o o r . 7. 3 T a r g e t h e i g h t c a r e f u l l y a n d i n l i m i t e d a r e a s ; c o n s i d e r l o c a t i n g t a l l e r b u i l d i n g s t o w a r d t h e c e n t e r o f b l o c k s , i n p o c k e t s , a n d i n l o w a r e a s t o l e s s e n i m p a c t s o n v i e w s . 7. 4 E n c o u r a g e h i g h e r - d e n s i t y p r o j e c t s a n d s m a l l e r d w e l l i n g u n i t s f o r a v i b r a n t r e s i d e n t i a l m i x i n t h e d o w n t o w n . 8 E c o l o g i c a l C o n n e c t i o n s : Pr o t e c t , e n h a n c e , a n d r e v e a l t h e n a t u r a l a r e a s a n d ec o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n s t h a t a r e a n i n t e g r a l c o m p o n e n t o f th e d o w n t o w n a r e a . 8. 1 P r e s e r v e a c c e s s t o o p e n s p a c e a n d v i e w s o f h i l l s i d e s f r o m p u b l i c a r e a s d o w n t o w n . 8. 2 E n h a n c e S a n L u i s O b i s p o C r e e k a s a v i s u a l , r e c r e a t i o n a l , e d u c a t i o n a l , a n d b i o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e f o r p u b l i c e n j o y m e n t a n d w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t . 8. 3 D e s i g n s t r e e t s c a p e a n d p u b l i c r e a l m i m p r o v e m e n t s w i t h g r e e n i n f r a s t r u c t u r e c o m p o n e n t s . Ba s e d o n p u b l i c i n p u t , p r e v i o u s p l a n n i n g e f f o r t s , t h e v a l u e s t h a t r e m a i n r e l e v a n t f r o m t h e 1 9 9 3 P l a n , a n d t h e ov e r a l l v i s i o n , t h e C V T d e v e l o p e d e i g h t P r o j e c t P l a n n i n g P r i n c i p l e s t o g u i d e t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e D o w n t o w n Co n c e p t P l a n . Fo l l o w i n g e a c h P l a n n i n g P r i n c i p l e a r e c o r o l l a r y G o a l s t h a t g u i d e t h e v i s i o n o f o u r f u t u r e d o w n t o w n a s e m b o d i e d i n th e I l l u s t r a t i v e P l a n . ATTACHMENT 4 DO W N T O W N C O N C E P T P L A N I L L U S T R A T I V E IMAGINE DOWNTOWN SLO DR A F T D O W N T O W N C O N C E P T P L A N N DA N A PA L M MI L L MO N T E R E Y HI G U E R A MA R S H PA C I F I C PI S M O MI S S I O N P L A Z A MA S T E R P L A N H I G U E R A PA L M MO N T E R E Y HI G U E R A MA R S H PA C I F I C PI S M O W A L K E R A R C H E R C A R M E L B E A C H N I P O M O N I P O M O B R O A D B R O A D G A R D E N C H O R R O C H O R R O M O R R O M O R R O O S O S O S O S S A N T A R O S A S A N T A R O S A TORO JOHNSON AVEJOHNSON AVE PEPPER TORO DR A F T J A N U A R Y 1 9 , 2 0 1 7 1 9 10 19 18 2 11 3 12 20 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 4 13 21 33 46 59 5 14 22 34 47 60 6 15 23 35 48716243649817253750 61 BL O C K N U M B E R S Se e b l o c k d e s c r i p t i o n s i n p l a n s u p p l e m e n t 27 CO M M E R C I A L M I X E D U S E St r e e t - f r o n t c o m m e r c i a l u s e s w i t h u p p e r l e v e l r e s i d e n t i a l a n d / o r o f f i c e u s e s OF F I C E M I X E D U S E Of f i c e u s e s w i t h c o m p a t i b l e r e s i d e n t i a l a n d / o r c o m m e r c i a l u s e s RE S I D E N T I A L Wi d e v a r i e t y o f m e d i u m d e n s i t y a n d h i g h d e n s i t y h o u s i n g HO S P I T A L I T Y Ho t e l s a n d c o n f e r e n c e f a c i l i t i e s CO M M U N I T Y S E R V I N G Go v e r n m e n t f a c i l i t i e s , m u s e u m s , c h u r c h e s , a n d s c h o o l s PA R K I N G Ab o v e o r b e l o w g r o u n d p a r k i n g t h a t m a y i n c l u d e r o o f t o p p u b l i c s p a c e s PA R K S Ma y i n c l u d e p u b l i c l y a c c e s s i b l e h i s t o r i c s i t e s , g a r d e n s a n d w a l k w a y s PL A Z A , P A S E O S , A N D S H A R E D S T R E E T S Pa s e o s m a y i n c l u d e p u b l i c l y a c c e s s i b l e p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y ATTACHMENT 4 DE V E L O P M E N T T Y P E S B Y L A N D U S E IMAGINE DOWNTOWN SLO DR A F T D O W N T O W N C O N C E P T P L A N N DA N A PA L M MI L L MO N T E R E Y HI G U E R A MA R S H PA C I F I C PI S M O MIS S I O N P L A Z A MA S T E R P L A N H I G U E R A PA L M MO N T E R E Y HI G U E R A MA R S H PA C I F I C PI S M O W A L K E R A R C H E R C A R M E L B E A C H N I P O M O N I P O M O B R O A D B R O A D G A R D E N C H O R R O C H O R R O M O R R O M O R R O O S O S O S O S S A N T A R O S A S A N T A R O S A T O R O J O H N S O N A V E J O H N S O N A V E P E P P E R T O R O DR A F T J A N U A R Y 1 9 , 2 0 1 7 N DA N A PA L M MI L L MO N T E R E Y HI G U E R A MA R S H PA C I F I C PI S M O MIS S I O N P L A Z A MA S T E R P L A N H I G U E R A PA L M MO N T E R E Y HI G U E R A MA R S H PA C I F I C PI S M O W A L K E R A R C H E R C A R M E L B E A C H N I P O M O N I P O M O B R O A D B R O A D G A R D E N C H O R R O C H O R R O M O R R O M O R R O O S O S O S O S S A N T A R O S A S A N T A R O S A T O R O J O H N S O N A V E J O H N S O N A V E P E P P E R T O R O DR A F T J A N U A R Y 1 9 , 2 0 1 7 N DA N A PALMMILL MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMOMISSION PLAZA MASTER PLAN H I G U E R A PALM MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMO W A L K E R A R C H E R C A R M E L B E A C H NIPOMO NIPOMOBROAD BROAD GARDENCHORRO CHORROMORRO MORROOSOS OSOSSANTA ROSA SANTA ROSATORO JOHNSON AVEJOHNSON AVE PEPPER TORO DRAFT JANUARY 19, 2017 Re s i d e n t i a l N DA N A PA L M MI L L MO N T E R E Y HI G U E R A MA R S H PA C I F I C PI S M O MIS S I O N P L A Z A MA S T E R P L A N H I G U E R A PA L M MO N T E R E Y HI G U E R A MA R S H PA C I F I C PI S M O W A L K E R A R C H E R C A R M E L B E A C H N I P O M O N I P O M O B R O A D B R O A D G A R D E N C H O R R O C H O R R O M O R R O M O R R O O S O S O S O S S A N T A R O S A S A N T A R O S A T O R O J O H N S O N A V E J O H N S O N A V E P E P P E R T O R O DR A F T J A N U A R Y 1 9 , 2 0 1 7 Co m m e r c i a l M i x e d U s e Pa r k i n g S t r u c t u r e s N DA N A PALMMILL MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMOMISSION PLAZA MASTER PLAN H I G U E R A PALM MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMO W A L K E R A R C H E R C A R M E L B E A C H NIPOMO NIPOMOBROAD BROAD GARDENCHORRO CHORROMORRO MORROOSOS OSOSSANTA ROSA SANTA ROSATORO JOHNSON AVEJOHNSON AVE PEPPER TORO DRAFT JANUARY 19, 2017 Ho s p i t a l i t y / C o m m u n i t y S e r v i n g Pa r k s / P l a z a s / P a s e o s N DA N A PA L M MI L L MO N T E R E Y HI G U E R A MA R S H PA C I F I C PI S M O MIS S I O N P L A Z A MA S T E R P L A N H I G U E R A PA L M MO N T E R E Y HI G U E R A MA R S H PA C I F I C PI S M O W A L K E R A R C H E R C A R M E L B E A C H N I P O M O N I P O M O B R O A D B R O A D G A R D E N C H O R R O C H O R R O M O R R O M O R R O O S O S O S O S S A N T A R O S A S A N T A R O S A T O R O J O H N S O N A V E J O H N S O N A V E P E P P E R T O R O DR A F T J A N U A R Y 1 9 , 2 0 1 7 Of f i c e M i x e d U s e CO M M E R C I A L M I X E D U S E - S t r e e t - f r o n t c o m m e r c i a l u s e s w i t h u p p e r l e v e l r e s i d e n t i a l a n d / o r o f f i c e u s e s RE S I D E N T I A L - W i d e v a r i e t y o f m e d i u m d e n s i t y a n d h i g h d e n s i t y h o u s i n g OF F I C E M I X E D U S E - O f f i c e u s e s w i t h c o m p a t i b l e r e s i d e n t i a l a n d / o r c o m m e r c i a l u s e s PA R K I N G - A b o v e o r b e l o w g r o u n d p a r k i n g t h a t m a y i n c l u d e r o o f t o p p u b l i c s p a c e s CO M M U N I T Y S E R V I N G - G o v e r n m e n t f a c i l i t i e s , m u s e u m s , c h u r c h e s , a n d s c h o o l s PL A Z A A N D P A S E O S - P r i m a r i l y h a r d - s u r f a c e ; p u b l i c l y a c c e s s i b l e b u t m a y b e p r i v a t e l y o w n e d HOSPITALITY - Hotels and conference facilities PA R K S - M a y i n c l u d e p u b l i c l y a c c e s s i b l e h i s t o r i c s i t e s , g a r d e n s a n d w a l k w a y s ATTACHMENT 4 PL A N N I N G S U B - A R E A S IMAGINE DOWNTOWN SLO DR A F T D O W N T O W N C O N C E P T P L A N DA N A PA L M MILL MO N T E R E Y HI G U E R A MA R S H PA C I F I C PI S M O MIS S I O N P L A Z A MA S T E R P L A N H I G U E R A PALM MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMO W A L K E R A R C H E R C A R M E L B E A C H N I P O M O N I P O M O B R O A D B R O A D G A R D E N C H O R R O C H O R R O MORRO MORROOSOS OSOSSANTA ROSA SANTA ROSATORO JOHNSON AVEJOHNSON AVE PEPPER TORO 1 9 10 19 18 2 11 3 12 20 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 4 13 21 33 46 59514223447 60615233548716243649817253750 61 BL O C K N U M B E R S Se e b l o c k d e s c r i p t i o n s i n p l a n s u p p l e m e n t 27 CO M M E R C I A L M I X E D U S E Str e e t - f r o n t c o m m e r c i a l u s e s w i t h u p p e r l e v e l r e s i d e n t i a l a n d / o r o f f i c e u s e s OF F I C E M I X E D U S E Of f i c e u s e s w i t h c o m p a t i b l e r e s i d e n t i a l a n d / o r c o m m e r c i a l u s e s RE S I D E N T I A L Wid e v a r i e t y o f m e d i u m d e n s i t y a n d h i g h d e n s i t y h o u s i n g HO S P I T A L I T Y Ho t e l s a n d c o n f e r e n c e f a c i l i t i e s CO M M U N I T Y S E R V I N G Go v e r n m e n t f a c i l i t i e s , m u s e u m s , c h u r c h e s , a n d s c h o o l s PA R K I N G Ab o v e o r b e l o w g r o u n d p a r k i n g t h a t m a y i n c l u d e r o o f t o p p u b l i c s p a c e s PA R K S Ma y i n c l u d e p u b l i c l y a c c e s s i b l e h i s t o r i c s i t e s , g a r d e n s a n d w a l k w a y s PL A Z A A N D P A S E O S Pr i m a r y h a r d - s u r f a c e ; p u b l i c l y a c c e s s i b l e b u t m a y b e p r i v a t e l y o w n e d Ce n t r a l D o w n t o w n So u t h D o w n t o w n No r t h D o w n t o w n So u t h D o w n t o w n North Downtown Pa r k s , P l a z a s , P a s e o s • N e w p a r k a t t h e c o r n e r o f M o n t e r e y a n d B r o a d S t r e e t s , c e l e b r a t e s l o c a l h i s t o r y a n d c o n n e c t s t o t h e C r e e k W a l k a n d M i s s i o n P l a z a ( B l o c k 1 9 ) • N e w p l a z a o n t h e c o r n e r o f H i g u e r a a n d N i p o m o S t r e e t s p r o v i d e s c a s u a l s e a t i n g , g a t h e r i n g , a n d p l a y i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s ( B l o c k 1 9 ) • E x p a n d e d C h e n g P a r k ( B l o c k 4 7 ) • N e w d i a g o n a l p a s e o , s u r r o u n d e d b y c o m m e r c i a l m i x e d u s e a n d a n e w p a r k i n g s t r u c t u r e , e n v i s i o n e d w i t h o u t d o o r d i n i n g , e v e n t , a n d p u b l i c a r t ( B l o c k 4 2 ) Ne w D e v e l o p m e n t • E x p a n d e d C i t y H a l l a n d C o u n t y C o u r t h o u s e c o m p l e x e s ( B l o c k 4 a n d 1 4 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) • N e w h o u s i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s o n t h e e d g e o f c e n t r a l d o w n t o w n ( B l o c k s 2 , 3 , a n d 4 ) • C o m m e r c i a l m i x e d u s e w i t h u p p e r - l e v e l o f f i c e s a n d h o u s i n g w i t h p a s e o c o n n e c t i o n s t h r o u g h t h e i n t e r i o r ( B l o c k 3 3 ) Pa r k i n g • N e w p a r k i n g s t r u c t u r e a t P a l m a n d N i p o m o S t r e e t s i n t h e C u l t u r a l D i s t r i c t ( B l o c k 1 0 ) , w i t h i n w a l k a b l e d i s t a n c e o f t h e S L O L i t t l e T h e a t e r , C h i l d r e n ’ s M u s e u m , e x p a n d e d H i s t o r y C e n t e r , M u s e u m o f A r t , M i s s i o n S a n L u i s O b i s p o d e T o l o s a , a n d M i s s i o n P l a z a i n a s h o r t t w o - b l o c k s t r e t c h . Ne w D e v e l o p m e n t • N e w C o u n t y o f f i c e b u i l d i n g ( B l o c k 1 5 ) • N e w T r a n s i t C e n t e r ( B l o c k 2 3 ) • L u d w i c k C e n t e r i m p r o v e d a s a f u l l - s i z e d c o m m u n i t y r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r w i t h u n d e r g r o u n d p a r k i n g ( B l o c k 6 ) • D e n s i t y a n d i n t e n s i t y f o c u s e d p r i m a r i l y a l o n g M o n t e r e y S t r e e t • D e v e l o p m e n t o n M a r s h a n d H i g u e r a S t r e e t s n e a r S a n t a R o s a S t r e e t , l e s s e n s a s i t a p p r o a c h e s P e p p e r S t r e e t Ga t e w a y I m p r o v e m e n t s • M o n t e r e y S t r e e t r a i l r o a d b r i d g e w i t h p u b l i c a r t a s d o w n t o w n g a t e w a y • S a n t a R o s a S t r e e t n a r r o w s a t M i l l S t r e e t a n d a n n o u n c e s o n e s a r r i v a l d o w n t o w n Pa r k s , P l a z a s , P a s e o s • N e w p o c k e t p a r k a n d p l a z a a l o n g M o n t e r e y a n d H i g u e r a S t r e e t s ( B l o c k 2 4 ) • P u b l i c p a t h a t t h e e n d o f P a c i f i c S t r e e t w i l l c o n n e c t p e d e s t r i a n s t o T o r o S t r e e t a r o u n d D a l l i d e t A d o b e ( B l o c k 4 8 ) • S m a l l p o c k e t p a r k o n t h e c o r n e r o f B l o c k 4 9 Pa r k s , P l a z a s , P a s e o s • A n e n h a n c e d a n d e x p a n d e d C r e e k W a l k i s e n v i s i o n e d t o p r o v i d e a p h y s i c a l a n d v i s u a l c o n n e c t i o n t o n a t u r e a n d a u n i q u e r e c r e a t i o n a l a m e n i t y d o w n t o w n ( B l o c k 1 8 ) • T h e J a c k H o u s e a n d G a r d e n s w i l l b e b u f f e r e d f r o m d e v e l o p m e n t b y p a s e o s ( B l o c k 2 8 ) a n d b e c o m e m o r e o f a n e i g h b o r h o o d p a r k a s m o r e p e o p l e l i v e d o w n t o w n • E m e r s o n P a r k w i l l b e r e v i t a l i z e d t o b e t t e r s e r v e n e a r b y r e s i d e n t s ( B l o c k 5 4 ) Fl e x Z o n e • “ F l e x z o n e ” w i t h t h e a b i l i t y t o a c c o m m o d a t e a d a p t i v e r e u s e o f i n d u s t r i a l b u i l d i n g s , a n d / o r r e d e v e l o p m e n t f o r l a r g e r - f o o t p r i n t i n c u b a t o r b u s i n e s s e s w i t h l o f t - s t y l e m i x e d - u s e r e s i d e n t i a l ( B l o c k s 3 8 , 3 9 , 5 1 , a n d 5 2 ) • S m a l l P l a z a a l o n g H i g u e r a S t r e e t w h e r e W a l k e r S t r e e t d e a d - e n d s ( B l o c k 5 1 ) • O l d G a s w o r k s b u i l d i n g r e h a b i l i t a t e d a n d i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a m i d - b l o c k p o c k e t p a r k ( B l o c k 4 1 ) Ne w D e v e l o p m e n t • E x p a n d e d h o s p i t a l i t y s u c h a s l o d g i n g o r a c o n v e n t i o n c e n t e r ( B l o c k 1 8 a n d 3 9 ) • V a r i e t y o f a d d i t i o n a l h o u s i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s ( B l o c k s 9 , 4 0 , 4 1 , 5 2 , a n d 5 3 ) Pa r k i n g • N e w p a r k i n g s t r u c t u r e ( B l o c k 2 6 ) Hi g h l i g h t s Hi g h l i g h t s Hi g h l i g h t s Ce n t r a l d o w n t o w n c o n t a i n s t h e C h i n a t o w n H i s t o r i c D i s t r i c t , a n d mo s t o f t h e D o w n t o w n H i s t o r i c D i s t r i c t . C e n t r a l d o w n t o w n b o a s t s ch a r m i n g , h i s t o r i c a r c h i t e c t u r e an d d e v e l o p m e n t p a t t e r n s a n d s e r v e s a s t h e c o m m u n i t y ’ s c u l t u r a l a n d c i v i c h e a r t . O n e o f t h e k e y c o n c e p t s i n t h i s a r e a i s a n e x p an d e d , w a l k a b l e , v i b r a n t , a n d a r t - f i l l e d Cu l t u r a l D i s t r i c t ( B l o c k s 1 0 , 1 1 a n d 1 9 ) . No r t h d o w n t o w n i s g e n e r a l l y S a n t a R o s a t o P e p p e r , a n d M i l l t o P i s m o . T h e a r e a a r o u n d M o n t e r e y a n d J o h n s o n S t r e e t s ( c o i n e d “ M o J o ”) is envisioned to re d e v e l o p o v e r t i m e w i t h c o m m e r c i a l m i x e d u s e a l o n g i t s v i b r a n t s t r e e t f r o n t , c o n n e c t i n g t h e u p p e r M o n t e r e y a r e a t o t h e d o w n t o w n . A s r e i n v e s t m e n t o c c u r s , no r t h d o w n t o w n w i l l t r a n s i t i o n f r o m o n e - a n d t w o - s t o r y s t r u c t u r e s , m a n y w i t h p a r k i n g i n f r o n t , t o s t r u c t u r e s o f t w o t o f i v e s t o r ies built to the sidewalk. So u t h d o w n t o w n i s c u r r e n t l y o n t h e e d g e o f t h e d o w n t o w n — b u t n o t f o r l o n g . D e v e l o p m e n t p r e s s u r e i s m o v i n g s o u t h , w h i c h p r e s e n t s s i g n i f i c a n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r th i s a r e a o v e r t h e n e x t 2 5 y e a r s . Ce n t r a l D o w n t o w n Di a g o n a l p a s e o a n d m i x e d u s e c o m m e r c i a l f r o m M a r s h S t , o n B l o c k 4 2 . Il l u s t r a t i o n b y C h u c k C r o t s e r . Ar c h e r a n d P a c i f i c S t r e e t s i n t h e F l e x Z o n e ( B l o c k 5 2 ) . T h e G a s w o r k s b u i l d i n g , p a r t o f a m i d - b l o c k po c k e t p a r k ( B l o c k 5 1 ) . Th e J a c k H o u s e G a r d e n s s e e s i n c r e a s e d u s e w i t h ad d i t i o n a l p e o p l e l i v i n g d o w n t o w n ( B l o c k 2 8 ) . An e x p a n d e d C r e e k w a l k , a s e n v i s i o n e d o n B l o c k 1 8 . Mo n t e r e y S t i m p r o v e m e n t s f r o m M i s s i o n P l a z a ( B l o c k s 1 2 a n d 2 0 ) . Il l u s t r a t i o n b y P i e r r e R a d e m a k e r . Im p r o v e m e n t s a t S a n t a R o s a a n d M o n t e r e y S t r e e t s s l o w t r a f f i c , e n l i v e n t h e s t r e e t f r o n t a n d e n h a n c e c o n n e c t i o n s . Il l u s t r a t i o n b y P i e r r e R a d e m a k e r . Ne w p a r k a l o n g t h e C r e e k , B r o a d a n d M o n t e r e y S t r e e t s (B l o c k 1 9 ) . I l l u s t r a t i o n b y K e i t h G u r n e e . Gateway public art, as envisioned for the Monterey Street bridge.“The Mix” at Monterey and Johnson Streets.A pedestrian-oriented street, as envisioned for Montery Street. Ex i s t i n g c o m m e r c i a l m i x e d u s e , M a r s h a n d Ga r d e n S t r e e t s ( B l o c k 4 4 ) . ATTACHMENT 4 ST R E E T T Y P E S IMAGINE DOWNTOWN SLO DR A F T D O W N T O W N C O N C E P T P L A N St r e e t T y p e C Mo d a l P r i o r i t y : 1 . B i c y c l e s 2 . P e d e s t r i a n s 3. T r a n s i t 4 . A u t o m o b i l e s St r e e t T y p e C g i v e s b i c y c l e f a c i l i t i e s a hi g h e r p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e r i g h t - o f - w a y , an d p r i o r i t i z e s b i c y c l i n g o v e r v e h i c l e tr a v e l . M a n y o f t h e s e s t r e e t s a r e s h o w n a s bi k e b o u l e v a r d s o n t h e B i c y c l e F a c i l i t i e s Di a g r a m ( F i g u r e 4 . 2 ) . T h e s e s t r e e t s w i l l co n n e c t w i t h a d j a c e n t n e i g h b o r h o o d s t o br i n g m o r e b i c y c l i s t s d o w n t o w n . St r e e t T y p e D Mo d a l P r i o r i t y : 1 . P e d e s t r i a n s 2 . B i c y c l e s 3 . S l o w A u t o m o b i l e s St r e e t T y p e D i s a l s o k n o w n a s a s h a r e d s t r e e t . P e d e s t r i a n s a r e pr i o r i t i z e d , b u t s l o w a u t o m o b i l e s a r e a l l o w e d . I t m i n i m i z e s t h e se g r e g a t i o n o f p e d e s t r i a n s a n d v e h i c l e s i n i t s d e s i g n . T h i s i s d o n e by r e m o v i n g f e a t u r e s s u c h a s c u r b s , r o a d s u r f a c e m a r k i n g s , t r a f f i c si g n s , a n d t r a f f i c l i g h t s . St r e e t T y p e D i s s i m i l a r t o c a r - f r e e s t r e e t s i n a p p e a r a n c e , w i t h un i q u e p a v i n g p a t t e r n s t h a t d i f f e r f r o m v e h i c u l a r s t r e e t s a n d t h a t en c o u r a g e o u t d o o r s e a t i n g , p u b l i c e v e n t s , a n d f e s t i v a l s . C a r s a r e no t p r o h i b i t e d b u t a r e n o t e n c o u r a g e d . T h e s e s t r e e t s a r e f l e x i b l e in n a t u r e , a s t h e y c a n b e e a s i l y c o n v e r t e d t o c a r - f r e e s t r e e t s te m p o r a r i l y o r o v e r t i m e w i t h r e m o v a b l e b o l l a r d s o r o t h e r b a r r i e r s . Paseos Modal Priority: 1. Pedestrians (slow bikes allowed) Paseos are public or private pedestrian passageways between buildings. They often connect parks or plazas to the public streetscape. They provide additional car-free opportunities for shopping, dining, or seating. The Street Types Diagram and the Illustrative plan both show a network of paseos throughout the downtown. St r e e t T y p e B Mo d a l P r i o r i t y : 1 . P e d e s t r i a n s 2 . Bi c y c l e s 3 . T r a n s i t 4 . A u t o m o b i l e s St r e e t T y p e B g i v e s p e d e s t r i a n s a hi g h e r p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e r i g h t - o f - w a y . It s t r i v e s t o h a v e l o w e r a u t o m o b i l e vo l u m e s a n d s p e e d s t h a n S t r e e t T y p e A, a s d r i v e r s w i l l p a r k i n s t r u c t u r e s o n su r r o u n d i n g s t r e e t s . T h e s e d e n s e l y de v e l o p e d s t r e e t s w i l l a l l o w a m p l e ro o m o n s i d e w a l k s f o r o u t d o o r ga t h e r i n g , s o c i a l i z i n g , d i n i n g , a n d co m m e r c e . Mo d a l P r i o r i t y : A l l m o d e s h a v e eq u a l p r i o r i t y Th e r o l e o f S t r e e t T y p e A i s t o m o v e pe o p l e t o a n d t h r o u g h t h e d o w n t o w n sa f e l y a n d e f f i c i e n t l y . T h i s s t r e e t t y p e is d e s i g n e d t o e n s u r e s a f e s p e e d s a n d ac c e s s i b i l i t y f o r u s e r s o f a l l a g e s a n d ab i l i t i e s . T h e s e s t r e e t s a r e d e s i g n e d s o th a t p e o p l e c a n e a s i l y w a l k t o s h o p s o r re s i d e n c e s , b i k e t o w o r k , a n d c r o s s a t in t e r s e c t i o n s s a f e l y . St r e e t T y p e A ATTACHMENT 4 BI C Y C L E A N D P E D E S T R I A N I M P R O V E M E N T S IMAGINE DOWNTOWN SLO DR A F T D O W N T O W N C O N C E P T P L A N Bi k e P a t h Bi k e p a t h s ( a l s o k n o w n a s C l a s s I b i k e w a y s ) p r o v i d e a c o m p l e t e l y s e p a r a t e d r i g h t - of - w a y f o r t h e e x c l u s i v e u s e o f b i c y c l e s a n d p e d e s t r i a n s w i t h c r o s s f l o w b y m o t o r i s t s mi n i m i z e d . Bi k e L a n e Bi k e l a n e s ( a l s o k n o w n a s C l a s s I I b i k e f a c i l i t i e s ) p r o v i d e a s t r i p e d l a n e f o r o n e - w a y bi c y c l e t r a v e l o n a s t r e e t o r h i g h w a y . Bi k e B o u l e v a r d Ca t e g o r i z e d a s a C l a s s I I I b i k e r o u t e s , b i k e b o u l e v a r d s a r e r o a d w a y s s h a r e d r o a d w a y b y bi c y c l e s a n d m o t o r v e h i c l e s w i t h o u t m a r k e d b i k e l a n e s . O n s u c h r o a d s , b i c y c l i s t s a r e gi v e n p r i o r i t y o v e r m o t o r v e h i c l e t r a v e l . Cy c l e T r a c k Cy c l e t r a c k s ( a l s o k n o w n a s C l a s s I V b i k e w a y s , s e p a r a t e d b i k e l a n e s , o r p r o t e c t e d bi k e l a n e s ) a r e e x c l u s i v e b i k e w a y s l o c a t e d w i t h i n o r n e x t t o t h e r o a d w a y , b u t a r e ma d e d i s t i n c t f r o m b o t h t h e s i d e w a l k a n d r o a d w a y b y v e r t i c a l b a r r i e r s o r e l e v a t i o n di f f e r e n c e s . C y c l e t r a c k s m a y b e o n e - w a y o r t w o - w a y , a n d m a y b e a t r o a d l e v e l , a t si d e w a l k l e v e l , o r a t a n i n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l . Bu f f e r e d B i k e L a n e A b u f f e r e d b i k e l a n e i s a n o n - s t r e e t f a c i l i t y w i t h a p a i n t e d b u f f e r . T y p i c a l l y , t h e b u f f e r i s st r i p e d w i t h d i a g o n a l l i n e s a n d s e r v e s t o k e e p b i c y c l i s t s f r o m r i d i n g i n t h e “ d o o r z o n e ” an d / o r t o a d d s e p a r a t i o n b e t w e e n b i c y c l i s t s a n d m o t o r v e h i c l e t r a f f i c . En h a n c e d I n t e r s e c t i o n s In t e r s e c t i o n E n h a n c e m e n t s m a y i n c l u d e el e m e n t s s u c h a s c r o s s w a l k s , b u l b o u t s t o pr o v i d e r e f u g e a n d d e c r e a s e c r o s s i n g d i s t a n c e s , pe d e s t r i a n s c r a m b l e s ( d i a g o n a l c r o s s i n g s t o in c r e a s e e f f i c i e n c y ) o r r o u n d a b o u t s . Mi d - b l o c k C r o s s i n g s Mi d - b l o c k C r o s s i n g s s h o u l d b e i n c l u d e d a t lo g i c a l l o c a t i o n s w h e r e c r o s s i n g i s c u r r e n t l y oc c u r r i n g r e g u l a r l y . T h e s e s h o u l d c o n n e c t pa s e o s a n d / o r b r e a k u p l o n g b l o c k s . Drop Off/Loading Zones Drop off/loading zones should be incorporated at major activity centers on at least every other block. These should be a safe distance from corners, be well lit, be free of furnishings/fixtures, and well-marked. Pe d e s t r i a n I m p r o v e m e n t s : 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Bi c y c l e I m p r o v e m e n t s Proposed bicycle facilities are conceptual in nature and will require further analysis prior to adoption into the City Bicycle T ransportation Plan.ATTACHMENT 4 ST R E E T S C A P E E L E M E N T S A N D GR E E N I N F R A S T R U C T U R E I M P R O V E M E N T S IMAGINE DOWNTOWN SLO DR A F T D O W N T O W N C O N C E P T P L A N Gr e e n I n f r a s t r u c t u r e E x a m p l e s Bi o r e t e n t i o n ( r a i n g a r d e n s , p l a n t e r s , a n d s w a l e s ) : St o r m w a t e r m a n a g e m e n t s t r u c t u r e s w i t h o p e n b o t t o m s , a l l o w i n g f o r i n f i l t r a t i o n i n t o t h e g r o u n d . Dr y w e l l : An u n d e r g r o u n d s t r u c t u r e c o m p r i s i n g a p e r f o r a t e d p i p e s u r r o u n d e d w i t h g r a v e l , w h i c h p r o v i d e s st o r m w a t e r i n f i l t r a t i o n c a p a c i t y a n d c a n a l s o e n h a n c e i n f i l t r a t i o n b y p e n e t r a t i n g c l a y a n d o t h e r l e s s pe r m e a b l e s o i l l a y e r s t h a t l i m i t s u r f a c e i n f i l t r a t i o n . Pe r v i o u s p a v e m e n t ( c o n c r e t e , a s p h a l t , p a v e r s y s t e m s ) : A p a v e m e n t s y s t e m c o m p r i s i n g a p o r o u s p a v i n g s u r f a c e w i t h a n u n d e r l y i n g p e r m e a b l e a g g r e g a t e b a s e la y e r . Ra i n w a t e r c a p t u r e a n d u s e ( a b o v e g r o u n d c i s t e r n , b e l o w g r o u n d c i s t e r n ) : A s y s t e m t h a t c a p t u r e s a n d s t o r e s f o r r e u s e r a i n w a t e r f r o m i m p e r v i o u s s u r f a c e s s u c h a s r o o f t o p s a n d pa v e d s u r f a c e s . Gr e e n r o o f : Th e r e a r e a r a n g e o f a p p r o a c h e s f o r d e s i g n i n g g r e e n r o o f s , d e p e n d i n g o n t h e d e s i r e d a c c e s s t o t h e ro o f , d e p t h o f s o i l / d i v e r s i t y o f p l a n t t y p e s , c o s t , a n d m a i n t e n a n c e . Gr e e n w a l l : En c o m p a s s e s s e v e r a l f o r m s o f v e g e t a t e d w a l l s u r f a c e s , i n c l u d i n g g r e e n f a ç a d e s , l i v i n g w a l l s , a n d l i v i n g re t a i n i n g w a l l s . Li g h t i n g Li g h t i n g e n h a n c e s s a f e t y a n d a m b i a n c e an d h e l p s c r e a t e a s e n s e o f p l a c e . I t s h o u l d be d e s i g n e d f o r p e d e s t r i a n s , c y c l i s t s , a n d ve h i c l e s . Se a t i n g Se a t i n g s h o u l d b e p l e n t i f u l i n t h e do w n t o w n a n d i n s t a l l e d i n a m a n n e r t o cr e a t e “ o u t d o o r l i v i n g r o o m s . ” Bi c y c l e R a c k s Bi c y c l e r a c k s s h o u l d t o b e i n s t a l l e d i n sa f e , f r e q u e n t , a n d c o n v e n i e n t l o c a t i o n s th r o u g h o u t t h e d o w n t o w n . C o v e r e d b i c y c l e ra c k s a n d b i c y c l e l o c k e r s s h o u l d b e l o c a t e d in p a r k i n g s t r u c t u r e s n e a r e n t r a n c e s . Bi c y c l e C o r r a l s Bi c y c l e c o r r a l s a c c o m m o d a t e u p t o 1 6 bi c y c l e s i n t h e s a m e s i z e a r e a a s a s i n g l e ve h i c l e p a r k i n g s p a c e a n d s h o u l d b e in s t a l l e d i n s t r a t e g i c l o c a t i o n s t h r o u g h o u t th e d o w n t o w n . Pa r k l e t s A p a r k l e t i s a s i d e w a l k e x t e n s i o n t h a t pr o j e c t s i n t o t h e s t r e e t . I t i s g e n e r a l l y t h e si z e o f o n e o r t w o p a r k i n g s p a c e s , a n d ma y i n c l u d e g r e e n e r y , a r t , s e a t i n g , b i c y c l e pa r k i n g , o r o u t d o o r d i n i n g . Pu b l i c A r t Pu b l i c a r t s h o u l d b e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e do w n t o w n i n i m a g i n a t i v e n e w w a y s . I t c a n ta k e m a n y f o r m s , s u c h a s b e i n g i n t e r a c t i v e or i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o s t r e e t f u r n i t u r e . Farmer’s Market Infrastructure As the home of the City’s weekly farmers market, downtown should include infrastructure improvements, such as power hookups, or removable decorative structures that provide necessary services to accommodate this grand event. Public Restrooms Public restrooms should be incorporated into public places, such as Mission Plaza and Emerson Park, and should be clearly visible from the street, for wayfinding, accessibility, and safety. St r e e t s c a p e E l e m e n t E x a m p l e s 1 1 4 5 2 4 5 3 4 2 3 4 5 ATTACHMENT 4 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY IMAGINE DOWNTOWN SLO DRAFT DOWNTOWN CONCEPT PLAN ID Draft Implementation Action by Category Place one sticker in the box next to your top 5 priority actions Land Use and Economic Development Zoning Regulations 1 Include relevant concepts from the Downtown Concept Plan as part of the update of the City Zoning Regulations, such as expanded commercial mixed use overlay zone. Housing 2 Work with partners on developing additional programs and incentives to aid in the provision of additional housing options downtown, as shown in the Concept Plan Illustrative. Government Offices 3 Investigate the feasibility of redeveloping the City-owned old library building and the surface parking lot behind City Hall to house additional city services within one campus and create a welcoming public space. 4 Investigate the feasibility of developing a County office building with staff parking and commercial or public uses along the street front on County property on Monterey Street (Block 15). 5 Investigate the feasibility of adding additional office 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. 6 Investigate the feasibility of leasing unused City office space at a subsidized rate to qualifying nonprofit organizations. Economic Development 7 Work with partners on developing a program to retain, attract, and support smaller, independent, and culturally diverse businesses. 8 Consider developing an economic analysis of downtown, looking at the preferred mix of land uses for long-term economic health. 9 Investigate opportunities for implementing free WiFi in public areas downtown. Arts, Culture, and History 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 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 artistic uses in this general area. 12 Consider including additional and different ways to bring history alive in the Cultural District area, including interpretive information on the area’s natural resources, the Anza National Historic Trail, and El Camino Real historic bells. 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 14 Work with the History Center and other community partners on developing a mobile history walking tour app for downtown. 15 Consider investigating the feasibility of a West End Historic District, encompassing the area of Higuera and Marsh Streets southwest of the Downtown Historic District. Historic Facilities 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. 18 Work with the History Center on expansion plans to provide capacity for future needs. Recreation, Open Space, and Public Restrooms 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). 25 Work with private developers to implement a system of paseos as shown in the Concept Plan Illustrative. 26 Update the Design Guidelines to ecourage the development of paseos that are interesting, safe, well connected, and interact with development as shown in the Concept Plan Illustrative. 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. 31 Develop and implement a master plan for San Luis Obispo Creek in the downtown area; potentially combine it with a Creek Walk master plan. Public Restrooms 32 Ensure the provision of public restrooms downtown, including new restrooms at Mission Plaza and Emerson Park. AT T A C H M E N T 4 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY IMAGINE DOWNTOWN SLO DRAFT DOWNTOWN CONCEPT PLAN ID Draft Implementation Action by Category Place one sticker in the box next to your top 5 priority actions Public Safety 33 Coordinate with public safety so that streets and public spaces are designed to reduce crime through lighting, visibility, emergency access, and other public safety features. Mobility and Circulation Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements 34 Continue the installation of pedestrian level wayfinding signage to direct pedestrians and cyclists to the best routes and key locations downtown. 35 Develop and implement a plan for a walking path around the Dallidet Adobe property to Toro Street. 36 Consider inclusion of bicycle facility recommendations (as described in Chapter 4) into the Bicycle Transportation Plan after additional study. 37 Work with interested partners on the feasibility of a bike share program. 38 Develop a downtown pedestrian plan, or alternately, a bicycle and pedestrian plan for downtown to further study specific locations for improvements to enhance the pedestrian experience, using the Downtown Concept Plan as a guide. Transit and Multimodal Facilities 39 Work with community partners to develop a transit center downtown to meet the transit needs of downtown employees, residents, and visitors. 40 Investigate the feasibility of providing free trolley service along Higuera and Marsh and between downtown parking garages throughout the year, in addition to existing Monterey Street service. 41 When updating the City's Capital Improvement Program, consider inclusion of multimodal street type improvements as described in Chapter 4. 42 Prioritize mobility improvements to be consistent with the General Plan’s priority mode ranking in downtown: 1. Pedestrians, 2. Bicycles, 3. Transit, 4. Vehicles. 43 Consider redevelopment of Monterey Street between Chorro and Santa Rosa Streets to Street Type D (shared street), as shown in Figure 4.1. 44 Consider redevelopment of the downtown streets shown as Street Types A, B, and C in Figure 4.1. 45 Conduct a feasibility analysis to determine the optimal future design of the Marsh/Higuera intersection to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety and accessibility. 46 When improvements are needed, consider a redesign of the Broad Street bridge (between Monterey and Higuera Streets) and a Creek Walk connection underneath. Parking Facilities (Motor vehicle, bicycle, structures) 47 Continue the installation of wayfinding signage to direct motorists to public parking and keep vehicles away from the downtown core. 48 Design parking structures with secure bike parking, transit and trolley stops, pedestrian wayfinding signage, electric vehicle charging stations, and pedestrian crossings where feasible. 49 Design parking structures to integrate public rooftop amenities such as outdoor viewing areas, public spaces, or appropriate community facilities where feasible. 50 Design parking structures so that they are located behind commercial or office mixed use to the extent possible to keep the sidewalks pedestrian-scale and active. 51 Develop or partner with private developers to build parking structures as conceptually located in the Downtown Concept Plan. 52 Investigate implementing variable parking pricing during peak hours. 53 Develop or expand in-lieu parking fee districts to accommodate future development patterns as illustrated in the Downtown Concept Plan. 54 Conduct a parking demand study every five years to reevaluate demand for parking as technology, mobility needs, and demand evolve. 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. Circulation 56 Work with the Downtown Association and business owners to designate mutually beneficial hours of regulation for delivery vehicles, to minimize traffic congestion. 57 Evaluate and adjust traffic signalization at intersections as necessary to improve downtown circulation for safety and efficiency. Streetscape Green Infrastructure, Parklets, & Planters 58 Develop a program for designing and installing parklets downtown. 59 Work with partners on exploring funding incentives for additional streetscape improvements, such as adopting a tree or a planter (similar to the memorial bench and rack with plaque program). 60 Maintain a healthy downtown street tree canopy; evaluate and replace tree grates annually to ensure obstruction-free sidewalks as well as proper tree health and growth capacity. 61 Include green infrastructure in public improvement projects whenever feasible. Farmer's Market 62 Coordinate with the Downtown Association on farmers market infrastructure needs before any major street redesign. 63 Consider moving the farmers market to Monterey Street if it is improved as a Street Type D (shared street). Lighting & Street Furniture 64 Implement a lighting plan on downtown streetscapes, public spaces, and storefronts for enhanced safety and placemaking. 65 As Street Type improvements are made, update a plan for the design and installation of coordinated street furnishings (e.g., seating, lighting, bike parking) to create a clear sense of place for downtown, or by subdistrict. Maintenance 66 Develop an improved system for coordinating street and sidewalk cleaning that clearly defines the responsibility of the City and downtown merchants. AT T A C H M E N T 4 1 Draft Notes from the Mass Transportation Committee – Wednesday 3.8.17 Input on the Draft Downtown Concept Plan Consider a “slow zone” throughout all of downtown with speed limits no more than 25 mph and streets specifically designed for slow travel Consider implementing AEV’s or autonomous electric vehicles for downtown shuttle service between parking garages, or operating within a set route downtown. Gamaliel Auguiano, the City’s transit manager, thinks given the right roadway conditions (read: traffic calmed enough) we could “bring something like this to SLO in the next 3-4 years.” Link he shared: http://easymile.com/ Consider implementing enhanced trolley stops/stations, for an enhanced waiting environment. Improvements they would like to see are improved street furniture and wayfinding for peds at trolley stops (to direct them to key features downtown), and wayfinding for peds downtown to find trolley stops. Coordinate with Cal Poly on a bike share program, which they are working on currently. (We already have this on our implementation list, although it got 0 votes at the workshop and our CVT meeting. ATTACHMENT 5 2 Draft Notes from the Bicycle Advisory Committee – Thursday 3.16.17 Input on the Draft Downtown Concept Plan Public Comment was received on bike lanes in door zones downtown (Chorro St mentioned); the need for n/s bike corridors; continuous, no gap system for bikes. Support for the idea of moving the bike blvd to Nipomo St. The BAC supports the idea of a protected bike lane over a buffered bike lane on Marsh/Higuera. There was a discussion surrounding the positives of a physical barrier between cars and bikes. They voted to support a “cycle track or physical barrier” 6-1. Other input from individual BAC members: A safe crossing of hwy 101 on ramp for bikes/peds to the Madonna Inn Bike Path should be emphasized more in the plan. The plan should recommend secured bike parking in garages. The plan should show an enhanced intersection at Higuera and Chorro St. There should be a discussion of the timing/control of delivery vehicles on downtown streets There is a lot of traffic on upper Monterey St—concerned that we won’t be able to have Street Type B on Monterey b/c of the amount of traffic. Keep benches perpendicular to the street on the sidewalk Concerned that barriers (i.e., cycle track) could be a road hazard. Love the shared street idea Consider shifting the Morro St bike boulevard so it doesn’t go all the way through downtown – heading north on Morro, go Left on Monterey, Rt on Chorro—also, remove parking on the east side of Chorro, which needs to be calmed (but better option than Morro) Yes, bike blvd on Morro btw Marsh and Monterey Yes, supportive of a bike share program Would like to see us identify specific drop off zone locations in the plan. Want to make sure there are good connections to the RR Safety Trail from downtown ATTACHMENT 5 3 Draft Notes from the Cultural Heritage Committee – Monday, 3.27.17 Input on the Draft Downtown Concept Plan [+ indicates support for] Goal 1.1 – should we define what is Downtown’s “traditional character”? Committee member suggested we refer to the Design Guidelines and the General Plan where it defines downtown’s traditional character + park across from the museum + more public restrooms + safe bicycling opportunities Unsure about how a shared street would work II Parking going away from downtown needs to be addressed (in general) Concerned about lack of business diversity downtown Concerned about building height + collaboration with History Center and Jack House + Cultural District + Demonstration garden at old County Building + Shared street + Treatment of Gateways + Public art + Proposed street changes + Street type D Concerned about ped safety and traffic at intersections today + Intersection improvements + Connection between Dallidet Adobe and Rosa Butron Adobe—adobe walk. + Green line tour + Outreach for plan + Height towards the center of the block is a good idea, but you have to know what the center of the block is There are too many parks downtown. We need to make more of an effort to get people into the parks— like Jack House Gardens. Program the parks we have so they are better used. Don’t replace the gas station with something else – it is in a good location-people use it; that’s why it is there. ATTACHMENT 5 4 We have to find good uses for our historic structures—like our adobes. The West End Historic District is not an appropriate area for multi-story buildings—predominantly one story structures We need some “slums” or areas with lower rent downtown. Smaller spaces/single-story buildings okay. The auto mechanic on Marsh St could be artist’s studios. Think about what happened at Mission Plaza when doing interpretation or public art there—have place- specific historic interpretation along the creek walk, not just in the Cultural District. Don’t want a flood of bad public art. Include art along the creek walk; make sure there’s public art that fits in with our downtown. Don’t limit yourself to a virtual walking tour There are some beautiful parking structures – build parking beautifully Worried about the trade-offs with paseos—dead areas, or incompatible development Keep the tree canopy small and trimmed CHC needs to update their documents to help implement this plan. This plan can help restore downtown’s functionality, sense of surprise and sense of space Downtown needs places for residents to enjoy and learn as they go about their day Public art idea: translucent image of a building that used to be there Tie public art into the place Emphasize services and uses in downtown-so it is functional for residents Make it an authentic experience +Parks downtown—ex: Rosa Butron adobe can be a real, special experience. All parks don’t have to be the same. There won’t be a lot of housing units left to build downtown, so they all have to count. ATTACHMENT 5 5 Draft Notes from the Parks and Recreation Commission – Wednesday, 4.5.17 Input on the Draft Downtown Concept Plan [+ indicates support for] + Parklets. Interest in parklets being developed as permanent improvements + paseos + bike friendly downtown + public private partnerships--park management/concessionaires + improvements to Emerson Park + Cheng Park expansion/improvement + Focus on connectivity and walkability (2) + Green infrastructure improvements – consider rain vaults which have more capacity than other stormwater systems + Improved connections to the Madonna Bike Path + Park and Recreation Element Update (implementation action) + Ways to activate and increase positive use of public areas Suggested changes or clarifications to plan (from individual commissioners): • Fitness equipment is not needed along Creek Walk • Remove vehicle parking along Marsh and Higuera to make room for more bicycle and pedestrian uses • Uncomfortable with bikes and pedestrians both having access on a shared street; sees a lot of conflict • Design areas with infrastructure for food truck to activate designated public areas downtown • Design parks with public safety in mind • Clarify how the plan will be implemented where recommended parks are not on public land ATTACHMENT 5