HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-26-2017 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, July 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
ROLL CALL : Commissioners Kim Bisheff, Scott Mann, Ronald Malak, Nicholas
Osterbur, Hemalata Dandekar, Vice-Chair John Fowler, and Chair Charles
Stevenson
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meetings of April 26 and May 24, 2017, and the
Special Planning Commission Meeting of May 25, 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.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. 12165 and 12393 Los Osos Valley Road. SPEC-0143-2017: Review of the Froom Ranch
Specific Plan (Specific Plan Area 3 - Madonna on LOVR); public scoping meeting to discuss
the scope of the Environmental Impact Report being prepared for the Froom Ranch Specific
Plan; Specific Plan Area 3 – Madonna on LOVR; John Madonna, applicant. (Shawna Scott)
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: Final review of the July 2017 Draft of the
Downtown Concept Plan; receive a project update and recommend adoption of the plan by the
City Council on September 5, 2017; discussion of this item is not subject to CEQA; multiple
zones; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Rebecca Gershow)
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. Zoning Regulations Update. The Zoning Regulations Update is focused on implementing
the policies and programs of the Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE). This will be a
standing item on the Planning Commission agenda from June 14, 2017 through completion of
the Update of the Zoning Regulations, tentatively scheduled for completion in March,
2018. This will be an opportunity for staff to update the Commission on the status of the
Zoning Regulations Update and for the Commission to listen to ongoing public testimony and
discuss any such updates as they come forward. As a standing item, sometimes there will be
nothing to report; other times staff will give a brief update with limited discussion; and at
certain points, such as review of White Papers associated with the Zoning Regulations
Update, there will be more substantive discussion on the item. When materials are associated
with the Update, as with the White Papers, such information will be made available to the
public and Commission prior to the meeting.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
1. STAFF
a. Agenda Forecast
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 9 ,
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 City Council within
10 days of the action (Recommendations to 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 appropriate appeal fee must accompany the
appeal documentation.
Minutes - DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order on Wednesday,
April 26, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Chair Stevenson.
ELECTIONS
By consensus the Commission elected Commissioner Charles Stevenson to serve as Chairperson
and Commissioner John Fowler to serve as Vice-Chairperson.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Kim Bisheff, Hemalata Dandekar, Scott Mann, Ronald Malak,
Nicholas Osterbur, Vice-Chair John Fowler, and Chair Charles Stevenson.
Absent: None
Staff: Deputy Director of Community Development Xzandrea Fowler. Other staff members
presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DANDEKAR, SECONDED BY VICE-CHAIR
FOWLER, CARRIED 7-0 to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission for the
meeting of February 22, 2017 as presented.
MOTION BY CHAIR FOWLER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BISHEFF,
CARRIED 7-0 to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission for the meeting of
March 8, 2017 as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns regarding climate change.
DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of April 26, 2017 Page 2
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.
Engineer Kyle Rowland presented a staff report.
Public Comment:
Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing.
None.
Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing.
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR FOWLER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
MALAK, CARRIED 7-0 to adopt the resolution which determines and reports to the
City Council, that the proposed relinquishment conforms to the General Plan.
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.
Associate Planner Rebecca Gershow presented a brief history and update on the
Downtown Concept Plan project; responded to Commission inquiries.
Public Comments:
Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing.
Alan Cooper, Save Our Downtown, expressed concerns regarding plan design
conformity.
David Brodie voiced concerns regarding height regulations, preservation of retail space,
and bicycle safety.
James Lopes, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding inconsistencies in building height
regulations; read written correspondence aloud.
Leah Brooks, Bike SLO County, spoke in favor of the plan and suggested the City take
greater measures toward providing safe crossing of bicyclists at intersections.
Bob Jorgensen, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the Downtown Concept plan and
offered suggestions for expansion.
Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing.
DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of April 26, 2017 Page 3
Chair Stevenson acknowledged concerns regarding inconsistencies regarding height
within the Downtown Concept Plan (DTCP), LUCE, and City zoning regulation
policies; reminded the public that the DTCP is conceptual and not intended to be a
regulatory document.
Commissioner Malak would like to see an analysis of sun, shade, and wind relative to
buildings; suggested consideration for surrounding businesses to avoid creating
unnecessary competition for local businesses; stated he would like to see components
of the plan codified for the sake of consistency.
Commissioner Mann would like to see more cross-town multi-modal connectivity;
suggested slowing traffic down at intersections approaching the downtown area to
increase pedestrian safety; suggested modifying language that states “focus attention on
the downtown’s gateways” to “focus attention on the downtown’s multi-modal
gateways”; suggested referring to green infrastructure as “storm water management”
for clarity; stated he will submit additional written comments to staff.
Commissioner Osterbur spoke in favor of the plan and suggested shutting down
Monterey Street and limit access to pedestrian and bicyclists.
Commissioner Dandekar spoke in favor of the plan and suggested closely monitoring
the upcoming zoning regulation updates to ensure consistency; encouraged mixed-use.
Chair Stevenson expressed concerns regarding availability of affordable housing in the
downtown core and encouraged creative solutions to increase density.
COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere provided an update on City emails relative to the
Public Records Act; stated the City Attorney’s Office will be releasing a comprehensive memo
addressing the issue.
Chair Stevenson introduced newly appointed Commissioners Osterbur and Mann.
Deputy Director Fowler provided an agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 08:02 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Planning Commission
is scheduled for Monday, May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: XX/XX/2017
Minutes - DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order on Wednesday,
May 24, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Chair Stevenson.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Kim Bisheff, Scott Mann, Ronald Malak, Hemalata Dandekar, Vice
Chair John Fowler, and Chair Charles Stevenson.
Absent: Commissioner Nicholas Osterbur
Staff: Director of Community Development Michael Codron, Deputy Director of Long Range
Planning Xzandrea Fowler, Deputy Director of Development Review Doug Davidson
Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, 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
Raquel Smith, San Luis Obispo (Chair Stevenson encouraged speaker to reserve her comments
for the public comment period of Item 2)
BUSINESS ITEM
1. City-wide. GENP-0546-2017: Review of General Plan Conformity Report, Capital
Improvement Program proposed as part of 2017-19 Financial Plan; City of San Luis
Obispo – Community Development Department, applicant.
Deputy Director of Long Range Planning Xzandrea Fowler presented the staff report with
use of a PowerPoint presentation.
DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 2017 Page 2
Public Comment:
Lydia Mourenza, expressed concerns with the Capital Improvement plan (CIP).
Cheryl Mclean, San Luis Obispo, opined the budget does not conform to the General
Plan.
--End of Public Comment--
Deputy Director Fowler responded to Commission inquiries and concerns expressed in
public comments.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MANN, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER MALAK, to continue the review of General Plan Conformity Report,
Capital Improvement Program proposed as part of 2017-19 Financial Plan to a date
uncertain. Motion failed on the following 1-5-1 vote:
AYES: MANN
NOES: BISHEFF, MALAK, DANDEKAR, FOWLER, STEVENSON
ABSENT: OSTEBUR
Commissioner Mann stated he has several concerns with the CIP and will reserve those
comments for the City Council Hearing scheduled for June 7th.
Deputy Director Fowler suggested Commissioner Mann submit written comments to staff
for response.
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR FOWLER, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BISHEFF, CARRIED 5-1-1, with Commissioner Mann opposed, to
report to the City Council that all projects and/or purchases in the Capital Improvement
Plan proposed as part of the 2017-2019 Financial Plan comply with the City’s General
Plan.
2. 1035 Madonna Road. SPEC/ANNX/ER-1502-2015: Review of the San Luis Ranch
Specific Plan project. Development plans for the site include up to 580 residential units,
200,000 square feet of commercial development, 150,000 square feet of office
development, a 200-room hotel, and portions of the site to remain for agriculture and
open-space. Requested entitlements include a Specific Plan, General Plan
Amendment/Pre-Zoning, Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Annexation,
and certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Project construction is
planned in six phases. The project also includes a Term Sheet/Development Agreement
that would govern development of the project site. Recommendations will be forwarded
to City Council for consideration of these required project entitlements; Land Use
Element designated Specific Plan Area SP-2 (San Luis Ranch); Coastal Community
DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 2017 Page 3
Builders, applicant.
Contract Planner John Rickeknbach presented an in-depth staff report and responded to
Commissioner inquiries.
Transportation Manager Jake Hudson provided an in-depth presentation regarding traffic
impacts and corresponding mitigations and responded to Commissioner inquiries
Applicant Representative Rachel Kovesdi narrated a PowerPoint presentation,
highlighting the project’s Land Use Policy compliance.
Owner Gary Grossman provided a project overview, noting the intent to preserve the
cultural heritage of the community.
The Commission recessed at 7:48 p.m. and reconvened at 7:56 p.m. with all
Commissioners present.
Public Comments:
Shaunda Whitworth spoke in favor of the plan and requested flexible workspace.
Chris Gardner, Los Osos, spoke in favor of the project.
Craig Kincaid, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the project.
Rob Davidson, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the project and requested mitigations
focused on pedestrian access.
Ian McClain, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the project.
Theo Jones, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the project and voiced concerns
regarding building phases.
Mike Bennett, Bike SLO County, spoke in favor of the project and requested additional
mitigations.
Carl Dudley, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the project.
Michael Manchak referenced written correspondence and spoke in favor of the project.
Ben Tilbury, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the project.
Kari Applegate, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the project.
Jacob Wise, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the project.
DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 2017 Page 4
Dianna Beck, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the project.
Robert Kinports, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the project.
Ryan Miller, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns with the affordability of the housing
provided by the project and encouraged Commission approval.
Kevin Hauber, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the project.
Celeste Goyer, San Luis Obispo, voiced opposition to the project and requested
revisions to better accommodate the housing needs of the community.
Audrey Bigelow, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the project.
Adam Buttery, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the project.
Brett Strickland, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the project.
Jeff Eckles, Home Builders Association, encouraged the Commission to carefully
consider approval.
Mik Foley, Los Osos, spoke in favor of the project.
Jerry Rioux, voiced opposition to the project as presented and requested revisions to
affordability.
Michelle Tasseff, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the project.
Simon Lowie, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the project.
James Lopes read from written correspondence.
Charlene Rosales, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, encouraged the
Commission to implement policies outlined in City documents.
Eric Meyer, San Luis Obispo, suggested the project developer consider implementing
zero-carbon homes.
Lea Brooks, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns with negative environmental impacts.
Mila Vujovich-La Barre voiced concerns with negative environmental impacts.
Brett Cross, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns with the project’s LUCE and CEQA
compliance.
Donna Lewis spoke in favor of the project.
DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 2017 Page 5
Zoya Dixon, Residents of Laguna Lake, read from previously submitted written
correspondence.
Anne Wyatt encouraged the Commission to address inconsistencies in the EIR.
Sarah Flickinger, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns about the project.
Eric Veium, San Luis Obispo, encouraged the developers to implement zero-carbon
homes.
Myron Amerine, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns regarding traffic impacts and
requested the Prado Road overpass be a condition of Phase 2.
--End of Public Comment--
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m. The next Special meeting of the Planning Commission
is scheduled for Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: XX/XX/2017
Minutes - DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION
Thursday, May 25, 2017
Special Meeting of the Planning Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Special Meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order on Thursday, May 25, 2017
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
by Chair Stevenson.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Kim Bisheff (arrived at 7:00 p.m.), Scott Mann, Ronald Malak,
Nicholas Osterbur, Hemalata Dandekar, Vice-Chair John Fowler and Chair Charles
Stevenson
Absent: Commissioner Hemalata Dandekar
Staff: Director of Community Development Michael Codron, Assistant City Attorney Jon
Ansolabehere, Deputy Director of Development Review Doug Davidson. 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.
BUSINESS ITEM
1. 1035 Madonna Road. SPEC/ANNX/ER-1502-2015: Review of the San Luis Ranch
Specific Plan project. Development plans for the site include up to 580 residential units,
200,000 square feet of commercial development, 150,000 square feet of office
development, a 200-room hotel, and portions of the site to remain for agriculture and
open-space. Requested entitlements include a Specific Plan, General Plan
Amendment/Pre-Zoning, Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Annexation,
and certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Project construction
is planned in six phases. The project also includes a Term Sheet/Development
Agreement that would govern development of the project site. Recommendations will
DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of May 25, 2017 Page 2
be forwarded to City Council for consideration of these required project entitlements;
Land Use Element designated Specific Plan Area SP-2 (San Luis Ranch); Coastal
Community Builders, applicant.
This is a continued review of “Business Item 2” (San Luis Ranch) of the Regular
Meeting on Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Public Comments:
Kathy Borland, expressed concerns with the transportation impacts associated with
large developments.
Jerry Rioux, Director of Housing Trust Fund, expressed concerns regarding affordable
housing needs.
James Lopes presented a slide show outlining project alternatives.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre referenced previously submitted written correspondence.
Paul Rys, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns regarding traffic and affordability.
--End of Public Comment--
Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing.
Rich Dalton, Rincon Consultants, responded to Commission inquiries and provided
information regarding alternatives and cumulative impacts.
Director of Community Development Michael Codron responded to Commission
inquiries regarding adequate infrastructure.
Transportation Manager Jake Hudson responded to Commission inquiries regarding
phasing.
Deputy Director of Public Works Tim Bochum responded to Commission inquiries
regarding the Prado Road overpass, Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) interchange and
Class I impacts.
Assistant City Manager Derick Johnson responded to Commission inquiries and
provided information regarding the financing plan relative to the City’s infrastructural
capacity.
Contract Planner John Rickenbach provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding
agricultural preservation and responded to Commission inquiries.
Applicant Representative Rachel Kovesdi responded to Commission inquiries
regarding vertically mixed-use opportunities.
DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of May 25, 2017 Page 3
In response to guidance questions provided by staff, the Commission continued an in-
depth discussion.
The Commission recessed at 8:43 p.m. and reconvened at 8:53 p.m..
Commission discussion continued.
Natural Resources Manager Robert Hill responded to Commission inquiries regarding
habitat mitigations.
Following continued discussion, by consensus, the Commission provided direction to
staff as follows:
1. Improve pedestrian access and crossing on Madonna Road at Oceanaire, including
Laguna Lake Park access.
2. Address the Froom Ranch Way speed to provide bicycle safety.
3. Research and implement policy to address the zero-carbon concept
4. Provide electric vehicle (EV) ready garages and EV charging stations in parking
lots of apartment buildings where individual access is not feasible.
5. Include information regarding the zero-lot line and attached unit concepts.
6. Provide clarity on biological mitigations specifically regarding the off-site
restoration of the Blue Herron habitat.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. The next Regular meeting of Planning Commission is
scheduled for Monday, June 14, 2017, in the Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: XX/XX/2017
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Public scoping meeting to discuss the scope of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
being prepared for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project located immediately west of Los
Osos Valley Road between U.S. Highway 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 12165 and 12393 BY: Emily Creel, Consulting Planner
Los Osos Valley Road Phone: 543-7095 ext. 6814
email: ecreel@swca.com
VIA: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner
Phone: 781-7176
email: sscott@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: SPEC-0143-2017 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy DirectorDD
RECOMMENDATION: Receive public testimony and provide input to City staff and consultants on
any additional scope items or environmental issues that need to be evaluated in the Froom Ranch Specific
Plan Project EIR.
SITE DATA
Applicant John Madonna, John Madonna
Construction Company
Representative Pam Ricci and Victor Montgomery,
RRM Design Group
Proposed
Zoning/General
Plan
(currently
under
consideration)
Medium‐High Density Residential,
Medium‐High Density Residential Life
Plan Community, High Density
Residential, Commercial Retail,
Conservation/Open Space, and Public
Facilities
Site Area Approximately 110 acres
Environmental
Status
An Initial Study of environmental
impacts has been prepared to identify
issues and guide EIR preparation.
1.0 BACKGROUND
Froom Ranch is identified in the City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element as Specific Plan Area 3
(SP-3, Madonna on LOVR), and is subject to preparation of a Specific Plan to accommodate
development proposals and address pertinent issues within the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan
Meeting Date: July 26, 2017
Item Number: 1
PC1-1
Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project (SPEC-0143-2017)
Planning Commission Report – July 26, 2017
Page 2
Area is within the City’s Sphere of Influence and the General Plan anticipates annexation of this area
into the City. The Land Use Element requires that a Specific Plan be adopted prior to annexation and
development.
As described below (3.2 Project Description), the applicant envisions a Specific Plan that differs
somewhat from the performance standards identified in the Land Use Element. The City Council
considered this change in vision for the area, and authorized initiation of the Specific Plan on April 5,
2016. The Council generally supported the concept to reduce the amount of commercial development
within the Specific Plan area, and the development of a Life Plan Community within the City. The City
Council specifically identified the need for a Project Design Alternative that complies with existing Land
Use Element Policy 6.4.7.H. (Hillside Planning Areas, The Irish Hills area), which states that “The Irish
Hills area should secure permanent open space with no building sites above the 150-foot elevation, in
conjunction with any subdivision or development of the lower areas. (See also Section 8, Special Focus
Areas)”.
Following initiation by the City Council, and prior to submittal of the Specific Plan, the applicant
presented preliminary park concepts to the Parks and Recreation Commission and Cultural Heritage
Committee. Based on preliminary feedback, the applicant incorporated a Neighborhood Trailhead Park
in the Specific Plan, and is working on a plan to rehabilitate and reconstruct historic structures for use
within the park.
Prior to the completion of a Draft EIR, a public scoping meeting is being held to review the anticipated
scope of analysis in the EIR and determine from interested members of the public, other agencies, and
the Planning Commission whether or not there are any other issues that need to be included as part of
the EIR analysis. A summary of identified items that will need to be addressed in the EIR is included on
Page 3 of the attached Notice of Preparation (Attachment 1) and Initial Study (Attachment 2).
2.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Commission’s purview is to review the identified scope of environmental analysis and identify if
there are any additional issues that need to be included in the EIR. The hearing is not a forum to discuss
the merits of the proposed project itself, which will return to the Commission at later dates with a full
evaluation once the Draft and Final EIRs has been prepared.
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
3.1 Site Information/Setting
The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels, totaling approximately 110 acres (APNs
067-241-030 and 067-241-031) within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and adjacent to City of
San Luis Obispo city limits. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S.
Highway 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza.
PC1-2
Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project (SPEC-0143-2017)
Planning Commission Report – July 26, 2017
Page 3
3.2 Project Description
Froom Ranch is envisioned as a primarily residential project with some commercial development in the
northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major
component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Villaggio.
Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access
to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed.
Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be multiple-family. As required by the
Land Use Element, a minimum of the project site must be designated as Open Space; the current Plan
designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a
Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which may incorporate onsite
historic structures. The treatment and potential use of the historic structures is currently under evaluation
by the applicant.
3.3 Entitlements Needed
The project includes a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and related actions that would allow for
the development of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area, including annexation into the City of San Luis
Obispo. In order to implement development on the site consistent with the proposed project, the
following entitlements will need to be processed:
1. General Plan Amendment/Pre-Zoning
2. Specific Plan
3. Development Plan/Tentative Tract Map(s)
4. Architectural Review
5. Annexation
1. General Plan Amendment and Pre-Zoning. The applicant envisions a Specific Plan that
differs somewhat from the performance standards identified in the Land Use Element; therefore,
the project would require a General Plan Amendment to accommodate some aspects of future
development under the Specific Plan. Because the site is currently unincorporated, it will need
to be pre-zoned before annexation to the City could be approved.
2. Specific Plan. The City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE)
identifies Froom Ranch as a Specific Plan Area (SP-3, Madonna on LOVR) that requires the
adoption of a Specific Plan prior to any development. The applicant is preparing a Specific Plan
to accommodate the proposed development consistent with guidance for development contained
in Section 8.1.5 of the Land Use Element.
3. Development Plan/Tentative Tract Map(s). The applicant will submit tract maps to
implement the provisions of the Specific Plan. The Tract Map establishes the proposed lot lines
to allow individual ownership of properties and to layout the required infrastructure and
utilities.
PC1-3
Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project (SPEC-0143-2017)
Planning Commission Report – July 26, 2017
Page 4
4. Architectural Review – Ultimately final architectural review of housing, commercial buildings,
and some site facilities will be needed. The ARC will take an early look at design guidance in
the development plan and provide comments.
5. Annexation. If the project is approved, the City would initiate the annexation process with the
San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). Annexation will depend on
the City’s ability to address key issues to LAFCo, including the ability to provide public services
to the site (including water) and the nature of a tax-sharing arrangement with San Luis Obispo
County.
In addition, the project will need to be formally reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
for consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. Other advisory bodies that will weigh in on aspects of
the project development include the Parks & Recreation Commission reviewing park proposals, Cultural
Heritage Committee regarding the proposed use/treatment of historic structures, and the Bicycle
Advisory Committee advising on the proposed bicycle trail network.
4.0 DISCUSSION
4.1 Environmental Scoping
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) encourages and, in some cases, mandates early
public consultation on projects where an EIR is being prepared. Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines
requires that at least one scoping meeting be held for projects of area-wide significance.
With environmental documents, the word “scoping” is used to describe the process of obtaining
information from the public and interested agencies on potential environmental issues associated with
project development. As indicated in the attached Notice of Preparation (Attachment 1), this meeting is
intended to allow the Planning Commission and public the opportunity to provide feedback on the scope
of issues to be analyzed in the EIR and to identify any other issues that may have been overlooked and
may need to be analyzed in the EIR. It is also an opportunity for the City to present information about
the project review and CEQA process, the applicant to provide a preliminary presentation on the project,
and the public to ask specific questions about the project and what is proposed.
The meeting is not intended to be a hearing on the merits of the project. That type of testimony would
be applicable later during project hearings after the Draft EIR has been publicly circulated and staff has
provided a full analysis of project issues.
The City has made it a practice to hold the scoping meeting as part of a regularly scheduled Planning
Commission hearing to garner comments directly from the Planning Commission and to get a greater
number of public members to participate in the process. Beyond those members of the public that show
up in person at the hearing, there is also the wider audience reached because the meeting is televised on
the community access station. Another benefit is that it allows staff and the applicant to provide a
preliminary presentation on the project to the Commission and public early on in the process. This
PC1-4
Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project (SPEC-0143-2017)
Planning Commission Report – July 26, 2017
Page 5
strategy particularly benefits greater understanding and familiarity with large, complex projects before
the hearings for actual entitlements.
The NOP was sent to the State Clearinghouse as well as to local, state and federal agencies that might
have jurisdiction over or interest in the project. The NOP was also mailed out to others that might be
interested in the project and/or have previously requested notice of the project.
4.2 EIR Determination/Consultant Selection
Early on, the City determined that the project would require the preparation of a Project EIR. City staff
prepared an Initial Study (Attachment 2), which documents and analyzes potential environmental issue
areas and highlights issues that needed to be further analyzed in an EIR. Following authorization by the
City Council on July 5, the City has released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to prepare the EIR.
It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will be in a position to hold a public hearing on the Draft
EIR in late 2017 or early 2018. Copies of the Draft EIR would be distributed to the Commission in
advance of regular agenda packets to provide adequate time for Commissioners to review the documents.
4.3 EIR Scope/Type
The Draft EIR will incorporate the initial environmental study and expand on the discussion of issues
included in that document (refer to Attachment 1 Notice of Preparation, page 3, and Attachment 2 Initial
Study).
The City envisions CEQA compliance for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan to be a Project EIR that tiers
from the Final Program EIR prepared for the LUCE Update. It is acknowledged that the LUCE EIR did
not examine the Froom Ranch site in great detail, but it did identify a series of programmatic impacts
and mitigation measures (primarily Citywide with some site-specific measures) that may or may not
apply to development on the Froom Ranch site. The EIR will summarize those applicable mitigation
measures from the LUCE EIR as well as additional mitigation needed to address project specific impacts.
The City also envisions the potential use of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project EIR to tier future
environmental analysis required for specific development proposals within the Specific Plan Area. The
City is interested in structuring the Specific Plan EIR to provide the best tool for the City to use in the
environmental review of later development proposals at Froom Ranch.
5.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Notice of Preparation
2. Initial Study
Additional information available online at: < http://www.slocity.org/government/department-
directory/community-development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-
1911 >
PC1-5
Notice of Preparation
To: EIR & Notice of Preparation Mailing List
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: Consulting Firm: (if applicable)
Agency Name: City of San Luis Obispo EIR to be prepared by:
Department Name: Community Development Firm Name: To be determined
Street Address: 919 Palm Street Street Address:
City/State/Zip: San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 City/State/Zip:
Contact: Shawna Scott (781-7176; sscott@slocity.org) Contact:
The City of San Luis Obispo will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report
(EIR) for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and
content of the environmental information, which is germane to your agency’s statutory responsibilities
in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency
when considering your permit or other approval for this project. The project description, location, and
the potential environmental effects are summarized in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial
Study and additional background information is available here:
www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/documents-
online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-1911. Due to the time limits mandated by State law,
your response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of
this notice. Please send your response to the attention of Shawna Scott, Associate Planner for the
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, at the address shown above. We will
need the name of a contact person in your agency.
Project Title: Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project
Project Location: The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels located at 12165 and
12393 Froom Ranch Way, totaling approximately 110 acres (ANP 067-241-030 and 067-241-031)
within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and adjacent to City of San Luis Obispo city limits. The
site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza.
Project Description: The project includes a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and related
actions that would allow for the development of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area, which is
identified as Specific Plan 3 (SP-3), Madonna on LOVR, in the City’s General Plan. The Land Use
Element requires that a Specific Plan be adopted prior to annexation. The project will be primarily
residential with some commercial development in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos
Valley Road and the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a
Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types
for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living,
Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of
the site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project
site must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as
Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish
Hills Natural Reserve, which may incorporate onsite historic structures. The treatment and potential
use of the historic structures is currently under evaluation by the applicant.
Date: July 10, 2017
Signature:
Title: Associate Planner, City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department
Reference: California Administrative Code, Title 14 (CEQA Guidelines) Sections 15082(a), 15103, 15375 (Revised October 1989)
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-6
Page 2
NOTICE OF PREPARATION ATTACHMENT
FROOM RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
The City of San Luis Obispo, as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
is requesting comments on the scope and content of an environmental impact report (EIR) being
prepared for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project, as described in this Notice of Preparation.
Anticipated project entitlements are described below and issues anticipated being analyzed in the EIR
are listed below and described in the Initial Study. The Initial Study and additional background
information is available here: www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-
development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-1911. The City requests your
written comments on the NOP by August 14, 2017 and also invites you to attend a public scoping
meeting to be held on July 26, 2017, as detailed below. Please contact Shawna Scott, Associate
Planner at (805) 781-7176 or sscott@slocity.org or Contract Planner and Project Manager Emily Creel
at (805) 543-7095 x6814 or ecreel@swca.com if you have any questions.
Project Location
The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two
parcels located at 12165 and 12393 Froom Ranch Way,
totaling approximately 110 acres (APN 067-241-030 and
067-241-031) within unincorporated San Luis Obispo
County, and adjacent to City of San Luis Obispo city
limits. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos
Valley Road between U.S. 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza.
Based on a preliminary review, the project site is not on
the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and there are no
records of previous or existing sources of hazardous
materials onsite.
Discretionary Permits
In order to implement development on the site consistent with the proposed project, the following
entitlements will need to be processed:
1. General Plan Amendment/Pre-Zoning
2. Specific Plan
3. Development Plan/Tentative Tract Map(s)
4. Architectural Review
5. Annexation
1. General Plan Amendment and Pre-Zoning. The applicant envisions a Specific Plan that
differs somewhat from the performance standards identified in the Land Use Element;
therefore, the project would require a General Plan Amendment to accommodate some
aspects of future development under the Specific Plan. Because the site is currently
unincorporated, it will need to be pre-zoned before annexation to the City could be
approved.
2. Specific Plan. The City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE)
identifies Froom Ranch as a Specific Plan Area (SP-3, Madonna on LOVR) that requires
the adoption of a Specific Plan prior to any development. The applicant is preparing a
Specific Plan to accommodate the proposed development consistent with guidance for
development contained in Section 8.1.5 of the Land Use Element.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-7
Page 3
3. Development Plan/Tentative Tract Map(s). The applicant will submit tract maps to
implement the provisions of the Specific Plan. The Tract Map establishes the proposed
lot lines to allow individual ownership of properties and to layout the required
infrastructure and utilities.
4. Architectural Review – Ultimately final architectural review of housing, commercial
buildings, and some site facilities will be needed. The ARC will take an early look at design
guidance in the development plan and provide comments.
5. Annexation. If the project is approved, the City would initiate the annexation process with
the San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). Annexation will
depend on the City’s ability to address key issues to LAFCo, including the ability to provide
public services to the site (including water) and the nature of a tax-sharing arrangement
with San Luis Obispo County.
In addition, the project will need to be formally reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
for consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. Other advisory bodies that will weigh in on aspects of
the project development include the Parks & Recreation Commission reviewing park proposals,
Cultural Heritage Committee regarding the proposed use/treatment of historic structures, and the
Bicycle Advisory Committee advising on the proposed bicycle trail network.
Probable Environmental Effects/Issues Scoped for EIR
The EIR will be a full-scope document, which covers all environmental issue areas as summarized in
the preliminary Initial Study and as required by State CEQA Guidelines Article 9, Contents of
Environmental Impact Reports. Issue areas identified in the Initial Study as requiring evaluation in the
EIR and that may be determined to be potentially significant include:
Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation and Traffic
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
In addition, the following anticipated key issues are highlighted and summarized below.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-8
Page 4
Potential Impacts to Environmental Resources Due to Development Above the 150-foot Elevation
The applicant’s request includes a General Plan Amendment to modify the current language
presented in City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 6.4.7.H to allow for hillside
development above the 150-foot elevation. The EIR will evaluate the potential impacts to visual,
biological, and hydrological resources, potential geologic and soils hazards, and consistency with
plans and policies specifically identified to protect these sensitive resources. Additional analysis
including photo simulations of the proposed development within the hillside context will be necessary
to determine if the project could be designed to protect hillside views, consistent with LUE hillside
development policies and LUE resource protection policies, Open Space Policies protecting scenic
vistas, and Circulation Element policies which call for the protection of views from roadways
designated as having scenic value.
Potential Impacts as a Result of Froom Creek Realignment
The proposed project includes the realignment and restoration of Froom Creek within the property
boundaries, and construction of pathways. City creeks and wetlands management objectives
applicable to Froom Creek include:
A. Maintaining and restoring natural conditions and fish and wildlife habitat;
B. Preventing loss of life and minimizing property damage from flooding;
C. Providing recreational opportunities which are compatible with fish and wildlife habitat, flood
protection, and use of adjacent private properties.
D. Recognizing and distinguishing between those sections of creeks and Laguna Lake which
are in urbanized areas, such as the Downtown core, and sections which are in largely
natural areas. Those sections already heavily impacted by urban development and activity
may be appropriate for multiple use whereas creeks and lakeshore in a more natural state
shall be managed for maximized ecological value (LUE Section 6.6.1 Creek and Wetlands
Management Objectives).
City staff and the applicant have met with resource agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, Regional Water
Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife to review conceptual plans and
determine preliminary information that will be required for the agencies to formally respond to the
project. Key considerations include review of hydrological modeling to determine the gradient and
width necessary to provide suitable conditions for steelhead migration from the upper pools of Froom
Creek, through the project site, and connecting with San Luis Creek. Additional project details and
technical information will be provided by the applicant. Additional analysis will be required to ensure
consistency with regulations specific to floodway and floodplain management.
Potential Impacts to Historic Resources
The Froom Ranch Historic Complex is located within the project site, approximately at and below the
150-foot elevation line. This complex is not currently accessible to the public, and is generally blocked
from public view. The applicant submitted an evaluation of prehistoric and historic resources present
on the project site (First Carbon Solutions 2015), which determined that the Froom Ranch complex
(seven structures) is historically significant under National Register of Historic Places, California
Register of Historical Resources, and City of San Luis Obispo Historic Resources criteria. The LUE
states that the proposed project design should be sensitive to environmental constraints, including
historic structures, and adjust accordingly through design. The City Conservation and Open Space
Element (COSE) provides additional specific policy direction including the following:
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-9
Page 5
• Significant historic and architectural resources should be identified, preserved, and
rehabilitated.
• Historically or architecturally significant buildings shall not be demolished or substantially
changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health
and safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are
infeasible.
• Buildings and other cultural features that are not historically significant but which have
historical or architectural value should be preserved or relocated where feasible. Where
preservation or relocation is not feasible, the resource shall be documented and the
information retained in a secure but publicly accessible location. An acknowledgement of the
resource should be incorporated within the site through historic signage and the reuse or
display of historic materials and artifacts.
• Changes or additions to historically or architecturally significant buildings should be consistent
with the original structure and follow the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Buildings. New buildings in historical districts, or on historically significant sites, should
reflect the form, spacing and materials of nearby historic structures. The street appearance of
buildings which contribute to a neighborhood’s architectural character should be maintained”
(COSE Section 3.2 and 3.3, Historical and Architectural Resources and Policies).
Full analysis of historic resources in the EIR will be necessary. The EIR will include an evaluation of
the proposed project, in addition to feasible alternatives to mitigate potential impacts to historic
resources. The EIR will also provide a preliminary assessment of the project’s consistency with the
General Plan and Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines.
Development of a Reasonable Range of Alternatives
Factors that will influence the formulation of alternative project configurations include considerations
of project objectives, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, General Plan
consistency, and the proponent’s control over alternative sites. The EIR will discuss the rationale for
selection of alternatives that are feasible and therefore, merit in-depth consideration, and which are
infeasible (e.g., failed to meet Project objectives or would not avoid significant environmental effects)
and therefore rejected. As directed by the City Council, the EIR will include a project alternative that
locates all development below the 150-foot elevation line. The City has requested this design
alternative from the applicant for incorporation and analysis in the EIR. The Alternatives Analysis will
also include an Alternative that retains and restores Froom Creek in its current location. In order to
present actionable alternatives in the EIR, the alternatives chapter will be comprehensive, provide
clear descriptions and graphics, and clearly identify potential impacts, associated levels of
significance, and identification of the mitigation measures that would be required to reduce potential
impacts. Additional alternatives are likely, but are not identified at this time.
Public Scoping Meeting
A public scoping meeting has been scheduled to allow for any interested persons to provide input on
issues to be discussed in the EIR:
Date and Time: July 26, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.
Place: 990 Palm Street (City Council Chamber upstairs)
The meeting is an opportunity for City staff to gather information from the public regarding the
potential environmental impacts of the project that need to be evaluated in the EIR. It is not intended
to be a hearing on the merits of the project. Therefore, members of the public should keep their
comments focused on potential significant changes to the environment that may occur as a direct
result of project development.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1-10
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For SPEC-0143-2017
1. Project Title:
Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Emily Creel, Contract Planner and City Project Manager
(805) 543-7095 x6814
ecreel@swca.com
Shawna Scott, Associate Planner (Staff Liaison)
(805) 781-7176
sscott@slocity.org
4. Project Location:
The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels, totaling approximately 110 acres
(APNs 067-241-030 and 067-241-031) within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and
adjacent to City of San Luis Obispo (City) city limits. The Specific Plan Area is within the City’s
Sphere of Influence and a portion of the site is within the City’s Urban Reserve Line. The site is
located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. Highway 101 and the Irish Hills
Plaza.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
John Madonna Construction, Inc.
P.O. Box 5310
San Luis Obispo, California, 93406
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-11
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
2
6. General Plan Designations:
Currently unincorporated; designated in 2014 Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) of the
City’s General Plan as New Specific Plan Area 3 (SP-3, Madonna on LOVR).
7. Zoning:
Currently unincorporated; would require pre-zoning for Specific Plan. Currently proposed Specific
Plan designations include Medium-High Density Residential, Medium-High Density Residential
Life Plan Community, High Density Residential, Commercial Retail, Conservation/Open Space,
and Public Facilities. Consideration of these proposed zones are under review by the City.
8. Description of the Project:
The project includes a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and related actions that would
allow for the development of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area. Froom Ranch is identified as
Specific Plan 3 (SP-3, Madonna on LOVR) in the City’s General Plan and is subject to preparation
of a Specific Plan to accommodate development proposals and address pertinent issues within the
Specific Plan Area. The Land Use Element requires that a Specific Plan be adopted prior to
annexation. Guidance for the project is found in Chapter 8, Section 8.1.5, of the Land Use Element.
This section states the following (in added italics):
8.1.5. SP-3, Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area
Location: This site includes just over 111 acres and is located directly west of the
intersection of Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin.
Purpose: The purpose of the specific plan is to provide design flexibility that will secure
the appropriate development of the site while protecting sensitive environmental resources
on the site. Development on the site should be a compact, mixed use project that provides
workforce housing options and neighborhood commercial uses that support pedestrian and
bicycle access. The specific plan for this area should consider and address the following
land use and design issues.
a. Develop a design that is sensitive to environmental constraints and adjusts
accordingly through design. Constraints include wetland protection, slope
protection, historic structures, and open space protection.
b. Maintain viewshed of surrounding mountains and secure steeper hillsides as
protected open space areas.
c. Variable height limits will be required to protect views of adjacent hills.
d. Provide access to trails.
e. Provide a plan for adequate and safe infrastructure, including appropriate points
of access to Los Osos Valley Road.
f. Address neighborhood commercial needs of new neighborhood.
g. Provide connectivity to adjacent development.
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-12
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
3
Performance Standards: This specific plan shall meet the following performance
standards.
Type Designations
Allowed % of Site Minimum1 Maximum
Residential (Mixed Use) MDR
MHDR
HDR
200 units 350 units
Commercial NC
CR
50,000 sf 350,000 sf
Parks PARK
Open Space/Agriculture OS
AG
Minimum 50%
Public n/a
Infrastructure n/a
1 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental
constraints.
Initiation of the Specific Plan and Advisory Body Review
As described below (Proposed Project Overview), the applicant envisions a Specific Plan that
differs somewhat from the performance standards identified in the Land Use Element. The City
Council considered this change in vision for the area, and authorized initiation of the Specific Plan
on April 5, 2016. The Council generally supported the concept to reduce the amount of commercial
development within the Specific Plan area, and the development of a Continuing Care Retirement
Community or Life Plan Community within the City. The City Council specifically identified the
need for a Project Design Alternative that complies with existing Land Use Element Policy
6.4.7.H. (Hillside Planning Areas, The Irish Hills area), which states that “The Irish Hills area
should secure permanent open space with no building sites above the 150-foot elevation, in
conjunction with any subdivision or development of the lower areas. (See also Section 8, Special
Focus Areas)”. Following initiation by the City Council, the applicant presented preliminary plans
to the Parks and Recreation Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee. Past agenda report
packages and meeting minutes are available at the following link:
www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/documents-
online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-1911
Proposed Project Overview
Froom Ranch is envisioned as a primarily residential project with some commercial development
in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and the adjacent Irish Hills
Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known
as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior
housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and
Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will
be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site
must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open
Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve, which may incorporate on-site historic structures. The treatment and potential
use of the historic structures is currently under evaluation by the applicant.
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-13
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
4
Table 1 identifies the land uses proposed within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project
includes the following land use/zoning designations, currently under review by the City:
Residential Land Use Zones
R-3-SP – Medium-High Density Residential
R-3-SP – Medium-High Density Residential Life Plan Community
R-4-SP – High-Density Residential
Non-Residential Land Use Zones
CR-SP – Commercial Retail
C/OS-SP – Conservation/Open Space
PF-SP – Public Facilities
Table 1 Proposed Froom Ranch Specific Plan Land Use and Zoning Summary
Land Use Zoning Acres Density Potential
Units
Potential
Square Feet
RESIDENTIAL
Medium-High Density Residential
- Multi-family units R-3-SP 5.3 20 du/ac 130
Medium-High Density Residential –
Life Plan Community
- Independent living
- Assisted living units
- Health Center including assisted
care, memory care, and skilled
nursing
- Ancillary facilities such as
recreation center, restaurants, and
theaters (26,000 sf)
R-3-SP 31.5 20 du/ac
- 61 villas
- 108
garden
apts.
- 150 apts.
- 47 village
suites
- 38
assisted
living
units
- 51
memory
care and
skilled
nursing
beds
40,000
High-Density Residential
- Multi-family apartments R-4-SP 1.9 24 du/ac 44
Residential Subtotal 38.7 578
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Commercial Retail
- 30,000 sf commercial
- 70,000 sf hotel (120 rooms)
CR-SP 3.5 100,000
Conservation/Open Space C/OS-SP 59.01
Public Facilities
- Neighborhood Park PF-SP 2.9
Other (Roads) 5.6
Non-Residential Subtotal 71.0
TOTAL 109.7
1 Includes proposed project open space (51.3 acres) as well as existing open space easement (7.1 acres)
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-14
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
5
Additional project elements include:
General Plan Amendment to modify Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7.H to allow for development
above the 150-foot elevation;
Realignment and restoration of Froom Creek;
The creation of a new drainage/stormwater basin off-site (Mountainbrook Church property); and
Internal circulation, trails, parking, utilities, and other infrastructure to support the project.
9. Project Entitlements:
The following entitlements and reviews would be required to implement the project:
1. General Plan Amendment/Pre-Zoning
2. Specific Plan
3. Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Tract Map(s)
4. Architectural Review
5. Annexation
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Lands surrounding the Specific Plan Area generally consist of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve (open
space and recreation) and unincorporated undeveloped rural and agricultural lands to the west,
urban development to the north and east in the City of San Luis Obispo, and a mix of urban
development and undeveloped/agricultural land to the south. Development north, south and east
of the Specific Plan Area in the City of San Luis Obispo includes large shopping centers, auto
dealerships, hotels, roadways, parking lots, and other urban infrastructure. Existing uses
surrounding the site are as follows:
West: Irish Hills Natural Reserve
North: Irish Hills Plaza shopping center and associated parking
East: Los Osos Valley Road, auto dealerships, Bear Valley Commercial Center
South: Hotel/lodging facilities, Margie’s Diner, Mountainbrook Community Church,
Calle Joaquin, U.S. Highway 101.
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1?
If so, has consultation begun?
The project application has not been completed and the City has not yet sent formal notices or
initiated consultation pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1. Upon
determining the application is complete, the City will provide formal notification to all tribes
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area of the opportunity to request consultation
pursuant to this section. The City will also conduct consultation pursuant to Senate Bill 18
(Government Code Sections 65352.3 and 65562.5).
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-15
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
6
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) – annexation
Airport Land Use Commission – Airport Land Use Plan consistency review
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Nationwide or Individual Permit
Regional Water Quality Control Board – Section 401 Water Quality Certification
California Department of Fish and Wildlife –Section 1600 Lake and Streambed Alteration
Agreement, State Endangered Species Act compliance
Air Pollution Control District – possibly construction and operational permits
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Federal Endangered Species Act compliance
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries – Federal
Endangered Species Act compliance
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-16
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
7
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X Aesthetics X Greenhouse Gas Emissions X Population / Housing
X Agriculture Resources X Hazards & Hazardous Materials X Public Services
X Air Quality X Hydrology / Water Quality X Recreation
X Biological Resources X Land Use / Planning X Transportation / Traffic
X Cultural Resources Mineral Resources X Tribal Cultural Resources
X Geology / Soils X Noise X Utilities / Service Systems
X Mandatory Findings of Significance
FISH AND WILDLIFE FEES
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination
request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see
attached determination).
X
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
X
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State
agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15082).
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-17
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
8
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made,
by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
S i g n a t u r e D a t e
Tyler Corey¸ Principal Planner For: Michael Codron,
Printed Name Community Development Director
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-18
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
9
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors
to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there
are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-
referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-19
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
10
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 4, 5, 34 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
1, 5, 34 X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings? 4, 34 X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 2 X
a), b), c) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S.
Highway 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project site is located within Hillside Planning Area H Irish Hills. The approximately
110-acre Froom Ranch Specific Plan area is characterized by relatively flat grassland areas that transition to steeper slopes before
approaching City open space property at the base of the Irish Hills. The topography of the project site ranges from approximately
110-120 feet near Los Osos Valley Road to 450 feet in the upper elevations. The majority of the property is undeveloped but
includes an assemblage of historic ranch and dairy structures on part of the site directly south of Home Depot in the adjacent Irish
Hills Plaza shopping center. The existing structures are currently used as an office (main ranch house) and equipment storage yard
to support the John Madonna Construction Company, Incorporated business. The property also includes unimproved roads,
staging and materials storage areas, a quarry area, and a stormwater detention facility for the neighboring Irish Hills Plaza.
Surrounding views consist of the Irish Hills Shopping Plaza and other commercial development, open space hillsides in the Irish
Hills Natural Reserve, and surrounding roadways. The site is highly visible from Los Osos Valley Road and U.S. Highway 101,
which is designated as a high value scenic resource in the City’s Circulation Element. The entire length of U.S. Highway 101 that
extends from Highway 46 in Paso Robles to the southern boundary of San Luis Obispo County is also identified by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as an eligible California State Scenic Highway (though not officially designated).
Development of the site, as outlined in the Project Description, would result in increased urbanization of the existing viewshed
along the Los Osos Valley Road and could potentially block or obstruct existing public views of the area and surrounding hillsides.
This could represent a major change in the aesthetic character of the project site and an intensification of the urban character of
the project vicinity.
A significant component of the project is the applicant’s request for a General Plan Amendment to allow development above the
150-foot elevation. The applicant’s current land use exhibit shows a portion of the LPC extending to the 250-foot elevation and
residential uses extending to the 180-foot elevation. Approximately 44.3 percent (48.61 acres) of the project site is located above
the 150-foot elevation. Modification of the existing development limit line would allow development in the upper elevations of
the Irish Hills above the 150-foot elevation. The language specifying the 150-foot elevation development limit was carried forward
into the 2014 LUE from the City’s previously adopted Land Use Element (adopted August 23, 1994 and revised June 15, 2010).
The 1994 Land Use Element included a Hillside Planning Policies and Standards section; the purpose of this section was to
“protect and preserve scenic hillside areas and natural features, set boundaries for commercial and residential development in
sensitive hillside areas by creating a permanent open space greenbelt at the edge of the community, and to protect the health,
safety and welfare of community residents by directing development away from areas with hazards”. The Hillside Policies
identified in the 2014 LUE focus on “where and how some hillsides may be developed” (refer to LUE Chapter 6 Resource
Protection).
The Land Use and Circulation Element Update (LUCE) EIR provides an analysis of each proposed Specific Plan area, including
the project site. Potential visual impacts identified in the LUCE EIR, specific to SP-3 (the project site), include the following:
Development of the site, as outlined in the proposed LUCE Update, could result in increased urbanization of the existing
viewshed along the Los Osos Valley Road and could potentially block or obstruct existing public views. However,
implementation of the proposed LUCE Update policies, and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce
impacts to less than significant levels.
Development of the area, as outlined in the proposed LUCE Update, has the potential to result in increased urbanization
of an undeveloped area which could degrade the existing visual character and its surroundings. However, implementation
of the proposed LUCE Update policies, and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce impacts to less than
significant levels.
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-20
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
11
Development of the area could result in increased ambient nighttime lighting through the addition of residential and
commercial uses and associated structural development in a primarily undeveloped area. However, implementation of
the proposed LUCE Update policies, and the existing City policies identified below, would reduce impacts to less than
significant levels.
Therefore, the less than significant impact determinations in the LUCE FEIR specific to visual impacts were based on compliance
with policies included in the LUE, such as the 150-foot development limit. The certified Final EIR for the LUCE Update states
that the Specific Plan will be required to address several issues (as listed in the LUE), including environmental constraints,
resource protection, hillside and open space protection, viewsheds, and views from off-site locations. The applicant’s preliminary
project narrative states the project can be designed to minimize impacts to scenic resources by using the existing topography,
which may provide a natural visual barrier between the development and public viewing areas. Variations in topography may
provide opportunities to screen future development from view; however, certain components including lighting and grading cut
slopes may be difficult to fully “hide”, and overall the project is anticipated to create some change in the visual environment, and
may increase cumulative views of the existing structures and the proposed development in the upper elevations of the Irish Hills.
Further environmental analysis in the EIR, including a viewshed study and photo-simulations, are required to determine if
development above the 150-foot elevation would result in any significant, unavoidable, adverse impacts, and to determine
appropriate mitigation measures.
Due to the visual sensitivity of the site, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant project-
specific and cumulative impacts to a scenic vista, scenic resources, and the visual character and/or quality of the site and its
surroundings. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR, in addition to
an evaluation of the project’s consistency with hillside and scenic viewshed protection policies identified in the General Plan.
d) Although the project site is primarily undeveloped, it is located in an urbanized area with existing light sources from
neighboring commercial development, parking areas and surrounding roadways, including Los Osos Valley Road and U.S.
Highway 101. Development of the proposed project could result in increased ambient nighttime lighting and glare through the
addition of residential and commercial uses and associated structural development in a primarily undeveloped area. The project
will be required to comply with the Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23), which sets operational
standards and requirements for lighting installations. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further
examination in the EIR.
Conclusion: Potentially significant project-specific, secondary, and cumulative impacts related to aesthetics will be addressed in
the Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
8 X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract? 4 X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use?
4 X
a) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan area includes land designated as grazing land and farmland of local potential by the
California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP).
Currently, portions of the site are used for grazing purposes. Implementation of the proposed project would not convert Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. These impacts are considered less than significant.
b) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan area does not include land currently under Williamson Act and no Williamson Act
contracted lands are located within 0.5 mile of the Specific Plan area; therefore, no conflicts with an existing Williamson Act
contract would occur as a result of the proposed project. The project site currently includes land designated for agriculture and
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-21
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
12
commercial retail land uses and land that is currently used for livestock grazing. A portion of the site is also subject to an existing
agricultural conservation easement. Implementation of the proposed project would include pre-zoning the site prior to annexation
into the City, with the anticipation that the proposed development would comply with the proposed underlying zoning. The EIR
will evaluate the potential effects resulting from the anticipated pre-zoning, any potential direct or indirect effects to the existing
agricultural conservation easement, and compatibility with adjacent properties.
c) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan area is surrounded by urbanized and developed land uses and public streets to the north,
east, and south, and open space to the west and southwest. The property currently supports limited grazing and implementation
of the proposed project could result in potential conflicts with grazing uses on the property. These impacts are considered
potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to adversely affect onsite and adjacent agricultural uses and
the existing agricultural conservation easement as a result of the anticipated pre-zoning and implementation of incompatible land
uses. These potentially significant project-specific, secondary, and cumulative impacts will be further examined in the EIR.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
10, 11,
14 X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
10, 11,
14 X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
10, 11,
14 X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? 11 X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? 11 X
a), b), c), d) The Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the San Luis Obispo Air
Pollution Control District (APCD) and is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional
industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 2.3.2 states
that the City will help the APCD implement the CAP. The EIR shall include an assessment of the project’s consistency with the
CAP transportation, land use, and circulation policies.
Implementation of the proposed project would generate both short-term emissions associated with construction and long-term
emissions associated with operation of the project. Construction and grading equipment would emit carbon monoxide and ozone
precursors, such as nitrogen oxide and reactive organic compounds, as well as dust and suspended particulates. There is also a
potential for exposure to naturally-occurring asbestos and asbestos containing materials. Construction and operation of the project
would generate new vehicle trips and increase the combustion of natural gas and electricity in the area, thereby generating regional
air pollutants. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in significant impacts associated with air quality.
Assessment of potential air quality impacts that may result from the proposed project will need to be conducted using the April
2012 CEQA Air Quality Handbook. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in
the EIR.
e) Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to generate odors during construction and operation. Odors that
have the potential to be generated during construction activities would be associated with exhaust from construction equipment
and would be short-term during the construction phase of the project. Odors that have the potential to be generated during operation
of the project could include odors associated with solid waste generation and proposed commercial facilities. These impacts are
considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-22
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
13
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to generate both short-term emissions associated with
construction and long-term emissions associated with operation of the project. Potentially significant project-specific, secondary,
and cumulative impacts will be further examined in the Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
4, 5, 26 X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
4, 5, 26,
44, 45,
46, 47
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
4, 5, 26,
27 X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
4, 5 X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
4, 5, 35 X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
28, 31,
44, 45,
46, 47
X
a) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan area is composed of a variety of plant communities including annual and native
grasslands, coast live oak/California bay woodland, and coastal scrub/chaparral habitats. Non-native annual grassland is the
dominant plant community on the property, primarily present in the flatter portions of the Specific Plan area where cattle and
horse feeding activities occurred in the past. The site is bisected by various natural drainages. Froom Creek traverses the Specific
Plan area in a mostly north-to-south direction and converges with San Luis Obispo Creek south of the Specific Plan area before
flowing toward its outlet to the Pacific Ocean in Avila Beach. Wetland habitat is present in the flat grassland areas in the eastern
portion of the site. The Los Osos Valley Road roadside channel is dominated by arroyo willow monoculture.
A Biological Resources Inventory was prepared for the proposed project in January 2016 (Kevin Merk Associates, LLC 2016),
and a supplemental report is forthcoming that will include potential off-site improvements (drainage/stormwater basin); all
biological reports submitted by the applicant shall be peer reviewed by a qualified biologist in association with the EIR. The
floristic inventory conducted in support of the Biological Resources Inventory identified the following special-status plants
occurring in the serpentinite bunchgrass grassland, wetland habitat, and on scattered serpentinite outcrops in the southwest portion
of the site:
Blochman’s dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae; CRPR List 1B.1);
Brewer’s spineflower (Chorizanthebreweri; CRPR List 1B.3);
Cambria morning glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis; CRPR List 4.2);
Chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis; CRPR List 2.2);
Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense; federal and state endangered and CRPR List 1B.2);
Club haired mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus ssp. clavatus; CRPR List 4.3);
Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii; CRPR List 1B.1);
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-23
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
14
Eastwood’s larkspur (Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae; CRPR List 1B.2);
Jones’ layia (Layia jonesii; CRPR List 1B.2);
Mouse-gray dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina; CRPR List 1B.2);
Palmer’s spineflower (Chorizanthe palmeri; CRPR List 4.2);
San Luis mariposa lily (Calochortus obispoensis; CRPR List 1B.2); and,
San Luis Obispo owl’s-clover (Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis; CRPR List 1B.2).
No rare animals were observed on-site during the field surveys; however, based on a habitat suitability analysis, the following
special-status animals were identified as having the potential to occur within the project area:
American badger (Taxidea taxus; species of special concern);
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; species of special concern);
California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia; watch list);
Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi; watch list);
Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos; watch list and CDFW Fully Protected);
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus; species of special concern);
Merlin (Falco columbarius; watch list);
Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus; species of special concern);
Purple martin (Progne subis; species of special concern);
Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus; watch list);
Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor; candidate species and species of special concern);
White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; CDFW Fully Protected);
Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechial brewsteri; species of special concern);
Big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis; species of special concern);
Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus; special animal);
Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus; species of special concern);
San Diego woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia; species of special concern);
Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus; federal threatened and species of special concern);
Townsend’s western big-eared bat (Corynorhynus townsendi; species of special concern);
Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus; species of special concern);
Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevilli; species of special concern); and,
Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis; special animal).
In addition, California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii; state species of special concern and federal threatened) and mountain lion
(Puma concolor; state “specially protected species”) have been observed on adjacent properties. Additional information is
provided in the Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (USFWS 2002), Chorro Creek Bog Thistle: 5-Year Review
Summary and Evaluation (USFWS 2007), South-Central California Coast Steelhead Recovery Plan (NOAA 2013), and Recovery
Plan for the Morro Shoulderband Snail and Four Plants from Western San Luis Obispo County (USFWS 1998).
A variety of birds and bats could also utilize the larger trees within the oak/bay woodland and riparian habitat for nesting and
roosting activities, and several bird species could potentially use the grassland habitat in the project area for nesting.
Implementation of the proposed project could result in direct and indirect impacts to special-status species through the conversion
of land that currently supports special-status plants and changes to proximate habitat conditions (e.g. hydrological changes that
may adversely affect Chorro Creek bog thistle or Congdon’s tarplant); and land that provides suitable habitat for special-status
animals, including direct conversion of habitat and construction and operational effects (e.g., noise, lighting) that could affect the
behavior or special-status wildlife. Potentially significant short-term and long-term impacts to aquatic species could also occur as
a result of the proposed relocation and realignment of Froom Creek. The EIR shall consider and assess feasible mitigation
measures to address potentially significant impacts, including avoidance, on and off-site mitigation, and preservation of land
above the 150-foot elevation for habitat enhancement or restoration. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will
require further examination in the EIR.
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-24
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
15
b) Three sensitive natural communities have been identified within the project area: arroyo willow riparian scrub (1.87
acres), wetland (7.25 acres), and serpentine bunchgrass grassland (13.46 acres). Implementation of the proposed project could
result in direct and indirect impacts to these sensitive natural communities through direct conversion or indirect impacts associated
with construction activities and operation of the project, including but not limited to grading and development, hydrological
modifications, realignment of Froom Creek, and long-term fire safety vegetative fuel reductions. These impacts are considered
potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
c) Based on the Biological Resources Inventory prepared by the applicant, the project area supports approximately 7.25
acres of wetland habitat and 2.66 acres of drainage features (also refer to the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination submitted
by the applicant). The wetland habitat present on-site is a combination of coastal and valley freshwater marsh and vernal marsh
vegetation communities. Implementation of the proposed project could result in direct and indirect impacts to federally-protected
wetlands through construction activities, grading, modification of existing drainage patterns and detention basins, development
of new impervious surfaces, and the realignment of Froom Creek, hydrological modifications, and long-term fire safety vegetative
fuel reductions. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
d) Implementation of the proposed project would convert land that is currently undeveloped and provides suitable habitat for a
variety of native resident and migratory fish and wildlife species. The project area is identified in the Conservation and Open
Space Element of the City’s General Plan as supporting a designated wildlife zone and wildlife corridor. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project could result in direct and indirect interference with the movement of wildlife species and
their use of existing wildlife corridors and habitat resources within the area. These impacts are considered potentially significant
and will require further examination in the EIR.
e) The Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan includes policies related to species of local concern,
wildlife habitat and corridors, trees and other plants, natural communities, and creek setbacks. In addition, the City’s Tree
Ordinance (Ordinance 1544) establishes regulations related to tree protection, tree removal, and designation and protection of
heritage trees. Implementation of the proposed project would likely require tree removal, which shall be quantified and assessed
in the EIR. The EIR shall include preliminary identification of the project’s consistency with General Plan policies related to
natural and biological resources.
f) The project site is located between property covered by the Irish Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan and the Johnson
Ranch Open Space Conservation Plan. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in conflicts between land
uses on the project site and the adjacent conservation plan areas if development were to impact sensitive habitat, encroach into
conserved areas, or otherwise indirectly affect conserved areas. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will
require further examination in the EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in direct and indirect impacts to existing
undeveloped habitat, sensitive natural communities and riparian habitat, federally-protected wetlands, special-status plants and
animals, and wildlife corridors, and could conflict with local policies, ordinances, and identified Conservation Plans. Preparation
of the EIR will include peer review of the biological reports provided by the applicant, and coordination meetings with resource
agencies including, but not limited to the City Natural Resources Manager and City Biologist, California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fisheries
(NOAA Fisheries), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Potentially significant
project-specific, secondary, and cumulative impacts will be further examined in the EIR.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in §15064.5.
4, 12,
32, 36,
37
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5) 4, 12, 32 X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature? 4 X
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-25
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
16
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries? X
a), b), d) A Section 106 Prehistoric and Historic Report was prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) for the Froom Ranch
Specific Plan area (FCS 2015). This report and additional information and analysis provided by the applicant shall be peer
reviewed by a qualified architectural historian and a qualified archaeologist in association with the EIR.
The Froom Ranch Historic Complex is located in the northwest portion of the project site, and with the exception of a historic
dairy barn, the complex is located below the 150-foot elevation. This historic resource (P-40-040991) was evaluated for National
Register of Historic Properties eligibility by a qualified architectural historian and was found to meet identified criteria for an
historic resource. The applicant’s team, including an architectural historian and structural engineer, are working on a plan to
address the individual structures and the complex as a whole. Preliminary concepts include repositioning and/or reconstruction of
structures onsite, possibly in association with the proposed trailhead park, potential removal of structures, and incorporation of
interpretive and educational elements. The EIR shall include a preliminary assessment of the project’s consistency with General
Plan policies specific to cultural resources, the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines, and Secretary of Interior Standards. The EIR shall evaluate the project’s potential impacts to historic (built
environment) resources, pursuant to CEQA and City regulations and policies.
Based on the Section 106 Report prepared by the project applicant, a records search was conducted for the project area and a 0.5-
mile radius by staff at the Central California Information Center (CCIC), located at the University of California, Santa Barbara
on January 5, 2015. Results from the records search indicate that two prehistoric resources and one historic resource have been
previously recorded within the area of potential effect (APE). The two prehistoric resources are CA-SLO-783, a bedrock mortar
site, and CA-SLO-1195, a lithic/bone/shell scatter. The historic resource, P-40-040991, is the complex of buildings comprising
the Froom Ranch and Dairy (see above). Five studies have been previously conducted within the APE; three of the study/survey
reports (E-590, E2723, and E-3708) detail the findings of the two previously recorded prehistoric resources and the one historic
resource, while the other two studies conducted within the APE (E-4663 and E-4706) did not produce any findings of cultural
resources.
FCS Archaeologists conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the project APE from January 6-8, 2015. Two previously
recorded prehistoric resources (CA-SLO-783 and CA-SLO-1195) located within the project APE were investigated to ascertain
the current condition of the resources. In addition, Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Archaeological Site Records for
each site were updated to reflect current findings for both resources. No additional prehistoric resource sites were discovered
during the course of the survey; however, isolate prehistoric lithic tools and debitage (waste flakes from the manufacture of stone
tools) were encountered and mapped during the survey. In addition, four rock walls, a stone revetment/retaining wall, and a recent
stone fire pit were mapped and photographed. It is currently unknown when these rock features were constructed; however, the
property owner, John Madonna, believes they are related to the historic era Froom Ranch and Dairy.
Due to the history of the area and known presence of previously recorded prehistoric and historic sites within the project area, the
potential for additional cultural resources to be present on-site is considered high. Implementation of the proposed project could
result in direct and/or indirect impacts to historic resources, archaeological resources, and/or human remains, if present, during
ground-disturbing construction activities and project operation. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will
require further examination in the EIR.
c) Three vertebrate localities have been identified along the coast within 9 miles of the project site. These localities occur in
Pleistocene fluvial deposits overlying marine terraces, and include assemblages of the Rancholabrean mammals Equus sp. and E.
occidentalis (horse); Camelops sp. and C. hesternus (camel); Bison antiquus and B. latifrons (bison), and Mammut americanum
(mammoth). Other, more distal localities in San Luis Obispo County have been identified as well. Due to the known presence of
previously recorded significant paleontological resources in the project vicinity, the potential project-related impacts on
paleontological resources is considered potentially significant. The paleontological sensitivity of the project site and potential
effects on paleontological resources will be further examined in the EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project could result in direct and/or indirect impacts to historic resources,
archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and/or human remains, if present, during ground-disturbing construction
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-26
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
17
activities and project operation. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the
EIR.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
3, 4, 6,
9, 13
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
X
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? X
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
IV. Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
3, 4, 6,
9, 13 X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of
the California Building Code (2013), creating substantial risks
to life or property?
3, 4, 6,
9, 13 X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
X
a), b, c), d) The project area is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which extends along the coastline
from central California to Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity.
In general, the folds and faults of this geomorphic province comprise the pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley system of
the central and northern coast of California. According to the Geologic Map of California, San Luis Obispo Sheet published by
the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) in 1978, the site vicinity is underlain by Quaternary-aged alluvium
(unconsolidated deposits of sand, silt, clay, and gravel). The surrounding hills are comprised of the Franciscan and Monterey
Formations and Quaternary aged non-marine terrace deposits.
Recent geological analysis conducted by the project applicant indicates that potentially active fault trace(s) traverse the project
site. The project area is identified in the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan as being located in an area with moderate
landslide potential and high liquefaction potential. Implementation of the proposed project could expose people and structures to
potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving geologic hazards such as fault rupture,
ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides. Geologic hazards of concern that are not seismically-induced events at the site
include soil hazards such as settlement, expansive soils, subsidence, and slope stability. Construction activities such as grading,
modification of existing slopes and drainage channels, and development of new impervious surfaces could contribute to non-
seismic geologic hazards in the project area. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further
examination in the EIR.
e) The project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems; the project proposes extension
and connection to the City’s existing wastewater facilities. No geologic impacts related to the alternative disposal of wastewater
would occur.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to expose people and structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic and non-seismic geologic hazards. These impacts are
considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-27
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
18
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
4, 10,
11, 14 X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
4, 10,
11, 14 X
a), b) The state of California passed Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 and Executive
Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005), both requiring reductions of greenhouse gases in the state of California and establishing goals to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to be 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. More recently, the state of
California passed Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), which established goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990
levels by 2030. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions during construction
and operation, including through short-term construction and long-term operational vehicle emissions and point-source emissions.
These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR, consistent with the
methodologies identified in the SLO APCD CEQA Handbook. In addition, the EIR shall assess the project’s consistency with the
City’s Climate Action Plan.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions during construction
and operation. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
1, 4 X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
1, 4, 15,
16 X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
1, 4 X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
1, 4, 15,
16 X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
4, 17, 18 X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
4, 17, 18 X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
1, 4, 6 X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
4, 6 X
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-28
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
19
a), b), c), d) The proposed project includes the development of new residential and commercial uses, which are not
anticipated to involve the routine use, transportation, disposal or emission of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials such as
fuel, oil, and other materials may be stored and used for maintenance and operation of equipment used during construction and
operation of the proposed project; therefore, implementation of the proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment.
The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area is primarily undeveloped with the exception of some agricultural support development and
offices associated with John Madonna Construction, Inc. Pacific Beach High School, located at 11950 Los Osos Valley Road, is
located within 0.25 mile of the project site. There are no records of previous or existing sources of contamination in this area and,
based on a preliminary review, the project site is not on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5. However, historic agricultural use on-site may have resulted in undocumented residual quantities of
presently‐banned agricultural chemicals, which could pose a health hazard to construction workers or future residents or visitors.
It is also possible that existing hazardous materials releases from off-site properties could potentially affect the project site.
Although there are no documented hazardous materials sites located on the project site, based on the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) Geotracker database, there are several documented closed cases of leaking underground storage tank
(LUST) sites, and one permitted underground storage tank (UST), located on the east side of Los Osos Valley Road, opposite the
project site. The potential exposure of construction workers, and future residents and visitors to the site could result in potential
impacts.
These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
e) The project area is primarily located within Safety Zone 2 of the County’s current Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), with
a small portion close to Los Osos Valley Road located within ALUP Zones S-1b (3 acres) and S-1c (4 acres). Safety Zone 2,
where the residential development is envisioned to occur within the Specific Plan Area, allows 6 to 12 dwelling units per acre.
The applicant requested a pre-application review by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and the ALUC considered the
project on April 19, 2017. Although portions of the project are within Safety Zones S-1b and S-1c per the current ALUP, a
corrected version of the analog map used in Figure 3 of the ALUP has been more recently utilized by the ALUC to review the
consistency of other recent specific plans (San Luis Ranch and Avila Ranch) with the ALUP. The new map has adjusted the
locations of safety zones to the true GIS bearings of Runways 7-25 and 11-29. When the project site is overlain on the revised
safety zones map, it is located outside of both Safety Zones S-1b and S-1c.
Although no formal direction was provided, the ALUC indicated that consistency with the requirements of Safety Zone 2
throughout the entire site would be appropriate. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to conflict with the
County’s ALUP. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
f) The Specific Plan Area is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, potential impacts would be less than
significant.
g), h) The project site is designated as moderate and high wildland fire hazard areas due primarily to its location along the
outskirts of the city where the wildland and urban areas interface. Future development and human occupation could therefore be
exposed to potential wildland fire hazards, and in turn, increased human presence may increase the potential for wildfire.
Development of the proposed project could interfere with emergency evacuation routes if potential traffic impacts are not
adequately mitigated. In addition, the LPC component of the project may require additional provisions for safe evacuation of
residents, staff, patients, and guests. The EIR shall assess whether compliance with applicable Uniform Fire Code (UFC),
California Building Code (CBC) and General Plan policies would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels, or if
additional mitigation is necessary. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the
EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in significant impacts related to upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, inconsistencies with the County’s ALUP, wildland
fire hazards, and interference with emergency evacuation routes. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will
require further examination in the EIR.
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-29
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
20
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
1, 4, 5,
21, 26,
27
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
1, 38 X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off
site?
1, 38 X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
38 X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped
on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows? X
i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
a), f) The proposed project is subject to the current stormwater regulations as set forth by the RWQCB. The proposed project
is also subject to the requirements for Interim Low Impact Development. Implementation of the proposed project could result in
an increase of point and non‐point sources of contamination during construction and operation of the project, including
realignment of Froom Creek, that could affect water quality onsite and in the vicinity of the project area. These impacts are
considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
b) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area is located within and drains to the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin.
The project is anticipated to be served by the City’s sewer and water systems and is not expected to deplete groundwater resources.
However, increase demand on City water supplies and development of the project would increase the amount of impervious
surfaces within the Specific Plan Area, which could result in impacts related to groundwater supply, percolation, recharge, and
the alteration of existing drainage patterns. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further
examination in the EIR. Preparation of a Water Supply Assessment that meets the requirements of SB 610 will be required; this
assessment will be provided by the applicant and peer reviewed by the EIR consultant in coordination with the City Utilities
Department.
c), d), e) Implementation of the proposed project would result in physical modifications to the existing project area
including construction activities such as grading, modification of existing slopes and drainage channels, realignment and
relocation of the existing creek and detention basin, the potential creation of a new drainage/stormwater basin offsite (on the
Mountainbrook Church property), and development of new impervious surfaces. The applicant has submitted a preliminary
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-30
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
21
Stormwater Memorandum (RRM 2015), and will provide additional analysis in compliance with the City’s Waterways
Management Plan Drainage Design Manual; these documents shall be peer reviewed by the EIR consultant in coordination with
the City Public Works Department. Physical modification of the project site would be required to comply with the drainage
requirements of the City’s Waterways Management Plan (City of San Luis Obispo 2003). This plan was adopted for the purpose
of insuring water quality and proper drainage within the City’s watershed. The Waterways Management Plan requires that site
development be designed so that post-development site drainage does not significantly exceed pre-development runoff.
Implementation of the proposed project could substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on-site through the realignment and
relocation of the existing creek and detention basin in the eastern portion of the site, which could result in substantial erosion and
siltation on- and off-site. Modification of existing drainage patterns and development of new impervious surfaces on-site has the
potential to substantially increase the rate and amount of surface runoff in a manner that could result in flooding on- and off-site.
Additionally, modification of existing drainage patterns and development of new impervious surfaces on-site has the potential to
contribute runoff water, which could exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or create substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in
the EIR.
g), h), i) A portion of the low-lying areas within the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area are within the 100‐year flood zone, as
identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The low-lying portions of the site near Los Osos Valley Road
include wetland areas that are subject to flooding during heavy storm events. Implementation of the proposed project could place
housing or other structures within a 100-year flood hazard area and expose people and structure to significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving flooding. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
j) The project area is located outside the zone of impacts from seiche or tsunami, and the existing site conditions do not
create a potential for inundation from mudflow.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to violate water quality standards and waste discharge
requirements; interfere with groundwater percolation and recharge; alter existing drainage patterns in a manner which could result
in erosion, siltation, increased runoff, and flooding; degrade water quality; place housing within a 100-year floodplain; and, expose
people and structures to flooding hazards. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further
examination in the EIR.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 4 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
1, 4, 5,
6, 7 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
4, 5, 28,
31 X
a) Lands surrounding the Specific Plan Area generally consist of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve (open space and recreation)
and unincorporated undeveloped rural and agricultural lands to the west, and urban development to the north and east in the City
of San Luis Obispo, and a mix of urban development and undeveloped/agricultural land to the south. Development north, south
and east of the Specific Plan Area in the City of San Luis Obispo includes large shopping centers, auto dealerships, hotels, and
roadways, parking lots, and other urban infrastructure. The project site is located adjacent to City limits, is located within the
City’s Sphere of Influence, and was anticipated to be considered for annexation as identified in the City’s General Plan. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, and potential impacts would be
less than significant.
b) As noted above, the City’s General Plan Land Use Map designates the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area as a Special
Focus Area in the City’s Sphere of Influence and anticipates annexation of this area into the City. The Land Use and Circulation
Element (LUCE) Update and certified Final EIR assumed a certain level and type of development when assessing potential
impacts and mitigation measures associated with build-out of the City and Specific Plan Area 3 (project site). The EIR shall
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-31
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
22
consider the scale and intensity of the applicant’s project scope relative to the General Plan, and shall work with the City to
determine how policies should be applied to the LPC, and whether the LPC should be considered residential, commercial, or a
combination of both. Preparation of the EIR shall include a preliminary assessment of the project’s consistency with applicable
land use plans, policies, and regulations.
c) The project site is located between property covered by the Irish Hills Conservation Plan and the Johnson Ranch Conservation
Plan. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in conflicts between land uses on the project site and the
adjacent conservation plan areas if development were to impact sensitive habitat, encroach into conserved areas, or otherwise
indirectly affect conserved areas. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the
EIR.
Conclusion: Preparation of the EIR shall include a preliminary assessment of the project’s consistency with applicable land use
plans, policies, and regulations. The Land Use section of the EIR shall identify any potentially significant land use impacts that
would occur as a result of potential inconsistencies with policies and/or regulations specifically in place to avoid or mitigate
environmental impacts.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
5 X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
5 X
a), b) There are no known mineral resources that are of known value to the region and residents of the state within the project
area and the project site is not identified as a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. However, the site currently contains
a small quarry to support the operations of John Madonna Construction, Inc.
Conclusion: Potentially significant impacts related to mineral resources are not anticipated; however, these impacts will be
evaluated further in the EIR, as warranted.
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
7 X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 7 X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 7 X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
7 X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
17, 18 X
X
a), b), c), d) The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan includes noise exposure standards for noise-sensitive land uses,
and performance standards for new commercial and industrial uses. Noise-sensitive uses generally include residences, hotels,
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-32
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
23
motels, hospitals, nursing homes, theaters, auditoriums, music halls, churches, meeting halls, office buildings, mortuaries, schools,
libraries, museums, neighborhood parks, and playgrounds. The nearest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site include
Mountainbrook Community Church, Courtyard by Marriot San Luis Obispo, Hampton Inn & Suites San Luis Obispo, and Motel
6 located immediately south of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area. The Noise Element indicates that acceptable noise exposure
levels in the vicinity of motels, hotels and churches is 50 to 60 dB and conditionally acceptable noise levels are 60 to 75 dB. The
ambient noise environment within the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area ranges from 60 to 70 dB with primary sources of noise
being traffic along U.S. Highway 101 and Los Osos Valley Road. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to
generate short-term construction noise as well as long-term operational noise and result in temporary and permanent increased
ambient noise levels that could exceed the City’s noise exposure standards for noise-sensitive land uses. Additionally, construction
activities have the potential to generate excessive groundborne vibration and groundborne noise levels. These impacts are
considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
e) The project site is located within the projected 50-55 dB contour from the County Airport, based on the ALUP. Table 1
of the General Plan Noise Element indicates that the maximum noise exposure for outside residential activities is 60 dB. Therefore,
implementation of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan is not anticipated to expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels associated with the County Airport. Although significant impacts are not expected, this issue will require
further examination in the EIR.
f) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to generate short-term construction noise and groundborne
vibration as well as long-term operational noise and result in temporary and permanent increased ambient noise levels that could
exceed the City’s noise exposure standards for noise-sensitive land uses. These impacts are considered potentially significant and
will require further examination in the EIR.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
4, 29 X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
X
a) Implementation of the proposed project would directly induce population growth within the Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Area through the development of new residential uses and commercial businesses and annexation of the property into the City.
The Froom Ranch Specific Plan is currently envisioned as a primarily residential project with some commercial development in
the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the
planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Il Villaggio. Il Villaggio would provide a variety of different
unit types for independent senior housing, recreation and dining facilities, as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted
Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be
multiple-family. Impacts related to inducing population growth are considered potentially significant and will require further
examination in the EIR.
b), c) Implementation of the project would not displace existing houses or residents.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project would directly induce population growth within the Froom Ranch Specific
Plan Area through the development of new residences and commercial businesses. These impacts are considered potentially
significant and will require further examination in the Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR.
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-33
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
24
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
a) Fire protection? 4, 6 X
b) Police protection? 4, 6 X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
a), b) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area is located approximately 3 miles southwest of the City’s Police Department, 0.5
mile south of City Fire Station No. 4, and is within the four‐minute response area of the fire station. Development of the Froom
Ranch Specific Plan would increase the population and sources of fire ignition within the Specific Plan Area and could place an
increased demand on the City’s fire protection and police services, which could require the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities. In addition, the creation of a LPC may require new or modified facilities to serve residents and patients.
These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
c) Implementation of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan would induce population growth within the Specific Plan Area through
the development of new residential units, including multi-family residential units. Therefore, development of the project could
place an increased demand on local schools, which could require the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities.
These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
d), e) Implementation of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan would induce population growth within the Specific Plan Area through
the development of new residential units, including multi-family residential units and independent housing associated with the
LPC. The Froom Ranch Specific Plan is anticipated to include approximately 58.4 acres of conservation/open space and a new
neighborhood trailhead park encompassing approximately 2.9 acres. However, implementation of the proposed project could
place an increased demand on off-site local park facilities, including the adjacent Irish Hills Natural Reserve and Open Space
area, which could require the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities. These impacts are considered
potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan would induce population growth within the Specific Plan Area
through the development of new residential units, which could place an increased demand on the City’s fire and police protection
services, as well as local schools, parks, and other public facilities. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will
require further examination in the EIR.
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
4, 5 X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
a), b) Implementation of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan would induce population growth within the Specific Plan Area through
the development of new residential units, including multi-family residential units and independent housing associated with the
LPC. The Froom Ranch Specific Plan is anticipated to include 58.4 acres of conservation/open space and a new public
neighborhood/trailhead park encompassing approximately 2.9 acres, which would connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve and
potentially incorporate on-site historic structures. However, implementation of the proposed project could place an increased
demand on existing local and regional recreation facilities, including the adjacent Irish Hills Natural Reserve and Open Space
area, which could require the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities. These impacts are considered
potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-34
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
25
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project could place an increased demand on existing local and regional recreation
facilities, which could require the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, and includes the construction of
new private and public recreational facilities which could have an adverse physical effect on the environment. These impacts are
considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including
but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
4, 23,
24, 25,
30
X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
4, 23,
24, 25,
30
X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
17 X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
30 X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
4, 23,
24, 25,
30
X
a), b) Implementation of the proposed project would generate short-term construction trips as well as long-term operational
trips to and from the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area. Project trips have the potential to result in impacts to local roadways and
intersections. The LUCE EIR identified the following areas near the proposed project as being potentially adversely impacted by
future development within the City, including development within the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area:
Los Osos Valley Road (just west of the City Limits). Due to land use changes in the vicinity of the interchange and
changes in traffic patterns, these segments will experience significant increases in volume.
Prado (US 101 – Higuera and Higuera – Broad). Due to the construction of the interchange at US 101/Prado Road, these
segments will experience significant increases in volume.
Higuera & Tank Farm (#85). Due to increases in traffic along Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road, the SB left‐turn
movement experiences significant delay.
A Preliminary Transportation Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by Central Coast Transportation Consulting in April
2015 (Central Coast Transportation Consulting 2015), which did not assess the currently-proposed project and associated mix and
intensity of land uses, and notes that the proposed project includes more residential units and less retail square footage than the
City’s LUCE provided for. Based on the analysis included in the Preliminary Transportation Analysis, the proposed project has
the potential to generate trip levels that could exceed the levels evaluated as part of the Circulation Element’s technical analysis,
but would be below the daily and PM peak hour trips that would be generated at the maximum intensity in the Land Use Element.
This suggests that the project may result in additional multi-modal transportation impacts beyond those identified in the LUCE
EIR. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to generate increased short-term and long-term trips, contribute to
local congestion and operational deficiencies, and increase traffic volumes and vehicle speeds in the vicinity of the Specific Plan
Area. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR. The City Public Works
Department will issue a separate Request for Proposals for preparation of multi-modal transportation study, which shall be
reviewed and approved by City Public Works and incorporated in the EIR.
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-35
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
26
c) The majority of the project site is within Safety Zone 2 of the ALUP with a smaller portion close to Los Osos Valley
Road located within the 1B (3 acres) and 1C (4 acres) Zones. Development of the project site is not anticipated to result in
increased risks associated with air traffic, and it is the applicant’s intention to demonstrate consistency with the ALUP (as
determined by the Airport Land Use Commission). These impacts are anticipated to be less than significant; however, this issue
will require further examination in the EIR.
d) Final project design has the potential to increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. The proposed
project will be required to meet City Engineering Standards to avoid safety risks; however, project-specific impacts related to site
design and potential safety hazards will require additional analysis. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will
require further examination in the EIR.
e) Access to the site is constrained by surrounding development/alternative ownership, topography, and natural site
conditions (i.e., the presence of drainages, floodplains, wetlands) and final project design has the potential to result in inadequate
emergency access to all developed portions of the site. The project design will be reviewed by the City Fire Marshal to ensure
adequate emergency access has been provided; however, project-specific impacts related to site design and potential safety hazards
will require additional analysis. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the
EIR.
f) The project will be required to be consistent with policies supporting alternative transportation, as described in the City’s
Circulation Element. Consistent with the goal of promoting alternative modes of transportation, the proposed project includes
bicycle circulation routes, sidewalks, public trails, private trails, and public transit service connection. Potential impacts related
to conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities will require
additional analysis. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project could result in changes in traffic volumes or traffic patterns; increase hazards
due to a design feature or incompatible use; and result in conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination
in the EIR. The City Public Works Department will issue a separate Request for Proposals for preparation of multi-modal
transportation study, which shall be reviewed and approved by City Public Works and incorporated in the EIR.
17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register as defined in Public
Resources Section 5020.1(k)?
4, 12, 32 X
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
4, 12, 32 X
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-36
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
27
a), b) Previously conducted studies within the project area have identified prehistoric and historic sites within the Specific Plan
Area; therefore, the project site is considered sensitive for tribal cultural resources. Upon determining the application is complete,
the City will provide formal notification to all tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area of the opportunity
to request consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 and the requirements of Assembly Bill 52. In
addition, the City will conduct consultation under Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), as required for Specific Plans and General Plan
Amendments. Potential impacts to tribal cultural resources and associated avoidance and mitigation measures and pre-zoning to
protect significant resources identified through the AB 52 and SB 18 consultation processes will be identified, examined, and
respectfully disclosed in the EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project could result in direct and/or indirect impacts to a tribal cultural resource, if
present, during ground-disturbing construction activities and project operation and maintenance. These impacts are considered
potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
3, 39,
40, 41,
42, 43
X
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
39, 40,
41, 42,
43
X
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
39, 40,
41, 42,
43
X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
39, 40,
41, 42,
43
X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste? 33 X
a), b), c), e) The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area would be required to be served by City water, recycled water, and
wastewater services. This would require development of private facilities within the Il Villaggio Life Plan Community that connect
to nearby public infrastructure, as well as construction of new public facilities to serve the additional proposed residential,
commercial, and public facility uses. Implementation of the proposed project would place an increased demand on existing City
infrastructure, including potable water treatment and distribution, recycled water, wastewater collection and treatment, and
stormwater facilities. The new on-site water, recycled water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities would be required to comply
with the Uniform Plumbing Code and the City standards. The City Utilities Department will review the applicant-prepared Water
Supply Assessment and water demand and sewer flow analyses and provide feedback to the applicant. These impacts are
considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the EIR.
d) Implementation of the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in water demand to support proposed
development. Project-specific impacts related to water supply, based on final project design, are considered potentially significant
and will require further examination in the EIR. Preparation of a Water Supply Assessment that meets the requirements of SB 610
will be required; the assessment will be peer reviewed by the EIR consultant in coordination with the City Utilities Department.
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-37
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
SPEC/ER #0143-2017
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
28
f), g) The proposed project would be served by San Luis Garbage Company, which maintains standards for access to ensure
that collection is feasible, which will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. San Luis Garbage is supported by
Cold Canyon Landfill and assisted by South County Sanitary, Mission County Garbage, Morro Bay Garbage, and Coastal Roll-
off. Solid waste is disposed of at the Cold Canyon Landfill located approximately 7 miles south of the City of San Luis Obispo
on State Route 227. The Landfill site is comprised of a total of 209 acres, with waste disposal limited to a 121-acre permitted
waste disposal footprint. Cold Canyon Landfill currently has an estimated closure date of 2064 (SWRCB 2015). Implementation
of the proposed project would generate solid waste during construction and operation. To help reduce waste generated by the
project, consistent with the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element, recycling facilities must be accommodated on the
project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be submitted with the building
permit application. Impacts associated with solid waste are considered potentially significant and will require further examination
in the Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR.
Conclusion: Implementation of the proposed project would place an increased demand on utilities and service systems. Impacts
to utilities and service systems are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the Froom Ranch
Specific Plan EIR.
19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
As discussed above, impacts related to biological resources are considered potentially significant and will require further
examination in the EIR.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
X
Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in cumulative considerable impacts when viewed in connection
with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. Cumulative
impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further examination in the Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
If potentially significant impacts cannot be mitigation to less-than-significant levels, the project could result in substantial direct
and/or indirect adverse impacts on human beings. These impacts are considered potentially significant and will require further
examination in the Froom Ranch Specific Plan EIR.
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-38
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016 29
20. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should
identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
The Draft and Final Program EIRs prepared for the 2035 Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) Update (certified
September 2014) and existing technical studies (refer to Source References below) were used as the basis for identifying
potential project impacts. Project files are available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo’s Community Development
Department.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
These are noted above in the analysis of specific impacts for each issue.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
These are noted above in the analysis of specific impacts for each issue.
21. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. Draft Project Plans [2/2/2017]
2. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, March 2015
3. California Building Code, 2016
4. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element and Final EIR, last revised December 2014.
5. City of San Luis Obispo Conservation & Open Space Element, 2006.
6. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Safety Element, July 2000.
7. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, 1996
8. California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, San Luis Obispo County
Important Farmland Map 2014, published October 2016
9. Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, Accessed March 21, 2017
10. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County, Air Pollution Control District, 2001.
11. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, 2012.
12. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines, October 2009
13. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990
14. City of SLO 2012 Climate Action Plan, August 2012
15. California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Envirostor Accessed March 21, 2017
16. State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker Accessed March 21, 2017
17. County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan dated May 18, 2005.
18. City of SLO Airport Compatible Open Space Plan, April 2005
19. City of SLO Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
20. City of SLO 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016
21. Waterway Management Plan, City and County of San Luis Obispo, 2003
22. Federal Emergency Management Agency, FIRM, November 16, 2012
23. City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan, November 5, 2013
24. City of San Luis Obispo Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, March 2015
25. 2014 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Connecting Communities, April 2015
26. Froom Ranch Project, San Luis Obispo County, California, Biological Resources Inventory. Kevin Merk
Associates, LLC (KMA). 2016.
27. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. US Army Corps of Engineers dated September 24, 2015
28. Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo. October 2002
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-39
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2016
30
29. Report E-5: City/County Population and Housing Estimates. California Department of Finance 2016.
30. Froom/El Villaggio Specific Plan Preliminary Transportation Analysis. Central Coast Transportation Consulting.
2015.
31. Irish Hills Natural Reserve Conservation Plan. City of San Luis Obispo 2011.
32. Froom Ranch/El Villaggio Specific Plan Section 106 Prehistoric Report, San Luis Obispo. FirstCarbon Solutions.
February 20, 2015.
33. Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. r3-2015-0021 for Cold Canyon Class III Landfill. State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Central Coast Region. 2015.
34. Applicant-prepared photo-simulations
35. City of San Luis Municipal Code
36. City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance
37. City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
38. Stormwater Memorandum, RRM Design Group, February 26, 2015
39. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Water and Wastewater Element, June 2016
40. City of San Luis Obispo 2016 Water Resources Status Report
41. City of San Luis Obispo Final Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan, December 2015
42. 2017 Recycled Water Master Plan
43. Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy, December 2015
44. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog, 2002
45. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chorro Creek Bog Thistle: 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation, 2007
46. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) South-Central California Coast Steelhead Recovery
Plan, 2013
47. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for the Morro Shoulderband Snail and Four Plants from Western
San Luis Obispo County, 1998 (Note: includes Chorro Creek bog thistle)
Additional Information: www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-
development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-1911
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1-40
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Downtown Concept Plan review and recommendation
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: Provide input on the Final Public Draft of the Downtown Concept Plan
supplement and poster and recommend adoption to the City Council.
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. We are now at the end of the public hearing stage of Phase 4, nearing completion of
the project. The attached Final Public Draft of the Downtown Concept Plan, which includes a plan
supplement and an illustrative plan poster, represents the work of the general public, stakeholders,
the Creative Vision Team, staff, consultants and city advisory bodies.
Figure 1: Planning Process Graphic, July 2017
3.0 PLANNING COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission has provided input on the Downtown Concept Plan twice: on April 26,
Meeting Date: July 26, 2017
Item Number: 2
PC2-1
Draft Downtown Concept Plan
GENP-1622-2015
Page 2
2017, and 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, staff has brought back a revised Final Public Draft of the Downtown
Concept Plan supplement and poster for the Planning Commission to review and recommend
adoption as is or with changes to the City Council for their consideration on September 5, 2017.
4.0 PROJECT 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 Le vin, 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.
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION
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 consistency with the plan and to provide decision
makers with information on how each project implements its principles, goals and concepts. In
addition, a prioritized list of public programs, projects, and actions needed for plan implementation
is included in the plan, and it will be referred to when updating other relevant City planning
documents, or developing Capital Improvement Program lists.
6.0 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Public input was gathered through a robust public engagement process, including stakeholder
interviews, an outdoor public open house with the Mission Plaza Concept Plan team, two public
workshops, an Open City Hall survey, and two neighborhood meetings with downtown residents.
After the Planning Commission and City Council study session on October 4, 2016, 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.
PC2-2
Draft Downtown Concept Plan
GENP-1622-2015
Page 3
The workshop presentation, Draft Plan, and online survey were on the project webpage for public
review and comment for over five months. A Summary of Outreach is included in the plan as
Appendix 1.
7.0 ADVISORY BODY REVIEW AND CVT ENDORSEMENT
Following the public workshop, staff presented the Draft Plan and collected input from City Advisory
Bodies including the Mass Transportation Committee, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Cultural
Heritage Committee, Parks and Recreation Commission, Architectural Review Commission and
Planning Commission. After getting direction from the CVT on May 9 the collective input gathered
was used to refine the Draft Plan. On July 12, the CVT unanimously endorsed the Final Public Draft
of the Downtown Concept Plan supplement and poster.
8.0 KEY UPDATES TO THE PLAN
Since there was a robust discussion of the plan at the April 27 Planning Commission meeting, this
section focuses on the highlights of the changes incorporated into the Final Public Draft of the
Downtown Concept Plan:
1. Updates to the Illustrative Plan: Many minor changes were made to clean up the illustrative
plan (Figure 3.1 in the supplement and on the plan poster). The most significant changes
include:
a. adding the Railroad Safety Trail adjacent to Pepper Street, and a bike bridge across
Monterey Street;
b. changing a portion of Morro St (from Higuera to Monterey Street) into a shared street
(Street Type D);
c. adding additional housing opportunities along Palm Alley (block 5);
d. removing a previously proposed park on Higuera Street (block 24);
e. updating the design of the shopping center at Marsh Street and Johnson Avenue, with
an enhanced creek walk, plaza and additional commercial mixed use (block 49);
f. extending a paseo from Nipomo to Carmel Streets, through blocks 27 and 28;
g. adding a pedestrian bridge between blocks 26 and 39, to connect a proposed parking
structure with hotel and conference center facilities across Marsh Street; and
h. incorporating the Draft Mission Plaza Concept Plan design (block 11).
2. Development of the Plan Poster: CVT volunteers Chuck Crotser and Pierre Rademaker used
their extensive design skills to illustrate a few of the plan highlights. These illustrations are
included in the plan supplement and on the Downtown Concept Plan poster. The sketches
illustrate the vision for two of the plan’s gateway areas, a shared street concept, and infill
concepts for two key downtown blocks (33 and 42). Subconsultant 10 Over Studio laid out
the plan poster so that it can be referenced by itself or in concert with the plan supplement.
PC2-3
Draft Downtown Concept Plan
GENP-1622-2015
Page 4
3. Changes to the Plan Supplement: In response to public, advisory body, and CVT input,
many minor changes were made to clean up and refine the plan supplement. The most
significant changes include:
a. Chapter 1:
• addition of a section discussing the plan’s compatabilty with the Community
Design Guidelines (page 1.4)
• addition of “The Changing Downtown” section (page 1.9) to discuss the
broader trends that were taken into consideration during plan development
b. Chapter 2:
• updates to the Vision Statement, incorporating public and CVT input
• revisions to the plan goals to be consistent with General Plan height language
and to be more sensitive to height in the Downtown Historic District (planning
principle #7, goals 7.1 and 7.2 on page 2.4)
c. Chapter 3:
• revisions to Table 3.1 Block Descriptions, particularly regarding height and to
describe changes to the illustrative plan noted above (pages 3.6-3.10)
d. Chapter 4:
• updates to Figure 4.1 Street Types Diagram (p. 4.2), such as extending Street
Type B to the Marsh/Higuera Street intersection, and adjusting locations of
Street Type C to reflect input received
• updates to Figure 4.2 Bicycle Facilities Diagram (p. 4.14) to differentiate
proposed locations for a cycle track and buffered bike lane, and reflect other
input received
• development of additional cross sections to illustrate different street type
examples
e. Chapter 5:
• updates to the implementation list to reflect input received
9.0 NEXT STEPS
After Planning Commission review and recommendation, staff will present the Final Public Draft of
the Downtown Concept Plan to the City Council with a summary of the Planning Commission’s input
and recommendation, for final review and adoption on September 5, 2017.
10.0 DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission should discuss and provide input on the direction of the Final Public Draft
of the Downtown Concept Plan, focusing on the refinements since the April 26 Planning Commission
Meeting, and identify any areas of needed clarification before recommending adoption to the City
Council.
PC2-4
Draft Downtown Concept Plan
GENP-1622-2015
Page 5
11.0 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. A CEQA Analysis Memorandum is included in the plan as Appendix 2.
12.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. July 2017 Final Public Draft Downtown Concept Plan Supplement
2. July 2017 Final Public Draft Downtown Concept Plan Poster
3. Minutes of Planning Commission meeting on April 26, 2017
PC2-5
San Luis Obispo
Downtown Concept Plan
Public Draft July, 2017
ATTACHMENT 1
i | Public Draft
Acknowledgements
Creative Vision Team (CVT)
Pierre Rademaker - Chairperson
Charles Stevenson - Vice Chairperson
Chuck Crotser
T. Keith Gurnee
Jaime Hill
Eric Meyer
Melanie Mills
MaƩ Quaglino
Annie Rendler
Vicente del Rio
Kenneth Schwartz (former)
City of San Luis Obispo Lead Staff
Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Xzandrea Fowler, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning
Rebecca Gershow, Associate Planner/Project Manager
Consultant Team Lead Staff
Michael Baker InternaƟ onal
Loreli Cappel, Project Manager
Tammy Seale (former)
Amy Sinsheimer
Ten Over Studio
Jim Duff y
Mathieu Anfosso
Daniel Lawrence
KTU+A - Mobility
Michael Singleton
City Council
Heidi Harmon, Mayor
Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor
Carlyn ChrisƟ anson, Council Member
Aaron Gomez, Council Member
Andy Pease, Council Member
Jan Marx (former Mayor)
John Ashbaugh (former Vice Mayor)
Dan Carpenter (former Council Member)
Planning Commission
Charles Stevenson, Chair
John Fowler, Vice Chair
Kim Bisheff
Hemalata Dandekar
Ronald Malak
ScoƩ Mann
Nicholas Osterbur
Daniel Knight (former)
John Larson (former)
With Input From the:
Architectural Review Commission
Bicycle Advisory Committee
Cultural Heritage Committee
Parks and Recreation Commission
Mass Transportation Committee
Citizens of San Luis Obispo
The many residents of the City who parƟ cipated in the
update of the Downtown Concept Plan. Thank you!
Project Website: www.slocity.org/downtown
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
Community Design Guidelines 1.4
Plan Area 1.5
Planning Process 1.8
The Changing Downtown 1.9
2. Vision, Principles, and Goals
Concept Plan Vision 2.1
Where We Started 2.1
Planning Principles and Goals 2.2
3. IllustraƟ ve Downtown Concept Plan
IllustraƟ ve Downtown Concept Plan 3.1
Planning AssumpƟ ons 3.2
Proposed Uses Downtown 3.11
Planning Subareas 3.19
4. Mobility and Streetscape
Background 4.1
Street Types 4.4
Bicycle Improvements 4.12
Bicycle FaciliƟ es 4.16
Downtown Streetscape Elements 4.18
Green infrastructure 4.21
5. ImplementaƟ on
ImplementaƟ on Plan 5.2
ATTACHMENT 1
iii | Public Draft
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 General Plan Downtown Planning Area 1.5
Figure 1.2 Downtown Concept Plan Area 1.6
Figure 1.3 Outreach Process Graphic 1.8
Figure 3.1 IllustraƟ ve Downtown Concept Plan 3.4
Figure 3.2 Range of Downtown Housing Types 3.16
Figure 3.3 Upper Downtown Planning Subarea 3.20
Figure 3.4 Central Downtown Planning Subarea 3.23
Figure 3.5 Lower Downtown Planning Subarea 3.28
Figure 4.1 Street Types Diagram 4.2
Figure 4.2 Bicycle FaciliƟ es Diagram 4.14
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Block DescripƟ ons 3.6
Table 5.1 ImplementaƟ on Plan 5.2
Appendices
Appendix 1: Summary of Outreach
Appendix 2: CEQA Analysis Memorandum
ATTACHMENT 1
1Introduction
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
Introduction
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.
Downtown 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
CreaƟ 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 instructed 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.
From the 1993 Conceptual Physical Plan for the City’s Center
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 capital
improvement projects and for public and private development in the
downtown.
The recent update of the General Plan Land Use Element in 2014
included an implementaƟ on objecƟ ve to update both 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 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
resoluƟ 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 is the community’s vision for how
downtown San Luis Obispo should be developed over the next 25 years.
This vision is expressed through a series of design principles, project
goals, an illustraƟ ve physical plan, mobility diagrams, and an acƟ on list
of public projects. Together, they are the Downtown Concept Plan, the
community’s vision for downtown, which will guide both public and
private acƟ ons and investment over the next 25 years.
How Will the Plan Be Used?
The 1993 Downtown Concept Plan has served as a vision for the
downtown for almost 25 years, and although not a regulatory document,
the plan has been referred to as guidance for development projects and
for public improvements downtown. The Downtown Concept 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
ATTACHMENT 1
1.3 | Public Draft
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 in relaƟ onship to one another may evolve as well,
resulƟ ng in modifi caƟ 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
relevant planning documents, or developing Capital Improvement
Program lists.
General Plan Consistency
The Downtown Concept Plan is consistent with the City’s General Plan,
which provides the overarching vision, goals, policies, and programs
for the city. The Downtown Concept Plan is guided by the policies and
programs primarily found in the Land Use and CirculaƟ on Elements, both
of which were updated in December 2014.
The General Plan is implemented 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 in
the downtown are evaluated for their consistency with the General
Plan, and compliance with the City Municipal Code and implemenƟ ng
regulaƟ ons and guidelines, such as the Zoning RegulaƟ ons and
Community Design Guidelines.
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
Concept 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
public 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.
Land Use Element Program
4.24:
The City shall update the
Downtown Concept Plan
by 2016 and shall regularly
update the plan as required
to address signifi cant changes
in or aff ecƟ ng the Downtown
area including the opportu-
nity 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
Downtown’s visitor appeal should be based on natural, historical, and
cultural features, retail services, entertainment and numerous and varied
visitor accommodaƟ ons.
Key policies from the CirculaƟ on Element are described in Chapter 4,
Mobility and Streetscape.
Community Design Guidelines
The Downtown Concept Plan is also consistent with the goals, objecƟ ves
and guidelines for downtown design arƟ culated in the City’s Community
Design Guidelines. Included are guidelines for street orientaƟ on; height
and scale; façade design; materials and architectural details; and public
spaces, plazas and courtyards. In some cases, the Downtown Concept
Plan recommends adding addiƟ onal guidance in the Community
Design Guidelines when it is next updated, such as for paseo (mid-
block walkways) design and streetscape design. However, in most cases
the Community Design Guidelines provide a greater level of detail—
especially related to private development—and help describe the
community’s high-level vision illustrated in the Downtown Concept Plan.
Goals for Downtown Design
The primary goal of the
downtown design guidelines
is to preserve and enhance
its aƩ racƟ veness to residents
and visitors as a place where:
people prefer to walk rather
than drive; and where the
pleasant sidewalks, shading
trees, and variety of shops,
restaurants, and other ac-
Ɵ viƟ es encourage people to
spend Ɵ me, slow their pace,
and engage one another. The
design of buildings and their
seƫ ng, circulaƟ on, and public
spaces in the downtown
have, and will conƟ nue to
play a crucial role in main-
taining this character and
vitality.
SecƟ on 4.1-Goals for Down-
town Design, San Luis Obispo
Community Design Guide-
lines
Downtown photo collage courtesy of Pierre Rademaker. Photo on leŌ , circa 1890, photo on right, 2008
ATTACHMENT 1
1.5 | Public Draft
Plan Area
As noted in the General Plan, the downtown includes the commercial
core and civic area, and less intensely developed commercial, offi ce,
and residenƟ al neighborhoods. Figure 1.1 illustrates the General Plan
Downtown Planning Area and the downtown core (in white, in the
center).
Source: San Luis Obispo General Plan, May 2015, page 1-39
The 1993 Concept Plan included an area nearly idenƟ cal to the
downtown 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.
Figure 1.1.
General Plan Downtown
Planning Area and Core
£¤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
BRANCH
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 V
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
WILSONSERRANO
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
CY
P RE
S S
W
A
L
K
E
R
WEST
T
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
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
S a n L ui s O bi spo C r e e k
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
Mill StSanta Rosa St Toro St Johnson Ave Pa lm S tPepper St Union Pacific Railroad Mon terey 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
B
e
a
c
h
S
t
Da
n
a
S
t
Ma
r
sh
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
O
b
i
s
p
o
C
r
e
e
k
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
0 200 400Feet
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
O
b
i
s
p
o
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'ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 1.8
PROJECT PROCESS & TIMELINE
PHASE 1
Project Initiation
December 2015 -
January 2016
PHASE 2
Public Engagement
January 2016 -
April 2016
PHASE 3
Plan Development
May 2016 -
February 2017
PHASE 4
Plan Refinement
and Adoption
March 2017 -
September 2017
CVT
Meeting
1
CVT
Meeting
2
CVT
Meeting
3
Neighborhood
Meetings
1&2
CVT
Meeting
4
CVT
Meeting
5
CVT
Meeting
6
CVT
Meeting
10
CVT
Meeting
11
CVT
Meeting
12
Draft Plan
Public
Workshop
CVT
Meeting
9
Public
Hearings
City Council
Adoption
CVT
Meeting
7
Online
Engagement
Online
Engagement
Stakeholder
Meetings
Public
Workshop 3
Draft Plan
Public
Workshop
Public
Workshops
1 & 2
CVT
Meeting
8
CC and PC
Study
Session
Planning Process
The Downtown Concept Plan has been updated through a community-
based planning process guided by staff , consultants, and the Council-
appointed CreaƟ ve Vision Team.
Figure 1.3. Outreach Process Graphic summarizes the four-phase process
used to update the Downtown Concept Plan.
The project included broad-based public engagement in accordance with
the City’s adopted Public Engagement and NoƟ cing Manual, including
stakeholder focus groups, online engagement, three public workshops,
neighborhood meeƟ ngs and Advisory Body review.
Public input has directly shaped the plan. A complete summary of
community outreach acƟ viƟ es and fi ndings is included in Appendix A.
Figure 1.3. Outreach Process Graphic
ATTACHMENT 1
1.9 | Public Draft
The Changing Downtown
Downtown San Luis Obispo has evolved over the years. Changes to the
downtown are the result of public investments, market and urban design
trends, economic shiŌ s, city regulaƟ ons, natural disasters, and Ɵ me.
Update of the Downtown Concept Plan involved bringing the community
together to discuss and maximize agreement on the form and character
that best consƟ tute the opƟ mal version of downtown San Luis Obispo for
the next 25 years, while acknowledging that change is ongoing.
Below are some of the trends that were taken into consideraƟ on when
developing the Downtown Concept Plan:
1. Vehicle innovaƟ ons and driving paƩ erns: An important dialogue
is taking place today across the extended global automoƟ ve
industry about the future of transportaƟ on and mobility. Signals
point to a transformaƟ on in personal mobility that is already
under way. Self-driving cars have already completed more than
1 million miles of autonomous driving on public streets, and
large automobile companies have invested millions of dollars in
ridesharing providers such as LyŌ and Uber. These trends, coupled
with a naƟ onal push to improve public health by walking and
cycling, will impact the future of personal mobility, parking, land
use and transportaƟ on funding in the community. The change in
these paƩ erns will require increased drop-off /pick-up locaƟ ons,
as well as changes in shuƩ le and public transit use, and in the
quanƟ ty, design, and locaƟ on of parking structures.
2. Retail: A common dialogue in communiƟ es around the world
is the decline in the retail industry. A dramaƟ c upward trend in
online shopping idenƟ fi es a clear change in customer spending
habits that has been aƩ ributed to customers’ access to beƩ er
prices, more convenient shopping due to fl exible shipping
and return policies, and a decline in retail customer service.
These reasons alone make a case that brick and mortar retail
needs to evolve into a unique experience that cannot be found
online. Although the total amount of retail in the downtown
may decline in the future, diversity in retail types, sizes, and
atmosphere, as well as an increased focus on unique experiences
and neighborhood-serving uses, can help the downtown remain a
desƟ naƟ on and gathering place with mulƟ ple consumer benefi ts.
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 1.10
3. Aging populaƟ on: The baby boom generaƟ on is the largest in our
naƟ on’s history, with more than 77 million people born between
1946 and 1964. Research shows that a very small percentage
of people move aŌ er they reach reƟ rement age. With rising life
expectancies, we can deduce that San Luis Obispo will have an
increasing number of people on fi xed incomes whose ability
to navigate by personal vehicle will diminish or disappear over
Ɵ me. The downtown of the future should incorporate elements
to accommodate the aging populaƟ on such as an increase
in the number of drop-off /pick-up zones, shuƩ le and transit
stops, streetscape improvements for universal accessibility, and
aff ordable senior housing.
4. Housing choices: The twenty-fi rst century household is changing
in diversity of family composiƟ on, lifestyle, and income. The
demand for a home in a more walkable urban environment
close to jobs and services is increasing, along with a desire for
an aff ordable small-footprint residence. Housing opƟ ons that fi t
these criteria are in short supply throughout the naƟ on, as well
as in San Luis Obispo. Downtown’s vision takes into consideraƟ on
the changing needs of residents as people work closer to or out of
their homes, downsize, rent longer, and rely less on vehicles.
5. Sustainability: Sustainability is not a trend, but rather a
responsibility. It is oŌ en defi ned as the ability to meet the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generaƟ ons to meet theirs. Sustainable communiƟ es are able
to perpetuate without negaƟ vely impacƟ ng the environment,
human health, or quality of life. Every decision made should
move the community closer to sustainability. New development
and the urban form in general should aim to improve air quality,
reduce energy and water consumpƟ on, and protect the natural
environment to the greatest extent possible. Specifi c applicaƟ ons
include projects such as the installaƟ on of electric vehicle
charging staƟ ons, photovoltaic systems, stormwater recapture/
green streets systems, adapƟ ve reuse of buildings, climate acƟ on
plan implementaƟ on, and resilience planning.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
2Vision, Principles, and Goals
ATTACHMENT 1
2.1 | Public Draft
Concept Plan Vision
Where We Started
The update of the Downtown Concept Plan builds off the vision of the
1993 Conceptual Physical Plan for the City’s Center. That 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.
While the original vision sƟ ll resonates today, much has changed since
1993, including increased development pressure; addiƟ onal interest
in living downtown; more focus on providing services and ameniƟ es
for residents; changes in retail paƩ erns; and aƩ enƟ on on how mobility
choices and streetscape improvements impact our experience
downtown. The previous vision, along with broad public input and the
trends impacƟ ng the downtown, were used to develop the Downtown
Concept Plan’s updated vision statement:
Vision Statement
As the heart of our community, downtown San Luis Obispo serves as the center
for culture, commerce and government. A well-balanced mix of uses in a walkable
environment will make the downtown socially and economically vibrant. Preserving
its historic authenƟ city while accommodaƟ ng change will create a livable future.
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 2.2
Planning Principles and Goals
Based on our plan vision, as well as public input, previous planning
eff orts, and the values that remain relevant from the 1993 Plan, 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 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 buildings, uses and
surrounding neighborhoods.
1.5 Focus aƩ enƟ on on the downtown’s gateways through improved
street design, architecture, public art, and public spaces that
announce your arrival.
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 ample room for movement, gathering, and improvements,
including street trees, seaƟ ng, bike parking, lighƟ ng, public art,
and other street furniture.
2.2 Encourage mid-block paseos 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
downtown, including pocket parks, plazas, wide sidewalks with
seaƟ ng, an expanded Creek Walk, parklets, and creaƟ ve uses of
rooŌ ops.
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
2.4 Design streets and other public improvements with appropriate
lighƟ ng, visibility, and other public safety features to help reduce
the potenƟ al for crime.
3. Variety in Form and FuncƟ on: Encourage a variety of compaƟ ble
buildings, uses, acƟ viƟ es, and housing types for an inclusive and vital
downtown.
3.1 Provide a physical framework that retains and strengthens
downtown’s economic health and vitality.
3.2 Encourage fl exible mixed-use development throughout the
downtown.
3.3 Create opportuniƟ es for smaller, independent businesses and
services for residents.
3.4 Ensure that downtown funcƟ ons both as a commercial district and
a residenƟ al neighborhood, with a variety of housing opƟ ons to
meet diff erent needs.
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 Reduce auto travel by encouraging the provision of services, jobs,
and housing in proximity to each other.
4. Enhanced Mobility: Enhance the downtown’s walkability, making
it safer and easier to get to and travel throughout for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and transit riders.
4.1 Encourage a street design that places pedestrians fi rst, followed
by cyclists; encourage walking and bicycling by making downtown
streets safe and welcoming.
4.2 Emphasize alternaƟ ve routes for through vehicular traffi c and
design streets for slow traffi c downtown.
4.3 Provide motorists with ample wayfi nding to direct them to parking
structures and other important desƟ naƟ ons.
4.4 Provide a safe and easy to use bicycle network that enhances
linkages to surrounding neighborhoods.
4.5
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
ri m of d own town .
- Res id e n t
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 2.4
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 strategically on the periphery of
downtown within easy walking distance to major acƟ vity areas.
5.2 Provide ample pedestrian wayfi nding signage.
5.3 Ensure that sidewalks, crosswalks, and public improvements are
universally accessible and easy to navigate.
5.4 Design streets with adequate commercial and passenger loading
zones, bus and trolley stops, and parking for persons with
disabiliƟ es.
5.5 As downtown expands, provide adequate transit and shuƩ le
opƟ ons for mobility impaired persons travelling to and
throughout downtown.
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 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, including
enhancing the downtown Cultural District.
6.4 Celebrate downtown with a wide variety of permanent and
temporary public art installaƟ ons.
7. CompaƟ ble Design: Embrace context-sensiƟ ve, original, and human-
scale design that supports placemaking.
7.1 Support compaƟ ble building heights that fi t within the context
and scale of current development paƩ erns. Generally, new
buildings should not exceed 50 feet in height and should be set
back above the second or third story.
7.2 Allow tall buildings carefully and in limited areas, such as toward
the center of blocks, in low areas, and generally outside of the
Downtown Historic District.
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 Encourage higher-density projects, smaller dwelling units,
accessory dwelling units, and other innovaƟ ve residenƟ al
soluƟ ons.
7.4 Encourage the redevelopment of surface parking lots with more
sustainable uses.
7.5 Reward innovaƟ ve and fl exible design that is built to last and
accommodate change.
8. Ecological ConnecƟ ons: Protect, enhance, and reveal the natural
areas and ecological funcƟ ons that are an integral component of the
downtown area, including hillside views.
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
3Illustrative Downtown
Concept Plan
ATTACHMENT 1
3.1 | Public Draft
Illustrative Downtown Concept
Plan
The IllustraƟ ve Downtown Concept Plan (IllustraƟ ve Plan) shown
in Figure 3.1 (page 3.4) graphically represents the future vision for
downtown San Luis Obispo. The plan depicts envisioned future land
uses, public spaces, and private development. Together, the illustraƟ ve
plan and supplement can help the reader “experience” the downtown
from diff erent perspecƟ ves. The illustraƟ ve 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 models of future development projects, to visualize
how they will fi t into the context of the downtown San Luis Obispo of the
future.
Following the IllustraƟ ve Plan is Table 3.1, which describes envisioned
uses in the 60 blocks included in the plan area. The Proposed Uses
secƟ on further describes each type of use proposed, and includes visual
examples. The Planning Subareas secƟ on breaks down the Downtown
Concept Plan into three subareas and describes in more detail some of
the plan’s key proposals.
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
Historic Tower Building on the corner of Chorro and Higuera Streets
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.2
Planning Assumptions
To develop the IllustraƟ ve Downtown Concept Plan, assumpƟ ons were
made, including the following:
The distribuƟ on of uses in the Plan IllustraƟ ve are based on the City’s
land use designaƟ ons in the General Plan. However, there are some key
diff erences, as Commercial, Offi ce, and ResidenƟ al uses were fl aƩ ened
(e.g., all housing densiƟ es are shown as yellow); lot coverage standards
were not applied; and mixed-use overlays were applied throughout the
plan area. In addiƟ on to ResidenƟ al being shown as a separate use, it
is also assumed for upper stories of Commercial Mixed Use and Offi ce
Mixed Use for a true mixed-use downtown.
Generally, there is more density and more lot coverage shown in the
Downtown Concept Plan than exists today. Density is not necessarily
synonymous with height, however. Where notable, heights are described
as envisioned in Table 3.1, Block DescripƟ ons. Height determinaƟ on
remains under the purview of the General Plan and Zoning RegulaƟ ons,
and all height discussed in the Downtown Concept Plan is consistent with
the plan goals in Chapter 2.
Most surface parking lots are shown as redeveloped, and addiƟ onal
structured parking is envisioned around the periphery of the downtown.
Expanded or new parking in-lieu fee districts are assumed to meet the
needs of the envisioned mixed-use development paƩ ern. If driving (and
parking) trends do not conƟ nue as today for the life of the plan, then the
need for parking private vehicles will lessen, and these addiƟ onal parking
structures may instead be developed as other uses.
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 Plan as they were approved;
development projects submiƩ ed to the City but not yet enƟ tled may be
shown diff erently than submiƩ ed.
All projects shown in the plan will need further study and CEQA review
before they may be implemented. The numbers on the plan are keyed to
the block descripƟ ons in Table 3.1, which follows the Plan IllustraƟ ve.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement |3.4
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
1
.
I
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
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
H
I
G
U
E
R
A
PALM MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMO
W
A
L
K
E
R
HW
Y
1
0
1
A
R
C
H
E
R
C
A
R
M
E
L
B
E
A
C
H
N
I
P
O
M
O
B
R
O
A
D
G
A
R
D
E
N
C
H
O
R
R
O
M
O
R
R
O
O
S
O
S
SANTA ROSA JOHNSON AVEPEPPER 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
P
P
P
PP
P
P
P
P
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
LE
G
E
N
D
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
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
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
P
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.6
Table 3.1. Block Descriptions
Block
#
1. Block DescripƟ on
Blocks with no numbers have no changes envisioned and are shown only for context. EnƟ tled projects, as of
January 2017, are included. Projects sƟ ll under development review may be diff erent than submiƩ ed.
2 New residenƟ al opportuniƟ es are envisioned in the R-4 zone along the corner of Broad and Mill
Streets.
3 New residenƟ al opportuniƟ es are envisioned in the R-4 zone on Mill Street On Palm Street, the
historic Ah Louis Store is envisioned for community-serving use with commercial mixed use
development on the adjacent surface parking lot. 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 are envisioned on Mill Street with the reuse of the AT&T building.
City-owned properƟ es (City Hall, current SLO LiƩ le Theatre) are renovated and the surface parking
lot is infi lled to incorporate addiƟ onal city or leased offi ce space and improved public space along
Palm Street.
5N e w offi ce mixed use is envisioned along Santa Rosa Street. New residenƟ al opportuniƟ es are
envisioned along the alley.
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 along Santa Rosa Street.
9Offi ce mixed use is envisioned on a porƟ on of the surface parking lot at Nipomo and Dana Streets.
New small-scale residenƟ al is envisioned at the end of Dana Street in the R-3 zone. The IOOF
property is also envisioned as converƟ ng to residenƟ al use. The City-owned Rosa Butron Adobe
property is opened to the public and managed as a park. A new connecƟ on from Dana Street
crosses San Luis Creek and connects residents to the park and the expanded Creek Walk.
10 A new parking structure on the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets is envisioned to include offi ce
mixed use along Nipomo Street, the Theatre relocated along Monterey Street, and public use on a
porƟ on of the rooŌ op. An expansion of 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 it is not all
needed for the History Center, then it may be used for other community-serving use in the Cultural
District.
11 Mission Plaza will be improved consistent with the Mission Plaza Concept Plan. An expanded
Museum of Art is shown connecƟ ng to Mission Plaza, with a Creek Walk extension underneath the
Broad Street bridge connecƟ ng to Block 19.
12 A new hotel with underground parking is under construcƟ on in the Chinatown Historic District at
Palm and Morro Streets. There will be a paseo connecƟ on from the parking structure on Palm Street
through Block 12 to Monterey Street, as well as a pedestrian connecƟ on to Morro Street. A future
mid-block connecƟ on to Chorro Street is also envisioned.
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 seaƟ ng and
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 mulƟ -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
3.7 | Public Draft
Block
#
1. Block DescripƟ on
Blocks with no numbers have no changes envisioned and are shown only for context. EnƟ tled projects, as of
January 2017, are included. Projects sƟ ll under development review may be diff erent than submiƩ ed.
16 The corner of Monterey and Johnson Streets will redevelop into commercial mixed use (ground fl oor
commercial and residenƟ al above), similar in scale to The Mix across the street. The exisƟ ng off -
street parking will be converted to plaza space with addiƟ onal commercial mixed use surrounding it.
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 mulƟ -story commercial mixed use. It is envisioned with setbacks
suitable for outdoor dining and opportuniƟ es for interacƟ ve public art. This gateway locaƟ on is an
opportunity for an iconic building announcing one’s arrival downtown.
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 the expanded Creek Walk, which will wind through the Creamery from Nipomo
Street, and extend to the Marsh/Higuera roundabout, with a mid-block connecƟ on to Dana Street.
Included in this block are four diff erent residenƟ al, commercial, and hospitality projects currently in
the works.
19 The City-owned parking lot at Higuera and Nipomo Streets is envisioned as a public plaza with
seaƟ ng, interacƟ ve elements, and posiƟ ve acƟ vity at this prominent downtown corner adjacent to
San Luis Creek. Neighboring restaurants or cafes may share a porƟ on of the space and management
responsibiliƟ es. Pedestrians can cross the creek here and 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; it is envisioned with historic interpretaƟ on, children’s
play opportuniƟ es and a Creek Walk connecƟ on under Broad Street to Mission Plaza. The enƟ tled
Monterey Place project is also located on this block; it is a mixed-use development with residenƟ al,
hospitality, and retail uses, with a paseo connecƟ on 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
Mission Plaza.
22 This block is envisioned to include new commercial mixed-use opportuniƟ es next to the Fremont
Theater between Monterey and Higuera Streets with upper level offi ce and residenƟ al. Ground-fl oor
improvements along Osos and Higuera Streets will make this block more vibrant and pedestrian-
friendly.
23 This prominent block is envisioned with two-story minimum new commercial mixed use infi ll
opening onto corner plazas along Santa Rosa Street, with public art and a mid-block paseo. Housing
is included on upper levels along Monterey Street. A parking structure and relocated transit center
are envisioned along Higuera Street, with transit faciliƟ es 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 two-story minimum 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. There is a small
plaza area on Monterey Street for outdoor seaƟ ng opportuniƟ es. Offi ce use on Higuera Street is
envisioned with upper-story residenƟ al.
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.8
Block
#
1. Block DescripƟ on
Blocks with no numbers have no changes envisioned and are shown only for context. EnƟ tled projects, as of
January 2017, are included. Projects sƟ ll under development review may be diff erent than submiƩ ed.
25 This block will conƟ nue the redevelopment paƩ ern along Monterey Street with two-story minimum
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. A new roundabout designed for vehicles, bicycles
and pedestrians brings people to an iconic commercial mixed-use 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 nearby commercial mixed use and hospitality uses.
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 three four-story commercial mixed-use buildings with lower-level retail and
upper level residenƟ al fronƟ ng Higuera, Nipomo, and Marsh Streets. A paseo travels through the
center of the block between buildings and behind the Jack House Gardens; it is envisioned to
connect to the gardens and a mid-block paseo aligned with Beach Street and connecƟ ng to Block
27. The Jack House Gardens are envisioned to 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 two-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 four-story project currently under development. It includes hotel,
commercial and residenƟ al uses, as well as improvements to Garden Street.
32 The only change shown for this block is the project underway on the corner of Chorro and Marsh
Streets. The exisƟ ng 24,500 sq. Ō ., two-story commercial building will be repurposed with dining,
bowling and entertainment faciliƟ es.
33 This block shows an enƟ tled four-story hotel addiƟ on with roof deck in the interior of the block,
located in the Downtown Historic District. The current surface parking lots between Higuera and
Marsh Streets are envisioned to be infi lled with a mulƟ story commercial mixed-use project. It will
extend 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 is envisioned to
redevelop with two-story minimum commercial mixed use.
35 This block along Santa Rosa and Higuera Streets is envisioned to redevelop with two-story minimum
commercial mixed-use projects. This block 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 underway next to the historic hospital property on Marsh
Street.
36 This block is envisioned to redevelop with 2-story minimum offi ce mixed use along Higuera Street,
with housing on upper levels. New offi ce/mixed use will be on the corner of Toro and Marsh Streets.
ATTACHMENT 1
3.9 | Public Draft
Block
#
1. Block DescripƟ on
Blocks with no numbers have no changes envisioned and are shown only for context. EnƟ tled projects, as of
January 2017, are included. Projects sƟ ll under development review may be diff erent than submiƩ ed.
38 Announcing one’s entry into downtown, Higuera Street frontage is envisioned to redevelop with
mulƟ -story commercial mixed use. This block is part of the “fl ex zone,” which envisions larger
footprint commercial mixed use sites being repurposed to accommodate a variety of diff erent
business types, including incubator businesses, shared marketplaces, shared work spaces, or live/
work opportuniƟ es.
39 A small plaza is envisioned along Marsh Street at the future roundabout, where Archer Street ends.
This helps give the area more of a pedestrian focus. The plaza connects to mulƟ -story hospitality and
commercial mixed use with upper-level residenƟ al or offi ce on Marsh Street. This could be a locaƟ on
for a local grocery, with a pedestrian connecƟ on to the structured parking across the street. Along
Pacifi c Street, the “fl ex zone” conƟ nues, with a variety of commercial mixed use opportuniƟ es.
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
a porƟ on of 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. Historic properƟ es will remain.
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. An
above or below-ground parking structure is included to accommodate new development in the area,
with micro retail or live work uses 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.
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 2-story
minimum 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.
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.10
Block
#
1. Block DescripƟ on
Blocks with no numbers have no changes envisioned and are shown only for context. EnƟ tled projects, as of
January 2017, are included. Projects sƟ ll under development review may be diff erent than submiƩ ed.
49 The shopping center is envisioned as redeveloping with two mulƟ -story commercial mixed use
buildings on its southern end, with a courtyard, widened riparian area, and an improved Creek Walk
connecƟ on. ResidenƟ al is envisioned on upper levels. This porƟ on of the Creek Walk extends from
Johnson Ave. across Toro Street to the new pedestrian path around the Dallidet Adobe (Block 48).
The green space on the corner of Marsh and Toro Streets is envisioned as a small pocket park.
51 This block is envisioned as part of the Mid-Higuera Plan transiƟ on area, or “fl ex zone.” Larger
footprint commercial mixed use buildings may be repurposed to accommodate a variety of diff erent
business types, including incubator businesses, shared marketplaces, shared work spaces, or live/
work opportuniƟ es. 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. Pacifi c Street is envisioned as part of the “fl ex zone” with a variety of
commercial mixed uses and adapƟ ve reuse opportuniƟ es.
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 recreaƟ on for neighborhood residents. A small surface parking lot
remains for disabled and senior parking, and a public restroom is added.
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.
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 A mid-block three-story offi ce mixed use project is currently under construcƟ on between Osos and
Morro on this block; it also includes residenƟ al and commercial space. Also envisioned is a 2-3-story
offi ce mixed use building on the surface parking lot at the corner of Pacifi c and Morro Streets.
60 Underdeveloped single-story lots 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.
ATTACHMENT 1
3.11 | Public Draft
Proposed Uses Downtown
This secƟ on provides addiƟ onal details regarding the proposed uses
in the downtown, as shown on the IllustraƟ ve Plan. 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.
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
Historic photograph of the San Luis Obispo High School marching band on Higuera Street
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.12
Commercial Mixed Use
As the predominant use in the downtown core, Commercial Mixed
Use 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 the design, locaƟ on
and 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.
COMMERCIAL MIXED USE - Street-front commercial uses with compaƟ ble residenƟ al and/or offi ce uses
Various scaled buildings with ground fl oor retail uses and a combinaƟ on of residenƟ al and offi ce uses above
ATTACHMENT 1
3.13 | 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 residenƟ al and/or
commercial 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.
OFFICE MIXED USE - Offi ce uses with compaƟ ble residenƟ al and/or commercial uses
Examples of live/work units with ground fl oor offi ce use and stepped back upper fl oors with housing
Example of mid-rise offi ce mixed
use building
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.14
Hospitality/Community Serving
Hospitality includes uses such as hotels and convenƟ on or conference
centers. As of June, 2017, there are three hotel projects under
construcƟ on or enƟ tled in the Central Downtown subarea. Three new
hospitality uses are proposed in the plan, all in the Lower Downtown
subarea. Rooms for short stays that are integrated into predominantly
commercial uses are not shown as Hospitality.
Community Serving uses include schools, places of worship, museums,
and government faciliƟ es (including offi ces, recreaƟ on centers, courts,
and transit centers). A cluster of community-serving uses can be seen
around the Mission, City Hall, and the County Government Center.
COMMUNITY SERVING - Government faciliƟ es, museums, churches, and schools
HOSPITALITY - Hotels and conference faciliƟ es
Examples of hospitality and community serving uses
ATTACHMENT 1
3.15 | 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.
RESIDENTIAL - Wide variety of medium density and high density housing
Examples of garden apartments, condominiums, senior co-housing and a bungalow court
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.16
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 represent a
range of housing types that should be considered in the future.
Figure 3.2. Range of Downtown Housing Types
Examples of townhomes, fourplexes, a Ɵ ny home village, and live/work units
ATTACHMENT 1
3.17 | Public Draft
Parking
As of June 2017, there are three exisƟ ng parking structures in the
downtown, while another is in the planning phase. The IllustraƟ ve Plan
shows three addiƟ onal structures, plus 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 parking in-lieu fee districts
to accommodate new development paƩ erns and associated parking
needs. However, as transportaƟ on technology advances and demand
for parking evolves, these structures may not be necessary in the
downtown. They could be subsƟ tuted for other uses, or if built, could be
done so fl exibly, with the ability to be repurposed if not always needed
for parking.
PARKING - Above or below ground parking that may include roof top public spaces
Parking structures will have limited street frontage, located behind other uses that are more compaƟ ble with
a vibrant downtown street. Roofs on some parking structures or adjacent buildings are envisioned with other
public benefi ts, such as parks, plazas, outdoor dining, photovoltaic shade structures, and access to views.
Surface parking on Monterey St.
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.18
Parks, Plazas, and Paseos
The IllustraƟ ve Plan shows public parks in dark green and plazas and
paseos in tan interspersed throughout the downtown. Paseos (mid-block
walkways) are also shown on Figure 4.1, Street Types Diagram.
With addiƟ onal people living in the downtown comes the need for
addiƟ onal parks. A variety of diff erent park proposals are shown in
the Plan. Emerson Park (Block 54) and Mission Plaza (Block 11) will be
upgraded to conƟ nue to meet the community’s needs into the future.
Other parks and plazas will preserve historic resources, such as the
Old Gas Works (Block 41), or the Rosa Butron Adobe (Block 9). A new
park is proposed in the Cultural District, at the corner of Monterey and
Broad Streets (Block 19). A full list of parks can be found in Chapter 5,
ImplementaƟ on.
Paseos 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. Plazas and paseos are encouraged to incorporate
public art in fun and imaginaƟ ve new ways. Plazas come in all sizes
and may also be private or public. They are shown at the downtown
gateways, key corners (e.g., Higuera and Nipomo Streets, Block 19), and
on porƟ ons of exisƟ ng surface parking lots.
PARKS - May include publicly accessible historic sites, gardens and walkways
PLAZA AND PASEOS - Primarily hard-surface; publicly accessible but may be privately owned
Examples of plazas that can incorporate park-like features; paseos as part of the public realm; and expansion of
the Creek Walk
ATTACHMENT 1
3.19 | 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 and development
paƩ erns. The three plan subareas are upper downtown, central
downtown, and lower downtown, as described below. For addiƟ onal
informaƟ on, see Table 3.1, Block DescripƟ ons.
DANA
PALM
MILL
MONTEREY
HIGUERA
MARSH
PACIFIC
PISMO
HIGU
E
R
A
PALM
MONTEREY
HIGUERA
MARSH
PACIFIC
PISMO WA
L
K
E
R
HWY 101
AR
C
H
E
R
CA
R
M
E
L
BE
A
C
H
NI
P
O
M
O
BR
O
A
D
GA
R
D
E
N
CH
O
R
R
O
MO
R
R
O
OS
O
S
SA
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
JO
H
N
S
O
N
A
V
E
PE
P
P
E
R
TO
R
O
1
9
10
1918
2
11
3
12
20
45444342414039
38
323130292827
26
5857565554535251
4
13
21
33
46
59
5
14
22
34
47
60
6
15
23
35
48
7
16
24
36
49
8
17
25
37
50
61
P
P P
P
P
P
P P
P
Upper Downtown Central Downtown Lower Downtown
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.20
MILL
PALM
MONTEREY
HIGUERA
MARSH
PACIFIC
PISMO
SA
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
J
O
H
N
S
O
N
A
V
E
P
E
P
P
E
R
T
O
R
O
6
15
23
35
48
7
16
24
36
49
8
17
25
37
50
61
P
P
P
Upper Downtown
Upper downtown is generally Santa Rosa to Pepper Streets, and Mill to
Pismo Streets. As reinvestment occurs, upper downtown will conƟ nue
to transiƟ on from one- and two-story structures, many with parking in
front, to structures of at least two stories built to the widened sidewalk.
Upper downtown will feature a variety of design styles in contrast to the
historic downtown core, which is more tradiƟ onal in architectural style.
Figure 3.3.
Upper Downtown
Planning Subarea
ATTACHMENT 1
3.21 | Public Draft
Density and intensity of development will be focused primarily along
Monterey and Santa Rosa Streets; Marsh and Higuera will have more
intensive development near Santa Rosa Street, gradually lessening to
respect adjacent neighborhoods.
Improvements to Santa Rosa Street, including widened sidewalks,
buff ered bike lanes, and a center-landscaped median, will announce
one’s arrival in downtown. Enhanced intersecƟ ons will allow improved
bicycle and pedestrian connecƟ ons across the busy street. See page 4.4
for a conceptual cross secƟ on of Santa Rosa Street.
The railroad bridge at Monterey and Pepper Streets will incorporate
public art and act as a key gateway into the downtown
IntersecƟ on enhancements along
Santa Rosa Street will improve
pedestrian and bicycle access
A new bicycle and pedestrian bridge crosses Monterey St. next to the exisƟ ng railroad bridge. Both bridges
provide an iconic edge to downtown. The new trail connecƟ on also provides important bicycle and pedestrian
connecƟ ons to downtown. (Concept sketch by Pierre Rademaker.)
“The Mix” development diff ers
from the historic core
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.22
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
relocated transit center. Block 23 will also include structured public
parking, iconic mixed-use buildings, and rooŌ op public open space.
Ludwick Center on Santa Rosa and Mill Streets (Block 6) is improved as
a mulƟ -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.
Renovated building on Monterey
St. will help spur redevelopment
Current development paƩ ern on Monterey St will transiƟ on to structures
of at least two stories built to the widened sidewalk
LocaƟ on of new County offi ce
building; commercial or public use
will help acƟ vate the street
Monterey Street conƟ nues to revitalize at this downtown gateway. Surface parking lots redevelop with
commercial mixed use projects built toward the street. ResidenƟ al is on upper stories, and parking is provided
behind or in the nearby structure. (Concept sketch by Pierre Rademaker.)
ATTACHMENT 1
3.23 | Public Draft
PALM
MONTEREY
HIGUERA
MARSH
PACIFIC
PISMONI
P
O
M
O
BR
O
A
D
GA
R
D
E
N
CH
O
R
R
O
MO
R
R
O
OS
O
S
SA
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
1
10
19
2
11
3
12
20
45444342
32313029
58575655
4
13
21
33
46
59
5
14
22
34
47
60
P P
P
P P
Central Downtown
Central downtown contains the Chinatown Historic District, and most of
the Downtown Historic District. It 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, vibrant, and art-
fi lled Cultural District, the focus of which is along Monterey Street
between Nipomo and Chorro Streets (blocks 10, 11, and 19).Figure 3.4.
Central Downtown
Planning Subarea
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.24
Visitors arriving in cars can park in the new parking structure at Palm and
Nipomo Streets, then walk to the 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). Refer to
the Mission Plaza Concept Plan for details on the vision for Mission
Plaza.
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.
Monterey Street view of proposed parking structure at Palm and Nipomo
Streets with theater along street front (Block 10)
A new park is envisioned at Monterey and Broad Streets across from the new Museum of Art and expanded
History Center, in the center of the walkable cultural district. (Concept sketch by T. Keith Gurnee.)
Street Type D, a shared street
surrounding Mission Plaza will
elevate the pedestrian realm in
Central Downtown
ATTACHMENT 1
3.25 | Public Draft
Other changes envisioned in central downtown include an expanded City
Hall complex on Block 4, and County Courthouse complex on 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, 4 and 5
along Mill Street, on the edge of central downtown.
Monterey from Nipomo to Santa Rosa Street is envisioned as Street Type D, a shared street, with addiƟ onal
pedestrian ameniƟ es—wide sidewalks, outdoor dining, and park-like improvements. Illustrated here is the
shared street between blocks 14 and 22. Pedestrians and bicyclists have priority, and new commercial mixed use
infuses the block with energy. (Concept sketch by Chuck Crotser.)
Historic County Courthouse
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.26
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. Block 34 is reconfi gured toward the
creek as redevelopment occurs, and across the street on Block 47, Cheng
Park is expanded.
At block 33, at Higuera between Morro and Osos Streets, large surface parking lots are infi lled, extending
the vibrant downtown street front and creaƟ ng addiƟ onal commercial, residenƟ al, offi ce and hospitality
opportuniƟ es. A paseo aligns with Court St, providing addiƟ onal pedestrian connecƟ ons. (Concept sketch by
Chuck Crotser.)
Court Street paseo entrance
ATTACHMENT 1
3.27 | Public Draft
At block 42, a diagonal paseo extends from a corner plaza at Marsh and Broad Streets to a revitalized Emerson
Park. The block design provides addiƟ onal outdoor dining, event, circulaƟ on and public art opportuniƟ es.
Underground parking serves the area and fl exible micro-retail or live-work uses along Pacifi c St create a local
business cluster. (Concept sketch by Chuck Crotser.)
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.
Example of a plaza with public art
and outdoor gathering space
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.28
Lower Downtown
Lower Downtown is currently on the edge of the downtown—but not for
long. Development pressure is moving into this area between Nipomo
St and the Marsh and Higuera intersecƟ on, which will present signifi cant
opportuniƟ es over the next 25 years.
DANA
PAL M
MONTER
HIGUE
MARS
PACI F
PISM
HIGU
E
R
A
WA
L
K
E
R
HWY 101
AR
C
H
E
R
CA
R
M
E
L
BE
A
C
H
NI
P
O
M
O
9
18
42414039
38
292827
26
5554535251
P
P
Figure 3.5.
Lower Downtown
Planning Subarea
Recent mixed-use development in
the fl ex zone area of
Lower Downtown
ATTACHMENT 1
3.29 | Public Draft
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 larger footprint commercial
mixed use sites being repurposed to accommodate a variety of diff erent
business types, including incubator businesses, shared marketplaces,
shared work spaces, or live/work opportuniƟ es.
Also in the fl ex zone, Block 51 includes a small plaza along Higuera
Street, where Walker Street dead-ends. The Old Gas Works 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.
As shown below, a new roundabout at the Marsh and Higuera Street
intersecƟ on announces one’s arrival downtown. Bicycle and pedestrian
safety is improved at this busy downtown gateway and new connecƟ ons
are made to the expanded Creek Walk and the Madonna Inn Bike Path.
Old Gas Works building presents
opportunity for reuse
Improved bicycle faciliƟ es
A new roundabout with pedestrian and bicycle circulaƟ on improvements acts as a gateway into downtown.
Pedestrian improvements extend to the Creek Walk, and a pedestrian bridge connects a new parking structure
to commercial, residenƟ al and hospitality uses. (Concept sketch by Chuck Crotser.)
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.30
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. As the
development paƩ ern changes, sidewalks are widened on Marsh and
Higuera Streets to the new roundabout, encouraging more walking,
outdoor dining and socializing opportuniƟ es.
As The Creamery parking lot infi lls and intensifi es, across Nipomo Street
the city parking lot on Block 19 is converted to a public plaza with
seaƟ ng, interacƟ ve elements, and posiƟ ve acƟ vity at this prominent
downtown corner adjacent to San Luis Creek. Neighboring restaurants or
cafes may share a porƟ on of the space and management responsibiliƟ es.
Improvements at Emerson Park
will beƩ er serve downtown
residents
Creek Walk improvements will
improve safety and increase use
The surface parking lot at Higuera and Nipomo Streets is redeveloped as a plaza; it connects Lower Downtown
to Central Downtown and the Cultural District (Block 19). (Concept sketch by T. Keith Gurnee.)
ATTACHMENT 1
3.31 | Public Draft
Jack House and Gardens (Block 28) will provide park space for nearby
employees and residents
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
roundabout. By acƟ vaƟ ng the creek area with posiƟ ve uses and
consistent acƟ vity, negaƟ ve behavior will decrease. As reinvestment
occurs along the riparian corridor, buildings will open to 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.
Public access to the Jack House and Gardens in Block 28 will increase
with new paseos surrounding it, including a bicycle and pedestrian
connecƟ on between Marsh and Higuera Streets following the Beach
Street alignment. Use of the historic house and garden as well as
Emerson Park in Block 54 will increase, as they are creaƟ vely adapted to
meet the needs of new populaƟ ons living and working nearby. 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.
ATTACHMENT 1
4Mobility & Streetscape
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 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
transportaƟ on opƟ ons, 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 adjacent text boxes illustrate the General Plan’s priority
mode ranking for downtown, and the modal split objecƟ ves, showing
the City’s commitment to increase mobility opƟ ons that depend less on
single-occupant use of vehicles.
To support achieving these 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 TransportaƟ on:
Motor Vehicles 50%
Transit 12%
Bicycles 20%
Walking, Car Pools, 15%
& Other
General Plan CirculaƟ on
Element, Table 1, May 2015
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 4.2
St
r
e
e
t
T
y
p
e
D
Pa
s
e
o
s
,
P
a
t
h
s
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
LE
G
E
N
D
St
r
e
e
t
T
y
p
e
A
St
r
e
e
t
T
y
p
e
C
St
r
e
e
t
T
y
p
e
B
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
T
Mi
s
s
i
o
n
P
l
a
z
a
M
M
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(m
a
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
o
t
h
e
r
s
)
*
S
e
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
t
y
p
e
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
m
o
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
T P
Mo
d
a
l
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
*
Proposed street types are conceptual in nature and will require further analysis.
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
G
a
r
d
e
n
S
t
N
i
p
o
m
o
S
t
A
r
c
h
e
r
S
t
C
a
r
m
e
l
S
t
B
e
a
c
h
S
t
C
h
o
r
r
o
S
t
O
s
o
s
S
t
Toro St Johnson AveMonterey StPalm StMill St
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
Ma
r
s
h
S
t
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
S
t
Da
n
a
S
t
Pi
s
m
o
S
t
Santa Rosa StPepper St
M
o
r
r
o
S
t
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 shown in the General
Plan, and they will require further study before implemented.
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 vehicle speeds and equally accommodate all users. Bicycle
improvements can include signed routes, sharrows, and bike lanes.
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 more
equally. These streets include a variety of street classifi caƟ ons. Parking
structures are primarily located on Street Type A.Bike lanes and sharrows
Conceptual Street Type A cross secƟ on of Santa Rosa Street. Reducing travel lanes slows traffi c and announces
your arrival downtown. An 80’ right of way allows for widened sidewalks, buff ered bike lanes, and a center
median planƟ ng strip in blocks that are long enough to accommodate it.
ATTACHMENT 1
4.5 | Public Draft
Street Type B
Modal Priority: 1. Pedestrians 2. Bicycles 3. Transit 4. Automobiles
Street Type B widens sidewalks and gives the pedestrian realm a higher
proporƟ on of the right-of-way. These densely developed streets allow
ample room for outdoor gathering, socializing, dining, and commerce.
Street Type B is located in the heart of the downtown where pedestrian
acƟ vity is high and envisioned to increase.
Street Type B includes porƟ ons of Marsh, Higuera, Monterey, Broad, and
Garden Streets. It strives to have lower automobile volumes and speeds
than Street Type A, as lanes are narrowed and drivers are encouraged to
park in structures on surrounding streets. Bike improvements can include
sharrows, bike lanes, buff ered bike lanes, or cycle tracks. Below are three
Street Type B cross secƟ ons illustraƟ ng diff erent conceptual approaches
for areas of Marsh, Higuera and Monterey Streets.
Cross secƟ on capƟ on: Conceptual Street Type B cross secƟ on for
Monterey St in Upper Downtown, showing a buff ered bike lane on
the uphill and a sharrow on the downhill side of the street, parking
on both sides, 12’ sidewalks, and two vehicle travel lanes with turn
lanes at intersecƟ ons. Approximately 4’ of addiƟ onal sidewalk right of
way is provided by adjacent businesses for enhanced outdoor dining
opportuniƟ es.
Conceptual Street Type B cross secƟ on for Marsh or Higuera Street showing two vehicle travel lanes, parking on
one side of the street, a buff ered bike lane, and 15’ sidewalks. As shown on Figure 4.2, Bicycle FaciliƟ es Diagram,
a buff ered bike lane is proposed to bring bicyclists into the Central Downtown on Marsh and Higuera Streets;
between Nipomo and Santa Rosa Streets it converts to a protected cycle track.
Street Type B leaves ample room on the sidewalk for pedestrian acƟ viƟ es
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 4.6
Conceptual Street Type B cross secƟ on for Marsh or Higuera Street with two vehicle travel lanes, angled parking
on one side of the street, a protected cycle track, and sidewalks that widen to 24’ in between parking areas,
allowing for addiƟ onal pedestrian experiences. As shown on Figure 4.2, Bicycle FaciliƟ es Diagram, a cycle track
is proposed on Marsh and Higuera Streets in Central Downtown between Nipomo and Santa Rosa Streets.
Conceptual Street Type B cross secƟ on for Monterey St in Upper Downtown, showing a buff ered bike lane on
the uphill and a sharrow on the downhill side of the street, parking on both sides, 12’ sidewalks, and two vehicle
travel lanes with turn lanes at intersecƟ ons. Approximately 4’ of addiƟ onal sidewalk right of way is provided by
adjacent businesses for enhanced outdoor dining opportuniƟ es.
ATTACHMENT 1
4.7 | Public Draft
Street Type C
Modal Priority: 1. Bicycles 2. Pedestrians 3. Transit 4. Automobiles
Street Type C provides more of the right-of-way for bikes, and prioriƟ zes
bicycling over vehicle travel. These streets prioriƟ ze through bicycle
movement over vehicular movement, and may employ diverters to
redirect vehicular traffi c. They will connect with adjacent neighborhoods
to bring more bicyclists downtown. These streets are shown as bike
boulevards on the Bicycle FaciliƟ es Diagram (Figure 4.2).
Street Type C includes porƟ ons of Nipomo, Broad, Chorro, Morro, Toro,
and Pepper Streets.
Two examples of Street Type C bike boulevards.
Conceptual Street Type C cross secƟ on for a typical neighborhood street intersecƟ on, including a vehicle traffi c
diverter.
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 4.8
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, to require a driver
to slow and pay more aƩ enƟ on. This is done by limiƟ ng 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, Broad and Morro Streets.
Examples of Street Type D. Shared streets allow for easy closing to vehicles for fesƟ vals and events.
Conceptual Street Type D cross secƟ on for Monterey Street showing an ADA vision warning strip and lighted
bollards to help delineate the pedestrian and vehicle zones. Pick-up and drop-off zones are allowed throughout.
ATTACHMENT 1
4.9 | 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,
and oŌ en connect parks or plazas to the public streetscape. The plan
encourages the provision of paseos that do not negaƟ vely impact the
vibrant downtown street front. The Street Types Diagram and the
IllustraƟ ve plan show a network of paseos throughout the downtown,
both exisƟ ng and proposed as an integral part of the downtown
development. A cross secƟ on illustraƟ ng a conceptual paseo design is
shown below.
Downtown paseo with outdoor
dining and shopping
Conceptual paseo cross secƟ on showing a mid-block pedestrian connecƟ on with seaƟ ng, bike parking,
landscaping and commercial storefronts.
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 4.10
Enhanced Intersections
IntersecƟ on enhancements are idenƟ fi ed at a variety of locaƟ ons
downtown as shown in Figure 4.1, Street Types Diagram. Through the
public engagement process, a number of intersecƟ ons were idenƟ fi ed as
needing enhancement.
Some of these locaƟ ons have exisƟ ng perceived safety issues for bikes
and pedestrians (e.g., the Marsh/Higuera intersecƟ on), some act as
barriers between subareas (e.g., Monterey and Santa Rosa Street), and
others will need to be improved as downtown redevelops (e.g., Johnson
and Higuera Street). IntersecƟ on locaƟ ons and improvements will evolve
as downtown changes, so the locaƟ ons idenƟ fi ed should be seen as a
starƟ ng place.
IntersecƟ on enhancements may include elements such as raised or
painted crosswalks, bulbouts to provide refuge and decrease crossing
distances, priority pedestrian signal Ɵ ming, pedestrian scrambles
(diagonal crossings to increase effi ciency), and roundabouts. A
roundabout is envisioned at the Marsh/Higuera intersecƟ on to improve
bicycle and pedestrian connecƟ vity to downtown, and a scramble may
be considered at Monterey and Santa Rosa Streets. A cross secƟ on
illustraƟ ng a conceptual enhanced intersecƟ on with bulbouts and a
pedestrian scramble is shown below.
Conceptual enhanced intersecƟ on showing corner bulbouts and a pedestrian scramble.
Bulbouts shorten pedestrian
crossing distances and provide
refuge
Painted brick on a mid-block
crossing in downtown
ATTACHMENT 1
4.11 | Public Draft
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. Where there are more than two lanes of
travel, posiƟ ve control of the crossing is required through the use of
sensors, pedestrian hybrid beacons or traffi c signals. LocaƟ ons of exisƟ ng
and proposed mid-block crossings are shown on the IllustraƟ ve Plan. A
cross secƟ on illustraƟ ng a conceptual mid-block crossing incorporaƟ ng a
cycle track is shown below.
Drop Off /Loading Zones
Drop off /loading zones for commercial, ride share and personal 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. They can be designed
in conjuncƟ on with specialty parking areas or “smart parking zones,”
such as for bikes, scooters, motorcycles or small electric vehicles. They
can also be used in conjuncƟ on with mid-block crossings as long as all
visibility factors have been taken into account. The cross secƟ on above
illustrates drop off zones for rideshare and smart parking areas.Clearly marked passenger loading
zone for rideshare vehicles
Conceptual Street Type B cross secƟ on for Marsh or Higuera Street showing a mid-block crossing with safety
beacons, a passenger drop-off and loading zone, and a “smart parking” zone for bicycle and small vehicle
parking.
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 4.12
Bicycle Improvements
San Luis Obispo is a great place to be a bicyclist. The City recently
received recogniƟ on as a Gold Bicycle Friendly Community by the League
of American Bicyclists. However, as noted in the City’s 2013 Bicycle
TransportaƟ on Plan, not all bicyclists are created equal:
Children, seniors, and novice riders, may only feel comfortable
riding on very low traffi c streets, or faciliƟ es separated from
traffi c. More experienced riders have the ability to integrate
with traffi c, but sƟ ll may desire addiƟ onal space where traffi c is
moving at higher speeds and need consideraƟ on at intersecƟ ons.
The challenge is to provide relaƟ vely confl ict-free bikeway
faciliƟ es that meet the needs of the full range of bicyclists’ skill
levels.
This is consistent with what we heard during the public engagement
process. The Bicycle FaciliƟ es Diagram responds to these diff erent
needs, with the purpose of increasing the number of residents bicycling
downtown.
Figure 4.2 on the following page illustrates the proposed bicycle faciliƟ es
for the 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. Planned improvements are
recommendaƟ ons from the Bicycle TransportaƟ on Plan. New ideas are
shown as proposed. They include a cycle track and buff ered bike lane
on Marsh and Higuera Streets, which will increase the comfort level of
less experienced bicyclists and families riding to the downtown. These
improvements will make the downtown more welcoming and easier to
navigate for cyclists, thereby increasing ridership. The improvements
shown conceptually in the Bicycle FaciliƟ es Diagram will connect to
adjacent neighborhoods and be implemented with other on-street
improvements as shown conceptually in the Street Types Diagram
(Figure 4.1).
The Morro Street bike boulevard
connects cyclists to downtown
Peak bike racks in downtown
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 4.14
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
LE
G
E
N
D
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
B
i
k
e
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
1
-
W
a
y
C
y
c
l
e
T
r
a
c
k
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
B
i
k
e
L
a
n
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
B
i
k
e
L
a
n
e
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
C
l
a
s
s
I
B
i
k
e
P
a
t
h
Proposed bicycle facilities are conceptual in nature and will require further analysis prior to adoption into the City Bicycle Transportation Plan.
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
a
n
d
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
i
k
e
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
1
-
W
a
y
B
u
f
f
e
r
e
d
B
i
k
e
L
a
n
e
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
i
k
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
l
a
n
n
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
2
0
1
3
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
Al
l
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
b
e
co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ty
p
e
s
D
i
a
g
r
a
m
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
1 2
1
1
1
2
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
G
a
r
d
e
n
S
t
N
i
p
o
m
o
S
t
A
r
c
h
e
r
S
t
C
a
r
m
e
l
S
t
B
e
a
c
h
S
t
C
h
o
r
r
o
S
t
O
s
o
s
S
t
Toro St Johnson AveMonterey StPalm StMill St
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
Ma
r
s
h
S
t
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
S
t
Da
n
a
S
t
Pi
s
m
o
S
t
Santa Rosa StPepper St
M
o
r
r
o
S
t
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 4.16
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.
Multiuse Path
Also referred to as a Class I bike path, this facility provides 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, mulƟ use 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 mulƟ use 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 envisioned 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. They are also considered
a Class II facility. 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
buff ered bike lanes proposed for the downtown.
Class I off -street bike path
Class II on-street bike lane
Class II buff ered bike lane
ATTACHMENT 1
4.17 | Public Draft
Bike Boulevard
Categorized as a Class III facility, 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 fi ve bike boulevards
planned or proposed for the downtown.
Cycle Track
Categorized as a Class IV bike facility, cycle tracks (also known as
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. 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 cycle tracks proposed for Marsh and Higuera Streets in the
downtown.
Class III bike boulevard
Class IV cycle tracks encourage
novice riders
Class IV cycle track
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 4.18
Downtown Streetscape Elements
CommuniƟ es are rediscovering the broad benefi ts streets can provide
as public spaces, including for 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. As streets are improved with a focus on pedestrian and
bicycle travel, lighƟ ng should be designed not only for roadway traffi c,
but also for pedestrians and cyclists on sidewalks and paths. IntersecƟ ons
should provide higher levels of lighƟ ng than mid-block, since this is where
confl icts most oŌ en occur. Pedestrian-level light standards or bollards
should be considered for mid-block, paseos or paths, where lighƟ ng can be
more controlled and directed, in order to limit light spillover and preserve
views of the night sky.
Seating
To create streets and public places that foster socializaƟ on, seaƟ ng should
be plenƟ ful in the downtown. On streets with wide enough sidewalks,
some benches should be clustered and installed facing one another to
create “outdoor living rooms” that do not inhibit the pedestrian right-of-
way. Care should be taken in design so that seaƟ ng is not used for sleeping.
Informal clusters of tables and chairs, or seat walls serving mulƟ ple uses
should also be plenƟ ful in the public realm.
LighƟ ng for safety and funcƟ on
LighƟ ng for ambiance
Street furniture confi gured as an
outdoor “living room”
ATTACHMENT 1
4.19 | Public Draft
Bicycle Parking
To accommodate the increase in cyclists as street improvements and
bicycle infrastructure are implemented over Ɵ me, bicycle parking should
conƟ nue to be provided in safe, frequent, and convenient locaƟ ons
throughout the downtown. On-street bicycle 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 with
good visibility, for safety and convenience.
Bicycle corrals should be installed in strategic locaƟ ons throughout
the downtown to help provide addiƟ onal short-term bicycle parking.
Typically, a bike corral 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. Having plenƟ ful, safe and
convenient bicycle parking faciliƟ es is integral to increasing cycling
downtown.
Parklets
Parklets are areas of the public right of way that are reclaimed for
pedestrian uses. This most oŌ en includes the conversion of porƟ ons
of parking lanes to parklets with greenery, art, seaƟ ng, bicycle parking,
or outdoor dining. Parklets that reclaim some of the parking lane are
generally the size of one or two spaces. They extend from the sidewalk
and project into the street, off ering more space and ameniƟ es for
pedestrians. They can be permanent or temporary, and oŌ en are
volunteer-driven. A growing number of ciƟ es are developing guidelines
for installing parklets. Temporary parklets can be a low-cost way to
enlarge public usable space along a street. They can also act as a test of a
more permanent facility in the future.
Ver Ɵ cal bike corrals save space
Murals turn bike corrals into art
Parklet with ample seaƟ ng
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 4.20
Public Art
Public art helps defi ne and reveal the unique character of a community’s
idenƟ ty. Art and arƞ ul design 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
temporary, interacƟ ve, incorporated into street furniture, or helping
interpret a specifi c locaƟ on. UƟ lity box art is a popular program in the
City. Public art could be incorporated into crosswalk design to help create
a sense of place downtown, or to diff erenƟ ate downtown’s subareas.
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, lighƟ ng, and possible shade structures 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
4.21 | Public Draft
Green Streets
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 streets and faciliƟ es as a cost-eff ecƟ ve and resilient approach
to water management. Green streets also provide many community
benefi ts: They protect, restore, or mimic the natural water cycle, and
enhance 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 that allows
for percolaƟ on of excess stormwater.
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: There are 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
5Implementation
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 ltration).
- Res i den t
Implementation
The Downtown Concept Plan is supported by the following ImplementaƟ on
Plan, which provides a list of major public programs and projects needed
for plan implementaƟ on. Private development, as envisioned on the
IllustraƟ ve Diagram, has not been prioriƟ zed. AcƟ ons will be implemented
over the long-term, 25+ year Ɵ me frame of this plan, as feasible. AcƟ ons
were prioriƟ zed based on public and CVT input and staff review. Ongoing
acƟ ons indicate those that may be implemented incrementally over the life
of the plan, or as opportuniƟ es arise. As the Downtown Concept Plan is a
high-level vision for downtown, all acƟ ons will require further study and
analysis before implementaƟ on.
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 5.3
Table 5.1 Implementation Plan
AcƟ on
ID ImplementaƟ on AcƟ on Priority Lead Support
LAND USE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Plan Updates
1 Further study relevant concepts from the Downtown Concept Plan
as part of the upd ate of the City Zoning RegulaƟ ons.1 City
2 Further study relevant concepts from the Downtown Concept Plan
when updaƟ ng the Community Design Guidelines.1 City
3
Consider adding guidelines on paseo design in new development
that also emphasizes a vibrant street front when updaƟ ng the
Community Design Guidelines.
1 City
4
Seek to develop downtown streetscape design standards using
the Downtown Concept Plan as a guide; coordinate with the
development of a Downtown Pedestrian Plan or when updaƟ ng the
Community Design Guidelines.
2 City
5 Consider amending the Mid-Higuera Street Enhancement Plan with
changes shown in the Downtown Concept Plan.2 City
6 Include relevant concepts from the Downtown Concept Plan when
developing an Upper Monterey Special Area Master Plan.1 City
7 Further study relevant concepts from the Downtown Concept Plan
when updaƟ ng the Bicycle TransportaƟ on Plan.1 City
Housing
8
Work with partners on developing addiƟ onal programs and
incenƟ ves to aid in the provision of addiƟ onal housing opƟ ons
downtown, as shown in the Concept Plan IllustraƟ ve.
1 City HASLO,
Partners
Government Offi ces
9
InvesƟ 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.
2 City
10
InvesƟ gate the feasibility of developing a County offi ce building with
parking and commercial or public uses along the street front on
County property on Monterey Street (Block 15).
2 County
11
InvesƟ gate the feasibility of adding addiƟ onal offi ce space to the
County courthouse, facing Santa Rosa Street, with commercial or
public use at the corner of Monterey and Santa Rosa Streets.
3 County
12 InvesƟ gate the feasibility of leasing unused City offi ce space at a
subsidized rate to qualifying nonprofi t organizaƟ ons.2 City
Economic Development
13
Work with partners on developing a program to aƩ ract and retain
smaller, independent, and culturally diverse businesses; this could
include reusing older, lower-value buildings.
1 City Chamber,
DTA
14 Consider developing an economic analysis of downtown, looking at
the preferred mix of land uses for long-term economic health.2 City SLOEVC,
Chamber
ATTACHMENT 1
5.4 | Public Draft
AcƟ on
ID ImplementaƟ on AcƟ on Priority Lead Support
15 InvesƟ gate opportuniƟ es for implemenƟ ng free WiFi in public areas
downtown.2 City
DTA,
County,
Others
ARTS, CULTURE, AND HISTORY
Public Art
16
Seek to incorporate public art with public realm improvements
throughout downtown, beyond the locaƟ ons idenƟ fi ed in the Public
Art Master Plan.
O City
17
When installing new public art, consider: place-based art that has a
connecƟ on to our downtown; art that is interacƟ ve and engaging;
art that is “useful” e.g., painted crosswalks, bridges; temporary
installaƟ ons; uses of other medium such as light and video
projecƟ on.
O City
Cultural District and Programming
18
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.
1 City
Cultural
partners,
DTA,
Chamber
19
Explore ways to bring history alive in the Cultural District area,
including physical and virtual interpreƟ ve informaƟ on on the area’s
natural, built, and social history. Topics could include the Anza
NaƟ onal Historic Trail, and El Camino Real historic bells.
2 City Cultural
partners
20
Seek to 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 secƟ ons include:
Monterey Street between Nipomo and Broad Streets; Broad Street
between Palm and Monterey Streets; and Broad Street between
Monterey and Higuera Streets
1 City
21
Encourage a wide-variety of of historic informaƟ on and
interpretaƟ on, including in tradiƟ onal forms, apps, augmented
reality, and other emerging technologies.
2 History Ctr City
22
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.
2 City History
Ctr
Historic FaciliƟ es
23 Develop a master plan for the public use of the Rosa Butron Adobe
property.3 City History
Ctr
24 Develop a restoraƟ on plan for the Murray Adobe in coordinaƟ on
with the Mission Plaza Concept Plan.1 City History
Ctr
25 Work with the History Center on expansion plans to provide capacity
for future needs.1 History Ctr City
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 5.5
AcƟ on
ID ImplementaƟ on AcƟ on Priority Lead Support
RECREATION, OPEN SPACE, AND PUBLIC RESTROOMS
New Parks, Plazas, and Paseos
26
Update the Park and RecreaƟ on Element of the General Plan,
including a citywide Park and RecreaƟ on Comprehensive Plan, to
refi ne the community’s vision for parks and recreaƟ on downtown
and aid in implementaƟ on.
1 City SLCUSD,
County
27 Develop a feasibility analysis for a public park on Broad Street,
between Monterey Street and the Creek Walk (Block 19).2 City Property
owner
28 Develop a feasibility analysis for a small plaza on Monterey Street
between Toro and Johnson Streets (Block 24).3 City Property
owner
29 Develop a feasibility analysis for a small pocket park on the corner of
Toro and Marsh Streets (Block 49).3 City Property
owner
30 Develop a master plan for a public plaza on City-owned parking lot
on the corner of Higuera and Nipomo Streets (Block 19).2 City
31
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).
2 County City
32 Seek to work with private developers to implement a system of
paseos as shown in the Concept Plan IllustraƟ ve.O Private
developers City
ExisƟ ng Parks and Public FaciliƟ es
33 Develop a master plan for Emerson Park to ensure that it is well used
and accommodates the needs of the neighborhood (Block 6)2 City
34 Develop a master plan for the Ludwick Center to beƩ er meet the
community’s needs for a full-service recreaƟ on center (Block 54)2 City
35 Consider public/private partnerships opportuniƟ es related to park
operaƟ ons and management.O City Private
partners
36 Develop a feasibility analysis for the expansion of Cheng Park (Block
47)3
San Luis Creek
37 Seek to improve the exisƟ ng Creek Walk so it is a safe, inviƟ ng, and
enjoyable experience for everyone.2 City Property
owners
38
Further study the expansion of the Creek Walk from Nipomo Street
to the Marsh/Higuera intersecƟ on, as shown in the Concept Plan
IllustraƟ ve.
2 City Property
owners
39 Develop a management plan for San Luis Obispo Creek in the
downtown area, combined with a Creek Walk Master Plan.2 City Property
owners
40
Work with interested partners on a Creek Adobe Trail, which would
connect to the Rosa Butron, Murray, and Dallidet Adobes (among
others), showing the early distribuƟ on of the town along San Luis
Creek.
3 Interested
Partners City
Public Restrooms
41 Ensure the provision of public restrooms downtown, including new
restrooms at Mission Plaza and Emerson Park.1 City
ATTACHMENT 1
5.6 | Public Draft
AcƟ on
ID ImplementaƟ on AcƟ on Priority Lead Support
PUBLIC SAFETY
42
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.
O City
MOBILITY AND CIRCULATION
Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements
43
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
44
Seek to 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 Concept Plan as a guide.
1 City
45 Work with partners to develop a plan for a walking path around the
Dallidet Adobe property to Toro Street.2 City
History
Ctr,
property
onwers
46
Consider inclusion of bicycle facility recommendaƟ ons (as described
in Chapter 4 and Figure 4.2) into the Bicycle TransportaƟ on Plan,
including a cycle track and buff ered bike lane on Marsh and Higuera
Streets.
1 City
47 Work with partners on the feasibility of a bike share program. 3
Cal Poly,
Bike SLO
County,
others
City
48
Seek to improve the safety of the bicycle and pedestrian connecƟ on
from the Marsh and Higuera intersecƟ on to the Madonna Inn Bike
Path and the Cerro San Luis trailhead across Highway 101.
1
Transit and MulƟ modal FaciliƟ es
49
ConƟ nue to work with community partners to relocate the transit
center downtown to beƩ er meet the transit needs of downtown
employees, residents, and visitors.
1 SLOCoG
City,
County,
RTA,
others
50
InvesƟ gate the feasibility of providing addiƟ onal shuƩ le/transit
opƟ ons, including the increased use of the trolley, to provide beƩ er
access around the downtown.
2 City Partners
51
InvesƟ gate the feasibility of using Autonomous Electric Vehicles for
downtown shuƩ le service between parking structures or another set
route.
2 City SLOCoG,
County
52 Consider improving trolley stops with enhanced waiƟ ng
environments and idenƟ fi caƟ on.2 City
53
When updaƟ ng the City’s Capital Improvement Program, consider
inclusion of mulƟ modal street type improvements as described in
Chapter 4.
O City
ATTACHMENT 1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 5.7
AcƟ on
ID ImplementaƟ on AcƟ on Priority Lead Support
54
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.
O City
55
Consider redevelopment of Monterey Street between Chorro and
Santa Rosa Streets to Street Type D (shared street), as shown in
Figure 4.1.
2 City
56 When designing new shared streets or plazas, consider including
infrastructure for food booths, trucks, stages, etc.2 City DTA
57 Consider redevelopment of the downtown streets shown as Street
Types A, B, and C in Figure 4.1.2 City
58
Conduct a feasibility analysis to determine the opƟ mal future design
of the Marsh/Higuera intersecƟ on to improve bicycle and pedestrian
safety and accessibility.
2 City
59
When improvements are needed, consider a redesign of the Broad
Street bridge (between Monterey and Higuera Streets) and a Creek
Walk connecƟ on underneath.
3 City
Parking FaciliƟ es (motor vehicle, bicycle, structures)
60
Conduct parking demand studies every fi ve years to reevaluate need
for new parking structures as technology, mobility needs, and driving
paƩ erns evolve.
O City
61 ConƟ nue the installaƟ on of wayfi nding signage to direct motorists to
public parking and limit vehicles in the downtown core.O City
62
Seek to design parking structures with secure bike parking, transit
and trolley stops, pedestrian wayfi nding, electric vehicle charging
staƟ ons, and pedestrian crossings.
O City Partners
63
Seek to design parking structures to integrate with downtown;
including locaƟ ng behind commercial or offi ce mixed use to the
extent possible to keep the sidewalks pedestrian-scale and acƟ ve.
O City Partners
64 Consider designing parking structures with fl at decks and the ability
to be repurposed if not needed for parking.O City
65
Consider designing parking structures with rooŌ op ameniƟ es that
take advantage of views, such as outdoor viewing areas, public
spaces, or eaƟ ng establishments.
O City
66 InvesƟ gate implemenƟ ng variable parking pricing during peak hours. 2 City
67
Consider implemenƟ ng new or expanded parking in-lieu fee districts,
or other funding mechanisms, to accommodate future development
paƩ erns as illustrated in the Downtown Concept Plan.
1 City
68
When making street improvements, develop plans to ensure
the adequate provision of on-street parking for the disabled;
bicycle parking; motorcycle parking; short-term loading zones for
commercial vehicles; and ample passenger drop-off and pickup
zones for shared economy and rideshare vehicles.
O City Partners
ATTACHMENT 1
5.8 | Public Draft
AcƟ on
ID ImplementaƟ on AcƟ on Priority Lead Support
CirculaƟ on
69
Work with the Downtown AssociaƟ on and business owners to
designate mutually benefi cial hours of regulaƟ on for delivery
vehicles to minimize traffi c congesƟ on.
1 City DTA
70 Evaluate and adjust traffi c signalizaƟ on at intersecƟ ons as necessary
to improve downtown circulaƟ on for safety and effi ciency.O City
OTHER
Green Infrastructure, Parklets, and Planters
71 Develop a program for designing and installing parklets downtown. 1 City
DTA,
property
owners
72
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).
3 City DTA
73
Maintain a healthy downtown street tree canopy; seek to ensure
obstrucƟ on-free sidewalks as well as proper tree health and growth
capacity.
1 City
74 Include green infrastructure in public improvement projects
whenever feasible.1 City
Farmer’s Market
75 Coordinate with the Downtown AssociaƟ on on Farmer’s Market
infrastructure needs before any major street redesign.O City DTA
76 Consider moving the Farmers Market to Monterey Street if it is
improved as a Street Type D (shared street).2 DTA City
LighƟ ng & Street Furniture
77 Develop a lighƟ ng plan for downtown streetscapes, public spaces,
and storefronts for enhanced safety and placemaking.2 City DTA,
others
78
Before Street Type improvements are made, develop a plan for
coordinated street furnishings (e.g., seaƟ ng, lighƟ ng, bike parking) to
create a clear sense of place for downtown, or by subdistrict.
O City DTA
Maintenance
79
Develop an improved system for coordinaƟ ng street and sidewalk
cleaning that clearly defi nes the responsibility of the City and
downtown merchants.
2 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
PRIORITY: 1 = Short Term / 2 = Mid Term / 3 = Long Term / O = Ongoing
ATTACHMENT 1
1APPENDIX 1
SUMMARY OF OUTREACH
ATTACHMENT 1
Appendix 1 1-1
San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan
Summary of Outreach
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 2
Overview of Outreach Activities ........................................................................................................... 2
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL OUTREACH ACTIVITIES .................................................................................. 3
Stakeholder Focus Groups .................................................................................................................... 3
Public Workshop 1 ................................................................................................................................ 5
Public Workshop 2 .............................................................................................................................. 12
Online Survey ...................................................................................................................................... 24
Neighborhood Meetings ..................................................................................................................... 25
TAKEAWAYS FROM ENGAGMENET ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................... 29
What Participants Value ..................................................................................................................... 29
Common Concerns and Areas for Improvements .............................................................................. 29
Issues, Ideas, and Next Steps .............................................................................................................. 29
DRAFT PLAN OUTREACH ......................................................................................................................... 33
Public Workshop 3 .............................................................................................................................. 33
APPENDICES – Available online at www.slocity.org/downtown
Appendix A: Stakeholder Focus Group Summary
Appendix B: Workshop 1 Input Transcriptions
Appendix C: Workshop 2 Mapping Activity Results Spatial Data
Appendix D: Workshop 2 Mapping Activity Transcription
Appendix E: Workshop 2 Visual Preference Survey Responses
Appendix F: Neighborhood Meeting Comments and Priorities
Appendix G: DTCP Online Survey Responses
Appendix H. Workshop 2 Table Activity Photos
Appendix I: Workshop 3 Station Exhibits
Appendix J: Workshop 3 Community Input
ATTACHMENT 1
1-2 Appendix 1
INTRODUCTION
The update of the San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan involved broad‐based public engagement,
including targeted stakeholder interviews, a public open house, two public workshops, an online survey,
two neighborhood meetings and twelve meetings with the Creative Vision Team (CVT). This document
summarizes the results of the project’s public engagement activities, and discusses how it informed the
development of the Downtown Concept Plan.
Overview of Outreach Activities
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
Appendix 1 1-3
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, at the City‐County Library Meeting Room. The
event 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.
Workshop 3 (Public Draft Downtown Concept Plan Open House): On February 4, 2017,
approximately 100 people officially signed in as attendees at Workshop 3, which was held at the
City‐County Library Meeting Room and was designed to review the highlights of the Draft Plan.
The workshop featured two plan overview presentations, and ten facilitated stations with
information boards summarizing key elements of the draft plan, where participants could ask
questions and provide comments. Attendees were also asked to provide comments on a brief
survey that addressed the key topics of the plan.
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
Stakeholder Focus Groups
The project team conducted a series of roundtable discussions with downtown stakeholders
representing a broad cross section of interested parties, including businesses owners, residents,
investors, agents for downtown development, nonprofit organizations, seniors, students, and special
interests such as bicycling, environmental protection, historic resources, neighborhoods, design, and
green building.
ATTACHMENT 1
1-4 Appendix 1
Stakeholders had 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: 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,
more 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.
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
▪
ATTACHMENT 1
Appendix 1 1-5
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.
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
ATTACHMENT 1
1-6 Appendix 1
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:
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?
ATTACHMENT 1
Appendix 1 1-7
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.
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
1-8 Appendix 1
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.
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
Appendix 1 1-9
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
1-10 Appendix 1
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.
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
Appendix 1 1-11
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
1-12 Appendix 1
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 1 1-13
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.
Appendix H includes images of the
ATTACHMENT 1
1-14 Appendix 1
original Workshop Activity Boards developed by participants. For transcription of additional comments
received, please refer to Appendix D.
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 1 1-15
Location
(by # of votes)
A.
Ex
e
r
c
i
s
e
Sp
a
c
e
B.
Gr
e
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
C.
Pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
Sp
a
c
e
D.
Pa
s
e
o
E.
Pl
a
z
a
F.
Po
c
k
e
t
Pa
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
1-16 Appendix 1
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
ATTACHMENT 1
Appendix 1 1-17
priorities. Please refer to Appendix B for Workshop 1 details and Appendix C for a spatial representation
of the mapping activity results.
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
1-18 Appendix 1
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.
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 1 1-19
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
1-20 Appendix 1
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 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 pedestrians
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
ATTACHMENT 1
Appendix 1 1-21
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.
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
ATTACHMENT 1
1-22 Appendix 1
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.
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
Appendix 1 1-23
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.
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
1-24 Appendix 1
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.
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 1 1-25
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
ATTACHMENT 1
1-26 Appendix 1
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.
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
Appendix 1 1-27
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.
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
ATTACHMENT 1
1-28 Appendix 1
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
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 1 1-29
Takeaways from Engagement Activities Prior to Plan
Development
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, we learned that the
vast majority of community members who 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 were considered 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
ATTACHMENT 1
1-30 Appendix 1
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.
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
ATTACHMENT 1
Appendix 1 1-31
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:
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
ATTACHMENT 1
1-32 Appendix 1
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.
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.).
The Creative Vision Team (CVT), staff, and consultant project team worked to refine and translate these
broad ideas into physical plan recommendations which were included in the Draft Downtown Concept
Plan and presented at Public Workshop 3.
ATTACHMENT 1
Appendix 1 1-33
DRAFT PLAN OUTREACH
Public Workshop 3
The final public workshop was designed to present an overview of the key elements of the Public Draft
Downtown Concept Plan and seek input from the community. Both the Draft Plan and the workshop
content built off of previous input gathered.
On February 4, 2017, approximately 100 people officially signed in at Workshop 3, held at the City‐
County Library Meeting Room. It was designed as a drop‐in open house with ten facilitated stations and
two presentations approximately an hour and a half apart, providing a brief overview of the Draft Plan.
The ten stations included information boards summarizing key elements of the plan, where participants
could ask questions or provide comments. They included:
1. What is the Downtown Concept Plan? ‐ This station illustrated the Plan area, provided
background information on the Draft Downtown Concept Plan and how it came to be, and
defined the purpose of the project and how it will be used.
2. What We Heard ‐ Station two provided an overview of the Downtown Concept Plan process,
outreach conducted to date and key takeaways from each engagement activity including
common values, common concerns and areas of improvement.
3. What We Envision ‐ Station three shared the project vision statement as well as the Project
Planning Principles and Goals developed by the project team based on public input and previous
planning efforts.
4. The Downtown Concept Plan Illustrative ‐ This station displayed a large graphic of the
Downtown Concept Plan and a detailed block‐by‐block description of what is envisioned for the
downtown in the plan.
5. Development Types By Land Use ‐ Station five provided diagrams to illustrate future uses
envisioned for downtown, as well as definitions and examples of different development for each
use category.
6. Planning Subareas ‐ This exhibit provided highlights of the Concept Plan by subarea with imagery
and text to allow participants to visualize each area and how they differ in character.
7. Street Types ‐ Station seven illustrated the Street Types Diagram, which defines how future
downtown streets look, feel and function, including the modal priority.
ATTACHMENT 1
1-34 Appendix 1
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements – Station eight illustrated the Bike Facilities Diagram and
what bike facilities should be included in future downtown street improvements. This station
also described what pedestrian improvements should be prioritized in downtown.
9. Streetscape and Green Infrastructure Improvements – This station described the menu of green
infrastructure improvements and streetscape elements that should be incorporated into future
public and private improvements over time.
10. Implementation Priorities Activity – This station provided a list of implementation actions that
are necessary to achieve the Downtown Concept Plan vision and asked participants to place
dots on their top 5 priority actions that they felt were most important to them.
To view the Workshop 3 boards, please see Appendix I. Overall, the input from the workshop was very
supportive of the plan concepts and the overall future vision for downtown. A few themes emerged
from the comments collected at the workshop stations. Ideas that were widely supported included:
The overall plan vision and mix of uses:
participants like the concept of a true
mixed use downtown incorporating
housing on upper levels
Multi modal improvements: people
supported the elevated pedestrian and bike
priorities, including a cycle track on Marsh
and Higuera Streets
Reconfiguring parking: infilling surface
parking lots, directing motorists to parking
structures on the perimeter of the core,
providing more drop off areas on streets
for rideshare, elderly, etc.
Opportunities for parks and green spaces downtown: including rooftops, parklets, green streets,
etc.
Areas that members of the public would like to see changed included:
Height and scale of development: some residents wanted more limitations on height particularly
in the historic core
Bike boulevards: there were suggestions for changes in how and where two bike boulevards
were shown
Streetscape improvements: some felt that the plan needed to call for even more streetscape
improvements, such as restrooms, lighting, trees, benches, and more details shown for things
like mid‐block cross‐walks and bump‐outs.
Car‐free streets: some felt that some streets should be completely car‐free
ATTACHMENT 1
Appendix 1 1-35
Workshop participants ranked the below action items as their top ten priorities for public improvements
in the implementation prioritization activity at Station 10:
1. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ‐ Work with partners on developing a program to retain, attract, and
support smaller, independent, and culturally diverse businesses. (24 votes)
2. TRANSIT AND MULTIMODAL FACILITIES ‐ 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 votes)
3. ZONING REGULATIONS ‐ 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)
4. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS ‐ 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)
ATTACHMENT 1
1-36 Appendix 1
5. STREETSCAPE ‐ 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)
6. HOUSING ‐ 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)
7. PUBLIC RESTROOMS ‐ Ensure the provision of public restrooms downtown, including new
restrooms at Mission Plaza and Emerson Park. (14 votes)
8. PARKLETS ‐ Develop a program for designing and installing parklets downtown. (14 votes)
9. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ‐ Include green infrastructure in public improvement projects
whenever feasible. (13 votes)
10. CULTURAL DISTRICT ‐ 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)
For workshop transcripts, please see Appendix J.
Public input from Workshop 3 was shared with City Advisory Bodies in Spring 2017, when they reviewed
and provided feedback on the Draft Plan prior to staff and consultants making final plan revisions.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
2APPENDIX 2
CEQA MEMORANDUM
ATTACHMENT 1
MBAKERINTL.COM
3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 270 Long Beach, CA 90806
P: (562) 200-7165
MEMO
To: Rebecca Gershow
City of San Luis Obispo
From: John Bellas
Cc: Loreli Cappel
Date: April 21, 2017
Subject: CEQA Analysis for the San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan
Michael Baker International (Michael Baker) has conducted an analysis of the Public Draft of the San Luis Obispo
Downtown Concept Plan (January 31, 2017) to determine the appropriate level of environmental review pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on our review, the proposed Downtown Concept Plan
is exempt from CEQA both statutorily and pursuant to CEQA’s “general rule.” In addition, the proposed Downtown
Concept Plan would be covered by the City’s General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). These three CEQA
approaches are described in the following paragraphs. While each approach would be sufficient for this project
individually, we recommend that the City cite all three approaches when approving the project.
Statutory Exemption
The proposed San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15262 Feasibility and Planning Studies, which states:
A project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency,
board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded does not require the preparation of an
EIR or Negative Declaration but does require consideration of environmental factors. This section
does not apply to the adoption of a plan that will have a legally binding effect on later activities.
The proposed Downtown Concept Plan is a non-regulatory vision plan that does not have a legally binding effect
on later activities; consistency with the plan is encouraged, rather than required. Environmental factors have been
considered in the preparation of the plan, including but not limited to aesthetic character, light, natural areas,
ecological functions, historic resources, land use compatibility, noise, transportation and circulation, sustainability,
and water quality.
General Rule Exemption
The proposed San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan is exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061(b)(3) (the “general rule”), which states:
(b) A project is exempt from CEQA if:
…(3) 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.
ATTACHMENT 1
Subject: CEQA Analysis for the San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan
Page 2
The proposed Downtown Concept Plan would not commit the City or any other public agency to undertaking or
approving any projects or actions that involve physical changes to the environment. Thus, the Downtown
Concept Plan does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
General Plan EIR
The Downtown Concept Plan is an implementation action of the City of San Luis Obispo’s General Plan. In
particular, General Plan Land Use Element Program 4.24 requires the City to update the Downtown Concept Plan.
The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo certified the EIR for the General Plan Land Use and Circulation
Elements Update (State Clearinghouse No. 2013121019) on September 16, 2014. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21166
and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent or
supplemental EIR shall be prepared unless: (a) Project changes require major revisions of the EIR; (b) Changed
circumstances have occurred that require major revisions of the EIR; or (c) New information of substantial
importance becomes available that was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was
certified. The proposed Downtown Concept Plan does not constitute a change in the project that would require
major revisions of the EIR. Likewise there are no changed circumstances or new information that would require
further environmental review. Adoption of the proposed Downtown Concept Plan would not result any significant
effects not discussed in the General Plan EIR and would not result in the substantial increase in the severity of any
significant effects identified in the General Plan EIR. In addition no mitigation measures or alternatives not found
to be feasible would in fact be feasible and no mitigation measure or alternatives that are different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.
Therefore, the proposed Downtown Concept Plan is covered by the General Plan EIR and that none of the
conditions that require further environmental review have occurred.
End of memo.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
Minutes - DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order on Wednesday,
April 26, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Chair Stevenson.
ELECTIONS
By consensus the Commission elected Commissioner Charles Stevenson to serve as Chairperson
and Commissioner John Fowler to serve as Vice-Chairperson.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Kim Bisheff, Hemalata Dandekar, Scott Mann, Ronald Malak,
Nicholas Osterbur, Vice-Chair John Fowler, and Chair Charles Stevenson.
Absent: None
Staff: Deputy Director of Community Development Xzandrea Fowler. Other staff members
presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DANDEKAR, SECONDED BY VICE-CHAIR
FOWLER, CARRIED 7-0 to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission for the
meeting of February 22, 2017 as presented.
MOTION BY CHAIR FOWLER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BISHEFF,
CARRIED 7-0 to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission for the meeting of
March 8, 2017 as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns regarding climate change.
ATTACHMENT 3
PC2-6
DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of April 26, 2017 Page 2
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.
Engineer Kyle Rowland presented a staff report.
Public Comment:
Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing.
None.
Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing.
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR FOWLER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
MALAK, CARRIED 7-0 to adopt the resolution which determines and reports to the
City Council, that the proposed relinquishment conforms to the General Plan.
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.
Associate Planner Rebecca Gershow presented a brief history and update on the
Downtown Concept Plan project; responded to Commission inquiries.
Public Comments:
Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing.
Alan Cooper, Save Our Downtown, expressed concerns regarding plan design
conformity.
David Brodie voiced concerns regarding height regulations, preservation of retail space,
and bicycle safety.
James Lopes, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding inconsistencies in building height
regulations; read written correspondence aloud.
Leah Brooks, Bike SLO County, spoke in favor of the plan and suggested the City take
greater measures toward providing safe crossing of bicyclists at intersections.
Bob Jorgensen, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the Downtown Concept plan and
offered suggestions for expansion.
Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing.
ATTACHMENT 3
PC2-7
DRAFT Minutes – Planning Commission Meeting of April 26, 2017 Page 3
Chair Stevenson acknowledged concerns regarding inconsistencies regarding height
within the Downtown Concept Plan (DTCP), LUCE, and City zoning regulation
policies; reminded the public that the DTCP is conceptual and not intended to be a
regulatory document.
Commissioner Malak would like to see an analysis of sun, shade, and wind relative to
buildings; suggested consideration for surrounding businesses to avoid creating
unnecessary competition for local businesses; stated he would like to see components
of the plan codified for the sake of consistency.
Commissioner Mann would like to see more cross-town multi-modal connectivity;
suggested slowing traffic down at intersections approaching the downtown area to
increase pedestrian safety; suggested modifying language that states “focus attention on
the downtown’s gateways” to “focus attention on the downtown’s multi-modal
gateways”; suggested referring to green infrastructure as “storm water management”
for clarity; stated he will submit additional written comments to staff.
Commissioner Osterbur spoke in favor of the plan and suggested shutting down
Monterey Street and limit access to pedestrian and bicyclists.
Commissioner Dandekar spoke in favor of the plan and suggested closely monitoring
the upcoming zoning regulation updates to ensure consistency; encouraged mixed-use.
Chair Stevenson expressed concerns regarding availability of affordable housing in the
downtown core and encouraged creative solutions to increase density.
COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere provided an update on City emails relative to the
Public Records Act; stated the City Attorney’s Office will be releasing a comprehensive memo
addressing the issue.
Chair Stevenson introduced newly appointed Commissioners Osterbur and Mann.
Deputy Director Fowler provided an agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 08:02 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Planning Commission
is scheduled for Monday, May 10, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: XX/XX/2017
ATTACHMENT 3
PC2-8