The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR-10829 Adopting the Downtown Concept Plan Supplement and PosterR 10829 RESOLUTION NO. 10829 (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE DOWNTOWN CONCEPT PLAN SUPPLEMENT AND POSTER AS A LONG RANGE VISION AND A GUIDE FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INVESTMENT IN THE DOWNTOWN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 5, 2017, for the purpose of considering Planning File No. GENP-1622-2015, the Final Public Draft of the Downtown Concept Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on July 26, 2017, for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the Downtown Concept Plan; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Concept Plan is an update of the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City’s Center, adopted by Resolution No8165 on May 4, 1993; and WHEREAS, the updated Downtown Concept Plan includes a supplement and poster; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Concept Plan has been prepared and presented by City staff, consultants, and the Council-appointed Creative Vision Team (CVT); and WHEREAS, the decisions incorporated within the Downtown Concept Plan reflect substantial public engagement and input. Since project initiation in December 2015, there were focus groups with 48 stakeholders, one open house (75 participants signed in), two project workshops (110 and 100 participants signed in), two neighborhood meetings (35 participants), an on-line survey (393 responses), and 13 CVT meetings; and WHEREAS, the Plan has also incorporated the input of City elected and appointed officials, including the City Council; Planning Commission; Mass Transportation Committee, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Cultural Heritage Committee, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Architectural Review Commission in the development of the Downtown Concept plan; and WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan Land Use Element contains a program directing the City to update the Downtown Concept Plan to address significant changes in or affecting the Downtown area and include meaningful public input (LUE Program 4.24); and WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan Land Use Element also contains a program directing the City to consider features 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 flexible (LUE Program 4.25); and Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) Page 2 R 10829 WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan Land Use Element contains policies on encouraging downtown residential, public gatherings, walking environment, street-level diversity, green space, parking, sense of place, design principles, building height, sidewalk appeal and other related concepts included in the proposed Downtown Concept Plan (LUE Section 4, Downtown); and WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan Circulation Element also contains goals and policies on encouraging better transportation habits, walking and pedestrian facilities, complete streets, and modal priorities in the downtown, as included in the proposed Downtown Concept Plan (CE Goal 1.7.1, Section 5, Policy 6.1.1 and 6.1.3); and WHEREAS, on July 12, 2017 the CVT unanimously endorsed the Final Public Draft of the Downtown Concept Plan supplement and poster; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including information presented by the CVT, public testimony, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: a.) The proposed Downtown Concept Plan implements General Plan Land Use Element Program 4.24 because it updates the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City’s Center, addresses changes in the downtown, and included the opportunity for meaningful public input. b.) The proposed Downtown Concept Plan sets the stage for implementation of General Plan Land Use Element Program 4.25 because it directs staff to consider features 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 flexible. c.) The proposed Downtown Concept Plan supports the policies in the General Plan Land Use Element Section 4, Downtown, because it defines the community’s long-range vision for the downtown and includes planning principles, goals, concepts and implementation actions that together provide guidance for future development projects and public improvements to improve the downtown. d.) The proposed Downtown Concept Plan supports policies in the General Plan Circulation Element Sections 1, 5 and 6, because it encourages better transportation habits, promotes walking, supports the development of complete streets, and prioritizes pedestrians and bicycle improvements in the downtown. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) Page 3 R 10829 e.) The proposed 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 downtown. f.) The implementation plan in Chapter 5 includes a prioritized list of the public programs, projects, and actions needed for implementation of the Downtown Concept Plan. It will be referred to when updating other relevant planning documents, or developing Capital Improvement Program lists. SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings, in concurrence with the CEQA Analysis for the Downtown Concept Plan (Appendix 2): a) 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. b) As a visionary planning document that is conceptual in nature, which does not provide regulatory authority or grant any entitlement for projects which could have a physical effect on the environment to be implemented directly, the proposed Downtown Concept Plan 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. c) As an implementation action of the City of San Luis Obispo’s General Plan, the proposed Downtown Concept Plan is covered by the Council-certified EIR for the Land Use and Circulation Elements (State Clearinghouse No. 2013121019) and none of the conditions that require further environmental review have occurred. SECTION 3. Action. The City Council hereby adopts the San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan supplement and illustrative poster, included as Exhibit A and B. Upon motion of Vice Mayor Rivoire, seconded by Council Member Christianson, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Christianson, Gomez, and Pease, Vice Mayor Rivoire and Mayor Harmon NOES: None ABSENT: None San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan September 2017 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 5.3 Appendices Appendix 1: Summary of Outreach Appendix 2: CEQA Analysis Memorandum Appendix 3: ResoluƟ on Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 1Introduction Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 LLCHORROP IS M O H IG U E R A HIGH MA R SH LE FFISL A Y T OROOS OS B UC HO N S A NT A ROSAMO RROP E A C H M O NT E REY NI P OMOE LLA BRANCHHI L L GA RDE NP AL M B E A CHP EP P E RLINCOLNO LIVE GROVE CA RME L SANDERCOCK W AL N UT BEEBEED A N A IR IS C H U RC H U P H A M OAK GRAVM I S S I O N SANTABARBARAG E O R G E A RCHE RMONTALBAN PRICEC E N T E R WILSONSERRANO STORYAL MONDRACHELHI LLC R ES T PARKCYPRESSWA L K E RWEST T M O UN T A IN V IE W PACIFICP H ILLIPS WARDBR ECK SWAZEYBIANCHI COURT P E N N Y N IP O M O A LLE Y P AL M MI LL AL LEY PAULINE H IG UERAPAC IFIC B ROA DB ROADMI SSI ONP AL M Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 1.6Figure 1.2. Downtown Concept Plan AreaSan Luis Obispo CreekSanLuisMill StSanta Rosa StToro StJohnson AvePalm StPepper StUnion Pacific RailroadMonterey StHiguera StMarsh StPacific StPismo StJohnson AveJohnson AveToro StSanta Rosa StOsos StMorro StChorro StGarden StBroad StNipomo StPalm StBeach StDana StMarsh StPacific StPismo StCarmel StArcher StWalker StS. Higuera StHigh StBroad StChorro StMorro StOsos StHWY 1ObispoCreekIÆRailroadDistrictDowntownDistrictMillStreetDistrictOld TownDistrictChinatownDistrict0200 400FeetPlan AreaCity of San Luis ObispoDowntown Concept PlanLEGEND1993 Downtown Concept Plan Boundary2017 Downtown Concept Plan BoundaryHistoric DistrictSan Luis Obispo CreekSources: City of San Luis Obispo GIS, 2016; Michael Baker International, 2017Scale: 1" = 450'Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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&13 Draft Plan Public Workshop CVT Meeting 9 7 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 1. Figure 1.3. Outreach Process Graphic Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 1.10 3. Aging populaƟ on: The baby boom generaƟ on includes 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 2Vision, Principles, and Goals Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Provide harmonious transiƟ ons between buildings, uses and surrounding neighborhoods. 1.4 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 mobility network 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 traveling 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. 8.4 Encourage the use of sustainable materials, green infrastructure, and renewable energy resources in downtown development. 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 3Illustrative Downtown Concept Plan Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 photograph of the Tower Building on the corner of Chorro and Higuera Streets Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement |3.4Figure 3.1. Illustrative Downtown Concept Plan DANAPALMMILLMONTEREYHIGUERAMARSHPACIFICPISMOHIGUERAPALMMONTEREYHIGUERAMARSHPACIFICPISMO WALKERHWY 101ARCHERCARMELBEACHNIPOMONIPOMOBROADBROADGARDENCHORROCHORROMORROMORROOSOSOSOSSANTA ROSASANTA ROSATOROJOHNSON AVEJOHNSON AVEPEPPERTOROPPPPPPPPP19101918211312204544434241403938323130292827265857565554535251413213346595142234476061523354871624364981725375061COMMERCIAL MIXED USELEGENDStreet-front commercial uses with compatible residential and/ or office usesOFFICE MIXED USEOffice uses with compatible residential and/ or commercial usesRESIDENTIALWide variety of medium density and high density housingHOSPITALITY Hotels and conference facilitiesCOMMUNITY SERVINGGovernment facilities, museums, churches, and schoolsPARKINGAbove or below ground parking that may include roof top public spacesPARKSMay include publicly accessible historic sites, gardens and walkwaysPLAZA, PASEOS, AND SHARED STREETSPaseos may include publicly accessible private propertyPRCIAL MIXED USEENDcommercial uses with compatible residential and/ or office usesMIXED USEwith compatible residential and/ or commercial usesNTIALof medium density and high density housingALITY onference facilitiesNITY SERVINGfacilities, museums, churches, and schoolsGow ground parking that may include roof top public spacespublicly accessible historic sites, gardens and walkwaysBLOCK NUMBERSSee block descriptions in plan supplement27REcMwNoAofGoCOMMERCIAL MIXED USELEGENDStreet-front commercial uses with compatible residential and/ or office usesOFFICE MIXED USEOffice uses with compatible residential and/ or commercial usesRESIDENTIALWide variety of medium density and high density housingHOSPITALITY Hotels and conference facilitiesCOMMUNITY SERVINGGovernment facilities, museums, churches, and schoolsPARKINGAbove or below ground parking that may include roof top public spacesPARKSMay include publicly accessible historic sites, gardens and walkwaysPLAZA, PASEOS, AND SHARED STREETSPaseos may include publicly accessible private propertyPResolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. 5New 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 adjacent to the widened sidewalk 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 revitalized corner of Chorro and Marsh Streets, repurposing the exisƟ ng 24,500 sq. Ō ., two-story commercial building. 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Avenue 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 Streets 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 at Garden Street Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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, a fourplex, a Ɵ ny home village, and live/work units Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Street Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 public spaces. 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 recommendaƟ ons 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. They are shown at downtown gateways and key corners such as Higuera and Nipomo Streets (Block 19), and Broad and Marsh Streets (Block 42). 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 a plaza with park-like features; a water play feature suitable for downtown; a paseo as part of the public realm; and an expansion of the Creek Walk. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Upper Downtown Central Downtown Lower Downtown DANA PALM MILL MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMO HIG U E R A PALM MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMO WALKERHWY 1 0 1 ARCHERCARMELBEACHNIPOMONIPOMOBROADBROADGARDENCHORROCHORROMORROMORROOSOSOSOSSANTA ROSASANTA ROSATOROJOHNSON AVEJOHNSON AVEPEPPERTOROP P P P P PP P P1 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 COMMERCIAL MIXED USE LEGEND Street-front commercial uses with compatible residential and/ or office uses OFFICE MIXED USE Office uses with compatible residential and/ or commercial uses RESIDENTIALWide variety of medium density and high density housing HOSPITALITY Hotels and conference facilities COMMUNITY SERVINGGovernment facilities, museums, churches, and schools PARKING Above or below ground parking that may include roof top public spaces PARKS May include publicly accessible historic sites, gardens and walkways PLAZA, PASEOS, AND SHARED STREETS Paseos may include publicly accessible private property P Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 3.20 MILL PALM MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMO SANTA ROSASANTA ROSATOROJOHNSON AVEJOHNSON AVEPEPPERTOROP P P6 15 23 35 48 7 16 24 36 49 8 17 25 37 50 61 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Street 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Street will help spur redevelopment Current development paƩ ern on Monterey Street 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.) Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 3.23 | Public Draft PALM MONTEREY HIGUERA MARSH PACIFIC PISMONIPOMO NIPOMOBROADBROADGARDENCHORROCHORROMORROMORROOSOSOSOSSANTA ROSASANTA ROSAP P P PP 1 10 19 2 11 3 12 20 45444342 32313029 58575655 4 13 21 33 46 59 5 14 22 34 47 60 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 SLO Rep, 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. Monterey Street view of the proposed parking structure at Palm and Nipomo Streets with a theater along the street front (Block 10) On Block 19, 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.) Example of a shared street (Street Type D) surrounding Mission Plaza, that will elevate the pedestrian realm in Central Downtown. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 as shown in the illustraƟ on below. Block 34 is reconﬁ gured toward the creek as redevelopment occurs, and across the street on Block 47, Cheng Park is expanded. View of 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 Street, providing addiƟ onal pedestrian connecƟ ons. (Concept sketch by Chuck Crotser.) Court Street paseo entrance Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Street 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 PALM MONTE HIGUER MARSH PACIFI C PISMO HIG U E R A WALKERHWY 1 0 1 ARCHERCARMELBEACHNIPOMONIPOMOP P 9 18 42414039 38 292827 26 5554535251 Figure 3.5. Lower Downtown Planning Subarea Recent mixed-use development in the ﬂ ex zone area of Lower Downtown Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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.) Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. The bridge across San Luis Creek easily connects shoppers on Higuera Street to the Cultural District and new structured parking. 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.) Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 4Mobility & Streetscape Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 ϭ. 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, 18% & Other General Plan CirculaƟ on Element, Table 1, May 2015 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement |4.2Street Type D Paseos, Paths Parking StructuresLEGENDStreet Type A Street Type C Street Type B PPPPPPPTransit CenterTMission PlazaMMEnhanced Intersections(may include others)* See street type definitions for more informationTPModal Priority *Proposed street types are conceptual in nature and will require further analysisprior to implementation. Broad StGarden StNipomo StArcher StCarmel StBeach StChorro StOsos StToro StJohnson AveMonterey StPalm StMill StHiguera StMarsh StPacific StDana StPismo StSanta Rosa StPepper StMorro StFigure 4.1 Street Types DiagramResolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. A more whimsical approach to an enhanced intersecƟ on Painted brick on a mid-block crossing in downtown Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement |4.14Figure 4.2 Bicycle Facilities DiagramLEGENDExisting Bike BoulevardProposed 1-Way Cycle Track Planned Bike LaneExisting Bike LanePlanned Class I Bike Path Proposed bicycle facilities are conceptual in nature and will require further analysis prior to adoption into the City Bicycle Transportation Plan. Planned and Proposed Bike Boulevard Proposed 1-Way Buffered Bike LaneProposed Bike Improvements Planned projects in 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan; see plan for complete listAll improvements to be coordinated with Street Types Diagram improvements121112Broad StGarden StNipomo StArcher StCarmel StBeach StChorro StOsos StToro StJohnson AveMonterey StPalm StMill StHiguera StMarsh StPacific StDana StPismo StSanta Rosa StPepper StMorro StResolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 with back-in angled parking Class II buff ered bike lane Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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” Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 4.21 | Public Draft Green Infrastructure San Luis Obispo residents place high value on access to the natural environment, with San Luis Obispo Creek named as one of the City’s top assets. Preserving and enhancing access to nature is a strong part of this downtown vision. Stormwater runoff is a major cause of water polluƟ on in urban areas. Green infrastructure elements can be integrated into public 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 5Implementation Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 ltrati on). - Res i den t Implementation Plan 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Northern Chumash Tribes, Anza NaƟ onal Historic Trail, and El Camino Real/ NaƟ ve American trade route, among others. 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 5.5 AcƟ on ID ImplementaƟ on AcƟ on Priority Lead Support 25 Work with the History Center on expansion plans to provide capacity for future needs.1 History Ctr City 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 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 5.6 | Public Draft AcƟ on ID ImplementaƟ on AcƟ on Priority Lead Support Public Restrooms 41 Ensure the provision of public restrooms downtown, including new restrooms at Mission Plaza and Emerson Park.1 City PUBLIC SAFETY 42 Coordinate with public safety on crime prevenƟ on through environmental design (CPTED) when developing new public spaces downtown. 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A San Luis Obispo Downtown Concept Plan Supplement | 5.7 AcƟ on ID ImplementaƟ on AcƟ on Priority Lead Support 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 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 5.8 | Public Draft AcƟ on ID ImplementaƟ on AcƟ on Priority Lead Support 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 CirculaƟ on 69 Work with the Downtown AssociaƟ on and business owners to designate mutually beneﬁ cial hours of regulaƟ on for delivery and waste management 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, sidewalk, creekwalk and public plaza cleaning that clearly deﬁ nes the responsibility of the City and downtown merchants. 2 City DTA PRIORITY 1 = Short Term 2 = Mid Term 3 = Long Term O = Ongoing 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 SLCUSD = San Luis Coastal Uniﬁ ed School District LEGEND Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 1APPENDIX 1 SUMMARY OF OUTREACH Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 ▪ Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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? Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A Appendix 1 1-15 Location (by # of votes) A. Exercise Space B. Green Space C. Performance Space D. Paseo E. Plaza F. Pocket Park The Creamery/Creek I I I I County Courthouse Lawn I I I Mission Plaza (improvement to/expansion of) I I I Along creek I I I Mitchell Park I I Corner parking lot at Higuera and Nipomo I I On rooftops (Nipomo and City 919 Palm Structures) I I SW corner of Chorro and Marsh (bank parking lot) I I Santa Rosa north of County Building I Garden Street (mid‐block) I Above Ludwick Community Center I Next to Bank of America (no type specified) Emerson Park (no type specified) By Fremont (no type specified) Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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 Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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) Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 2APPENDIX 2 CEQA MEMORANDUM Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 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. Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A 3APPENDIX 3 RESOLUTION Resolution No. 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A Resolution No 10829 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT B R 10829